# Why Can't the Pro-Choice  Crowd Be Honest?



## JBeukema

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death. 

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.


----------



## Avatar4321

Because they would lose if they were.


----------



## Grace

Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.

Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.


----------



## JBeukema

IMEURU said:


> I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body.


The child is not your body. Biology 101. Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).

Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful. 


> Its nobodies business why I had it done


Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.

When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.


----------



## Article 15

Frankly, I don't give a fuck what the pro-lifers have to say.


----------



## Grace

JBeukema said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body.
> 
> 
> 
> The child is not your body. Biology 101. Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> Its nobodies business why I had it done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.
> 
> When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.
Click to expand...


Think what you will, as it is beyond my control. What IS in my control is MY BODY. Nobody elses. And until you are impregnated with a life you didnt ask for growing in it, you have no say.


----------



## Grace

This subject is now closed for me. You dont want answers. You dont give a fuck, right? So why "dare" anyone to disagree with you and then jump their shit because you dont like what they say when they do answer?


----------



## Sarah G

What kind of a depressed goof sits up all night thinking about abortion anyway.

Homocide?


----------



## shintao

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



So since they are human beings, a women is only introducing her baby to the World a little early. Being human beings they can make it on their own and survive. Thanks for clearing that up for us.


----------



## Luissa

Article 15 said:


> Frankly, I don't give a fuck what the pro-lifers have to say.



I call them anti choice, myself.


----------



## Epsilon Delta

Ok, so let's make it clear and honest: *Abortion is murder.*

It's just a form of murder I happen to agree with!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IMEURU said:


> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.



Wrong. All people have a right to have an opinion about the ending prematurely of a human life. I will grant that currently it is totally legal to do so. But that does not change the basic facts. A human life was ended prematurely by design of another Human.

I and others find that unacceptable and believe it should not be legal to simply kill another human because it may be inconvenient to the mother of the child. Technically it is not homicide since that definition includes that the act is illegal. It is murder though. Just legal murder.


----------



## Bfgrn

Article 15 said:


> Frankly, I don't give a fuck what the pro-lifers have to say.



I agree, when they start showing they care about the crawling and walking, I'll believe they are pro 'life'


----------



## Bfgrn

In need of 2nd amendment protection


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Bfgrn said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't give a fuck what the pro-lifers have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, when they start showing they care about the crawling and walking, I'll believe they are pro 'life'
Click to expand...


None of you Pro Abortion types have provide a shred of evidence that Pro Choice people do not care about the crawling and walking. We however have ample proof you do not care one whit about human life as you agree snuffing it out in the womb is fine for no other reason then personal discomfort or whim.


----------



## jeffrockit

IMEURU said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body.
> 
> 
> 
> The child is not your body. Biology 101. Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> Its nobodies business why I had it done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.
> 
> When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think what you will, as it is beyond my control. What IS in my control is MY BODY. Nobody elses. And until you are impregnated with a life you didnt ask for growing in it, you have no say.
Click to expand...


If you are "in control" of your body, you would have the sense to not have unprotected sex therby getting pregnant.  and as far as the "didn't ask for" line, you did not know that having sex could lead to a pregnancy?


----------



## Article 15

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't give a fuck what the pro-lifers have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, when they start showing they care about the crawling and walking, I'll believe they are pro 'life'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of you Pro Abortion types have provide a shred of evidence that Pro Choice people do not care about the crawling and walking. We however have ample proof you do not care one whit about human life as you agree snuffing it out in the womb is fine for no other reason then personal discomfort or whim.
Click to expand...


Freedom to make your own decisions is a bitch, huh?


----------



## Bfgrn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't give a fuck what the pro-lifers have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, when they start showing they care about the crawling and walking, I'll believe they are pro 'life'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of you Pro Abortion types have provide a shred of evidence that Pro Choice people do not care about the crawling and walking. We however have ample proof you do not care one whit about human life as you agree snuffing it out in the womb is fine for no other reason then personal discomfort or whim.
Click to expand...


It is the pro 'life' people who show no regard for the crawling and walking. I have yet to hear a single outcry from the right about the thousands of innocent Iraqis murdered by the war Bush started. What was their crime?

If you use a condom, or your partner uses an IUD or takes birth control pills, are your murderers?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, when they start showing they care about the crawling and walking, I'll believe they are pro 'life'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of you Pro Abortion types have provide a shred of evidence that Pro Choice people do not care about the crawling and walking. We however have ample proof you do not care one whit about human life as you agree snuffing it out in the womb is fine for no other reason then personal discomfort or whim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom to make your own decisions is a bitch, huh?
Click to expand...


Ones freedom to choose should end at the choice to murder another human. And in fact except for self defense or defending the life of another ( or Government secrets or property) that is how the law reads until ABORTION was made legal.

By the way you did not provide any proof that pro life people do not care about the crawling or walking.


----------



## Bfgrn

jeffrockit said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The child is not your body. Biology 101. Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful.
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.
> 
> When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you will, as it is beyond my control. What IS in my control is MY BODY. Nobody elses. And until you are impregnated with a life you didnt ask for growing in it, you have no say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are "in control" of your body, you would have the sense to not have unprotected sex therby getting pregnant.  and as far as the "didn't ask for" line, you did not know that having sex could lead to a pregnancy?
Click to expand...


NOW we are getting down to the right's real agenda. They want to control what you do in your bedroom.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Bfgrn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, when they start showing they care about the crawling and walking, I'll believe they are pro 'life'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of you Pro Abortion types have provide a shred of evidence that Pro Choice people do not care about the crawling and walking. We however have ample proof you do not care one whit about human life as you agree snuffing it out in the womb is fine for no other reason then personal discomfort or whim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the pro 'life' people who show no regard for the crawling and walking. I have yet to hear a single outcry from the right about the thousands of innocent Iraqis murdered by the war Bush started. What was their crime?
> 
> If you use a condom, or your partner uses an IUD or takes birth control pills, are your murderers?
Click to expand...


Just claiming it does not make it so. You have yet to provide any evidence. And preventing a pregnancy is not murder since no human life was ENDED. I will go so far as to say the morning after pill is not murder either as it PREVENTS a pregnancy does not terminate one.

As for war. People that die due to war actions are not murdered as that is the action of Governments. Or are you claiming every soldier in every war on all sides are murderers? Another untenable position.


----------



## Bfgrn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of you Pro Abortion types have provide a shred of evidence that Pro Choice people do not care about the crawling and walking. We however have ample proof you do not care one whit about human life as you agree snuffing it out in the womb is fine for no other reason then personal discomfort or whim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the pro 'life' people who show no regard for the crawling and walking. I have yet to hear a single outcry from the right about the thousands of innocent Iraqis murdered by the war Bush started. What was their crime?
> 
> If you use a condom, or your partner uses an IUD or takes birth control pills, are your murderers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just claiming it does not make it so. You have yet to provide any evidence. And preventing a pregnancy is not murder since no human life was ENDED. I will go so far as to say the morning after pill is not murder either as it PREVENTS a pregnancy does not terminate one.
> 
> As for war. People that die due to war actions are not murdered as that is the action of Governments. Or are you claiming every soldier in every war on all sides are murderers? Another untenable position.
Click to expand...


Ending a life is murder. YOU said it yourself. BUT, when the government sanctions it in war, then it suddenly becomes something else? Well, the government sanctions abortion, doesn't it?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Bfgrn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the pro 'life' people who show no regard for the crawling and walking. I have yet to hear a single outcry from the right about the thousands of innocent Iraqis murdered by the war Bush started. What was their crime?
> 
> If you use a condom, or your partner uses an IUD or takes birth control pills, are your murderers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just claiming it does not make it so. You have yet to provide any evidence. And preventing a pregnancy is not murder since no human life was ENDED. I will go so far as to say the morning after pill is not murder either as it PREVENTS a pregnancy does not terminate one.
> 
> As for war. People that die due to war actions are not murdered as that is the action of Governments. Or are you claiming every soldier in every war on all sides are murderers? Another untenable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ending a life is murder. YOU said it yourself. BUT, when the government sanctions it in war, then it suddenly becomes something else? Well, the government sanctions abortion, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


Ok we are playing semantics. Murder is the intentional taking of another humans life and I will grant that using that definitions those killed purposefully in a war are murdered. I will not grant as you imply that it is criminal nor that it is immoral. The CHOICE to abort a healthy fetus that does not involve any major medical risk to the mother SHOULD be criminal and IS, in MY opinion immoral. It also is the purposeful taking of a human life.

By the way still waiting for evidence that pro life people do not care about the crawling and walking.


----------



## Bfgrn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just claiming it does not make it so. You have yet to provide any evidence. And preventing a pregnancy is not murder since no human life was ENDED. I will go so far as to say the morning after pill is not murder either as it PREVENTS a pregnancy does not terminate one.
> 
> As for war. People that die due to war actions are not murdered as that is the action of Governments. Or are you claiming every soldier in every war on all sides are murderers? Another untenable position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ending a life is murder. YOU said it yourself. BUT, when the government sanctions it in war, then it suddenly becomes something else? Well, the government sanctions abortion, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok we are playing semantics. Murder is the intentional taking of another humans life and I will grant that using that definitions those killed purposefully in a war are murdered. I will not grant as you imply that it is criminal nor that it is immoral. The CHOICE to abort a healthy fetus that does not involve any major medical risk to the mother SHOULD be criminal and IS, in MY opinion immoral. It also is the purposeful taking of a human life.
> 
> By the way still waiting for evidence that pro life people do not care about the crawling and walking.
Click to expand...


No, YOU are playing semantics. If willfully ending a human life is murder, then all soldiers who end another person's life are murderers. No one is forcing them to kill are they?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Bfgrn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ending a life is murder. YOU said it yourself. BUT, when the government sanctions it in war, then it suddenly becomes something else? Well, the government sanctions abortion, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok we are playing semantics. Murder is the intentional taking of another humans life and I will grant that using that definitions those killed purposefully in a war are murdered. I will not grant as you imply that it is criminal nor that it is immoral. The CHOICE to abort a healthy fetus that does not involve any major medical risk to the mother SHOULD be criminal and IS, in MY opinion immoral. It also is the purposeful taking of a human life.
> 
> By the way still waiting for evidence that pro life people do not care about the crawling and walking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, YOU are playing semantics. If willfully ending a human life is murder, then all soldiers who end another person's life are murderers. No one is forcing them to kill are they?
Click to expand...


Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? Already agreed to the term. And specified the difference.

Still waiting by the way , for some evidence that Pro Life people do not care about the crawling or the walking.


----------



## Barb

JBeukema said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body.
> 
> 
> 
> The child is not your body. Biology 101. Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> Its nobodies business why I had it done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.
> 
> When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.
Click to expand...


 The bastocyst, until it can survive outside of the host, is a parasite dependent on the hospitality of the female host. THAT is a biological fact.


----------



## Article 15

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok we are playing semantics. Murder is the intentional taking of another humans life and I will grant that using that definitions those killed purposefully in a war are murdered. I will not grant as you imply that it is criminal nor that it is immoral. The CHOICE to abort a healthy fetus that does not involve any major medical risk to the mother SHOULD be criminal and IS, in MY opinion immoral. It also is the purposeful taking of a human life.
> 
> By the way still waiting for evidence that pro life people do not care about the crawling and walking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are playing semantics. If willfully ending a human life is murder, then all soldiers who end another person's life are murderers. No one is forcing them to kill are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? Already agreed to the term. And specified the difference.
> 
> Still waiting by the way , for some evidence that Pro Life people do not care about the crawling or the walking.
Click to expand...


So we can assume that you are in favor of social programs in place to assist poor families and single mothers?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are playing semantics. If willfully ending a human life is murder, then all soldiers who end another person's life are murderers. No one is forcing them to kill are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? Already agreed to the term. And specified the difference.
> 
> Still waiting by the way , for some evidence that Pro Life people do not care about the crawling or the walking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we can assume that you are in favor of social programs in place to assist poor families and single mothers?
Click to expand...


Not Federal Government ones, They are Unconstitutional. The States and the local communities are responsible for those.


----------



## tyggabooist

RetiredGySgt said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. All people have a right to have an opinion about the ending prematurely of a human life. I will grant that currently it is totally legal to do so. But that does not change the basic facts. A human life was ended prematurely by design of another Human.
> 
> I and others find that unacceptable and believe it should not be legal to simply kill another human because it may be inconvenient to the mother of the child. Technically it is not homicide since that definition includes that the act is illegal. It is murder though. Just legal murder.
Click to expand...


Hello Everyone

I am new to the board and usually I spend several weeks just watching and reading before I post but I have to say something about this comment.  There are many reasons why a woman might have an abortion and saying that it is based on inconvenience is a bit unfair.  Inconvenience might be a reason for some, but for others, more serious reasons come into play.  Rape, health issues, incest and age are all reasons that a woman might choose to terminate a fetus.  

These are issues that cannot be understood unless experienced and to dismiss them as inconvenience is grossly callous.  I am sure that wasn't the intention from the original poster, but it bears repeating that unless you are a woman that was raped either by a stranger or a relative and got pregnant, there is no way to judge a woman for her choice.

I have been looking for a new message board for quite awhile, this one looks promising, so it is nice to meet you all.


----------



## tyggabooist

jeffrockit said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The child is not your body. Biology 101. Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful.
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.
> 
> When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you will, as it is beyond my control. What IS in my control is MY BODY. Nobody elses. And until you are impregnated with a life you didnt ask for growing in it, you have no say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are "in control" of your body, you would have the sense to not have unprotected sex therby getting pregnant.  and as far as the "didn't ask for" line, you did not know that having sex could lead to a pregnancy?
Click to expand...


You must be male.  Not all women have sex by choice.  There are many, many cases in which the woman did NOT choose to have sex and therefore your assumption is a bit out of line.


----------



## Article 15

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? Already agreed to the term. And specified the difference.
> 
> Still waiting by the way , for some evidence that Pro Life people do not care about the crawling or the walking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we can assume that you are in favor of social programs in place to assist poor families and single mothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not Federal Government ones, They are Unconstitutional. The States and the local communities are responsible for those.
Click to expand...


Name some programs that help the poor and single mothers that you are in favor of.


----------



## midcan5

Why is it men who cannot make this decision know the proper decision? 

"Faith trumps rational argument on this issue?"  from youtube below

Does pro-life include not eating and killing other life forms for surely they suffer and die at a more advanced level of life and feeling? 

Each month a women, a couple, decide on whether the cells, the potential cells are to be discarded or if they are to attempt a conception and thus life. If they choose not to create life, is that ok, for surely this is life (cellular life) being discarded?

Two out of five (or more) conceptions end naturally, who is at fault here? Nature or gawd? Are these humans? 

How is it that a decision that a women or a couple makes is thought of as wrong by another person or entity who have no authority to tell or command another person? 

"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time."
HISTORY OF ABORTION
Boston Review &mdash; Judith Jarvis Thomson
Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion
Why Francis Beckwith


"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey


----------



## Eric Cartman

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?



I seen it done several times. (begin the beating of the dead horse)





JBeukema said:


> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.



Yes.  So far, so good.

Of course most of our cells are alive and genetically human. (from head to toe)




JBeukema said:


> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.


 
You just jumped from organism to human child.  We kill genetically human cells every time we bump into something.




JBeukema said:


> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.



More jumping to conclusions.



JBeukema said:


> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand



Seems like you are guided by emotion. (e.g. anger?)



JBeukema said:


> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



My personal position lies somewhere in the middle of the two extreme positions but I am pretty sure I can defend it.


----------



## Nosmo King

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't give a fuck what the pro-lifers have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, when they start showing they care about the crawling and walking, I'll believe they are pro 'life'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of you Pro Abortion types have provide a shred of evidence that Pro Choice people do not care about the crawling and walking. We however have ample proof you do not care one whit about human life as you agree snuffing it out in the womb is fine for no other reason then personal discomfort or whim.
Click to expand...

You magnify the embryo to the status of a living human with rights and then trivialize the emotional toll paid by the woman opting out of an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy as 'discomfort' and a 'whim'.

This thread is titled Why can't the PRO-ABORTION Crowd be Honest?  The very title suggests that reproductive freedom is Pro-Abortion.  Reproductive freedom is Pro-Choice.  The operative word being "Choice".  And the title of the thread suggests precious little 'honesty' from the OP.

If you  truly were seeking an honest debate, why did you couch the debate in such drastically dishonest terms?


----------



## Seawytch

The "pro-life" crowd has a cognitive disconnect that I just don't get. Not only are they usually folks that are pro death penalty , but beyond that they are also usually opposed to any kind of comprehensive sex education in schools. 

The goals of the pro choice crowd are much easier to understand. Keep abortion safe, legal and RARE!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

IMEURU said:


> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.



That is half the problem I have. Planned Parenthood keeps telling me there are no mental health problems associated with abortion, and that it is a routine medical procedure. Then people like you come along and tell me not only about the soul searching from before they made the decision, and how much they have agonized after it.

That tells me that I have to choose between Planned Parenthood lying and the fact that everyone I have ever met that has had an abortion has emotional problems. Either I live in a statistical blip or an organization that makes money off of abortions is lying to me. Guess where I come down.

You made a choice, and I was not there. You are completely right about that.I do not judge you for the choice you made, and I even support your right to make that choice. What I find objectionable is you telling me that, unless I am a woman, I cannot comprehend the subject. Guess what, me being male does not mean I have no empathy, no brains, and no imagination. I not only have a clue, I have absolute proof people are lying to me about everything involved.

Until the pro abortion side stops lying, and defending the lies by claiming I am unequipped to understand, I will not offer my support to them. This despite the fact that I personally think abortions should be an option for some women.

My only objection all along to abortion is that it is too easy. Abortion counseling should not be done by an organization that profits off of it. They cannot give unbiased advice, and I fully support defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they preform abortions. They have a conflict of interest, and, despite their rhetoric, offer abortions as a first choice in treating pregnancy. If they want my tax dollars they need to get out of the abortion business.


----------



## JBeukema

IMEURU said:


> What IS in my control is MY BODY.


I already explained why that little slogan is bullshit.

If your position and acts are defensible, why can't you defend them?


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> ....
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> ....


Absolutely correct.

An appendix cell is also an organism.  It's also alive and genetically human.  Thus, we need to stop all appendectomies.


----------



## JBeukema

IMEURU said:


> . You dont want answers.



You can't address the issue, so you pretend it was never raised?


> You dont give a fuck, right? So why "dare" anyone to disagree with you and then jump their shit because you dont like what they say when they do answer?



You've answered nothing. All you've done is repeat a bullshit slogan like a mindless parrot after it's been shown to be fallacious.

As for 'daring people to disagree with me', you clearly don't even know what my position is or you wouldn't say something so stupid. UI have expressed my views in some detail in several threads.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, when they start showing they care about the crawling and walking, I'll believe they are pro 'life'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of you Pro Abortion types have provide a shred of evidence that Pro Choice people do not care about the crawling and walking. We however have ample proof you do not care one whit about human life as you agree snuffing it out in the womb is fine for no other reason then personal discomfort or whim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the pro 'life' people who show no regard for the crawling and walking. I have yet to hear a single outcry from the right about the thousands of innocent Iraqis murdered by the war Bush started. What was their crime?
> 
> If you use a condom, or your partner uses an IUD or takes birth control pills, are your murderers?
Click to expand...


Until you start whining about the Afghans, Pakistanis, and Libyans in Obama's wars you have no moral high gorund to call for others to whine about the war Bush started. That makes you a mental midget, a hypocrite, and morally bankrupt, all at the same time. 

Congratulations.


----------



## DiamondDave

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are playing semantics. If willfully ending a human life is murder, then all soldiers who end another person's life are murderers. No one is forcing them to kill are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? Already agreed to the term. And specified the difference.
> 
> Still waiting by the way , for some evidence that Pro Life people do not care about the crawling or the walking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we can assume that you are in favor of social programs in place to assist poor families and single mothers?
Click to expand...


Yes.. they are called voluntary CHARITIES... feel free to VOLUNTARILY donate to them...

As for forced government entitlements, that's a different story


----------



## JBeukema

Si modo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.
> 
> An appendix cell is also an organism.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It as a cell that is part of tissue that comprises an organ that is part of an organism.

Biology 101

Why do you people have to lie about basic science in order to defend your position? You realize, of course, that makes you no different than the bible-thumping YECs, right?


----------



## JBeukema

Epsilon Delta said:


> Ok, so let's make it clear and honest: *Abortion is murder.*
> 
> It's just a form of murder I happen to agree with!


Murder is a legal term. Abortions conducted during the first trimester are generally not considered murder under American law.

If you agree with it, then you can't be using the term in the moral sense.

Which means you're just trolling because you can't defend your position using any rational argument.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, when they start showing they care about the crawling and walking, I'll believe they are pro 'life'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of you Pro Abortion types have provide a shred of evidence that Pro Choice people do not care about the crawling and walking. We however have ample proof you do not care one whit about human life as you agree snuffing it out in the womb is fine for no other reason then personal discomfort or whim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the pro 'life' people who show no regard for the crawling and walking. I have yet to hear a single outcry from the right about the thousands of innocent Iraqis murdered by the war Bush started. What was their crime?
> 
> If you use a condom, or your partner uses an IUD or takes birth control pills, are your murderers?
Click to expand...


Then you must have cotton in your ears.

Immie


----------



## Article 15

DiamondDave said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? Already agreed to the term. And specified the difference.
> 
> Still waiting by the way , for some evidence that Pro Life people do not care about the crawling or the walking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we can assume that you are in favor of social programs in place to assist poor families and single mothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.. they are called voluntary CHARITIES... feel free to VOLUNTARILY donate to them...
> 
> As for forced government entitlements, that's a different story
Click to expand...


So you are fine with the government forcing women to birth their babies but are against the government helping them out after they are born.

At least someone admits it.


----------



## JBeukema

RetiredGySgt said:


> Technically it is not homicide since that definition includes that the act is illegal. It is murder though. Just legal murder.


You've the terms backward. It is homicide but not murder


----------



## Bern80

midcan5 said:


> Why is it men who cannot make this decision know the proper decision?



How do I know that you choosing to kill an innocent person as a result of an irresponsible act on your part is wrong? Is this a serious question?


----------



## editec

*



Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Be Honest? 

Click to expand...

 
ABORTIONS are the ending of what is certainly a potential human being.

Forcing pregnant women who do not want to take this potential human being to term is a kind of slavery that no society has the right to impose on them.

How's that for honesty?




*


----------



## JBeukema

Bfgrn said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't give a fuck what the pro-lifers have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, when they start showing they care about the crawling and walking, I'll believe they are pro 'life'
Click to expand...

Passing the buck...

If you want to discuss perceived hypocrisy or shortfalls on their part, make a thread about it.

That you feel the need to shift the topic stands as evidence that you cannot defend your position using any cogent logic.


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.
> 
> An appendix cell is also an organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not. It as a cell that is part of tissue that comprises an organ that is part of an organism.
> 
> Biology 101
> 
> Why do you people have to lie about basic science in order to defend your position? You realize, of course, that makes you no different than the bible-thumping YECs, right?
Click to expand...

Well, an appendix cell is alive.  It is an organism.  It is genetically human, if talking about human appendices.

I'm pointing out part of your argument that is shakey, at best.

The word 'human' is both an adjective and a noun.  Using it as an adjective, as I pointed out, the argument is shakey.

As a noun, more specifically the term 'human being', does not apply.  But, by definition, neither a blastocyst nor a fetus is a human being.

This is a common error in that argument.  Just pointing that out.


----------



## JBeukema

jeffrockit said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The child is not your body. Biology 101. Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful.
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.
> 
> When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you will, as it is beyond my control. What IS in my control is MY BODY. Nobody elses. And until you are impregnated with a life you didnt ask for growing in it, you have no say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are "in control" of your body, you would have the sense to not have unprotected sex therby getting pregnant.  and as far as the "didn't ask for" line, you did not know that having sex could lead to a pregnancy?
Click to expand...

There are instances of rape leading to pregnancy. They are a small minority of abortions, but they do exist.


----------



## JBeukema

Si modo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.
> 
> An appendix cell is also an organism.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. It as a cell that is part of tissue that comprises an organ that is part of an organism.
> 
> Biology 101
> 
> Why do you people have to lie about basic science in order to defend your position? You realize, of course, that makes you no different than the bible-thumping YECs, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, an appendix cell is alive.  It is an organism.
Click to expand...



No, it's not. It is one cell of your body like any other. This is basic biology.

Are you grossly ignorant of the subject and unable to learn due to a learning disorder, or do you simply lie because you cannot defend your position honestly and intelligently?



JBeukema said:


> , you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your  emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not  speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is  you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position





> As a noun, more specifically the term 'human being', does not apply.  But, by definition, neither a blastocyst nor a fetus is a human being.



Yes, it does. By definition. It is a distinct living human organism.

The only error is your total ignorance of what the word 'organism' means.


----------



## Luissa

So, JB I could assume you are against the morning after pill?


----------



## Immanuel

tyggabooist said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. All people have a right to have an opinion about the ending prematurely of a human life. I will grant that currently it is totally legal to do so. But that does not change the basic facts. A human life was ended prematurely by design of another Human.
> 
> I and others find that unacceptable and believe it should not be legal to simply kill another human because it may be inconvenient to the mother of the child. Technically it is not homicide since that definition includes that the act is illegal. It is murder though. Just legal murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Everyone
> 
> I am new to the board and usually I spend several weeks just watching and reading before I post but I have to say something about this comment.  There are many reasons why a woman might have an abortion and saying that it is based on inconvenience is a bit unfair.  Inconvenience might be a reason for some, but for others, more serious reasons come into play.  Rape, health issues, incest and age are all reasons that a woman might choose to terminate a fetus.
> 
> These are issues that cannot be understood unless experienced and to dismiss them as inconvenience is grossly callous.  I am sure that wasn't the intention from the original poster, but it bears repeating that unless you are a woman that was raped either by a stranger or a relative and got pregnant, there is no way to judge a woman for her choice.
> 
> I have been looking for a new message board for quite awhile, this one looks promising, so it is nice to meet you all.
Click to expand...


Do you realize that less than 10% of abortions are done primarily for the reasons of Fetal Abnormalities, Mother's health, Rape or Incest?  In fact, closer to 7%.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/011003/ov_ab.pdf

See page 10.  BTW: to save you the trouble, The Alan Guttmacher Institute is an arm of the largest abortion provider in the country, Planned Parenthood.

My goal is the reduction of abortions. Of the roughly 1 million abortions in the U.S. 930,000 are done for birth control reasons leaving 70,000 as those done for what some might consider legitimate reasons.  I, for one, would settle for the end of those 930,000 abortions starting immediately.  We can then work on the other 70,000 by working to advance medical procedures protecting the lives of women and babies, incarcerating rapists and ending incest.

BTW Welcome to USMB

Immie


----------



## Bern80

Seawytch said:


> The "pro-life" crowd has a cognitive disconnect that I just don't get. Not only are they usually folks that are pro death penalty ,



Because those that belief in the death penalty and are pro-life have the ability to see the fairly obvious distinction between ending an innocent human life and someone guilty of murder and/or rape. Apparently you can not see that distinction, hence your confusion.



Seawytch said:


> but beyond that they are also usually opposed to any kind of comprehensive sex education in schools.
> 
> The goals of the pro choice crowd are much easier to understand. Keep abortion safe, legal and RARE!



There as many different facets of pro-choice as their are pro-life. I guess I could be considered pro-choice to a point (up until viability of the fetus), but have been in heated argument with others that call themself pro-choice who believe a woman is entitled to an abortion for any reason at any time.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

tyggabooist said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. All people have a right to have an opinion about the ending prematurely of a human life. I will grant that currently it is totally legal to do so. But that does not change the basic facts. A human life was ended prematurely by design of another Human.
> 
> I and others find that unacceptable and believe it should not be legal to simply kill another human because it may be inconvenient to the mother of the child. Technically it is not homicide since that definition includes that the act is illegal. It is murder though. Just legal murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Everyone
> 
> I am new to the board and usually I spend several weeks just watching and reading before I post but I have to say something about this comment.  There are many reasons why a woman might have an abortion and saying that it is based on inconvenience is a bit unfair.  Inconvenience might be a reason for some, but for others, more serious reasons come into play.  Rape, health issues, incest and age are all reasons that a woman might choose to terminate a fetus.
> 
> These are issues that cannot be understood unless experienced and to dismiss them as inconvenience is grossly callous.  I am sure that wasn't the intention from the original poster, but it bears repeating that unless you are a woman that was raped either by a stranger or a relative and got pregnant, there is no way to judge a woman for her choice.
> 
> I have been looking for a new message board for quite awhile, this one looks promising, so it is nice to meet you all.
Click to expand...


Welcome to the board.

Now to deal with your post.

Bullshit.

I can, and do, understand the emotional consequences of abortion. I also understand the emotional consequences of rape, the death of a child, and even divorce. The fact that I have not experienced all of those things is irrelevant to my understanding. I have a different perspective, and a better understand of how those things affect me, after having experienced some of them, but that does not invalidate my understanding of what happened before.

My experience tells me that my emotional pain causes me to lash out and hurt others when I am in pain. The way I do that is to tell them they do not know what it is like. I actually found myself telling people that have gone through the same thing that they have no idea what I was going through.

Guess what, they did, and they understood that my pain caused me to lash out, just like I understand the same thing when someone tells me I do not understand.


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. It as a cell that is part of tissue that comprises an organ that is part of an organism.
> 
> Biology 101
> 
> Why do you people have to lie about basic science in order to defend your position? You realize, of course, that makes you no different than the bible-thumping YECs, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, an appendix cell is alive.  It is an organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. It is one cell of your body like any other. This is basic biology.
> 
> Are you grossly ignorant of the subject and unable to learn due to a learning disorder, or do you simply lie because you cannot defend your position honestly and intelligently?
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> , you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your  emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not  speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is  you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a noun, more specifically the term 'human being', does not apply.  But, by definition, neither a blastocyst nor a fetus is a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. By definition. It is a distinct living human organism.
> 
> The only error is your total ignorance of what the word 'organism' means.
Click to expand...

JB, I question your memory of BIO 101.  A cell is an organism.

As an organism, it is alive.

And, if it's a human appendix, it is genetically human.

These are the three elements of the point you made that I quoted.

Now, I could get nasty with you about your actual knowledge of biology or even if you ever took BIO 101, but I prefer to stick with facts as they usually work well for me.


----------



## JBeukema

Barb said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body.
> 
> 
> 
> The child is not your body. Biology 101. Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> Its nobodies business why I had it done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.
> 
> When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bastocyst, until it can survive outside of the host, is a parasite dependent on the hospitality of the female host. THAT is a biological fact.
Click to expand...


And? One could argue that the child forms a parasitic relationship with adults for many years after birth, as well. That doesn't justify infanticide.

If you ascribe to Gaia theory, we're all parasites. We're certainly an invasive species by any fair application of the term.


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Be Honest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ABORTIONS are the ending of what is certainly a potential human being.
> 
> Forcing pregnant women who do not want to take this potential human being to term is a kind of slavery that no society has the right to impose on them.
> 
> How's that for honesty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



It's only honest if it is factual to state that the fetus is always only a potential human being throughout the pregnancy as opposed to the fetus being defined as an actual human being.


----------



## JBeukema

Si modo said:


> A cell is an organism.


only  if we're specifically discussing single-celled organisms

we are not

we are discussing humans

You sound like the YECs demanding your religion be taught in school because you don't understand what a scientific theory is

Find a real biologist and ask about the differences between cells, tissues, organs, and organisms

Hell, ask about organelles, too


----------



## Luissa

Si modo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, an appendix cell is alive.  It is an organism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. It is one cell of your body like any other. This is basic biology.
> 
> Are you grossly ignorant of the subject and unable to learn due to a learning disorder, or do you simply lie because you cannot defend your position honestly and intelligently?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a noun, more specifically the term 'human being', does not apply.  But, by definition, neither a blastocyst nor a fetus is a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. By definition. It is a distinct living human organism.
> 
> The only error is your total ignorance of what the word 'organism' means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JB, I question your memory of BIO 101.  A cell is an organism.
> 
> As an organism, it is alive.
> 
> And, if it's a human appendix, it is genetically human.
> 
> These are the three elements of the point you made that I quoted.
> 
> Now, I could get nasty with you about your actual knowledge of biology or even if you ever took BIO 101, but I prefer to stick with facts as they usually work well for me.
Click to expand...

So, by his logic condoms are bad also. I wonder how he feels about spermicide?


----------



## JBeukema

tyggabooist said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. All people have a right to have an opinion about the ending prematurely of a human life. I will grant that currently it is totally legal to do so. But that does not change the basic facts. A human life was ended prematurely by design of another Human.
> 
> I and others find that unacceptable and believe it should not be legal to simply kill another human because it may be inconvenient to the mother of the child. Technically it is not homicide since that definition includes that the act is illegal. It is murder though. Just legal murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Everyone
> 
> I am new to the board and usually I spend several weeks just watching and reading before I post but I have to say something about this comment.  There are many reasons why a woman might have an abortion and saying that it is based on inconvenience is a bit unfair.  Inconvenience might be a reason for some, but for others, more serious reasons come into play.  Rape, health issues, incest and age are all reasons that a woman might choose to terminate a fetus.
> 
> These are issues that cannot be understood unless experienced and to dismiss them as inconvenience is grossly callous.  I am sure that wasn't the intention from the original poster, but it bears repeating that unless you are a woman that was raped either by a stranger or a relative and got pregnant, there is no way to judge a woman for her choice.
> 
> I have been looking for a new message board for quite awhile, this one looks promising, so it is nice to meet you all.
Click to expand...


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% 
Why Women Have Abortions


----------



## Luissa

So JB, are you against the morning after pill?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> Why is it men who cannot make this decision know the proper decision?
> 
> "Faith trumps rational argument on this issue?"  from youtube below
> 
> Does pro-life include not eating and killing other life forms for surely they suffer and die at a more advanced level of life and feeling?
> 
> Each month a women, a couple, decide on whether the cells, the potential cells are to be discarded or if they are to attempt a conception and thus life. If they choose not to create life, is that ok, for surely this is life (cellular life) being discarded?
> 
> Two out of five (or more) conceptions end naturally, who is at fault here? Nature or gawd? Are these humans?
> 
> How is it that a decision that a women or a couple makes is thought of as wrong by another person or entity who have no authority to tell or command another person?
> 
> "In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time."
> HISTORY OF ABORTION
> Boston Review &mdash; Judith Jarvis Thomson
> Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion
> Why Francis Beckwith
> 
> 
> "Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey



Why is it that idiots think they can keep throwing out the same stupid lies and fake statistics and convince anyone of anything beyond the fact that they are incompetent liars?

Tell me something genius, how many woman died from abortions last year?

Did you know that most illegal abortions occurred in doctors offices or hospitals? The exact same places where the legal ones that occurred pre Wade did? Did you even know that some abortions were legal then?

Stop lying to people if you want to convince them your side is right.


----------



## JBeukema

midcan5 said:


> Two out of five (or more) conceptions end naturally


And?

You will die naturally if we simply wait. Many people die of natural causes 'before their time'. Does that justify stabbing you in the neck tomorrow if I find your existence inconvenient?


----------



## JBeukema

Eric Cartman said:


> You just jumped from organism to human child.



The organism is human and it is a child. It is, therefore, a human child. *By definition*



> We kill genetically human cells every time we bump into something.



And?

The fact that some of my cells die every day justifies shooting you in the face?


> Seems like you are guided by emotion. (e.g. anger?)


try again


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cell is an organism.
> 
> 
> 
> only  if we're specifically discussing single-celled organisms
> 
> we are not
> 
> we are discussing humans
> 
> You sound like the YECs demanding your religion be taught in school because you don't understand what a scientific theory is
> 
> Find a real biologist and ask about the differences between cells, tissues, organs, and organisms
> 
> Hell, ask about organelles, too
Click to expand...

OK.  So you meant multi-cell organisms when you wrote organism.

Cool.  We have that corrected.

An appendix is a multi-cell organism.  It is alive.  It is genetically human, if a human appendix.

Now what?






This is where that argument needs more.  Human - adjective and noun.


----------



## JBeukema

Nosmo King said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, when they start showing they care about the crawling and walking, I'll believe they are pro 'life'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of you Pro Abortion types have provide a shred of evidence that Pro Choice people do not care about the crawling and walking. We however have ample proof you do not care one whit about human life as you agree snuffing it out in the womb is fine for no other reason then personal discomfort or whim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You magnify the embryo to the status of a living human with rights
Click to expand...


It is a living human. That is biological fact.

Some people believe humans have rights just for being living humans. If you deny that, then such is another discussion.





> This thread is titled Why can't the PRO-ABORTION Crowd be Honest?  The very title suggests that reproductive freedom is Pro-Abortion.  Reproductive freedom is Pro-Choice



Rapists are pro-choice too. They believe they should have the choice to rape.





> .  The operative word being "Choice".  And the title of the thread suggests precious little 'honesty' from the OP.


The OP's views are a matter of public record on this board.


----------



## Ravi

What is this the 1237th thread Buttemia has started about abortion?

Buttemia, why are you so obsessed with this topic?


----------



## JBeukema

Seawytch said:


> The "pro-life" crowd has a cognitive disconnect that I just don't get. Not only are they usually folks that are pro death penalty , but beyond that they are also usually opposed to any kind of comprehensive sex education in schools.
> 
> The goals of the pro choice crowd are much easier to understand. Keep abortion safe, legal and RARE!


Cognitive disconnect? Like opposing the death penalty for serial killers but supporting the killing of the unborn- those s innocent and defenseless as one can possibly be?

Again, you turn to emotion.

Emotion and denial of science. 

Why can't the pro-abortionists ever be honest?


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> Rapists are pro-choice too. They believe they should have the choice to rape.


Do they now...are you speaking as an authority on what rapists think or are you just making up shit as you go along?


----------



## JBeukema

Plasmaball said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> What IS in my control is MY BODY.
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why that little slogan is bullshit.
> 
> If your position and acts are defensible, why can't you defend them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you didnt, You just disagree with it.
> If you are anti-freedom then you are from smoking bans, Eating trans fat and salt bans, right down to controlling someones healthcare.
> 
> you want control, Admit it.
Click to expand...

Can you please learn how to formulate a sentence?

For the record, I oppose smoking ban and Michelle Obama can go fuck herself and stay the fuck away from my double quarter pounder and french fries.

Of course, the people pushing for those controls tend to be the same leftist democrats who are pro-abortion. Go figure.

I see once again you are wholly unable to defend your views logically and have to pass the buck. Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Bfgrn

Quantum Windbag said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is half the problem I have. Planned Parenthood keeps telling me there are no mental health problems associated with abortion, and that it is a routine medical procedure. Then people like you come along and tell me not only about the soul searching from before they made the decision, and how much they have agonized after it.
> 
> That tells me that I have to choose between Planned Parenthood lying and the fact that everyone I have ever met that has had an abortion has emotional problems. Either I live in a statistical blip or an organization that makes money off of abortions is lying to me. Guess where I come down.
> 
> You made a choice, and I was not there. You are completely right about that.I do not judge you for the choice you made, and I even support your right to make that choice. What I find objectionable is you telling me that, unless I am a woman, I cannot comprehend the subject. Guess what, me being male does not mean I have no empathy, no brains, and no imagination. I not only have a clue, I have absolute proof people are lying to me about everything involved.
> 
> Until the pro abortion side stops lying, and defending the lies by claiming I am unequipped to understand, I will not offer my support to them. This despite the fact that I personally think abortions should be an option for some women.
> 
> My only objection all along to abortion is that it is too easy. Abortion counseling should not be done by an organization that profits off of it. They cannot give unbiased advice, and I fully support defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they preform abortions. They have a conflict of interest, and, despite their rhetoric, offer abortions as a first choice in treating pregnancy. If they want my tax dollars they need to get out of the abortion business.
Click to expand...


You cannot legislate morality. Do you honestly believe if Planned Parenthood were shut down, that abortions would end? What WOULD end is the lives of a lot more young women.

Also, as I read your post, I could find things I agree with, but when you called pro choice people pro abortion, you lost credibility. NO ONE is pro abortion.


----------



## JBeukema

editec said:


> Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Be Honest?
> 
> 
> 
> ABORTIONS are the ending of what is certainly a potential human being.
Click to expand...


No, it's ending a human life.

That is scientific fact

Why do you people have to deny science and lie outright if what you advocate is really defensible? Also, comparing personal responsibility to slavery trivializes slavery.


----------



## rikules

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.





"If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?"


"It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being."



so you oppose capital punishment?

you disagree with limbaugh when he said it's ok to kill liberals?

you were appalled when ann coulter said her biggest regret about 9/11 is the fact that the terrorists didn't kill everyone at the new york times?

it angers you when other conservatives talk about sending liberals to third world countries to be murdered?

you were really offended when palerider suggested a game in which liberals would drive through texas and be murdered by conservatives?

and when ex-military guys say "when we discovered a homo in our ranks we took him out and killed him" it really makes you mad?

and when conservative christian republican lt gen james mattis said "it's FUN to shoot people" you were absolutely appalled?




you oppose abortion (because all life (except liberals and gays and atheists and muslims) is precious) yet once the child is born it doesn't bother you at all that it lives in poverty and dies at an early age because it didn't have proper medical care

and should it live long enough to become a homeless adult  you want it taken out back and shot....


btw..i still have photos of conservatives carrying signs saying "abort clinton"


and how many cons are stockpiling weapons in hopes of a coming civil war in which they will have the joy of killing  liberals and democrats.......millions!


we can discuss abortion rationally just as soon as conservatives stop talking about slaughtering millions of innocent people


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Be Honest?
> 
> 
> 
> ABORTIONS are the ending of what is certainly a potential human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's ending a human life.
> 
> *That is scientific fact*
> 
> Why do you people have to deny science and lie outright if what you advocate is really defensible? Also, comparing personal responsibility to slavery trivializes slavery.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.


----------



## sinister59

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



who are the "pro abortionist ? I heard of pro choice , but not that you make shit up don't you ?

are you adopting unwanted kids ? if so great how many have you adopted ? 
maybe we need to make contraceptives free and available to all ? 

seems your the deceptive one .


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is half the problem I have. Planned Parenthood keeps telling me there are no mental health problems associated with abortion, and that it is a routine medical procedure. Then people like you come along and tell me not only about the soul searching from before they made the decision, and how much they have agonized after it.
> 
> That tells me that I have to choose between Planned Parenthood lying and the fact that everyone I have ever met that has had an abortion has emotional problems. Either I live in a statistical blip or an organization that makes money off of abortions is lying to me. Guess where I come down.
> 
> You made a choice, and I was not there. You are completely right about that.I do not judge you for the choice you made, and I even support your right to make that choice. What I find objectionable is you telling me that, unless I am a woman, I cannot comprehend the subject. Guess what, me being male does not mean I have no empathy, no brains, and no imagination. I not only have a clue, I have absolute proof people are lying to me about everything involved.
> 
> Until the pro abortion side stops lying, and defending the lies by claiming I am unequipped to understand, I will not offer my support to them. This despite the fact that I personally think abortions should be an option for some women.
> 
> My only objection all along to abortion is that it is too easy. Abortion counseling should not be done by an organization that profits off of it. They cannot give unbiased advice, and I fully support defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they preform abortions. They have a conflict of interest, and, despite their rhetoric, offer abortions as a first choice in treating pregnancy. If they want my tax dollars they need to get out of the abortion business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot legislate morality. Do you honestly believe if Planned Parenthood were shut down, that abortions would end? What WOULD end is the lives of a lot more young women.
> 
> Also, as I read your post, I could find things I agree with, but when you called pro choice people pro abortion, you lost credibility. NO ONE is pro abortion.
Click to expand...


You can't?

All laws are based upon morality.

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

Luissa said:


> So, JB I could assume you are against the morning after pill?


Nope. Human life isn't important.

The morning after pill ends a human life, but does not end the existence of a mind- of a person. What matters is the individual, which is the sentient mind regardless of what system (fleshy, digital, or other) it arises from. When that mind ceases to be (the brain or other system from which arises ceases to function), the individual ceases to exist. That is the real death of a person. 

If those systems are not yet operational, then the mind cannot have emerged. It does not yet exist and there is, therefore no individual to be harmed through the ending of the life of the system which might have one day given rise to a new mind. Killing a young foetus, then, is like dismantling the internet today. Each system might someday give rise to a new mind- a new individual person- but it has yet to do so. Therefore I cannot harm a non-existent individual by destroying that system.

See: theory of mind; epistemological solipsism 

I have no way of knowing whether any of you are human or not. Nor do i really care. What matters is that you appear to me to be other minds. whether you emerge from a fleshy brain, a supercomputer, or some system I cannot even contemplate is irrelevant.


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is half the problem I have. Planned Parenthood keeps telling me there are no mental health problems associated with abortion, and that it is a routine medical procedure. Then people like you come along and tell me not only about the soul searching from before they made the decision, and how much they have agonized after it.
> 
> That tells me that I have to choose between Planned Parenthood lying and the fact that everyone I have ever met that has had an abortion has emotional problems. Either I live in a statistical blip or an organization that makes money off of abortions is lying to me. Guess where I come down.
> 
> You made a choice, and I was not there. You are completely right about that.I do not judge you for the choice you made, and I even support your right to make that choice. What I find objectionable is you telling me that, unless I am a woman, I cannot comprehend the subject. Guess what, me being male does not mean I have no empathy, no brains, and no imagination. I not only have a clue, I have absolute proof people are lying to me about everything involved.
> 
> Until the pro abortion side stops lying, and defending the lies by claiming I am unequipped to understand, I will not offer my support to them. This despite the fact that I personally think abortions should be an option for some women.
> 
> My only objection all along to abortion is that it is too easy. Abortion counseling should not be done by an organization that profits off of it. They cannot give unbiased advice, and I fully support defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they preform abortions. They have a conflict of interest, and, despite their rhetoric, offer abortions as a first choice in treating pregnancy. If they want my tax dollars they need to get out of the abortion business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot legislate morality. Do you honestly believe if Planned Parenthood were shut down, that abortions would end? What WOULD end is the lives of a lot more young women.
> 
> Also, as I read your post, I could find things I agree with, but when you called pro choice people pro abortion, you lost credibility. NO ONE is pro abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't?
> 
> All laws are based upon morality.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Do you believe making abortion a crime will stop abortions? Would you prosecute women that have an abortion as murderers? What about the male, should he be prosecuted?

There are numerous moral issues I will throw at you if you tell me we should make abortion a crime.


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> All laws are based upon morality.


I'd say traffic laws have more to do with pragmatism


----------



## JBeukema

Si modo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cell is an organism.
> 
> 
> 
> only  if we're specifically discussing single-celled organisms
> 
> we are not
> 
> we are discussing humans
> 
> You sound like the YECs demanding your religion be taught in school because you don't understand what a scientific theory is
> 
> Find a real biologist and ask about the differences between cells, tissues, organs, and organisms
> 
> Hell, ask about organelles, too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.  So you meant multi-cell organisms when you wrote organism.
> 
> Cool.  We have that corrected.
> 
> An appendix is a multi-cell organism.  It is alive.  It is genetically human, if a human appendix.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where that argument needs more.  Human - adjective and noun.
Click to expand...


go to your local high school and pick up a biology book.

look up cell->tissue->organ->organism


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, JB I could assume you are against the morning after pill?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Human life isn't important.
> 
> The morning after pill ends a human life, but does not end the existence of a mind- of a person. What matters is the individual, which is the sentient mind regardless of what system (fleshy, digital, or other) it arises from. When that mind ceases to be (the brain or other system from which arises ceases to function), the individual ceases to exist. That is the real death of a person.
> 
> If those systems are not yet operational, then the mind cannot have emerged. It does not yet exist and there is, therefore no individual to be harmed through the ending of the life of the system which might have one day given rise to a new mind. Killing a young foetus, then, is like dismantling the internet today. Each system might someday give rise to a new mind- a new individual person- but it has yet to do so. Therefore I cannot harm a non-existent individual by destroying that system.
> 
> See: theory of mind; epistemological solipsism
> 
> I have no way of knowing whether any of you are human or not. Nor do i really care. What matters is that you appear to me to be other minds. whether you emerge from a fleshy brain, a supercomputer, or some system I cannot even contemplate is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


----------



## Anguille

Pro-abortion crowd?  Never heard of it.


----------



## JBeukema

rikules said:


> so you oppose capital punishment?



Yes. Credit goes to Penn and Teller for laying out the argument that convinced me they were correct in that matter.

We are all murderers now

Barry Scheck: Innocent, but Executed


> you disagree with limbaugh when he said it's ok to kill liberals?


I don't recall Limbaugh ever saying anything worth hearing





> you were appalled when ann coulter said her biggest regret about 9/11 is the fact that the terrorists didn't kill everyone at the new york times?



My views of coultergeist are scattered across the board





> it angers you when other conservatives





care to try again?

I see no reason to waste any more time on your stupidity


----------



## Immanuel

rikules said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?"
> 
> 
> "It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being."
> 
> 
> 
> so you oppose capital punishment? *Only when it is used unfairly against minorities.  I support Capital Punishment in the most extreme cases.  For instance, I think Charles Manson should be pushing up daisies today.  The fact is that people like Manson chose to kill.  I have yet to hear that an unborn child has chosen to kill anyone.*
> 
> you disagree with limbaugh when he said it's ok to kill liberals? *Absolutely*
> 
> you were appalled when ann coulter said her biggest regret about 9/11 is the fact that the terrorists didn't kill everyone at the new york times? *I never heard her say that, but if she said it, I find it appalling.  I've never particularly liked Coulter in the first place.*
> 
> it angers you when other conservatives talk about sending liberals to third world countries to be murdered? *Yes, it does.*
> 
> you were really offended when palerider suggested a game in which liberals would drive through texas and be murdered by conservatives? *Never saw that either.  I don't approve of it if he did say it.*
> 
> and when ex-military guys say "when we discovered a homo in our ranks we took him out and killed him" it really makes you mad?  *Never saw any of them say that either, however, I would say they should be tried for murder and if heinous enough they should face the death penalty.*
> 
> and when conservative christian republican lt gen james mattis said "it's FUN to shoot people" you were absolutely appalled?  *Again, I have not heard this said, but it is appalling that anyone would say that.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you oppose abortion (because all life (except liberals and gays and atheists and muslims) is precious) yet once the child is born it doesn't bother you at all that it lives in poverty and dies at an early age because it didn't have proper medical care  *Wrong on all counts.*
> 
> and should it live long enough to become a homeless adult  you want it taken out back and shot.... *Again wrong.*
> 
> 
> btw..i still have photos of conservatives carrying signs saying "abort clinton"  *Those were equally appalling as were the pictures of Bush/Hitler and the pictures of President Obama as a witch doctor.  Completely inappropriate.*
> 
> 
> and how many cons are stockpiling weapons in hopes of a coming civil war in which they will have the joy of killing  liberals and democrats.......millions! *Do you have a link verifying your statement that there are millions?  I find anyone who hopes for a civil war to be traitors and hope they would be taken into custody and prosecuted... then again, what they are thinking is not a crime.  If they have done nothing illegal and continue to remain law abiding, I simply find them stupid idiots who don't realize what they have in this great nation.*
> 
> 
> we can discuss abortion rationally just as soon as conservatives stop talking about slaughtering millions of innocent people  *For some reason, I don't think some of you are really interested in discussing abortion or the reduction of the number of abortions.  It is more about scoring political points than reducing abortions.  Now what on earth would give me an idea like that?  I have begun to read and respect your posts.  You have begun to sound like more than just a troll to me, but I truly think in this post you are more concerned with those political points than you are in reducing the number of abortions.  I hope and pray that you will not see us as the enemy, but rather as potential partners in reducing if not ending abortions.*
Click to expand...


*My replies are in bolded red.*

Immie


----------



## Sheldon

JBeukema said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, JB I could assume you are against the morning after pill?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Human life isn't important.
> 
> The morning after pill ends a human life, but does not end the existence of a mind- of a person. What matters is the individual, which is the sentient mind regardless of what system (fleshy, digital, or other) it arises from. When that mind ceases to be (the brain or other system from which arises ceases to function), the individual ceases to exist. That is the real death of a person.
> 
> If those systems are not yet operational, then the mind cannot have emerged. It does not yet exist and there is, therefore no individual to be harmed through the ending of the life of the system which might have one day given rise to a new mind. Killing a young foetus, then, is like dismantling the internet today. Each system might someday give rise to a new mind- a new individual person- but it has yet to do so. Therefore I cannot harm a non-existent individual by destroying that system.
> 
> See: theory of mind; epistemological solipsism
> 
> I have no way of knowing whether any of you are human or not. Nor do i really care. What matters is that you appear to me to be other minds. whether you emerge from a fleshy brain, a supercomputer, or some system I cannot even contemplate is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Bwhahaha. 

I knew you'd be a solipsist.

Get out more.


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> only  if we're specifically discussing single-celled organisms
> 
> we are not
> 
> we are discussing humans
> 
> You sound like the YECs demanding your religion be taught in school because you don't understand what a scientific theory is
> 
> Find a real biologist and ask about the differences between cells, tissues, organs, and organisms
> 
> Hell, ask about organelles, too
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  So you meant multi-cell organisms when you wrote organism.
> 
> Cool.  We have that corrected.
> 
> An appendix is a multi-cell organism.  It is alive.  It is genetically human, if a human appendix.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where that argument needs more.  Human - adjective and noun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go to your local high school and pick up a biology book.
> 
> look up cell->tissue->organ->organism
Click to expand...


I'm quite confident of my knowledge in biology, microbiology, cell biology, metabolism, etc.

Loathing getting personal with you as you have with me, I suggest you take your own suggestion and/or know how to communicate this subject matter properly.

I prefer to stick with facts and will ignore your attempts at insults from this point forward.

Repeating myself, 'human' is both an adjective and noun.  To dispense with any confusion, I specifically use 'human' alone as an adjective.  When I want to use it as a noun, I use the term 'human being'.  Apparently your confusion stems from conflating the two usages.  If my pointing that out angers you, I cannot help that.  However, concerning the point you made that I quoted, your use of 'human' as an adjective doesn't work.

A blastocyst is human (absolutely correct - a human blastocyst as opposed to an equine blastocyst, for example).  Adjective.

A blastocyst is not a human being.  Noun.

It is potentially a human being, yes.  But it is not a human being just as a cup of flour is not a loaf of bread.


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, JB I could assume you are against the morning after pill?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Human life isn't important.
> 
> The morning after pill ends a human life, but does not end the existence of a mind- of a person. What matters is the individual, which is the sentient mind regardless of what system (fleshy, digital, or other) it arises from. When that mind ceases to be (the brain or other system from which arises ceases to function), the individual ceases to exist. That is the real death of a person.
> 
> If those systems are not yet operational, then the mind cannot have emerged. It does not yet exist and there is, therefore no individual to be harmed through the ending of the life of the system which might have one day given rise to a new mind. Killing a young foetus, then, is like dismantling the internet today. Each system might someday give rise to a new mind- a new individual person- but it has yet to do so. Therefore I cannot harm a non-existent individual by destroying that system.
> 
> See: theory of mind; epistemological solipsism
> 
> I have no way of knowing whether any of you are human or not. Nor do i really care. What matters is that you appear to me to be other minds. whether you emerge from a fleshy brain, a supercomputer, or some system I cannot even contemplate is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



I know, I know, all those big words are just too hard for you


personhood argument abortion - Google Search


----------



## JBeukema

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot legislate morality. Do you honestly believe if Planned Parenthood were shut down, that abortions would end? What WOULD end is the lives of a lot more young women.
> 
> Also, as I read your post, I could find things I agree with, but when you called pro choice people pro abortion, you lost credibility. NO ONE is pro abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't?
> 
> All laws are based upon morality.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe making abortion a crime will stop abortions?
Click to expand...


Do you intend to argue that _x_ should be legal because criminalizing _x_ doesn't eliminate all instances of _x_?


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot legislate morality. Do you honestly believe if Planned Parenthood were shut down, that abortions would end? What WOULD end is the lives of a lot more young women.
> 
> Also, as I read your post, I could find things I agree with, but when you called pro choice people pro abortion, you lost credibility. NO ONE is pro abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't?
> 
> All laws are based upon morality.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe making abortion a crime will stop abortions? Would you prosecute women that have an abortion as murderers? What about the male, should he be prosecuted?
> 
> There are numerous moral issues I will throw at you if you tell me we should make abortion a crime.
Click to expand...


I have stated my opinion on over turning Roe many times.  I think even in this thread today, although, maybe it was the like minded copy of this one but reversed.  It will do nothing at all to reduce the number of abortions, therefore, it is not on my list of priorities.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

JBeukema said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are based upon morality.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say traffic laws have more to do with pragmatism
Click to expand...


I would not.  Traffic laws are based upon morality.  Someone thinks it is immoral for me to run through a traffic light and risk injuring or killing other human beings.  Thus we have laws that attempt to stop people from running red lights.  Ditto on speed.  Ditto on legalizing MJ.  Seat belts are because people think that it is immoral for me to drive without a seat belt and risk injuring myself and the government having to pay for my medical services.  Ultimately, all laws are based upon someone's idea of morality.  There are, of course, other reasons such as pragmatism, but ultimately all laws are based on morality even Income Tax Laws.

Immie


----------



## Sheldon

Si modo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  So you meant multi-cell organisms when you wrote organism.
> 
> Cool.  We have that corrected.
> 
> An appendix is a multi-cell organism.  It is alive.  It is genetically human, if a human appendix.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where that argument needs more.  Human - adjective and noun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go to your local high school and pick up a biology book.
> 
> look up cell->tissue->organ->organism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident of my knowledge in biology, microbiology, cell biology, metabolism, etc.
> 
> Loathing getting personal with you as you have with me, I suggest you take your own suggestion and/or know how to communicate this subject matter properly.
> 
> I prefer to stick with facts and will ignore your attempts at insults from this point forward.
> 
> Repeating myself, 'human' is both an adjective and noun.  To dispense with any confusion, I specifically use 'human' alone as an adjective.  When I want to use it as a noun, I use the term 'human being'.  Apparently your confusion stems from conflating the two usages.  If my pointing that out angers you, I cannot help that.  However, concerning the point you made that I quoted, your use of 'human' as an adjective doesn't work.
> 
> A blastocyst is human (absolutely correct - a human blastocyst as opposed to an equine blastocyst, for example).  Adjective.
> 
> A blastocyst is not a human being.  Noun.
> 
> It is potentially a human being, yes.  But it is not a human being just as a cup of flour is not a loaf of bread.
Click to expand...



It can't get much more cut and dry than that. Maybe the ninth time will be a charm.


----------



## G.T.

I think that it's dis-honest, or at least smug to call anyone "pro abortion," so starting a dialogue from that sort of tone expecting honesty/being forthright? I dunno man.


----------



## Bfgrn

JBeukema said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't?
> 
> All laws are based upon morality.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe making abortion a crime will stop abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you intend to argue that _x_ should be legal because criminalizing _x_ doesn't eliminate all instances of _x_?
Click to expand...


If you want to criminalize abortion, would you prosecute a young girl who has an abortion for murder? What degree? Would you prosecute the male who impregnated her?


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are based upon morality.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say traffic laws have more to do with pragmatism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not.  Traffic laws are based upon morality.  Someone thinks it is immoral for me to run through a traffic light and risk injuring or killing other human beings.
Click to expand...


The act of running the light couldn't be objectionable until the light and its meaning were established thorugh the social contract for pragmatic reasons. Only then could moral judgements of the risks entailed in breaking that social contract be levied.

Even murder laws can emerge in an amoral system/manner as a manifestation of mutual self-interest.

I don't deny that morality is a factor in determining societal ethics. I simply mean to point out that it is not the only factor.


----------



## JBeukema

Sheldon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> go to your local high school and pick up a biology book.
> 
> look up cell->tissue->organ->organism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident of my knowledge in biology, microbiology, cell biology, metabolism, etc.
> 
> Loathing getting personal with you as you have with me, I suggest you take your own suggestion and/or know how to communicate this subject matter properly.
> 
> I prefer to stick with facts and will ignore your attempts at insults from this point forward.
> 
> Repeating myself, 'human' is both an adjective and noun.  To dispense with any confusion, I specifically use 'human' alone as an adjective.  When I want to use it as a noun, I use the term 'human being'.  Apparently your confusion stems from conflating the two usages.  If my pointing that out angers you, I cannot help that.  However, concerning the point you made that I quoted, your use of 'human' as an adjective doesn't work.
> 
> A blastocyst is human (absolutely correct - a human blastocyst as opposed to an equine blastocyst, for example).  Adjective.
> 
> A blastocyst is not a human being.  Noun.
> 
> It is potentially a human being, yes.  But it is not a human being just as a cup of flour is not a loaf of bread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It can't get much more cut and dry than that. Maybe the ninth time will be a charm.
Click to expand...



The sperm can be compared to flour, perhaps. By the time we have a blastocyst, there's nothing 'incomplete' about the matter. The child exists and is developing as it will (barring any unforeseens) for many years before dying.


----------



## Immanuel

JBeukema said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say traffic laws have more to do with pragmatism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not.  Traffic laws are based upon morality.  Someone thinks it is immoral for me to run through a traffic light and risk injuring or killing other human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The act of running the light couldn't be objectionable until the light and its meaning were established thorugh the social contract for pragmatic reasons. Only then could moral judgements of the risks entailed in breaking that social contract be levied.
> 
> Even murder laws can emerge in an amoral system/manner as a manifestation of mutual self-interest.
> 
> I don't deny that morality is a factor in determining societal ethics. I simply mean to point out that it is not the only factor.
Click to expand...


I would agree with you there, but then, I never said it was the only reason.

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

Bfgrn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe making abortion a crime will stop abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you intend to argue that _x_ should be legal because criminalizing _x_ doesn't eliminate all instances of _x_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to criminalize abortion, would you prosecute a young girl who has an abortion for murder? What degree? Would you prosecute the male who impregnated her?
Click to expand...


Methinks a manslaughter charge would be more probable. The entire system of first-, second-, and third-degree murder and manslaughter is, in my opinion, a complex system that emerges primarily as a compromise between society's varying views of how various acts of homicide should be punished. That particular question is one I'm not sure I can answer. How can we know what's best for society as a whole in this regard? I am very much open to input, opinion, and debate on that detail.


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident of my knowledge in biology, microbiology, cell biology, metabolism, etc.
> 
> Loathing getting personal with you as you have with me, I suggest you take your own suggestion and/or know how to communicate this subject matter properly.
> 
> I prefer to stick with facts and will ignore your attempts at insults from this point forward.
> 
> Repeating myself, 'human' is both an adjective and noun.  To dispense with any confusion, I specifically use 'human' alone as an adjective.  When I want to use it as a noun, I use the term 'human being'.  Apparently your confusion stems from conflating the two usages.  If my pointing that out angers you, I cannot help that.  However, concerning the point you made that I quoted, your use of 'human' as an adjective doesn't work.
> 
> A blastocyst is human (absolutely correct - a human blastocyst as opposed to an equine blastocyst, for example).  Adjective.
> 
> A blastocyst is not a human being.  Noun.
> 
> It is potentially a human being, yes.  But it is not a human being just as a cup of flour is not a loaf of bread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can't get much more cut and dry than that. Maybe the ninth time will be a charm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The sperm can be compared to flour, perhaps. By the time we have a blastocyst, there's nothing 'incomplete' about the matter. The child exists and is developing as it will (barring any unforeseens) for many years before dying.
Click to expand...

Point taken.

A blastocyst is not a human being just as cake batter is not a cake.


----------



## Bfgrn

JBeukema said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you intend to argue that _x_ should be legal because criminalizing _x_ doesn't eliminate all instances of _x_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to criminalize abortion, would you prosecute a young girl who has an abortion for murder? What degree? Would you prosecute the male who impregnated her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methinks a manslaughter charge would be more probable. The entire system of first-, second-, and third-degree murder and manslaughter is, in my opinion, a complex system that emerges primarily as a compromise between society's varying views of how various acts of homicide should be punished. That particular question is one I'm not sure I can answer. How can we know what's best for society as a whole in this regard? I am very much open to input, opinion, and debate on that detail.
Click to expand...


Well first you will have to overturn the law of the land. So come back when you have that accomplished.


----------



## JBeukema

Si modo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It can't get much more cut and dry than that. Maybe the ninth time will be a charm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sperm can be compared to flour, perhaps. By the time we have a blastocyst, there's nothing 'incomplete' about the matter. The child exists and is developing as it will (barring any unforeseens) for many years before dying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point taken.
> 
> A blastocyst is not a human being just as cake batter is not a cake.
Click to expand...


Yes, because a blostocyst has to be baked at 325-degrees before we decide it's 'finished' 

A human being is a distinct living human organism

It has nothing to do with age

Why can't you people ever be honest?


----------



## JBeukema

Bfgrn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to criminalize abortion, would you prosecute a young girl who has an abortion for murder? What degree? Would you prosecute the male who impregnated her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks a manslaughter charge would be more probable. The entire system of first-, second-, and third-degree murder and manslaughter is, in my opinion, a complex system that emerges primarily as a compromise between society's varying views of how various acts of homicide should be punished. That particular question is one I'm not sure I can answer. How can we know what's best for society as a whole in this regard? I am very much open to input, opinion, and debate on that detail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well first you will have to overturn the law of the land. .
Click to expand...

No, I don't


----------



## JBeukema

modo's not a human because it's not geriatric yet


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is half the problem I have. Planned Parenthood keeps telling me there are no mental health problems associated with abortion, and that it is a routine medical procedure. Then people like you come along and tell me not only about the soul searching from before they made the decision, and how much they have agonized after it.
> 
> That tells me that I have to choose between Planned Parenthood lying and the fact that everyone I have ever met that has had an abortion has emotional problems. Either I live in a statistical blip or an organization that makes money off of abortions is lying to me. Guess where I come down.
> 
> You made a choice, and I was not there. You are completely right about that.I do not judge you for the choice you made, and I even support your right to make that choice. What I find objectionable is you telling me that, unless I am a woman, I cannot comprehend the subject. Guess what, me being male does not mean I have no empathy, no brains, and no imagination. I not only have a clue, I have absolute proof people are lying to me about everything involved.
> 
> Until the pro abortion side stops lying, and defending the lies by claiming I am unequipped to understand, I will not offer my support to them. This despite the fact that I personally think abortions should be an option for some women.
> 
> My only objection all along to abortion is that it is too easy. Abortion counseling should not be done by an organization that profits off of it. They cannot give unbiased advice, and I fully support defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they preform abortions. They have a conflict of interest, and, despite their rhetoric, offer abortions as a first choice in treating pregnancy. If they want my tax dollars they need to get out of the abortion business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot legislate morality. Do you honestly believe if Planned Parenthood were shut down, that abortions would end? What WOULD end is the lives of a lot more young women.
> 
> Also, as I read your post, I could find things I agree with, but when you called pro choice people pro abortion, you lost credibility. NO ONE is pro abortion.
Click to expand...


I love the "You cannot legislate morality" thing. It shows just how desperate you are for any position that you cling to outright stupidity.

Laws are about nothing but legislating morality. Why else make stealing, or murder, illegal? Seriously, how pathetic can you get?

As for shutting down Planned Parenthood, what makes you think I want them shut down? I uniformly oppose all subsidies and corporate welfare. That includes banks, auto companies, agribusiness, any and all companies or groups that remotely fall under that broad generalization. Planned Parenthood makes plenty of money and can survive without any of my taxes. Name a company that gets tax money to survive and I oppose it.

As for the pro abortion label, I have already proved to others that there are some people who are pro abortion. Unlike you, I do not tar everyone with the same brush. If you personally are not pro abortion there is no need for your fauxrage, I was not talking about you. If you are, wear the label with pride, it at least shows you stand for something.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Anguille said:


> Pro-abortion crowd?  Never heard of it.



If you have never heard of something, that proves it does not exist? Or does your statement just prove how arrogant and condescending you are?


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sperm can be compared to flour, perhaps. By the time we have a blastocyst, there's nothing 'incomplete' about the matter. The child exists and is developing as it will (barring any unforeseens) for many years before dying.
> 
> 
> 
> Point taken.
> 
> A blastocyst is not a human being just as cake batter is not a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because a blostocyst has to be baked at 325-degrees before we decide it's 'finished'
> 
> A human being is a distinct living human organism
> 
> It has nothing to do with age
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
Click to expand...

Your lame implication about my honesty aside (note: funny how you go that direction when challenged), I'm sorry you haven't the capacity to deal with analogies.

I never argued your strawman that a human being is not a distinct human organism.  A skin cell is one, too.  You are going back to a dubious point.

Attempting to understand your new point, an infant is not a grown human being, but it is a human being.  

So?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I think that it's dis-honest, or at least smug to call anyone "pro abortion," so starting a dialogue from that sort of tone expecting honesty/being forthright? I dunno man.



I think it is dishonest, not to mention idiotic, to deny that some people are pro abortion.


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> modo's not a human because it's not geriatric yet


And where did I say that. I wonder?

Straw.


----------



## JBeukema

Si modo said:


> I never argued your strawman that a human being is not a distinct human organism.  A skin cell is one, too.



No, it's not.

Basic biology, dude.

Cell -> tissue -> organ -> organism

Not all the same thing


> Attempting to understand your new point, an infant is not a grown human being, but it is a human being.



Same as it was halfway through bbirth and the day before birth and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that all the way back to the moment sperm and egg (each a cell) merged to form a new organism


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never argued your strawman that a human being is not a distinct human organism.  A skin cell is one, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> Basic biology, dude.
> 
> Cell -> tissue -> organ -> organism
> 
> Not all the same thing
> 
> 
> 
> Attempting to understand your new point, an infant is not a grown human being, but it is a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same as it was halfway through bbirth and the day before birth and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that all the way back to the moment sperm and egg (each a cell) merged to form a new organism
Click to expand...

Again, you are trying to tell us a cell is not an organism?

And you have the audacity to question my knowledge of junior high biology, even?

I have to laugh at the not-so-clever daring of that.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it's dis-honest, or at least smug to call anyone "pro abortion," so starting a dialogue from that sort of tone expecting honesty/being forthright? I dunno man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is dishonest, not to mention idiotic, to deny that some people are pro abortion.
Click to expand...


Maybe, but pro choice does not equal being pro abortion. That's inaccurate.


----------



## JBeukema

Si modo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> modo's not a human because it's not geriatric yet
> 
> 
> 
> And where did I say that. I wonder?
> 
> Straw.
Click to expand...

That's your entire argument. You've been claiming a human's not human until it's old enough

instead it's dough


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> modo's not a human because it's not geriatric yet
> 
> 
> 
> And where did I say that. I wonder?
> 
> Straw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your entire argument. You've been claiming a human's not human until it's old enough
> 
> instead it's dough
Click to expand...

No.  I'm claiming that a human blastocyst is not a human being (independent of outside life support) just as an equine blastocyst is not a horse and just as cake batter is not a cake.

They all have the potential to be their final selves, but they are not yet.


----------



## JBeukema

Si modo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where did I say that. I wonder?
> 
> Straw.
> 
> 
> 
> That's your entire argument. You've been claiming a human's not human until it's old enough
> 
> instead it's dough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I'm claiming that a human blastocyst is not a human being (independent of outside life support)
Click to expand...


In what biology book does it say you cease to be a human being when you're on a ventilator?


----------



## Immanuel

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it's dis-honest, or at least smug to call anyone "pro abortion," so starting a dialogue from that sort of tone expecting honesty/being forthright? I dunno man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is dishonest, not to mention idiotic, to deny that some people are pro abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but pro choice does not equal being pro abortion. That's inaccurate.
Click to expand...


I agree and neither does pro life equal being anti-woman or even anti-choice, but you won't hear many liberals acknowledge that fact.

Of course, it is true that the "choice" we are discussing here is really only one choice.  There are many "choices" that the pro choice crowd do not believe should be allowed.

I happen to be for the choice of smoking cigarettes even though I don't smoke myself and find the smell of it to be utterly disgusting.  The same goes for marijuana.  There are some on the left that happen to be against the right to pass on one's wealth to one's children.  We all support and oppose different choices.  What makes the so called pro choice crowd more pro choice than me?  Fact is, they are no more pro choice than I am.

Immie


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your entire argument. You've been claiming a human's not human until it's old enough
> 
> instead it's dough
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm claiming that a human blastocyst is not a human being (independent of outside life support)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what biology book does it say you cease to be a human being when you're on a ventilator?
Click to expand...

More straw from you?

I never said that, however I've participated enough in this debate that I saw it coming.  Nothing original there.

They had already met the state of being.  Life support in this case is to return them to being not to get them there.


----------



## G.T.

Immanuel said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is dishonest, not to mention idiotic, to deny that some people are pro abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but pro choice does not equal being pro abortion. That's inaccurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree and neither does pro life equal being anti-woman or even anti-choice, but you won't hear many liberals acknowledge that fact.
> 
> Of course, it is true that the "choice" we are discussing here is really only one choice.  There are many "choices" that the pro choice crowd do not believe should be allowed.
> 
> I happen to be for the choice of smoking cigarettes even though I don't smoke myself and find the smell of it to be utterly disgusting.  The same goes for marijuana.  There are some on the left that happen to be against the right to pass on one's wealth to one's children.  We all support and oppose different choices.  What makes the so called pro choice crowd more pro choice than me?  Fact is, they are no more pro choice than I am.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


None of that applies to me. Good point in the 1st sentence.


----------



## JBeukema

Si Modo is a murderer. She knows she is a murderer and that she promotes murder. She knows there is no excuse for what she advocates.

That's why she must declare anyone on a ventilator to be something other than human in order to avoid admitting what it is she advocates. She cannot be honest with us because she cannot be honest with herself. Her denial and willful stupidity is a defense mechanism to prevent her from facing what it is she advocates.

In surrendering her working mind to this higher cause, she has made a religion out of abortionism. It has become a matter of faith to her which is why she cannot discuss the matter honestly or acknowledge reality any more than a communist can face the reality of communism or a Catholic can can acknowledge biblical contradiction.

_Here, indeed, is the explanation of a phenomenon which has puzzled  many observers. How could the intellectuals accept [this dogma]? ... The  [dogmatic] novice, subjecting his soul to the canon law of [their  leaders], felt something of the release which Catholicism also brings...  Once the renunciation has been made, the mind, instead of operating  freely, becomes the servant of a higher and unquestioned purpose. To  deny the truth is an act of service. This, of course, is why it is  useless to discuss any particular aspect of politics with a[n adherent  of dogma]. Any genuine intellectual contact which you have with him  involves a challenge to his fundamental faith, a struggle for his soul.  For it is very much easier to lay the oblation of spiritual pride on the  alter of [dogma] than to snatch it back again

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/God-That-Failed-Arthur-Koestler/dp/0231123957]Amazon.com: The God That Failed (9780231123952): Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Richard Wright, André Gide, Louis Fischer, Stephen Spender, Richard Howard Stafford Crossman, David Engerman: Books[/ame]
_


----------



## Zoom-boing

In a nutshell:

For people on the "pro-choice" side of things, a woman's 'right to choose' trumps the unborns 'right to life'.

For people on the "pro-life" side of things, the unborns 'right to life' trumps a woman's 'right to choose'.

As for the unborn:  From the moment they are conceived and implant into the uterus until they are no longer living, they are 100% human beings.  Where folks come up with 'a fetus isn't a baby isn't a human isn't a blah, blah, blah' is beyond me.  A two-week old fetus isn't any less human than a two-week old born baby, they are both human beings just at different developmental stages and the stage isn't what makes them human; the fact that humans reproduce humans is what makes them human.  Abortion destroys this human life.


----------



## G.T.

JBeukema said:


> Si Modo is a murderer. She knows she is a murderer and that she promotes murder. She knows there is no excuse for what she advocates.
> 
> That's why she must declare anyone on a ventilator to be something other than human in order to avoid admitting what it is she advocates. She cannot be honest with us because she cannot be honest with herself. Her denial and willful stupidity is a defense mechanism to prevent her from facing what it is she advocates.
> 
> In surrendering her working mind to this higher cause, she has made a religion out of abortionism. It has become a matter of faith to her which is why she cannot discuss the matter honestly or acknowledge reality any more than a communist can face the reality of communism or a Catholic can can acknowledge biblical contradiction.
> 
> _Here, indeed, is the explanation of a phenomenon which has puzzled  many observers. How could the intellectuals accept [this dogma]? ... The  [dogmatic] novice, subjecting his soul to the canon law of [their  leaders], felt something of the release which Catholicism also brings...  Once the renunciation has been made, the mind, instead of operating  freely, becomes the servant of a higher and unquestioned purpose. To  deny the truth is an act of service. This, of course, is why it is  useless to discuss any particular aspect of politics with a[n adherent  of dogma]. Any genuine intellectual contact which you have with him  involves a challenge to his fundamental faith, a struggle for his soul.  For it is very much easier to lay the oblation of spiritual pride on the  alter of [dogma] than to snatch it back again
> 
> Amazon.com: The God That Failed (9780231123952): Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Richard Wright, André Gide, Louis Fischer, Stephen Spender, Richard Howard Stafford Crossman, David Engerman: Books
> _



Projection.


----------



## JBeukema

Si modo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm claiming that a human blastocyst is not a human being (independent of outside life support)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what biology book does it say you cease to be a human being when you're on a ventilator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More straw from you?
> 
> I never said that
Click to expand...

Yes you did. Right now. You just quoted it. You said that to be a human being, you must not need any outside life support.




> They had already met the state of being.  Life support in this case is to return them to being not to get them there.



Returning to *is* getting to. That's the very meaning of the term. To get to a place one once was before.


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> Si Modo is a murderer. She knows she is a murderer and that she promotes murder. She knows there is no excuse for what she advocates.
> 
> ....


I think you've gone off of the deep end at this point.



> ....  That's why she must declare anyone on a ventilator to be something other than human ....


Of course, that never happened, but I can join you in pummeling your strawman if you'd like.


----------



## Immanuel

G.T. said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but pro choice does not equal being pro abortion. That's inaccurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and neither does pro life equal being anti-woman or even anti-choice, but you won't hear many liberals acknowledge that fact.
> 
> Of course, it is true that the "choice" we are discussing here is really only one choice.  There are many "choices" that the pro choice crowd do not believe should be allowed.
> 
> I happen to be for the choice of smoking cigarettes even though I don't smoke myself and find the smell of it to be utterly disgusting.  The same goes for marijuana.  There are some on the left that happen to be against the right to pass on one's wealth to one's children.  We all support and oppose different choices.  What makes the so called pro choice crowd more pro choice than me?  Fact is, they are no more pro choice than I am.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that applies to me. Good point in the 1st sentence.
Click to expand...


It should not apply to any of us.  We should realize that most of us in this discussion, on both sides, want the same thing... fewer abortions.  Since that is the case, why the heck are we fighting each other?  We should be working together to bring about that admirable goal.  

Instead we are fighting over whether or not the fetus is human!  Let me ask these questions of those on the other side of the debate.  If your goal is, as many have said, fewer abortions, (remember your slogan?  Safe, legal and rare) what difference does it make whether or not the fetus is a "human being"?  Do you want fewer abortions or do you want to win a political debate?

Immie


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sperm can be compared to flour, perhaps. By the time we have a blastocyst, there's nothing 'incomplete' about the matter. The child exists and is developing as it will (barring any unforeseens) for many years before dying.
> 
> 
> 
> Point taken.
> 
> A blastocyst is not a human being just as cake batter is not a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because a blostocyst has to be baked at 325-degrees before we decide it's 'finished'
Click to expand...

Kind of, why do you think it is sometimes called having a bun in the oven you fucking idiot?

Hey Buttemia, are you human or just a digitally remastered version of the earth's stupidest person?


----------



## G.T.

Immanuel said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and neither does pro life equal being anti-woman or even anti-choice, but you won't hear many liberals acknowledge that fact.
> 
> Of course, it is true that the "choice" we are discussing here is really only one choice.  There are many "choices" that the pro choice crowd do not believe should be allowed.
> 
> I happen to be for the choice of smoking cigarettes even though I don't smoke myself and find the smell of it to be utterly disgusting.  The same goes for marijuana.  There are some on the left that happen to be against the right to pass on one's wealth to one's children.  We all support and oppose different choices.  What makes the so called pro choice crowd more pro choice than me?  Fact is, they are no more pro choice than I am.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that applies to me. Good point in the 1st sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should not apply to any of us.  We should realize that most of us in this discussion, on both sides, want the same thing... fewer abortions.  Since that is the case, why the heck are we fighting each other?  We should be working together to bring about that admirable goal.
> 
> Instead we are fighting over whether or not the fetus is human!  Let me ask these questions of those on the other side of the debate.  If your goal is, as many have said, fewer abortions, (remember your slogan?  Safe, legal and rare) what difference does it make whether or not the fetus is a "human being"?  Do you want fewer abortions or do you want to win a political debate?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I don't want fewer abortions in terms of Rape, to be honest. All else, yes I do want it fewer.


----------



## JBeukema

Si modo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si Modo is a murderer. She knows she is a murderer and that she promotes murder. She knows there is no excuse for what she advocates.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've gone off of the deep end at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....  That's why she must declare anyone on a ventilator to be something other than human ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, that never happened, but I can join you in pummeling your strawman if you'd like.
Click to expand...

You defined a human being as



Si modo said:


> independent of outside life support


----------



## Si modo

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point taken.
> 
> A blastocyst is not a human being just as cake batter is not a cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because a blostocyst has to be baked at 325-degrees before we decide it's 'finished'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kind of, why do you think it is sometimes called having a bun in the oven you fucking idiot?
> 
> Hey Buttemia, are you human or just a digitally remastered version of the earth's stupidest person?
Click to expand...




> You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.



But, he is not dumb in the least.  He is just in an argument where his emotions are stronger than his thought processes.


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si Modo is a murderer. She knows she is a murderer and that she promotes murder. She knows there is no excuse for what she advocates.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've gone off of the deep end at this point.
> 
> Of course, that never happened, but I can join you in pummeling your strawman if you'd like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You defined a human being as
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> independent of outside life support
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And you ignore the rest of what I write?  Does that always work for you, or just when your logic is clouded by emotions?


----------



## Immanuel

G.T. said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that applies to me. Good point in the 1st sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should not apply to any of us.  We should realize that most of us in this discussion, on both sides, want the same thing... fewer abortions.  Since that is the case, why the heck are we fighting each other?  We should be working together to bring about that admirable goal.
> 
> Instead we are fighting over whether or not the fetus is human!  Let me ask these questions of those on the other side of the debate.  If your goal is, as many have said, fewer abortions, (remember your slogan?  Safe, legal and rare) what difference does it make whether or not the fetus is a "human being"?  Do you want fewer abortions or do you want to win a political debate?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want fewer abortions in terms of Rape, to be honest. All else, yes I do want it fewer.
Click to expand...


I want fewer rapes, thus fewer abortions in terms of rape.  I suspect you are in agreement with that.    I also want fewer abortions in terms of the life of the mother being in jeopardy.  That requires improving the medical profession in ways that reduces the risk of having a baby.  

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

The only emotional ones are you pro-abortionists pretending most women get abortions for rape, comparing personal responsibility to slavery, declaring that only serial killers can have an opinion on serial murder, and refusing to acknowledge basic facts of biology- even going so far as to declare that one can become a non-human when in the hospital and then magically be a human again when they get off life support- all in an effort to avoid admitting what it is you support.

If killing an unborn child isn't wrong, why can't you admit you support killing unborn children?


----------



## G.T.

Immanuel said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should not apply to any of us.  We should realize that most of us in this discussion, on both sides, want the same thing... fewer abortions.  Since that is the case, why the heck are we fighting each other?  We should be working together to bring about that admirable goal.
> 
> Instead we are fighting over whether or not the fetus is human!  Let me ask these questions of those on the other side of the debate.  If your goal is, as many have said, fewer abortions, (remember your slogan?  Safe, legal and rare) what difference does it make whether or not the fetus is a "human being"?  Do you want fewer abortions or do you want to win a political debate?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want fewer abortions in terms of Rape, to be honest. All else, yes I do want it fewer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want fewer rapes, thus fewer abortions in terms of rape.  I suspect you are in agreement with that.    I also want fewer abortions in terms of the life of the mother being in jeopardy.  That requires improving the medical profession in ways that reduces the risk of having a baby.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Actually, I forgot if the mom's life is in Danger. 

Yes, I'd both like to see Rape and Danger-to-Pregnant-Moms significantly decreased, and I also favor allowing them the choice to abort in those cases here and forever. I don't necessarily favor them aborting, that's on them.


----------



## manifold

I emphatically agree that abortion is terminating human life.

But life expires all the time for a variety of reasons.

Convince me that I should value the life of *someone else's *fetus more than the child's own mother?  So much more in fact that I'm willing to incarcerate a pregnant woman and force her to give birth to her child?  Because if it's really about the 'value' of life, this is the trade-off we're talking about.  Don't tell me that putting people in jail after the fact on this one is for the greater good, because it isn't.


----------



## Bfgrn

JBeukema said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks a manslaughter charge would be more probable. The entire system of first-, second-, and third-degree murder and manslaughter is, in my opinion, a complex system that emerges primarily as a compromise between society's varying views of how various acts of homicide should be punished. That particular question is one I'm not sure I can answer. How can we know what's best for society as a whole in this regard? I am very much open to input, opinion, and debate on that detail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first you will have to overturn the law of the land. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't
Click to expand...


Yes you do, abortion is legal. Unless you are referring to the pro-death wing of the pro-life crowd.


----------



## JBeukema

manifold said:


> I emphatically agree that abortion is terminating human life.
> 
> But life expires all the time for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Convince me that I should value the life of *someone else's *fetus more than the child's own mother?



Do you care if a woman drowns her three-year-old son in a bathtub? Should society step up and say that's wrong? Should it be illegal? After all, she didn't care about his life. 

Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. Either you think society needs to take collective action against those who commit such deeds or you do not.


----------



## JBeukema

Bfgrn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first you will have to overturn the law of the land. .
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you do
Click to expand...


No, I don't





> , abortion is legal.



Within certain limits, yes it is


----------



## G.T.

JBeukema said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I emphatically agree that abortion is terminating human life.
> 
> But life expires all the time for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Convince me that I should value the life of *someone else's *fetus more than the child's own mother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you care if a woman drowns her three-year-old son in a bathtub? Should society step up and say that's wrong? Should it be illegal? After all, she didn't care about his life.
> 
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. Either you think society needs to take collective action against those who commit such deeds or you do not.
Click to expand...


It's not an either or, there's gray area that you're being pompass about. Life is all about circumstances. If a man with a Gun comes running at me, I'm going to blow his head off. 

If a man Rapes my wife, I'm going to blow his seed away. 

If my wife's about to die giving birth and could be saved, I'd rather terminate the not yet self-aware being than terminate my wife who's fully self aware and understands what she would lose(life) so can actually experience the fright that comes with the horror of death. 

You can call it murder in the derragatory sense all you want, but that's sensationalism as a ploy to ignore ACTUAL life circumstances. Who's being dishonest?


----------



## JBeukema

G.T. said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I emphatically agree that abortion is terminating human life.
> 
> But life expires all the time for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Convince me that I should value the life of *someone else's *fetus more than the child's own mother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you care if a woman drowns her three-year-old son in a bathtub?
> Should society step up and say that's wrong? Should it be illegal? After all, she didn't care about his life.
> 
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. Either you think society needs to take collective action against those who commit such deeds or you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an either or, there's gray area that you're being pompass about.
Click to expand...


Under what circumstances would drowning your three-year-old child in a bathtub be okay? 


> Life is all about circumstances. If a man with a Gun comes running at me, I'm going to blow his head off.



And? The distinction between justifiable and criminal homicide was made by myself and others some time back





> If a man Rapes my wife, I'm going to blow his seed away.



Understandable, but likely criminal if you do so after the fact (as opposed to catching him the act)


> If my wife's about to die giving birth and could be saved, I'd rather terminate the not yet self-aware being than terminate my wife.



Giving birth? She's likely past the end of the first trimester. Barring any extenuating circumstances, the child's brain has given rise to a new mind. Why do you feel the need to lie about that?

You're being sensationalistic and trying to avoid dealing with the reality.  

If what you pro-abortionists support isn't wrong, why can't you admit what it is?


----------



## G.T.

JBeukema said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you care if a woman drowns her three-year-old son in a bathtub?
> Should society step up and say that's wrong? Should it be illegal? After all, she didn't care about his life.
> 
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. Either you think society needs to take collective action against those who commit such deeds or you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an either or, there's gray area that you're being pompass about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under what circumstances would drowning your three-year-old child in a bathtub be okay?
> 
> 
> And? The distinction between justifiable and criminal homicide was made by myself and others some time back
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a man Rapes my wife, I'm going to blow his seed away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understandable, but likely criminal if you do so after the fact (as opposed to catching him the act)
> 
> 
> 
> If my wife's about to die giving birth and could be saved, I'd rather terminate the not yet self-aware being than terminate my wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Giving birth? She's likely past the end of the first trimester. Barring any extenuating circumstances, the child's brain has given rise to a new mind. Why do you feel the need to lie about that?
> 
> You're being sensationalistic and trying to avoid dealing with the reality.
> 
> If what you pro-abortionists support isn't wrong, why can't you admit what it is?
Click to expand...


Umm, it's never justifiable to drown a 3 year old, it's ridiculous and pompass to even raise the question as if it's a genuine correlation to a non self-aware being. 

Part II. by his "seed," I meant aborting what he had done inside of my wife. That's not criminal. 

Part III. I have no problem calling abortion in the case of rape, or woman in danger of dying, Justifiable Homicide.


----------



## manifold

JBeukema said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I emphatically agree that abortion is terminating human life.
> 
> But life expires all the time for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Convince me that I should value the life of *someone else's *fetus more than the child's own mother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you care if a woman drowns her three-year-old son in a bathtub? Should society step up and say that's wrong? Should it be illegal? After all, she didn't care about his life.
> 
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. Either you think society needs to take collective action against those who commit such deeds or you do not.
Click to expand...


IMO, the event of birth elevates the value of a human life, so much so, that your comparisan is moot.

Got anything else?


----------



## JBeukema

G.T. said:


> Umm, it's never justifiable to drown a 3 year old



So all your talk about that grey zone was bullshit?





> Part II. by his "seed," I meant aborting what he had done inside of my wife. That's not criminal.


Depends on when you do it




> Part III. I have no problem calling abortion in the case of rape, or woman in danger of dying, Justifiable Homicide.


What about if she just decides she doesn't want it? In none of those cases did you the child you're killing do anything to anyone. You're shooting your neighbor in the face because of his father's sins.


----------



## JBeukema

manifold said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I emphatically agree that abortion is terminating human life.
> 
> But life expires all the time for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Convince me that I should value the life of *someone else's *fetus more than the child's own mother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you care if a woman drowns her three-year-old son in a bathtub? Should society step up and say that's wrong? Should it be illegal? After all, she didn't care about his life.
> 
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. Either you think society needs to take collective action against those who commit such deeds or you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO, the event of birth elevates the value of a human life
Click to expand...

Why? What fundamental changes take places when the child is moved three feet to the left?

Let me guess, you're going to borrow JD_2B's breath argument?


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> The only emotional ones are you pro-abortionists *pretending most women get abortions for rape,* comparing personal responsibility to slavery, declaring that only serial killers can have an opinion on serial murder, and refusing to acknowledge basic facts of biology- even going so far as to declare that one can become a non-human when in the hospital and then magically be a human again when they get off life support- all in an effort to avoid admitting what it is you support.
> 
> If killing an unborn child isn't wrong, why can't you admit you support killing unborn children?


No one claims that. Women get abortions mostly because they aren't ready to give birth or they cannot emotionally or financially add to their brood.


----------



## G.T.

JBeukema said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, it's never justifiable to drown a 3 year old
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So all your talk about that grey zone was bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part II. by his "seed," I meant aborting what he had done inside of my wife. That's not criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on when you do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part III. I have no problem calling abortion in the case of rape, or woman in danger of dying, Justifiable Homicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about if she just decides she doesn't want it? In none of those cases did you the child you're killing do anything to anyone. You're shooting your neighbor in the face because of his father's sins.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's "right" for Abortion short of the reasons of Rape and Maternal (death) risk. That is my opinion.  

Look, examine how you conversate. You take snippets like above (so much for all of the gray area) that are inane to the conversation that you can take an "*ahah*!!" at, and it doesn't advance the conversation maturely, it only serves as a geeky self back-pat. The gray area I was referring to was in direct response to your calling abortion "murder," not to life in general.  

Sure, there's things in life that are black and white. Murdering a 3 year old is one of those, for me. If you disagree and have a decent argument, I'm not going to be a tool and go *"Murderer!!!"* But that's just me. 


My point was, that in _THIS_ case, instead of handling disagreements like a grown assed man (i.e. me calling it justifiable, sometimes, to abort, being my "*gray area*," which I was referring to), you take the sophomoric approach and pick out inane bits of nothingness to avoid the actual meat of the conversation. There's a phrase for that. Cop-out.


----------



## manifold

JBeukema said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you care if a woman drowns her three-year-old son in a bathtub? Should society step up and say that's wrong? Should it be illegal? After all, she didn't care about his life.
> 
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. Either you think society needs to take collective action against those who commit such deeds or you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, the event of birth elevates the value of a human life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? What fundamental changes take places when the child is moved three feet to the left?
Click to expand...


The fundamental change is birth.

Look it up if you're unfamiliar with the subject.


----------



## liebuster

IMEURU said:


> Think what you will, as it is beyond my control. What IS in my control is MY BODY. Nobody elses. And until you are impregnated with a life you didnt ask for growing in it, you have no say.



I thought the same way you did when I was a teenager. Its only some "cells" and I believe its the womens right to choose, that is, until I had children.......

Not sure if you have children but until you see a beautiful living being that was created from you then you have no idea.


----------



## ABikerSailor

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



Science has also proven that the mass of cells does not develop a nervous system until AFTER the 40 day point.

My opinion?  A mass of cells growing in a human body isn't necessarily "life", because a growing mass of cells can also be a cancerous growth.  

What makes us "human"?  Our ability to reason, and our ability to be self aware.  Until that mass of cells grows a nervous system, it's not "human".


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only emotional ones are you pro-abortionists *pretending most women get abortions for rape,* comparing personal responsibility to slavery, declaring that only serial killers can have an opinion on serial murder, and refusing to acknowledge basic facts of biology- even going so far as to declare that one can become a non-human when in the hospital and then magically be a human again when they get off life support- all in an effort to avoid admitting what it is you support.
> 
> If killing an unborn child isn't wrong, why can't you admit you support killing unborn children?
> 
> 
> 
> No one claims that. Women get abortions mostly because they aren't ready to give birth or they cannot emotionally or financially add to their brood.
Click to expand...

So you admit most abortions are done because the baby is inconvenient? We've made progress.


----------



## JBeukema

G.T. said:


> I don't think it's "right" for Abortion short of the reasons of Rape and Maternal (death) risk. That is my opinion.



Why is killing an unborn child okay if the mother was raped but not if she was just stupid?

How does your parents' relationship determine whether it's okay to kill you? You never presented any cogent arguments to make that case.


----------



## JBeukema

manifold said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, the event of birth elevates the value of a human life
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What fundamental changes take places when the child is moved three feet to the left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fundamental change is birth.
> 
> Look it up if you're unfamiliar with the subject.
Click to expand...

Birth: moving three feet to the left

you're dodging


----------



## JBeukema

liebuster said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you will, as it is beyond my control. What IS in my control is MY BODY. Nobody elses. And until you are impregnated with a life you didnt ask for growing in it, you have no say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the same way you did when I was a teenager. Its only some "cells" and I believe its the womens right to choose, that is, until I had children.......
> 
> Not sure if you have children but until you see a beautiful living being that was created from you then you have no idea.
Click to expand...

You're appealing to emotion

That's not a cogent argument


----------



## logical4u

IMEURU said:


> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.



I am sorry for your loss.  Would you recommend that path to another?


----------



## manifold

JBeukema said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What fundamental changes take places when the child is moved three feet to the left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fundamental change is birth.
> 
> Look it up if you're unfamiliar with the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth: moving three feet to the left
> 
> you're dodging
Click to expand...


Equating birth to moving three feet to the left is no less disingenuous than equating a fetus to a lump of nerves.

You're refusing to acknowledge a valid line of reasoning, simpy because you disagree with a value judgement that is necessarily vital to drawing any conclusion on the matter.

Got anything else?


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> Science has also proven that the mass of cells does not develop a nervous system until AFTER the 40 day point.



And? Do you have a point? Is that relevent to some argument you intend to make?





> My opinion?  A mass of cells growing in a human body isn't necessarily "life", because a growing mass of cells can also be a cancerous growth.



We're not talking about cancer. We're talking a new human being growing and developing as it will do (forbidding any unforeseens) for a great many years.

Life has a meaning. Whether something is alive or not is a matter of biology. Whether it is an organism or not is a matter of biology. It if it a live and an organism, it is a living organism. If an organism is genetically human, it is a human being by definition. If an organism is both alive and human we are dealing with human life.

Your whole 'I'm nothing more than a tumour that dropped from mah momma's **** and walks now' spiel is bullshit. It's an attempt to avoid the issue. If you have an argument, why can't you just make it?



> What makes us "human"?  Our ability to reason, and our ability to be self aware.  Until that mass of cells grows a nervous system, it's not "human".



So the rest of your moronic post can be ignored and we can count you among the sentience crowd? You went through all that to ultimately reach 'JB is right'?


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only emotional ones are you pro-abortionists *pretending most women get abortions for rape,* comparing personal responsibility to slavery, declaring that only serial killers can have an opinion on serial murder, and refusing to acknowledge basic facts of biology- even going so far as to declare that one can become a non-human when in the hospital and then magically be a human again when they get off life support- all in an effort to avoid admitting what it is you support.
> 
> If killing an unborn child isn't wrong, why can't you admit you support killing unborn children?
> 
> 
> 
> No one claims that. Women get abortions mostly because they aren't ready to give birth or they cannot emotionally or financially add to their brood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit most abortions are doine because the baby is inconvenient? We've made progress.
Click to expand...

 Why do you lie so much...it chips away at what little credibility you have.


----------



## Immanuel

JBeukema said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only emotional ones are you pro-abortionists *pretending most women get abortions for rape,* comparing personal responsibility to slavery, declaring that only serial killers can have an opinion on serial murder, and refusing to acknowledge basic facts of biology- even going so far as to declare that one can become a non-human when in the hospital and then magically be a human again when they get off life support- all in an effort to avoid admitting what it is you support.
> 
> If killing an unborn child isn't wrong, why can't you admit you support killing unborn children?
> 
> 
> 
> No one claims that. Women get abortions mostly because they aren't ready to give birth or they cannot emotionally or financially add to their brood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit most abortions are doine because the baby is inconvenient? We've made progress.
Click to expand...


And people say discussing abortion is pointless... that no one ever changes their minds.  

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

manifold said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundamental change is birth.
> 
> Look it up if you're unfamiliar with the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Birth: moving three feet to the left
> 
> you're dodging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equating birth to moving three feet to the left is no less disingenuous than equating a fetus to a lump of nerves.
Click to expand...



Alright, four feet. Or fifteen. It depends how far away the sink is. I suppose.

If you have an argument, make it. What fundamental aspect of the baby changes during when it moves a number of feet through space?

Al already asked whether you want to go with JD_2B's breath argument. (What if I kill it before it breathes, but after it's out?) What if one toe remains inside? Do I have to wait for the afterbirth?





> You're refusing to acknowledge a valid line of reasoning,



No, I'm not. You haven't made one. You said it's different at birth because_______________ _something_ changes at birth. But you can't tell me what it is. It just is because it is because it changes at birth because it's born. You sound like a YEC explaining how it knows the bible is the word of god because it says it is.


----------



## logical4u

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are playing semantics. If willfully ending a human life is murder, then all soldiers who end another person's life are murderers. No one is forcing them to kill are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? Already agreed to the term. And specified the difference.
> 
> Still waiting by the way , for some evidence that Pro Life people do not care about the crawling or the walking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we can assume that you are in favor of social programs in place to assist poor families and single mothers?
Click to expand...


If you are "mature" enough to participate in sexual activities (this does not include rape victims), you should be responsible enough to use birth control.  If you "choose" to participate in sexual activity, and "choose" not to use birth control, you should "choose" to support your child.  If you cannot do that, it appears that you "choose" to put yourself on the same level as animals (drop the offspring and give it enough care til it can run on its own, then leave it to make a new one).  Which will you "choose"?


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one claims that. Women get abortions mostly because they aren't ready to give birth or they cannot emotionally or financially add to their brood.
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit most abortions are done because the baby is inconvenient? We've made progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you lie so much...it chips away at what little credibility you have.
Click to expand...

That's what you said

They don't want to grow up or get another job or ask family for help... they're an emotional or financial burden

they're _too *inconvenient*_

That's what you said


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only emotional ones are you pro-abortionists *pretending most women get abortions for rape,* comparing personal responsibility to slavery, declaring that only serial killers can have an opinion on serial murder, and refusing to acknowledge basic facts of biology- even going so far as to declare that one can become a non-human when in the hospital and then magically be a human again when they get off life support- all in an effort to avoid admitting what it is you support.
> 
> If killing an unborn child isn't wrong, why can't you admit you support killing unborn children?
> 
> 
> 
> No one claims that. Women get abortions mostly because they aren't ready to give birth or they cannot emotionally or financially add to their brood.
Click to expand...


And killing them is better than putting them with a good home?


----------



## manifold

JBeukema said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth: moving three feet to the left
> 
> you're dodging
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equating birth to moving three feet to the left is no less disingenuous than equating a fetus to a lump of nerves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, four feet. Or fifteen. It depends how far away the sink is. I suppose.
> 
> If you have an argument, make it. What fundamental aspect of the baby changes during when it moves a number of feet through space?
> 
> Al already asked whether you want to go with JD_2B's breath argument. (What if I kill it before it breathes, but after it's out?) What if one toe remains inside? Do I have to wait for the afterbirth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're refusing to acknowledge a valid line of reasoning,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not. You haven't made one. You said it's different at birth because_______________ _something_ changes at birth. But you can't tell me what it is. It just is because it is because it changes at birth because it's born. You sound like a YEC explaining how it knows the bible is the word of god because it says it is.
Click to expand...


You're refusing to acknowledge that the trade-off between criminalizing abortion or not is a very different proposition to consider than the trade-off between criminalizing murder or not.

Birth should be objective enough for even you to understand my line of reasoning.

You asked for a defense of the pro-choice position that does not require dishonesty.  I've given you one.  You can disagree with the value judgements I've applied en route to arriving at said position, but to deny that it's honest and consistent, would be dishonest on your part.


----------



## rikules

Bfgrn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first you will have to overturn the law of the land. .
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you do, abortion is legal. Unless you are referring to the pro-death wing of the pro-life crowd.
Click to expand...


"Unless you are referring to the pro-death wing of the pro-life crowd."

that would be most of them


----------



## ABikerSailor

JBeukema said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's "right" for Abortion short of the reasons of Rape and Maternal (death) risk. That is my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is killing an unborn child okay if the mother was raped but not if she was just stupid?
> 
> How does your parents' relationship determine whether it's okay to kill you? You never presented any cogent arguments to make that case.
Click to expand...


So....lemmie get this straight.........

You think that if a woman is raped, she must carry the memory of the horror around inside her, moving, and reminding her every day of what happened?  Then.......send the kid up for adoption?

You really are a soul less bastard.


----------



## JBeukema

manifold said:


> You're refusing to acknowledge that the trade-off between criminalizing abortion or not is a very different proposition to consider than the trade-off between criminalizing murder or not.



Murder is always illegal, genius. By definition.

Abortion *is* murder if you have an abortion somewhere the law considers it to be murder.

Murder, like manslaughter is a legal term meaning a class of homicide deemed to be criminal.




> Birth should be objective enough for even you to understand my line of reasoning.



What changes when the baby moves three feet to the left? Do you even *have* an argument?





> You asked for a defense of the pro-choice position that does not require dishonesty.  I've given you one.


No, you haven't. You've said said 'birth' over and over again like a retarded parrot.


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit most abortions are done because the baby is inconvenient? We've made progress.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you lie so much...it chips away at what little credibility you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what you said
> 
> They don't want to grow up or get another job or ask family for help... they're an emotional or financial burden
> 
> they're _too *inconvenient*_
> 
> That's what you said
Click to expand...

I've never argued that women have abortions mostly for rape. You can call it inconvenient if you wish...I have never claimed and in fact have never seen anyone else claim that most abortions are the product of rape.


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's "right" for Abortion short of the reasons of Rape and Maternal (death) risk. That is my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is killing an unborn child okay if the mother was raped but not if she was just stupid?
> 
> How does your parents' relationship determine whether it's okay to kill you? You never presented any cogent arguments to make that case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So....lemmie get this straight.........
> 
> You think that if a woman is raped, she must carry the memory of the horror around inside her, moving, and reminding her every day of what happened?  Then.......send the kid up for adoption?
> 
> You really are a soul less bastard.
Click to expand...


Once again, the pro-abortionists lie, make baseless accusations, and appeal to emotion

If she waits that long, clearly she had no problem carrying the rapist's baby. To then turn around and say she does? She had plenty of time to make that decision.


----------



## ABikerSailor

JBeukema said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is killing an unborn child okay if the mother was raped but not if she was just stupid?
> 
> How does your parents' relationship determine whether it's okay to kill you? You never presented any cogent arguments to make that case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....lemmie get this straight.........
> 
> You think that if a woman is raped, she must carry the memory of the horror around inside her, moving, and reminding her every day of what happened?  Then.......send the kid up for adoption?
> 
> You really are a soul less bastard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, the pro-abortionists lie, make baseless accusations, and appeal to emotion
> 
> If she waits that long, clearly she had no problem carrying the rapist's baby. To then turn around and say she does? She had plenty of time to make that decision.
Click to expand...


Me personally?  I think the "morning after pill" should be standard issue in every rape kit in the United States.

I also think it should be available to 17 year olds and up.  Would prevent a lot of problems.

However...........telling someone what they can and can't do with their own lives is pure bullshit.  I mean........if you do something like that, in my opinion, that's strictly between you and your Creator.

I mean......God gave us free will, which means we have the ability to choose sin or not.  How do YOU know that maybe after some girl's first abortion, she may use that moment of despair and pain to actually connnect with Father.


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> However...........telling someone what they can and can't do with their own lives is pure bullshit.  I mean........if you do something like that, in my opinion, that's strictly between you and your Creator.



Me shooting you in the face is between me and my creator? At what point does homicide become a social matter?


----------



## manifold

JBeukema said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're refusing to acknowledge that the trade-off between criminalizing abortion or not is a very different proposition to consider than the trade-off between criminalizing murder or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is always illegal, genius. By definition.
Click to expand...


A definition you are attempting to re-write.



JBeukema said:


> Abortion *is* murder if you have an abortion somewhere the law considers it to be murder.



Right, and if it were up to me I'd draw that line at birth.  But I'm ok with the legal compromises that have pushed the line a bit closer toward conception.



JBeukema said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for a defense of the pro-choice position that does not require dishonesty.  I've given you one.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't. You've said said 'birth' over and over again like a retarded parrot.
Click to expand...


I'm telling you where I draw the line.  That fact that you draw it in a different place doesn't make my reasoning any less sound, no matter how much of a tantrum you want to throw about it.


Still waiting for you to actually address my original request, so I'll post it again:



manifold said:


> Convince me that I should value the life of *someone else's *fetus more than the child's own mother?  So much more in fact that I'm willing to incarcerate a pregnant woman and force her to give birth to her child?  Because if it's really about the 'value' of life, this is the trade-off we're talking about.  Don't tell me that putting people in jail after the fact on this one is for the greater good, because it isn't.



Now bear in mind that I already value the life of a birthed human more than enough to agree with outlawing homicide, so please let's dispense with that distraction.

So far I'm not convinced that my value judgement is out of balance.  And suggesting that this debate isn't about a value judgement isn't winning you any points with me.


----------



## ABikerSailor

JBeukema said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> However...........telling someone what they can and can't do with their own lives is pure bullshit.  I mean........if you do something like that, in my opinion, that's strictly between you and your Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me shooting you in the face is between me and my creator? At what point does homicide become a social matter?
Click to expand...


Yes, actually.  Only trouble is, I'm gonna get to Him before you do, and I'm gonna tell Him that it was you that murdered me.

Yep.  It'll be between just you two, because by then, I'll have already finished my part of the conversation.


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is killing an unborn child okay if the mother was raped but not if she was just stupid?
> 
> How does your parents' relationship determine whether it's okay to kill you? You never presented any cogent arguments to make that case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....lemmie get this straight.........
> 
> You think that if a woman is raped, she must carry the memory of the horror around inside her, moving, and reminding her every day of what happened?  Then.......send the kid up for adoption?
> 
> You really are a soul less bastard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, the pro-abortionists lie, make baseless accusations, and appeal to emotion
> 
> If she waits that long, clearly she had no problem carrying the rapist's baby. To then turn around and say she does? She had plenty of time to make that decision.
Click to expand...

It isn't up to you to decide if a woman gives birth or not. It never has been and it never will be...

Again I ask, why are you so obsessed with this topic? Methinks you are insanely jealous that women have a power that you do not have and it eats away at you constantly.

Boo hoo.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....lemmie get this straight.........
> 
> You think that if a woman is raped, she must carry the memory of the horror around inside her, moving, and reminding her every day of what happened?  Then.......send the kid up for adoption?
> 
> You really are a soul less bastard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the pro-abortionists lie, make baseless accusations, and appeal to emotion
> 
> If she waits that long, clearly she had no problem carrying the rapist's baby. To then turn around and say she does? She had plenty of time to make that decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't up to you to decide if a woman gives birth or not. It never has been and it never will be...
> 
> Again I ask, why are you so obsessed with this topic? Methinks you are insanely jealous that women have a power that you do not have and it eats away at you constantly.
> 
> Boo hoo.
Click to expand...


Uterus envy? 

From now on, we must all call him Loretta.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it's dis-honest, or at least smug to call anyone "pro abortion," so starting a dialogue from that sort of tone expecting honesty/being forthright? I dunno man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is dishonest, not to mention idiotic, to deny that some people are pro abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but pro choice does not equal being pro abortion. That's inaccurate.
Click to expand...


I never said it did. I just object to idiots telling me no one is pro abortion. Planned Parenthood is obviously pro abortion, even though most of the people who work there are not.


----------



## JBeukema

manifold said:


> I'm telling you where I draw the line.  That fact that you draw it in a different place doesn't make my reasoning any less sound




You've no reasoning. All you've said is birth. You've made no argument for why birth changes anything.


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> However...........telling someone what they can and can't do with their own lives is pure bullshit.  I mean........if you do something like that, in my opinion, that's strictly between you and your Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me shooting you in the face is between me and my creator? At what point does homicide become a social matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, actually.  Only trouble is, I'm gonna get to Him before you do, and I'm gonna tell Him that it was you that murdered me.
> 
> Yep.  It'll be between just you two, because by then, I'll have already finished my part of the conversation.
Click to expand...


So ABS is on record supporting the decriminalization of all murder.

A batshit insane position, but at least an internally consistent one.


----------



## manifold

JBeukema said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm telling you where I draw the line.  That fact that you draw it in a different place doesn't make my reasoning any less sound
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've no reasoning. All you've said is birth. You've made no argument for why birth changes anything.
Click to expand...


It's a pretty material change in status dude.  Challenging the obvious is not a very compelling argument.


----------



## Dr Grump

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [S
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.[/SIZE]



How can you want an honest debate when the very title of your thread is dishonest?


----------



## JBeukema

manifold said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm telling you where I draw the line.  That fact that you draw it in a different place doesn't make my reasoning any less sound
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've no reasoning. All you've said is birth. You've made no argument for why birth changes anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a pretty material change in status dude.  Challenging the obvious is not a very compelling argument.
Click to expand...

So you've no argument...


----------



## Anguille

JBeukema said:


> The only emotional ones are you pro-abortionists pretending most women get abortions for rape, comparing personal responsibility to slavery, declaring that only serial killers can have an opinion on serial murder, and refusing to acknowledge basic facts of biology- even going so far as to declare that one can become a non-human when in the hospital and then magically be a human again when they get off life support- all in an effort to avoid admitting what it is you support.
> 
> If killing an unborn child isn't wrong, why can't you admit you support killing unborn children?



If there are such things as unborn children, then you are an undead adult.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



The greater good of the 2 options, 1)  allowing a woman an opportunity to terminate a pregnancy, or, 2) forcing every woman who becomes pregnant to have a child, no matter what the circumstances, under threat of prosecution for a capital crime,

is the former, #1.  Quite simple.  Government's role is to enforce the greater good.


----------



## JFK_USA

Yeah also NO BIRTH CONTROL because it would kill an egg. YEAH. WOOOO!!!! Lets go back to the 1600!!!!


----------



## manifold

JBeukema said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've no reasoning. All you've said is birth. You've made no argument for why birth changes anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty material change in status dude.  Challenging the obvious is not a very compelling argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you've no argument...
Click to expand...


I don't see it that way.

But regardless, that's still better than writing a grandstanding OP such as yours, only to see it so dismantled that you're reduced to arguing that birth is an immaterial event in human life, in a failed attempt to veil the tail tucked between your legs.


----------



## JBeukema

Really? You're gonna declare victory, rdean? You can't even be bothered to lay out the argument you claim you have


----------



## Ravi

Buttemia, why are you such a coward that you can't answer questions?

How do you know the mind of a rapist?
Why are you obsessed with this subject?
Why do you constantly lie?


----------



## manifold

JBeukema said:


> Really? You're gonna declare victory, rdean? You can't even be bothered to lay out the argument you claim you have



I draw the line at birth because IMO that makes the most sense, all things considered.

I can't help it if that's too hard for you to comprehend.


----------



## liebuster

ABikerSailor said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's "right" for Abortion short of the reasons of Rape and Maternal (death) risk. That is my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is killing an unborn child okay if the mother was raped but not if she was just stupid?
> 
> How does your parents' relationship determine whether it's okay to kill you? You never presented any cogent arguments to make that case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So....lemmie get this straight.........
> 
> You think that if a woman is raped, she must carry the memory of the horror around inside her, moving, and reminding her every day of what happened?  Then.......send the kid up for adoption?
> 
> You really are a soul less bastard.
Click to expand...


Why should a child be sucked out by a vacuum because its father is a criminal?

You really are a soulless bastard


----------



## JBeukema

manifold said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're gonna declare victory, rdean? You can't even be bothered to lay out the argument you claim you have
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I draw the line at birth because IMO that makes the most sense, all things considered.
> 
> I can't help it if that's too hard for you to comprehend.
Click to expand...

So there's no reasoning involved at all? It's just what you've been programmed to say or what?

What changes between the time when the last toe is in and when the last toe is out?


----------



## ABikerSailor

JBeukema said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me shooting you in the face is between me and my creator? At what point does homicide become a social matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, actually.  Only trouble is, I'm gonna get to Him before you do, and I'm gonna tell Him that it was you that murdered me.
> 
> Yep.  It'll be between just you two, because by then, I'll have already finished my part of the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ABS is on record supporting the decriminalization of all murder.
> 
> A batshit insane position, but at least an internally consistent one.
Click to expand...


No, I simply answered your question is your shooting me in the face between you and the Creator.  I answered yes.

However..........it's also between the cop investigating the scene, the judge and the jury that hand down the sentence, etc. etc. etc.  It's also between THEM and the Creator about how they feel as a society about what you did.

Try again Jolly Butt Licker, you fail yet again.


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> However...........telling someone what they can and can't do with their  own lives is pure bullshit.  I mean........if you do something like  that, in my opinion, that's strictly between you and your Creator.
> 
> I mean......God gave us free will, which means we have the ability to  choose sin or not.  How do YOU know that maybe after some girl's first  abortion, she may use that moment of despair and pain to actually  connnect with Father.



Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?

You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...


----------



## ABikerSailor

JBeukema said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> However...........telling someone what they can and can't do with their  own lives is pure bullshit.  I mean........if you do something like  that, in my opinion, that's strictly between you and your Creator.
> 
> I mean......God gave us free will, which means we have the ability to  choose sin or not.  How do YOU know that maybe after some girl's first  abortion, she may use that moment of despair and pain to actually  connnect with Father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?
> 
> You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...
Click to expand...


Not at all.  We are all free to do whatever we want to do.  Someone like you would probably laugh and point if you saw some homeless person being teased and poked.

Me?  I'd walk over and tell the people doing the teasing to leave them alone.  I've done it before, and will do it again if I see it happen around me.  They are then free to turn on me and attack, and I am also free to defend myself.  If people around me see what is going on, they are free to call the cops, and the cops are free to come out and arrest the both of us and see what is going on.

You apparently don't get the concept that if mankind didn't have free will, we'd do more damage to each other.

But then again.......it's reflected in your laser narrow views Jolly Butt Kisser.


----------



## Eric Cartman

JBeukema said:


> Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?
> 
> You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...




I think it is you that wants it both ways.  Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being (obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you).  Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there  was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.

For the sake of argument we will stick with your premise that the unborn is a human being.  Science itself doesn't care about the value of life but it might explain why we do.  The easiest to explain is why we value our own life, it is instinctual, it has literally been breed into us, survivors live to give birth to survivors.  Furthermore (in general ignoring outliers) we value the other humans in an almost instinctual way that helps ensure the survival of our species. 

What is rarely true is that we value human life in an absolute way.  Is it the norm for pro-lifers to conduct funerals for an early term miscarriage or grieve in the same way?  Many early miscarriage go undetected  but no effort is made to monitor the well being of these 'children'.  History shows us that our value of human life steadily increase as it develops... to a point (e.g. we value a newborn over a fetus, a fetus over a zygote and even a toddler over a newborn)  This value seems to peak around the time a child can survive independently and remains fairly steady through the reproductive years and continues as long as the person is contributing to society.  Unfortunately throughout history we also see less value given to the elderly.

Science makes no moral judgements but people do and with consensus societies tend to make them law.  As an individual you can choose not to have an abortion but our society currently won't punish you if you do.  One would probably  be scared to be in a dark alley with a bunch of murders but wouldn't feel the same if it was a bunch of women that had abortions and the doctors who gave them.  Most people would find the idea of executing a woman for terminating her pregnancy absurd and they should because it goes against our very nature.


----------



## Bern80

Eric Cartman said:


> I think it is you that wants it both ways.  Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being (obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you).  Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there  was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.



I woulldn't engage in it either simply because societies opinion is completely arbitrary. The only definition based on any real absoute truth is a scientific one. The changes that turn a lump of cells into a human being are scientfically observable. But we can't observe when someone is imbued with a soul (religous). And far as legal and historical definitions, those again are going to be totally arbitrary and based simply on one's opinion. An opinion that can't be backed by anything observable. You're trying to accuse JB of avoiding an argument that isn't convenient when the reality is it's other way around. It is YOU that wants to avoid the scientific argument because it's not convenient for your position. It's easier for you to use those other defintions of personhood because they fit your position better. The only problem for you is they are definitions that have no real meaning. They are totally arbitrary points in time that someone simply pulled out of their ass at some point in history.


----------



## editec

JBeukema said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> However...........telling someone what they can and can't do with their own lives is pure bullshit. I mean........if you do something like that, in my opinion, that's strictly between you and your Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me shooting you in the face is between me and my creator? *At what point does homicide become a social matter?*
Click to expand...

 
Post natal.


----------



## Ravi

Eric Cartman said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?
> 
> You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is you that wants it both ways.  Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being (obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you).  Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there  was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.
> 
> For the sake of argument we will stick with your premise that the unborn is a human being.  Science itself doesn't care about the value of life but it might explain why we do.  The easiest to explain is why we value our own life, it is instinctual, it has literally been breed into us, survivors live to give birth to survivors.  Furthermore (in general ignoring outliers) we value the other humans in an almost instinctual way that helps ensure the survival of our species.
> 
> What is rarely true is that we value human life in an absolute way.  Is it the norm for pro-lifers to conduct funerals for an early term miscarriage or grieve in the same way?  Many early miscarriage go undetected  but no effort is made to monitor the well being of these 'children'.  History shows us that our value of human life steadily increase as it develops... to a point (e.g. we value a newborn over a fetus, a fetus over a zygote and even a toddler over a newborn)  This value seems to peak around the time a child can survive independently and remains fairly steady through the reproductive years and continues as long as the person is contributing to society.  Unfortunately throughout history we also see less value given to the elderly.
> 
> Science makes no moral judgements but people do and with consensus societies tend to make them law.  As an individual you can choose not to have an abortion but our society currently won't punish you if you do.  One would probably  be scared to be in a dark alley with a bunch of murders but wouldn't feel the same if it was a bunch of women that had abortions and the doctors who gave them.  Most people would find the idea of executing a woman for terminating her pregnancy absurd and they should because it goes against our very nature.
Click to expand...

I'd like to add an analogy here. 

A woman is like a mango tree. My mango tree often drops fruit if she has produced too much or has been stressed by weather or lack of a balanced diet. Some years she drops them all and produces a big crop the following year. Some years she drops some of them and produces a medium crop of healthy, tasty mangoes.

Just like my mango tree, a woman instinctively knows if she is ready to give birth. Having someone else make that decision for her goes against nature.


----------



## Seawytch

Women have been ridding their bodies of unwanted pregnancies since the beginning of time and making abortion illegal or difficult to obtain isn't going to change that. The ONLY way to combat abortion is through sex education. The same people that would not want a woman to rid herself of a rapists baby also don't want to see comprehensive sex education in schools.

Also, there is no such thing as "pro abortion". That's ludicrous. Most that are PRO CHOICE want to keep abortion safe, legal and RARE, period.


----------



## Robert

No one has a 'Pro Choice' to commit murder...period

 I would really like to see some proof of these supposed people stopping Sex Ed or for that matter people or policy's stopping a women from terminating a child from rape or incest.  



Seawytch said:


> Women have been ridding their bodies of unwanted pregnancies since the beginning of time and making abortion illegal or difficult to obtain isn't going to change that. The ONLY way to combat abortion is through sex education. The same people that would not want a woman to rid herself of a rapists baby also don't want to see comprehensive sex education in schools.
> 
> Also, there is no such thing as "pro abortion". That's ludicrous. Most that are PRO CHOICE want to keep abortion safe, legal and RARE, period.


----------



## Dr.Drock

It's always fun to hear people who cheer and beg for more war use the emotional tagline "commit murder."

Moral and rational people can be either pro-life or pro-choice, it's intellectually embarrassing to play the "holier than thou" card for either side.

On another note is there anyone on the planet who's "pro-abortion"?  Seems like the OP posts a dishonest thread title while asking others to be honest. hmmm


----------



## Robert

Funny though how its the Left begging for more War and Cheering the whole sale murder of innocent lives.  "holier than thou" card for either side..... Indeed



Dr.Drock said:


> It's always fun to hear people who cheer and beg for more war use the emotional tagline "commit murder."
> 
> Moral and rational people can be either pro-life or pro-choice, it's intellectually embarrassing to play the "holier than thou" card for either side.
> 
> On another note is there anyone on the planet who's "pro-abortion"?  Seems like the OP posts a dishonest thread title while asking others to be honest. hmmm


----------



## Ravi

Robert said:


> I would really like to see some proof of these supposed people stopping Sex Ed or for that matter people or policy's stopping a women from terminating a child from rape or incest.




Use the search function. There are many here that believe teaching people how to not get pregnant encourages them to have sex.


----------



## Eric Cartman

Bern80 said:


> I woulldn't engage in it either simply because societies opinion is completely arbitrary. The only definition based on any real absoute truth is a scientific one. The changes that turn a lump of cells into a human being are scientfically observable. But we can't observe when someone is imbued with a soul (religous). And far as legal and historical definitions, those again are going to be totally arbitrary and based simply on one's opinion. An opinion that can't be backed by anything observable. You're trying to accuse JB of avoiding an argument that isn't convenient when the reality is it's other way around. It is YOU that wants to avoid the scientific argument because it's not convenient for your position. It's easier for you to use those other defintions of personhood because they fit your position better. The only problem for you is they are definition that have no real meaning they are totally arbitrary points in time that someone simply pulled out of their ass at some point in history.


Science, especially biological science is somewhat arbitrary.  Like the need to define life (e.g. movement, reproduction, etc), now we can make machines that mimic/meet the characteristics that would meet some definitions of life (arbitrary).  Science can observe the stages of human development (heartbeat, spinal cord, brain waves, speech and motor skills) and characteristics of our species (two arms, two legs, DNA) but it can't define when you have a soul or when the potential for full development grants the same rights as the fully developed.  Those are issues for society and individuals to make.

We could say that no one is an individual until the are separated from their mother by definition (of course definitions by there very nature are arbitrary) hence they are granted no individual rights.  Of course this invariably brings up conjoined twins which in turn raises new moral dilemmas... and on and on.


----------



## DiamondDave

Ravi said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would really like to see some proof of these supposed people stopping Sex Ed or for that matter people or policy's stopping a women from terminating a child from rape or incest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use the search function. There are many here that believe teaching people how to not get pregnant encourages them to have sex.
Click to expand...


And there are many that believe that it is not the function of the state to discuss the personal subject of sex (and sexual practices) and what is ok to minors who are under the responsibility of parent/parents...

And there are, of course, varying stances on the rape/incest/mother's health portion... just as there are varying stances on when an unborn child can/should be terminated on the pro-choice side


----------



## Ravi

DiamondDave said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would really like to see some proof of these supposed people stopping Sex Ed or for that matter people or policy's stopping a women from terminating a child from rape or incest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use the search function. There are many here that believe teaching people how to not get pregnant encourages them to have sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And there are many that believe that it is not the function of the state to discuss the personal subject of sex (and sexual practices)* and what is ok to minors who are under the responsibility of parent/parents...
> 
> And there are, of course, varying stances on the rape/incest/mother's health portion... just as there are varying stances on when an unborn child can/should be terminated on the pro-choice side
Click to expand...

Yes, and the irony comes in when those very same people think it is the function of the state to dictate when and if a woman gives birth.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Robert said:


> Funny though how its the Left begging for more War and Cheering the whole sale murder of innocent lives.  "holier than thou" card for either side..... Indeed
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always fun to hear people who cheer and beg for more war use the emotional tagline "commit murder."
> 
> Moral and rational people can be either pro-life or pro-choice, it's intellectually embarrassing to play the "holier than thou" card for either side.
> 
> On another note is there anyone on the planet who's "pro-abortion"?  Seems like the OP posts a dishonest thread title while asking others to be honest. hmmm
Click to expand...


Exactly, both sides want more war, which obviously causes tons and tons of murder.

So when anyone pulls the "commit murder" tagline in the abortion issue they might as well just say "Hello everyone, I'm a hypocrite."


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



I don't think it's that they consider their real position indefensible.  I think it's that it's really hard to say, "I think some lives are unimportant and should be disposable for the convenience of others", and still feel good about yourself as a person.


----------



## DiamondDave

Ravi said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use the search function. There are many here that believe teaching people how to not get pregnant encourages them to have sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And there are many that believe that it is not the function of the state to discuss the personal subject of sex (and sexual practices)* and what is ok to minors who are under the responsibility of parent/parents...
> 
> And there are, of course, varying stances on the rape/incest/mother's health portion... just as there are varying stances on when an unborn child can/should be terminated on the pro-choice side
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and the irony comes in when those very same people think it is the function of the state to dictate when and if a woman gives birth.
Click to expand...


WRONG

Not when a woman gives birth... when the unborn human life with it's own separate DNA signature is terminated by a woman... BIG mf'in difference

As stated SO many times... if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature), knock yourself out... remove an ear.. remove a pancreas.. remove your entire left leg for all I care

Since you tried to equate subject teaching of minors to killing an unborn human life... What the fuck do you think you are teaching the unborn child by carving it up and sucking it's brains out??


----------



## Robert

Murder is Murder whether  you like the word or not, what we are talking about is in fact murder. It isn't taking out the trash it isn't throw away yard waste its cold blooded premeditated murder.

I find it sick beyond belief that we have people in the world that view killing a child as something akin to running to McDonalds for a happy meal.



Dr.Drock said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny though how its the Left begging for more War and Cheering the whole sale murder of innocent lives.  "holier than thou" card for either side..... Indeed
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always fun to hear people who cheer and beg for more war use the emotional tagline "commit murder."
> 
> Moral and rational people can be either pro-life or pro-choice, it's intellectually embarrassing to play the "holier than thou" card for either side.
> 
> On another note is there anyone on the planet who's "pro-abortion"?  Seems like the OP posts a dishonest thread title while asking others to be honest. hmmm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, both sides want more war, which obviously causes tons and tons of murder.
> 
> So when anyone pulls the "commit murder" tagline in the abortion issue they might as well just say "Hello everyone, I'm a hypocrite."
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.



Two things:  One, I AM a woman, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume that similarities in our reproductive system automatically mean your thoughts and attitudes are the standard.

Two, if you "don't have to defend yourself", why are you doing it?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Robert said:


> Murder is Murder whether  you like the word or not, what we are talking about is in fact murder. It isn't taking out the trash it isn't throw away yard waste its cold blooded premeditated murder.
> 
> I find it sick beyond belief that we have people in the world that view killing a child as something akin to running to McDonalds for a happy meal.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny though how its the Left begging for more War and Cheering the whole sale murder of innocent lives.  "holier than thou" card for either side..... Indeed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, both sides want more war, which obviously causes tons and tons of murder.
> 
> So when anyone pulls the "commit murder" tagline in the abortion issue they might as well just say "Hello everyone, I'm a hypocrite."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Keep digging your hole deeper.  

I want you to tell me how our military adventures in this century that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians isn't murder.

And if it is murder, why aren't you posting messages using that same emotional tagline on war-related threads?


----------



## Immanuel

Robert said:


> Murder is Murder whether  you like the word or not, what we are talking about is in fact murder. It isn't taking out the trash it isn't throw away yard waste its cold blooded premeditated murder.
> 
> I find it sick beyond belief that we have people in the world that view killing a child as something akin to running to McDonalds for a happy meal.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny though how its the Left begging for more War and Cheering the whole sale murder of innocent lives.  "holier than thou" card for either side..... Indeed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, both sides want more war, which obviously causes tons and tons of murder.
> 
> So when anyone pulls the "commit murder" tagline in the abortion issue they might as well just say "Hello everyone, I'm a hypocrite."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Technically it is not murder since murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being by a human being.  

murder - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education



> mur·der  audio  (mûrdr) KEY
> 
> NOUN:
> 
> 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
> 2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
> 3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock.



As long as our government defends the right to kill children that have not yet journeyed down the birth canal and makes the taking of their lives legal, abortion is not murder as it is lawful.

That does not mean that abortion is somehow acceptable because the government deems it lawful.  They also deem political corruption in the terms of accepting bribes from lobbyists to be lawful, that doesn't make it right.

Immie


----------



## Robert

OMG!! So now the Moral equivalent of Murdering an innocent child is the same as going to War LMFAO!! you might want to throw that shovel away.  or keep digging LOL!!! 



Dr.Drock said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is Murder whether  you like the word or not, what we are talking about is in fact murder. It isn't taking out the trash it isn't throw away yard waste its cold blooded premeditated murder.
> 
> I find it sick beyond belief that we have people in the world that view killing a child as something akin to running to McDonalds for a happy meal.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, both sides want more war, which obviously causes tons and tons of murder.
> 
> So when anyone pulls the "commit murder" tagline in the abortion issue they might as well just say "Hello everyone, I'm a hypocrite."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep digging your hole deeper.
> 
> I want you to tell me how our military adventures in this century that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians isn't murder.
> 
> And if it is murder, why aren't you posting messages using that same emotional tagline on war-related threads?
Click to expand...


----------



## Si modo

Cecilie1200 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things:  One, I AM a woman, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume that similarities in our reproductive system automatically mean your thoughts and attitudes are the standard.
> 
> Two, if you "don't have to defend yourself", why are you doing it?
Click to expand...

She's not.

Why is reading comprehension a challenge for you?  (Don't you love having the same sort of question you ask given back to you?)


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're gonna declare victory, rdean? You can't even be bothered to lay out the argument you claim you have
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I draw the line at birth because IMO that makes the most sense, all things considered.
> 
> I can't help it if that's too hard for you to comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there's no reasoning involved at all? It's just what you've been programmed to say or what?
> 
> What changes between the time when the last toe is in and when the last toe is out?
Click to expand...


If there is no difference between a human fetus, a human embryo, a human fertilized egg, and a born Person,

then hiring someone to perform an abortion on you is materially no different than hiring someone to kill your child, or your spouse, or your boss, or the guy who owes you money, etc., etc., etc.

Are you prepared to defend that position, and all the implications it has for the law assuming YOUR logic were used to establish the criminality of abortion?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Robert said:


> No one has a 'Pro Choice' to commit murder...period
> 
> I would really like to see some proof of these supposed people stopping Sex Ed or for that matter people or policy's stopping a women from terminating a child from rape or incest.
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women have been ridding their bodies of unwanted pregnancies since the beginning of time and making abortion illegal or difficult to obtain isn't going to change that. The ONLY way to combat abortion is through sex education. The same people that would not want a woman to rid herself of a rapists baby also don't want to see comprehensive sex education in schools.
> 
> Also, there is no such thing as "pro abortion". That's ludicrous. Most that are PRO CHOICE want to keep abortion safe, legal and RARE, period.
Click to expand...


Should abortion earn the death penalty for the perpetrator?


----------



## manifold

JBeukema said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're gonna declare victory, rdean? You can't even be bothered to lay out the argument you claim you have
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I draw the line at birth because IMO that makes the most sense, all things considered.
> 
> I can't help it if that's too hard for you to comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there's no reasoning involved at all? It's just what you've been programmed to say or what?
> 
> What changes between the time when the last toe is in and when the last toe is out?
Click to expand...


I've given you my reasoning which you've repeatedly ignored.  I've even reworded it, expanded upon it, and simplfied it, all to try to help you out.  I'm not sure how else I can say that IMO, the cost of protecting unborn and unwanted human life is not worth the benefit, especially since I don't see any real tangible benefit to society to begin with.  The benefit to a civil society of protecting the birthed on the other hand, is so great that it's impossible to even have a society without some measure of protection. You have repeatedly argued that it's 'dishonest' to separate the born from the unborn in one's reasoning on the subject and on that I completely disagree.  In fact IMO, insisting that there is no difference, as you have now on multiple occasions, is dishonest.

I've provided you with an honest position that you happen to disagree with.  It happens.  If you had any integrity at all, you'd acknowledge that your challenge to present an honest defense of the pro-choice position has been met.  You don't have to agree with it, but the argument requires no dishonesty, which is what you initially implied could not be done.


----------



## manifold

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I draw the line at birth because IMO that makes the most sense, all things considered.
> 
> I can't help it if that's too hard for you to comprehend.
> 
> 
> 
> So there's no reasoning involved at all? It's just what you've been programmed to say or what?
> 
> What changes between the time when the last toe is in and when the last toe is out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is no difference between a human fetus, a human embryo, a human fertilized egg, and a born Person,
> 
> then hiring someone to perform an abortion on you is materially no different than hiring someone to kill your child, or your spouse, or your boss, or the guy who owes you money, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> Are you prepared to defend that position, and all the implications it has for the law assuming YOUR logic were used to establish the criminality of abortion?
Click to expand...


The practical implications of his acadmeic positions is JB's kryptonite.


----------



## Robert

NYcarbineer said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has a 'Pro Choice' to commit murder...period
> 
> I would really like to see some proof of these supposed people stopping Sex Ed or for that matter people or policy's stopping a women from terminating a child from rape or incest.
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women have been ridding their bodies of unwanted pregnancies since the beginning of time and making abortion illegal or difficult to obtain isn't going to change that. The ONLY way to combat abortion is through sex education. The same people that would not want a woman to rid herself of a rapists baby also don't want to see comprehensive sex education in schools.
> 
> Also, there is no such thing as "pro abortion". That's ludicrous. Most that are PRO CHOICE want to keep abortion safe, legal and RARE, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should abortion earn the death penalty for the perpetrator?
Click to expand...


Isn't it a death Penalty for the Child done with no due process? for no other reason than the child isn't wanted. How sad we can create a life and at a whim murder the life with no more thought then I don't want it.


----------



## Gadawg73

RetiredGySgt said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. All people have a right to have an opinion about the ending prematurely of a human life. I will grant that currently it is totally legal to do so. But that does not change the basic facts. A human life was ended prematurely by design of another Human.
> 
> I and others find that unacceptable and believe it should not be legal to simply kill another human because it may be inconvenient to the mother of the child. Technically it is not homicide since that definition includes that the act is illegal. It is murder though. Just legal murder.
Click to expand...


Who decides what the definition of "convenient" is in each and every case where a woman decides to have an abortion?
You? Government? A Doctor? The local police? The local preacher?
SCARY SHIT there. NO conservative stands for that.
And who makes the definition that it is "murder" when you, I and NO ONE knows what the facts and circumstances are in each and every case?
How can anyone be so arrogant as to claim they, and they alone "know"?


----------



## Anguille

liebuster said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is killing an unborn child okay if the mother was raped but not if she was just stupid?
> 
> How does your parents' relationship determine whether it's okay to kill you? You never presented any cogent arguments to make that case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....lemmie get this straight.........
> 
> You think that if a woman is raped, she must carry the memory of the horror around inside her, moving, and reminding her every day of what happened?  Then.......send the kid up for adoption?
> 
> You really are a soul less bastard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should a child be sucked out by a vacuum because its father is a criminal?
> 
> You really are a soulless bastard
Click to expand...

The only so-called pro lifers that are honest and true to their convictions are those who think the way you do. If it's life, it's life no matter the circumstances of it's origin.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Robert said:


> OMG!! So now the Moral equivalent of Murdering an innocent child is the same as going to War LMFAO!! you might want to throw that shovel away.  or keep digging LOL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is Murder whether  you like the word or not, what we are talking about is in fact murder. It isn't taking out the trash it isn't throw away yard waste its cold blooded premeditated murder.
> 
> I find it sick beyond belief that we have people in the world that view killing a child as something akin to running to McDonalds for a happy meal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep digging your hole deeper.
> 
> I want you to tell me how our military adventures in this century that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians isn't murder.
> 
> And if it is murder, why aren't you posting messages using that same emotional tagline on war-related threads?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No, I don't view abortion as murdering an innocent child you do.

So using your logic, what's the difference between murdering an innocent child by dropping a bomb on their head and murdering a child through abortion?

If you're pro-life then you're anti-war, if you're not anti-war than all you are is trying to force your religious views into law.  Has absolutely nothing to do with the fetus/baby.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Robert said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has a 'Pro Choice' to commit murder...period
> 
> I would really like to see some proof of these supposed people stopping Sex Ed or for that matter people or policy's stopping a women from terminating a child from rape or incest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should abortion earn the death penalty for the perpetrator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it a death Penalty for the Child done with no due process? for no other reason than the child isn't wanted. How sad we can create a life and at a whim murder the life with no more thought then I don't want it.
Click to expand...


Is that a yes or a no or an I don't have the courage to answer the question?


----------



## NYcarbineer

manifold said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there's no reasoning involved at all? It's just what you've been programmed to say or what?
> 
> What changes between the time when the last toe is in and when the last toe is out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no difference between a human fetus, a human embryo, a human fertilized egg, and a born Person,
> 
> then hiring someone to perform an abortion on you is materially no different than hiring someone to kill your child, or your spouse, or your boss, or the guy who owes you money, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> Are you prepared to defend that position, and all the implications it has for the law assuming YOUR logic were used to establish the criminality of abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The practical implications of his acadmeic positions is JB's kryptonite.
Click to expand...


The OP won't debate me.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Robert said:


> OMG!! So now the Moral equivalent of Murdering an innocent child is the same as going to War LMFAO!! you might want to throw that shovel away.  or keep digging LOL!!!
> 
> ]



Is taking RU486 to terminate a pregnancy the moral equivalent of drowning your 2 year old in the bathtub?


----------



## Robert

Dr.Drock said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!! So now the Moral equivalent of Murdering an innocent child is the same as going to War LMFAO!! you might want to throw that shovel away.  or keep digging LOL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep digging your hole deeper.
> 
> I want you to tell me how our military adventures in this century that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians isn't murder.
> 
> And if it is murder, why aren't you posting messages using that same emotional tagline on war-related threads?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't view abortion as murdering an innocent child you do.
> 
> So using your logic, what's the difference between murdering an innocent child by dropping a bomb on their head and murdering a child through abortion?
> 
> If you're pro-life then you're anti-war, if you're not anti-war than all you are is trying to force your religious views into law.  Has absolutely nothing to do with the fetus/baby.
Click to expand...


Got news for ya sport I'm not Religious...I also believe there are valid medical reasons for the allowance of a termination....And guess what that hole you're digging just keeps getting deeper. I also believe that war is permissible as is taking a life when that life threatens myself or family or nation. So I find myself laughing at your attempt to make this issue an either or argument as there is no rational basis to that attempt.

The solution to the abortion issue is not one of Pro Choice to commit murder of a defenseless child. If there are to be Abortions as much as I loath the practice then doing so should be extremely difficult (Next to impossible) unless there are valid medical or health issue involved.

But the Left's desire to maintain Death on Demand like you're going to McDonald's is not acceptable. 

So please continue to dig a little deeper I'm having fun watching.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Eric Cartman said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I woulldn't engage in it either simply because societies opinion is completely arbitrary. The only definition based on any real absoute truth is a scientific one. The changes that turn a lump of cells into a human being are scientfically observable. But we can't observe when someone is imbued with a soul (religous). And far as legal and historical definitions, those again are going to be totally arbitrary and based simply on one's opinion. An opinion that can't be backed by anything observable. You're trying to accuse JB of avoiding an argument that isn't convenient when the reality is it's other way around. It is YOU that wants to avoid the scientific argument because it's not convenient for your position. It's easier for you to use those other defintions of personhood because they fit your position better. The only problem for you is they are definition that have no real meaning they are totally arbitrary points in time that someone simply pulled out of their ass at some point in history.
> 
> 
> 
> Science, especially biological science is somewhat arbitrary.  Like the need to define life (e.g. movement, reproduction, etc), now we can make machines that mimic/meet the characteristics that would meet some definitions of life (arbitrary).  Science can observe the stages of human development (heartbeat, spinal cord, brain waves, speech and motor skills) and characteristics of our species (two arms, two legs, DNA) but it can't define when you have a soul or when the potential for full development grants the same rights as the fully developed.  Those are issues for society and individuals to make.
> 
> We could say that no one is an individual until the are separated from their mother by definition (of course definitions by there very nature are arbitrary) hence they are granted no individual rights.  Of course this invariably brings up conjoined twins which in turn raises new moral dilemmas... and on and on.
Click to expand...


This sounds to me like you're inventing dilemmas based on people's ignorance, rather than on any actual facts.

Science doesn't define life the way you seem to think it does.  Lay people sometimes mistakenly do, because those things could often be considered SYMPTOMS of life (those signs that we can observe), but that doesn't make them the definition of life.  Think of it this way:  you could observe that I'm coughing and sneezing a great deal, and draw the conclusion that I have a cold.  But those are signs and symptoms of a cold, not the actual definition of what a cold IS (which would be an infection of the upper respiratory system by a specific virus).

As for the whole "we could say no one is an individual until separated from his mother" thing, we could also say the moon is made of green cheese.  Saying something is meaningless to making it true.  While it is true that what to do or think or feel about the facts is a matter of opinion, the facts themselves are not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

DiamondDave said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And there are many that believe that it is not the function of the state to discuss the personal subject of sex (and sexual practices)* and what is ok to minors who are under the responsibility of parent/parents...
> 
> And there are, of course, varying stances on the rape/incest/mother's health portion... just as there are varying stances on when an unborn child can/should be terminated on the pro-choice side
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the irony comes in when those very same people think it is the function of the state to dictate when and if a woman gives birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRONG
> 
> Not when a woman gives birth... when the unborn human life with it's own separate DNA signature is terminated by a woman... BIG mf'in difference
> 
> As stated SO many times... if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature), knock yourself out... remove an ear.. remove a pancreas.. remove your entire left leg for all I care
> 
> Since you tried to equate subject teaching of minors to killing an unborn human life... What the fuck do you think you are teaching the unborn child by carving it up and sucking it's brains out??
Click to expand...


Interestingly enough, the medical community in the United States has more moral qualms about removing a healthy body part than they do about killing an unborn child.  Strange priorities there.


----------



## Gadawg73

Cecilie1200 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the irony comes in when those very same people think it is the function of the state to dictate when and if a woman gives birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG
> 
> Not when a woman gives birth... when the unborn human life with it's own separate DNA signature is terminated by a woman... BIG mf'in difference
> 
> As stated SO many times... if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature), knock yourself out... remove an ear.. remove a pancreas.. remove your entire left leg for all I care
> 
> Since you tried to equate subject teaching of minors to killing an unborn human life... What the fuck do you think you are teaching the unborn child by carving it up and sucking it's brains out??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, the medical community in the United States has more moral qualms about removing a healthy body part than they do about killing an unborn child.  Strange priorities there.
Click to expand...


Are you in the medical community?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Robert said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!! So now the Moral equivalent of Murdering an innocent child is the same as going to War LMFAO!! you might want to throw that shovel away.  or keep digging LOL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't view abortion as murdering an innocent child you do.
> 
> So using your logic, what's the difference between murdering an innocent child by dropping a bomb on their head and murdering a child through abortion?
> 
> If you're pro-life then you're anti-war, if you're not anti-war than all you are is trying to force your religious views into law.  Has absolutely nothing to do with the fetus/baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got news for ya sport I'm not Religious...I also believe there are valid medical reasons for the allowance of a termination....And guess what that hole you're digging just keeps getting deeper. I also believe that war is permissible as is taking a life when that life threatens myself or family or nation. So I find myself laughing at your attempt to make this issue an either or argument as there is no rational basis to that attempt.
> 
> The solution to the abortion issue is not one of Pro Choice to commit murder of a defenseless child. If there are to be Abortions as much as I loath the practice then doing so should be extremely difficult (Next to impossible) unless there are valid medical or health issue involved.
> 
> But the Left's desire to maintain Death on Demand like you're going to McDonald's is not acceptable.
> 
> So please continue to dig a little deeper I'm having fun watching.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, then I wouldn't categorize you as being pro-life since you're not anti-war and you think abortion is ok in some circumstances.

You have no problem with baby-killing in a lot of circumstances, so again the principle of killing a baby isn't what's important to you.  Something else is.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Si modo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things:  One, I AM a woman, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume that similarities in our reproductive system automatically mean your thoughts and attitudes are the standard.
> 
> Two, if you "don't have to defend yourself", why are you doing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not.
> 
> Why is reading comprehension a challenge for you?  (Don't you love having the same sort of question you ask given back to you?)
Click to expand...


Yes, she is.  That was the most defensive thing I've read or heard in . . . I can't even remember, it's been so long.  My teenager wasn't that defensive when he got sent home from school for getting into a fight with a classmate.

And in answer to your second question, I'm utterly indifferent to idiots trying to mimic me in a vain attempt to sound clever, except when I'm amused by it because they sound so lame doing it.  Your first question is too pointless and out-of-place to bother with.


----------



## Robert

Dr.Drock said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't view abortion as murdering an innocent child you do.
> 
> So using your logic, what's the difference between murdering an innocent child by dropping a bomb on their head and murdering a child through abortion?
> 
> If you're pro-life then you're anti-war, if you're not anti-war than all you are is trying to force your religious views into law.  Has absolutely nothing to do with the fetus/baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got news for ya sport I'm not Religious...I also believe there are valid medical reasons for the allowance of a termination....And guess what that hole you're digging just keeps getting deeper. I also believe that war is permissible as is taking a life when that life threatens myself or family or nation. So I find myself laughing at your attempt to make this issue an either or argument as there is no rational basis to that attempt.
> 
> The solution to the abortion issue is not one of Pro Choice to commit murder of a defenseless child. If there are to be Abortions as much as I loath the practice then doing so should be extremely difficult (Next to impossible) unless there are valid medical or health issue involved.
> 
> But the Left's desire to maintain Death on Demand like you're going to McDonald's is not acceptable.
> 
> So please continue to dig a little deeper I'm having fun watching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough, then I wouldn't categorize you as being pro-life since you're not anti-war and you think abortion is ok in some circumstances.
> 
> You have no problem with baby-killing in a lot of circumstances, so again the principle of killing a baby isn't what's important to you.  Something else is.
Click to expand...


Ya really you think? How many times do I need to say it or is there something wrong with you that we don't see? Death On Demand shall I say it again do you not see it? 

Also sport the world doesn't revolve around how you 'categorize' people or thing's the world is far more complex then that narrow little either or black and white box you seem to live in.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Robert said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got news for ya sport I'm not Religious...I also believe there are valid medical reasons for the allowance of a termination....And guess what that hole you're digging just keeps getting deeper. I also believe that war is permissible as is taking a life when that life threatens myself or family or nation. So I find myself laughing at your attempt to make this issue an either or argument as there is no rational basis to that attempt.
> 
> The solution to the abortion issue is not one of Pro Choice to commit murder of a defenseless child. If there are to be Abortions as much as I loath the practice then doing so should be extremely difficult (Next to impossible) unless there are valid medical or health issue involved.
> 
> But the Left's desire to maintain Death on Demand like you're going to McDonald's is not acceptable.
> 
> So please continue to dig a little deeper I'm having fun watching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough, then I wouldn't categorize you as being pro-life since you're not anti-war and you think abortion is ok in some circumstances.
> 
> You have no problem with baby-killing in a lot of circumstances, so again the principle of killing a baby isn't what's important to you.  Something else is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya really you think? How many times do I need to say it or is there something wrong with you that we don't see? Death On Demand shall I say it again do you not see it?
> 
> Also sport the world doesn't revolve around how you 'categorize' people or thing's the world is far more complex then that narrow little either or black and white box you seem to live in.
Click to expand...


Lol you're the one trying to play the abortion issue as a black and white thing.  "You're either a hideous baby killer or you're on the moral highground kissing every baby's forehead with me."

Anything I consider a baby, pregnancies at a certain point and babies in countries we're bombing, I am against them being killed.  So in all circumstances where I consider something a baby and not a fetus I'm against the killing.

You can't say you stick to that principle.  You aren't anti-war and since you consider all fetuses babies and you aren't against abortions in all circumstances than you don't even stick to it then.  So you have no moral issue with foreign babies having their heads blown off and you don't care about the babies in the instances of abortion you approve of.

So, we're back to square 1, you're a hypocrite.


----------



## Anguille

Cecilie1200 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two things:  One, I AM a woman, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume that similarities in our reproductive system automatically mean your thoughts and attitudes are the standard.
> 
> Two, if you "don't have to defend yourself", why are you doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> She's not.
> 
> Why is reading comprehension a challenge for you?  (Don't you love having the same sort of question you ask given back to you?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, she is.  That was the most defensive thing I've read or heard in . . . I can't even remember, it's been so long.  My teenager wasn't that defensive when he got sent home from school for getting into a fight with a classmate.
> 
> And in answer to your second question, I'm utterly indifferent to idiots trying to mimic me in a vain attempt to sound clever, except when I'm amused by it because they sound so lame doing it.  Your first question is too pointless and out-of-place to bother with.
Click to expand...


You seem a mite put out. Did Si Modo get under your skin?


----------



## Robert

Dr.Drock said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough, then I wouldn't categorize you as being pro-life since you're not anti-war and you think abortion is ok in some circumstances.
> 
> You have no problem with baby-killing in a lot of circumstances, so again the principle of killing a baby isn't what's important to you.  Something else is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya really you think? How many times do I need to say it or is there something wrong with you that we don't see? Death On Demand shall I say it again do you not see it?
> 
> Also sport the world doesn't revolve around how you 'categorize' people or thing's the world is far more complex then that narrow little either or black and white box you seem to live in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol you're the one trying to play the abortion issue as a black and white thing.  "You're either a hideous baby killer or you're on the moral highground kissing every baby's forehead with me."
> 
> Anything I consider a baby, pregnancies at a certain point and babies in countries we're bombing, I am against them being killed.  So in all circumstances where I consider something a baby and not a fetus I'm against the killing.
> 
> You can't say you stick to that principle.  You aren't anti-war and since you consider all fetuses babies and you aren't against abortions in all circumstances than you don't even stick to it then.  So you have no moral issue with foreign babies having their heads blown off and you don't care about the babies in the instances of abortion you approve of.
> 
> So, we're back to square 1, you're a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


LMAO!! So since you have no problem murdering children through abortion but have an absolute issue in taking a life through conflict while at the same time as supporting a president who has now murdered a lot of children.....Who would you say is the larger Hypocrite? hmmmmm Seems to me there is nothing hypocritical about my stance on the issue but there appears to be plenty with yours hmmmm how funny is that.


----------



## Anguille

The abortion debate can get so dull and formulaic sometimes. I think I will abort myself from this thread.


----------



## Caroljo

IMEURU said:


> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. *Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.*Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.



You're right, it's nobody's business and you don't have to answer to any of us...but someday you will have to answer for it....


----------



## Si modo

Anguille said:


> The abortion debate can get so dull and formulaic sometimes. I think I will abort myself from this thread.


(I can't send you any PMs cuz your box is full.)  Thanks for the rep, Ongwee!


----------



## Eric Cartman

Cecilie1200 said:


> Science doesn't define life the way you seem to think it does.  Lay people sometimes mistakenly do, because those things could often be considered SYMPTOMS of life (those signs that we can observe), but that doesn't make them the definition of life.  Think of it this way:  you could observe that I'm coughing and sneezing a great deal, and draw the conclusion that I have a cold.  But those are signs and symptoms of a cold, not the actual definition of what a cold IS (which would be an infection of the upper respiratory system by a specific virus).



enough about your cold... give me the real definition and prove me wrong (not that it has anything to do with my main points).  Of course I think you will find it has probably evolved of the years.


Cecilie1200 said:


> As for the whole "we could say no one is an individual until separated from his mother" thing, we could also say the moon is made of green cheese.  Saying something is meaningless to making it true.  While it is true that what to do or think or feel about the facts is a matter of opinion, the facts themselves are not.



"Saying something is meaningless to making it true."  You have certainly 'proved' that to me. 

Several of the early pro-life arguments were backed up by the "by definition" phrase and I was simply pointing out the absurdity.  

Like:

1.  A baby by definition has been born.
or
1.  A person is an individual.
2.  An individual is a single human being.
3.  A fetus is not an individual. 
Q.E.D. a fetus is not a person.


----------



## Caroljo

Seawytch said:


> The "pro-life" crowd has a cognitive disconnect that I just don't get. Not only are they usually folks that are pro death penalty , but beyond that they are also usually opposed to any kind of comprehensive sex education in schools.
> 
> The goals of the pro choice crowd are much easier to understand. Keep abortion safe, legal and RARE!



Well first of all...the death penalty has NOTHING to do with what is being talked about.  The death penalty happens when an ADULT murders another human.  That adult made a choice to kill another person.  A baby (fetus) has NO say and can't defend themselves.  The person killing this baby is an adult...so that person should be held liable for the killing of that baby.  Just like any adult that kills anyone.

Second, you're right, i do not agree with sex education in schools...it's up to the parents or guardian to teach their kids.  Look what has happened since they put sex education in the schools!  Now you can buy condoms at school! Do they use them?? Probably some do, but look at how many pregnant teens there are in school now!  Ya, that helped alot!  If sex ed is so important to have in school, why are there so many more pregnant teens and teens getting abortions?  It's as if they're telling the kids it's ok...here's your condoms, go at it, if you get pregnant that can be taken care of too...


----------



## JBeukema

JBeukema said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> only  if we're specifically discussing single-celled organisms
> 
> we are not
> 
> we are discussing humans
> 
> You sound like the YECs demanding your religion be taught in school because you don't understand what a scientific theory is
> 
> Find a real biologist and ask about the differences between cells, tissues, organs, and organisms
> 
> Hell, ask about organelles, too
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  So you meant multi-cell organisms when you wrote organism.
> 
> Cool.  We have that corrected.
> 
> An appendix is a multi-cell organism.  It is alive.  It is genetically human, if a human appendix.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where that argument needs more.  Human - adjective and noun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go to your local high school and pick up a biology book.
> 
> look up cell->tissue->organ->organism
Click to expand...




			
				Si modo said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -239 reputation points from Si modo.
> Reputation was given for *this* post




I know, I know, science is evil when you _need_ your faith to be true, eh modo?


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> However...........telling someone what they can and can't do with their  own lives is pure bullshit.  I mean........if you do something like  that, in my opinion, that's strictly between you and your Creator.
> 
> I mean......God gave us free will, which means we have the ability to  choose sin or not.  How do YOU know that maybe after some girl's first  abortion, she may use that moment of despair and pain to actually  connnect with Father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?
> 
> You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  We are all free to do whatever we want to do.
Click to expand...


So the Law shouldn't exist? We're back to Charles Manson's actions being strictly between him and god?

Most people disagree.

 Someone like you would probably laugh and point if you saw some homeless person being teased and poked.


> You apparently don't get the concept that if mankind didn't have free will, we'd do more damage to each other.



So you believe in a god who, if we had to do what he said, would order us to rape and murder eachother every time we saw one anther?

The god you imagine for yourself tells us what a piece of shit you really are


----------



## Ravi

Robert said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got news for ya sport I'm not Religious...I also believe there are valid medical reasons for the allowance of a termination....And guess what that hole you're digging just keeps getting deeper. I also believe that war is permissible as is taking a life when that life threatens myself or family or nation. So I find myself laughing at your attempt to make this issue an either or argument as there is no rational basis to that attempt.
> 
> The solution to the abortion issue is not one of Pro Choice to commit murder of a defenseless child. If there are to be Abortions as much as I loath the practice then doing so should be extremely difficult (Next to impossible) unless there are valid medical or health issue involved.
> 
> But the Left's desire to maintain Death on Demand like you're going to McDonald's is not acceptable.
> 
> So please continue to dig a little deeper I'm having fun watching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough, then I wouldn't categorize you as being pro-life since you're not anti-war and you think abortion is ok in some circumstances.
> 
> You have no problem with baby-killing in a lot of circumstances, so again the principle of killing a baby isn't what's important to you.  Something else is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya really you think? How many times do I need to say it or is there something wrong with you that we don't see? Death On Demand shall I say it again do you not see it?
> 
> Also sport the world doesn't revolve around how you 'categorize' people or thing's the world is far more complex then that narrow little either or black and white box you seem to live in.
Click to expand...

You're for death on demand but you are too much of a coward to admit it.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Robert said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya really you think? How many times do I need to say it or is there something wrong with you that we don't see? Death On Demand shall I say it again do you not see it?
> 
> Also sport the world doesn't revolve around how you 'categorize' people or thing's the world is far more complex then that narrow little either or black and white box you seem to live in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you're the one trying to play the abortion issue as a black and white thing.  "You're either a hideous baby killer or you're on the moral highground kissing every baby's forehead with me."
> 
> Anything I consider a baby, pregnancies at a certain point and babies in countries we're bombing, I am against them being killed.  So in all circumstances where I consider something a baby and not a fetus I'm against the killing.
> 
> You can't say you stick to that principle.  You aren't anti-war and since you consider all fetuses babies and you aren't against abortions in all circumstances than you don't even stick to it then.  So you have no moral issue with foreign babies having their heads blown off and you don't care about the babies in the instances of abortion you approve of.
> 
> So, we're back to square 1, you're a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!! So since you have no problem murdering children through abortion but have an absolute issue in taking a life through conflict while at the same time as supporting a president who has now murdered a lot of children.....Who would you say is the larger Hypocrite? hmmmmm Seems to me there is nothing hypocritical about my stance on the issue but there appears to be plenty with yours hmmmm how funny is that.
Click to expand...


Name one good thing I've ever said about Obama, I would certainly never vote for him, or any other democrat, or any republican.  I'm a fiscal conservative, so I can't vote for either of the 2 popular parties.

You take a stance where you're on here pretending it's based on baby-killing, my posts have proven that's not the case with you.

See you can make excuses for baby-killing, thus you don't really have a moral issue with it as you pretend to on this thread.


----------



## JBeukema

Eric Cartman said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?
> 
> You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is you that wants it both ways.  Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being
Click to expand...


History, the Law, and religion all agreed: ******* aint people

According to the Torah, gentiles aint people

You really want to run with those kinda standards?


> (obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you).


O really? Then why does the law so closely mirror my position?


> Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there  was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.



It is





> For the sake of argument we will stick with your premise that the unborn is a human being.



It is. that is a biological fact


> we value the other humans in an almost instinctual way that helps ensure the survival of our species.



It's not 'almost' instinctual. See: evolutionary psychology


> One would probably  be scared to be in a dark alley with a bunch of murders but wouldn't feel the same if it was a bunch of women that had abortions and the doctors who gave them.


A white man might feel safe around a bunch of Klansmen, but a black man might be nervous.

Whether or not you're who they're talkin' of killing' is relevant


----------



## JBeukema

Bern80 said:


> Eric Cartman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is you that wants it both ways.  Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being (obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you).  Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there  was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I woulldn't engage in it either simply because societies opinion is completely arbitrary. The only definition based on any real absoute truth is a scientific one. The changes that turn a lump of cells into a human being are scientfically observable. But we can't observe when someone is imbued with a soul (religous). And far as legal and historical definitions, those again are going to be totally arbitrary and based simply on one's opinion. An opinion that can't be backed by anything observable. You're trying to accuse JB of avoiding an argument that isn't convenient when the reality is it's other way around. It is YOU that wants to avoid the scientific argument because it's not convenient for your position. It's easier for you to use those other defintions of personhood because they fit your position better. The only problem for you is they are definitions that have no real meaning. They are totally arbitrary points in time that someone simply pulled out of their ass at some point in history.
Click to expand...

points in time and colours of sin- and genitalia, if we want to look at history through women's eyes


----------



## JBeukema

editec said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> However...........telling someone what they can and can't do with their own lives is pure bullshit. I mean........if you do something like that, in my opinion, that's strictly between you and your Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me shooting you in the face is between me and my creator? *At what point does homicide become a social matter?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post natal.
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> Eric Cartman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?
> 
> You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is you that wants it both ways.  Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being (obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you).  Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there  was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.
> 
> For the sake of argument we will stick with your premise that the unborn is a human being.  Science itself doesn't care about the value of life but it might explain why we do.  The easiest to explain is why we value our own life, it is instinctual, it has literally been breed into us, survivors live to give birth to survivors.  Furthermore (in general ignoring outliers) we value the other humans in an almost instinctual way that helps ensure the survival of our species.
> 
> What is rarely true is that we value human life in an absolute way.  Is it the norm for pro-lifers to conduct funerals for an early term miscarriage or grieve in the same way?  Many early miscarriage go undetected  but no effort is made to monitor the well being of these 'children'.  History shows us that our value of human life steadily increase as it develops... to a point (e.g. we value a newborn over a fetus, a fetus over a zygote and even a toddler over a newborn)  This value seems to peak around the time a child can survive independently and remains fairly steady through the reproductive years and continues as long as the person is contributing to society.  Unfortunately throughout history we also see less value given to the elderly.
> 
> Science makes no moral judgements but people do and with consensus societies tend to make them law.  As an individual you can choose not to have an abortion but our society currently won't punish you if you do.  One would probably  be scared to be in a dark alley with a bunch of murders but wouldn't feel the same if it was a bunch of women that had abortions and the doctors who gave them.  Most people would find the idea of executing a woman for terminating her pregnancy absurd and they should because it goes against our very nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd like to add an analogy here.
> 
> A woman is like a mango tree. My mango tree often drops fruit if she has produced too much or has been stressed by weather or lack of a balanced diet. Some years she drops them all and produces a big crop the following year. Some years she drops some of them and produces a medium crop of healthy, tasty mangoes.
> 
> Just like my mango tree, a woman instinctively knows if she is ready to give birth. Having someone else make that decision for her goes against nature.
Click to expand...



Nobody forces you to give birth.

Save in very few extenuating circumstances, women have more than enough time and opportunity to avoid impregnation, avoid implantation, or terminate the pregnancy prior to the creation of a new mind


----------



## JBeukema

Eric Cartman said:


> [science] can't define when you have a soul



First you have to prove such a thing exists, then you can move on to proving you have one

My pastor told me Catholics, Irish, and Mormons have no souls; can we kill 'em?


Oh yeah, the mormon this already happened


Legal and religious  discussion, you say...


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's that they consider their real position indefensible.  I think it's that it's really hard to say, "I think some lives are unimportant and should be disposable for the convenience of others", and still feel good about yourself as a person.
Click to expand...


Why would it be hard to feel good about yourself if saying that's not indefensible? If what they advocate's not wrong, why feel bad about it?


----------



## Anguille

manifold said:


> In fact IMO, insisting that there is no difference, as you have now on multiple occasions, is dishonest.



On this subject, I don't think Beukema is smart enough to be dishonest.

What ya gonna do?


----------



## ABikerSailor

JBeukema said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?
> 
> You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  We are all free to do whatever we want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Law shouldn't exist? We're back to Charles Manson's actions being strictly between him and god?
> 
> Most people disagree.
> 
> Someone like you would probably laugh and point if you saw some homeless person being teased and poked.
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently don't get the concept that if mankind didn't have free will, we'd do more damage to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe in a god who, if we had to do what he said, would order us to rape and murder eachother every time we saw one anther?
> 
> The god you imagine for yourself tells us what a piece of shit you really are
Click to expand...


Way to cherry pick douchebag.  You cut out the most important part of the post, which is where I said you are free to shoot me, the people around are free to call the cops (or not), and the cops are free to track you down and take you to trial.  If I do see someone who is homeless, if I have the cash, I give 'em what I can, if not, I don't.  If I see anyone being teased or bullied, I will and have, stepped in.  We have free will because if we didn't we'd end up doing more damage to each other and the planet.  Try again Jolly Butt Kisser.


----------



## JBeukema

DiamondDave said:


> if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)


What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her  exact same DNA?

You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Cartman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is you that wants it both ways.  Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being (obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you).  Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there  was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.
> 
> For the sake of argument we will stick with your premise that the unborn is a human being.  Science itself doesn't care about the value of life but it might explain why we do.  The easiest to explain is why we value our own life, it is instinctual, it has literally been breed into us, survivors live to give birth to survivors.  Furthermore (in general ignoring outliers) we value the other humans in an almost instinctual way that helps ensure the survival of our species.
> 
> What is rarely true is that we value human life in an absolute way.  Is it the norm for pro-lifers to conduct funerals for an early term miscarriage or grieve in the same way?  Many early miscarriage go undetected  but no effort is made to monitor the well being of these 'children'.  History shows us that our value of human life steadily increase as it develops... to a point (e.g. we value a newborn over a fetus, a fetus over a zygote and even a toddler over a newborn)  This value seems to peak around the time a child can survive independently and remains fairly steady through the reproductive years and continues as long as the person is contributing to society.  Unfortunately throughout history we also see less value given to the elderly.
> 
> Science makes no moral judgements but people do and with consensus societies tend to make them law.  As an individual you can choose not to have an abortion but our society currently won't punish you if you do.  One would probably  be scared to be in a dark alley with a bunch of murders but wouldn't feel the same if it was a bunch of women that had abortions and the doctors who gave them.  Most people would find the idea of executing a woman for terminating her pregnancy absurd and they should because it goes against our very nature.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to add an analogy here.
> 
> A woman is like a mango tree. My mango tree often drops fruit if she has produced too much or has been stressed by weather or lack of a balanced diet. Some years she drops them all and produces a big crop the following year. Some years she drops some of them and produces a medium crop of healthy, tasty mangoes.
> 
> Just like my mango tree, a woman instinctively knows if she is ready to give birth. Having someone else make that decision for her goes against nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody forces you to give birth*.
> 
> Save in very few extenuating circumstances, women have more than enough time and opportunity to avoid impregnation, avoid implantation, or terminate the pregnancy prior to the creation of a new mind
Click to expand...

Yep, and that is the way it going to stay despite your best efforts.


----------



## ABikerSailor

JBeukema said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)
> 
> 
> 
> What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her  exact same DNA?
> 
> You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
Click to expand...


Hey stupid.........the child DOES share part of her DNA.  It also shares some of the father's DNA as well.

Do you even understand science?  Apparently not.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I draw the line at birth because IMO that makes the most sense, all things considered.
> 
> I can't help it if that's too hard for you to comprehend.
> 
> 
> 
> So there's no reasoning involved at all? It's just what you've been programmed to say or what?
> 
> What changes between the time when the last toe is in and when the last toe is out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is no difference between a human fetus, a human embryo, a human fertilized egg, and a born Person,
> 
> then hiring someone to perform an abortion on you is materially no different than hiring someone to kill your child, or your spouse, or your boss, or the guy who owes you money, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> Are you prepared to defend that position, and all the implications it has for the law assuming YOUR logic were used to establish the criminality of abortion?
Click to expand...

Yes.


----------



## G.T.

All he does is cherry pick instead of having a straight forward discussion. 

Up a lil he decided to make a quip about *"It's not 'almost' instinctual. See: evolutionary psychology"* Jesus christ. 

Fucking pointless self-congratulating.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Eric Cartman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't define life the way you seem to think it does.  Lay people sometimes mistakenly do, because those things could often be considered SYMPTOMS of life (those signs that we can observe), but that doesn't make them the definition of life.  Think of it this way:  you could observe that I'm coughing and sneezing a great deal, and draw the conclusion that I have a cold.  But those are signs and symptoms of a cold, not the actual definition of what a cold IS (which would be an infection of the upper respiratory system by a specific virus).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> enough about your cold... give me the real definition and prove me wrong (not that it has anything to do with my main points).  Of course I think you will find it has probably evolved of the years.
Click to expand...


Since you apparently don't have a dictionary and can't seem to figure out how to use your Internet connection except for this message board, I will fill in your basic knowledge blanks . . . this time.  After this, get educated or get gone.

Life is defined as the quality differentiating organisms from inanimate matter and certain other organisms (ie. the ones that have died) that allows it to self-replicate, resist entropy, engage in autopoiesis, maintain homeostasis, and respond to stimuli.  A living organism must meet ALL these criteria in some way.

By the way, the ways in which it is expressed and explained have changed.  The criteria themselves have remained the same for quite some time.

The analogy that totally escaped you is that, just as you can recognize that I have a cold by my coughing and sneezing, humans typically recognize that other humans (and certain lower life forms) are alive by symptoms like heartbeats, brain waves, etc.  However, those things ARE just symptoms, and are not actually life itself, as evidenced by the fact that many organisms which are alive do not even have hearts or brains in the same fashion that humans do.



Eric Cartman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the whole "we could say no one is an individual until separated from his mother" thing, we could also say the moon is made of green cheese.  Saying something is meaningless to making it true.  While it is true that what to do or think or feel about the facts is a matter of opinion, the facts themselves are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Saying something is meaningless to making it true."  You have certainly 'proved' that to me.
Click to expand...


My, what a pointless waste of keystrokes THIS was.



Eric Cartman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several of the early pro-life arguments were backed up by the "by definition" phrase and I was simply pointing out the absurdity.
> 
> Like:
> 
> 1.  A baby by definition has been born.
> or
> 1.  A person is an individual.
> 2.  An individual is a single human being.
> 3.  A fetus is not an individual.
> Q.E.D. a fetus is not a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not recall any pro-life arguments EVER being made that "a baby by definition has been born".  Nor am I aware of any pro-life arguments ever being made that a fetus is not an individual.  I DO know a number of incredibly ignorant pro-abortion supporters who STILL try to make this sort of illogical chain of unsupported arguments, and obviously, they are also the champions of the utterly absurd, made-up concept of "personhood".
> 
> I think you need to get clear on exactly what point you're trying to make, and then VERY CAREFULLY choose your words for it, because you're becoming incoherent.
Click to expand...


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!! So now the Moral equivalent of Murdering an innocent child is the same as going to War LMFAO!! you might want to throw that shovel away.  or keep digging LOL!!!
> 
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is taking RU486 to terminate a pregnancy the moral equivalent of drowning your 2 year old in the bathtub?
Click to expand...

Depends.

What stage of development are we talking about? We need more information.


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  We are all free to do whatever we want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Law shouldn't exist? We're back to Charles Manson's actions being strictly between him and god?
> 
> Most people disagree.
> 
> Someone like you would probably laugh and point if you saw some homeless person being teased and poked.
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently don't get the concept that if mankind didn't have free will, we'd do more damage to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe in a god who, if we had to do what he said, would order us to rape and murder eachother every time we saw one anther?
> 
> The god you imagine for yourself tells us what a piece of shit you really are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to cherry pick douchebag.  You cut out the most important part of the post, which is where I said you are free to shoot me, the people around are free to call the cops (or not), and the cops are free to track you down and take you to trial.
Click to expand...


So abortion _should_ be illegal? The police _should_ arrest women who kill their unborn child and they _should_ be taken to rial and sent to prison when found guilty? Will you please make up your mind?



> We have free will because if we didn't we'd end up doing more damage to each other and the planet.


You must believe in a truly evil god


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)
> 
> 
> 
> What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her  exact same DNA?
> 
> You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.........the child DOES share part of her DNA.  It also shares some of the father's DNA as well.
Click to expand...


And? What's your point?


----------



## AllieBaba

IMEURU said:


> This subject is now closed for me. You dont want answers. You dont give a fuck, right? So why "dare" anyone to disagree with you and then jump their shit because you dont like what they say when they do answer?


 
Actually, it's the pro-abortion spokesperson Art who said he didn't give a fuck what anybody thought.

What was said is that the pro-life people don't care what you DO to your body, except in the event that you are using it to inflict harm.

If it's too sensitive a subject for you, you shouldn't bring it up.

And whether or not you want a baby, it doesn't matter, it is still your responsibility. We don't get to kill off people we don't want around us.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> This subject is now closed for me. You dont want answers. You dont give a fuck, right? So why "dare" anyone to disagree with you and then jump their shit because you dont like what they say when they do answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's the pro-abortion spokesperson Art who said he didn't give a fuck what anybody thought.
> 
> What was said is that the pro-life people don't care what you DO to your body, except in the event that you are using it to inflict harm.
> 
> If it's too sensitive a subject for you, you shouldn't bring it up.
> 
> And whether or not you want a baby, it doesn't matter, it is still your responsibility. We don't get to kill off people we don't want around us.
Click to expand...

What about people we don't want in us?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's that they consider their real position indefensible.  I think it's that it's really hard to say, "I think some lives are unimportant and should be disposable for the convenience of others", and still feel good about yourself as a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would it be hard to feel good about yourself if saying that's not indefensible? If what they advocate's not wrong, why feel bad about it?
Click to expand...


It can be defended - I'm not saying everyone would agree with it, or that I would - but one would still feel like a not-very-nice person for doing it.

Just as an example, and in no way meant to constitute an agreement or endorsement of anything on my part, choosing to allow a person or small group of people to die in order to save many, many more people is a defensible choice.  One can make a logical, coherent argument defending that choice.  But unless the person making that choice is an amoral sociopath, he's going to feel like a horrible person for doing it.

It is possible to make cogent arguments in favor of abortion even when one DOES admit that the fetus is a living human organism, but they are cold-blooded and while the arguer may feel completely correct and justified in making them, he's not likely to feel all that admirable.  Most people like to think of themselves as "the good guy", the hero in their life movie.


----------



## ABikerSailor

JBeukema said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Law shouldn't exist? We're back to Charles Manson's actions being strictly between him and god?
> 
> Most people disagree.
> 
> Someone like you would probably laugh and point if you saw some homeless person being teased and poked.
> So you believe in a god who, if we had to do what he said, would order us to rape and murder eachother every time we saw one anther?
> 
> The god you imagine for yourself tells us what a piece of shit you really are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to cherry pick douchebag.  You cut out the most important part of the post, which is where I said you are free to shoot me, the people around are free to call the cops (or not), and the cops are free to track you down and take you to trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So abortion _should_ be illegal? The police _should_ arrest women who kill their unborn child and they _should_ be taken to rial and sent to prison when found guilty? Will you please make up your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have free will because if we didn't we'd end up doing more damage to each other and the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must believe in a truly evil god
Click to expand...


You must have me confused with someone else, because I haven't said anything about the legality of abortion on this entire thread.  However.....I have given my views and yeah, in certain cases like rape (she didn't ask for it and shouldn't have to pay the price), incest (very high incidence of birth defects, that's why you can't marry your sister, and besides, something like that could be a burden on the health care system).  However, based on what the current laws state, I think we should keep things as they are, otherwise you'd end up with the coathanger back alley abortions being botched (which would increase the death rates of women seeking abortions as well as possibly have them end up being a burden on the health care system).  It's only self righteouse religious dirtbags whose interpretation of the Bible is very twisted, almost to the point of being wrong, does this issue have any weight.  I bet putting something like abortion or gay rights is the main thing that gets you to slither out from under your rock on voting day.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)
> 
> 
> 
> What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her  exact same DNA?
> 
> You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
Click to expand...


If I'm not mistaken, identical twins have the same DNA structure, but obviously, they're still separate individuals.


----------



## Dr.Drock

The one thing I'm certain of, is everyone on here pretending they're on a moral highground because of a political opinion, is that they have each adopted multiple children.  So many women made the moral choice of not have an abortion and going through with the birth, and since pro-lifers think this is such a good thing and want this done in all cases they've made a point to go around adopting up all the children who would've otherwise been aborted.

I mean it's all about the eventual life the pregnancy brings, so those so overly concerned with it do their best to make sure that life is made as good as possible.

Has nothing to do with religion and forcing those views on others, it's solely about the life of the eventual child...................................................


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> We don't get to kill off people we don't want around us.


Is it any surprise PP was founded by a eugenicist?


----------



## AllieBaba

ABikerSailor said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to cherry pick douchebag. You cut out the most important part of the post, which is where I said you are free to shoot me, the people around are free to call the cops (or not), and the cops are free to track you down and take you to trial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So abortion _should_ be illegal? The police _should_ arrest women who kill their unborn child and they _should_ be taken to rial and sent to prison when found guilty? Will you please make up your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have free will because if we didn't we'd end up doing more damage to each other and the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must believe in a truly evil god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have me confused with someone else, because I haven't said anything about the legality of abortion on this entire thread. However.....I have given my views and yeah, in certain cases like rape (she didn't ask for it and shouldn't have to pay the price), incest (very high incidence of birth defects, that's why you can't marry your sister, and besides, something like that could be a burden on the health care system). However, based on what the current laws state, I think we should keep things as they are, otherwise you'd end up with the coathanger back alley abortions being botched (which would increase the death rates of women seeking abortions as well as possibly have them end up being a burden on the health care system). It's only self righteouse religious dirtbags whose interpretation of the Bible is very twisted, almost to the point of being wrong, does this issue have any weight. I bet putting something like abortion or gay rights is the main thing that gets you to slither out from under your rock on voting day.
Click to expand...

 
False premise.
The incidence of abortion committed for incest and rape is MINISCULE.


----------



## whitehall

The pro-abortion crowd cannot even be honest about their agenda or their name. They call it "pro-choice" as if it was about selecting a brand of coffee instead of the termination of a human life. The ironic thing is if they did the same things to animals as the horrific procedure they recommend for late term human babies they would have been indicted.


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> It is possible to make cogent arguments in favor of abortion even when one DOES admit that the fetus is a living human organism, but they are cold-blooded


Doesn't that depend on the argument?

I take it I'm on your 'cold-blooded sociopaths' list, then?

Oh well, I don't suppose there's anything to be done about that


----------



## manifold

Anguille said:


> ...I think I will abort myself from this thread.



Doesn't seem to be work'n out so well for you.

Prolly shoulda said partially abort. 


But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)
> 
> 
> 
> What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her  exact same DNA?
> 
> You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, identical twins have the same DNA structure, but obviously, they're still separate individuals.
Click to expand...


Also a fine example, though I felt mine was more relevant to the pregnancy and abortion aspect of the discussion.


----------



## Eric Cartman

JBeukema said:


> Nobody forces you to give birth.
> 
> Save in very few extenuating circumstances, women have more than enough time and opportunity to avoid impregnation, avoid implantation, or terminate the pregnancy prior to the creation of a new mind





JBeukema said:


> It is. that is a biological fact


In your opinion.



JBeukema said:


> First you have to prove such a thing exists,


So you believe abortion is OK up to a point and you are an atheist.  Did I get that right?


----------



## DiamondDave

JBeukema said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her  exact same DNA?
> 
> You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.........the child DOES share part of her DNA.  It also shares some of the father's DNA as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? What's your point?
Click to expand...


Just as a human shares part of it's DNA with a chimp.... does not mean it is the same.. the child has it's own UNIQUE DNA signature.. that is neither the mother's nor the fathers....


----------



## DiamondDave

JBeukema said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her  exact same DNA?
> 
> You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, identical twins have the same DNA structure, but obviously, they're still separate individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also a fine example, though I felt mine was more relevant to the pregnancy and abortion aspect of the discussion.
Click to expand...


Yet they are individuals with different phenotypes... neither of which are the same as either of the parents


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> incest (very high incidence of birth defects, that's why you can't marry your sister,


Really only an issue in the case of multiple generations of inbreeding

CNN.com - FindLaw Forum: A genetic report should cause a rethinking of incest laws - April 9, 2002

Of course, if we're going to control who may marry and reproduce with whom based on whether we think the child will have good DNA, why let those known to carry genetic disease reproduce at all? Or those who simply have inferior genetic lineage?

After all, your entire argument in this regard is a eugenic one. How far are you willing to go?


----------



## JBeukema

Eric Cartman said:


> So you believe abortion is OK up to a point and you are an atheist.  Did I get that right?


That is correct


----------



## JBeukema

DiamondDave said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.........the child DOES share part of her DNA.  It also shares some of the father's DNA as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as a human shares part of it's DNA with a chimp.... does not mean it is the same.. the child has it's own UNIQUE DNA signature.. that is neither the mother's nor the fathers....
Click to expand...

The DNA isn't what makes an individual

I believe it was Cecil who brought up identical twins

your premise is fallacious


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't get to kill off people we don't want around us.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it any surprise PP was founded by a eugenicist?
Click to expand...


I thought you wanted to make serious arguments.


----------



## JBeukema

DiamondDave said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, identical twins have the same DNA structure, but obviously, they're still separate individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also a fine example, though I felt mine was more relevant to the pregnancy and abortion aspect of the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet they are individuals with different phenotypes... neither of which are the same as either of the parents
Click to expand...


Again, I ask about the cloning technologies on the horizon


----------



## ABikerSailor

JBeukema said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> incest (very high incidence of birth defects, that's why you can't marry your sister,
> 
> 
> 
> Really only an issue in the case of multiple generations of inbreeding
> 
> CNN.com - FindLaw Forum: A genetic report should cause a rethinking of incest laws - April 9, 2002
> 
> Of course, if we're going to control who may marry and reproduce with whom based on whether we think the child will have good DNA, why let those known to carry genetic disease reproduce at all? Or those who simply have inferior genetic lineage?
> 
> After all, your entire argument in this regard is a eugenic one. How far are you willing to go?
Click to expand...


Oh....I see...it's okay if you marry your sister and have kids?


----------



## JBeukema

Depends. Are we going to enforce eugenic standards or not?

That is, after all, the only argument you've put forward for controlling whom someone may marry and reproduce with.


----------



## DiamondDave

JBeukema said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as a human shares part of it's DNA with a chimp.... does not mean it is the same.. the child has it's own UNIQUE DNA signature.. that is neither the mother's nor the fathers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The DNA isn't what makes an individual
> 
> I believe it was Cecil who brought up identical twins
> 
> your premise is fallacious
Click to expand...


Already mentioned the phenotypes as well


----------



## JBeukema

Phenotype is primarily a manifestation of genotype.

Your premise is fallacious.


----------



## manifold

JBeukema said:


> Eric Cartman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe abortion is OK up to *a point *and you are an atheist.  Did I get that right?
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct
Click to expand...


Can you specify the point where you draw the line please?


----------



## Ravi

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't get to kill off people we don't want around us.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it any surprise PP was founded by a eugenicist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you wanted to make serious arguments.
Click to expand...

Hey, at least he's stopped going around claiming that the American left is forcing people to abort.


----------



## DiamondDave

JBeukema said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also a fine example, though I felt mine was more relevant to the pregnancy and abortion aspect of the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they are individuals with different phenotypes... neither of which are the same as either of the parents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I ask about the cloning technologies on the horizon
Click to expand...


And that DOES add a wrinkle.. in more areas than just abortion...

And advances in neonatal medicine have also thrown wrinkles ni the acceptable times to abort arguments... as stated earlier in  the thread... my youngest was very premature... at a point where 10 years earlier she would have been considered almost at a point of being impossible to survive...

Would not technology advances of developing a child outside the womb add even more wrinkles??

The key is... this is different than a woman or any individual removing their own tissue or body modification or whatever other argument along those lines... this is a developing human life/organism/child or whatever other term you wish to use....


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it any surprise PP was founded by a eugenicist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you wanted to make serious arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, at least he's stopped going around claiming that the American left is forcing people to abort.
Click to expand...

Do cite where I said any such thing, liar


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)
> 
> 
> 
> What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her  exact same DNA?
> 
> You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
Click to expand...


Should abortion be a capital crime - murder?  With the death penalty in play for women who get abortions?


----------



## JBeukema

DiamondDave said:


> And advances in neonatal medicine have also thrown wrinkles ni the acceptable times to abort arguments...


Only if you accept the 'viability' argument, which I do not


> The key is... this is different than a woman or any individual removing their own tissue or body modification or whatever other argument along those lines... this is a developing human life/organism/child or whatever other term you wish to use....


As I've said this entire time


----------



## DiamondDave

JBeukema said:


> Phenotype is primarily a manifestation of genotype.
> 
> Your premise is fallacious.




No.. it is not... my premise is that the makeup of the unborn child makes it a unique individual human life that is not merely part of the mother...


----------



## AllieBaba

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)
> 
> 
> 
> What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her exact same DNA?
> 
> You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should abortion be a capital crime - murder? With the death penalty in play for women who get abortions?
Click to expand...

 
Not likely to happen in a society that so thoroughly undervalues children. People don't get the death penalty for killing CHILDREN now, it's unlikely they will ever get the death penalty for killing unborn children.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)
> 
> 
> 
> What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her  exact same DNA?
> 
> You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should abortion be a capital crime - murder?  With the death penalty in play for women who get abortions?
Click to expand...

Well, it is a premeditated act. I don't see how that's best for society as a whole, however- especially if there's no evidence she's a danger to anyone else. If I were on a jury, I'd be more likely to convict for manslaughter than for murder for that reason.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> The one thing I'm certain of, is everyone on here pretending they're on a moral highground because of a political opinion, is that they have each adopted multiple children.  So many women made the moral choice of not have an abortion and going through with the birth, and since pro-lifers think this is such a good thing and want this done in all cases they've made a point to go around adopting up all the children who would've otherwise been aborted.
> 
> I mean it's all about the eventual life the pregnancy brings, so those so overly concerned with it do their best to make sure that life is made as good as possible.
> 
> Has nothing to do with religion and forcing those views on others, it's solely about the life of the eventual child...................................................



Learn the meaning of the word "pretending", doofus.  Most of the people here - including you - actually believes they HAVE the moral high ground.  If you didn't, you wouldn't have the sheer, unbelieve arrogance to try to dictate what people must and must not do to "earn" the right to hold an opinion on the morality of abortion, as though that right is yours to dole out.

Tell me something.  You keep trying to draw parallels between abortion and war, or abortion and capital punishment, right?  So how many al Qaeda members have YOU taken into your home?  How many convicted murderers?  That's your criteria for the "right" to object, isn't it?  So what have YOU done to "earn" the right to believe THOSE things are morally wrong?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Meanwhile, I would be mightily gratified if dumbasses like you would STOP stating your spin as though it's scientific fact that everyone agrees with, and by this, I am referring to the reeking bilge of "eventual life".  That is YOUR opinion, YOUR viewpoint, and nothing more, so please stop trying to impose it on everyone else as a parameter of debate.  It just makes it apparent that you have no idea what the debate is actually about.


----------



## JBeukema

DiamondDave said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phenotype is primarily a manifestation of genotype.
> 
> Your premise is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.. it is not... my premise is that the makeup of the unborn child makes it a unique individual human life that is not merely part of the mother...
Click to expand...

Basing it on genetics is fallacious, as we could (at least in theory) achieve artificial insemination with a cloned embryo that (with a few more advances in cloning technology) be an exact genetic duplicate of the mother.

Biologically, however, the child is a distinct human organism regardless.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible to make cogent arguments in favor of abortion even when one DOES admit that the fetus is a living human organism, but they are cold-blooded
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that depend on the argument?
> 
> I take it I'm on your 'cold-blooded sociopaths' list, then?
> 
> Oh well, I don't suppose there's anything to be done about that
Click to expand...


No idea.  I don't know what arguments you use to justify abortion, or even if you DO justify it.  But can YOU think of a warm, fuzzy way to say, "Yeah, I know fetuses are living organisms, but I think women should be able to kill them anyway"?  Any way you make THAT argument, logical or not, is going to sound cold and heartless.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it any surprise PP was founded by a eugenicist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you wanted to make serious arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, at least he's stopped going around claiming that the American left is forcing people to abort.
Click to expand...


He's moved on to arguing that birth is an insignificant event in human life.


----------



## Dr.Drock

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)
> 
> 
> 
> What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her  exact same DNA?
> 
> You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should abortion be a capital crime - murder?  With the death penalty in play for women who get abortions?
Click to expand...


I wonder how much of a tax increase and how large of a government program all these supposed "small government conservatives" would want to have put in place to hunt down all the young women.

The task force, the government program, police, lawyers, wiretaps, prisons, lobbies, we're probably talking hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

Besides common sense says all making abortions illegal would do would create a black market for them, just like the drug war has done.  So essentially the "pro-life" crowd just wants abortions done by black market thugs rather than doctors or self-done, and they want them performed in back alleys and bathrooms rather than doctor's clinics.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her  exact same DNA?
> 
> You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, identical twins have the same DNA structure, but obviously, they're still separate individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also a fine example, though I felt mine was more relevant to the pregnancy and abortion aspect of the discussion.
Click to expand...


Except that cloning of humans is still theoretical, and identical twins exist right now.


----------



## JBeukema

Dr.Drock said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her  exact same DNA?
> 
> You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should abortion be a capital crime - murder?  With the death penalty in play for women who get abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder how much of a tax increase and how large of a government program all these supposed "small government conservatives" would want to have put in place to hunt down all the young women.
> 
> The task force, the government program, police, lawyers, wiretaps, prisons, lobbies, we're probably talking hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
> 
> Besides common sense says all making abortions illegal would do would create a black market for them, just like the drug war has done.  So essentially the "pro-life" crowd just wants abortions done by black market thugs rather than doctors or self-done, and they want them performed in back alleys and bathrooms rather than doctor's clinics.
Click to expand...


'Criminalizing _x_ does not end all instances of _x_, therefore _x_ should be legal?'

Do you really want to run with that?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as a human shares part of it's DNA with a chimp.... does not mean it is the same.. the child has it's own UNIQUE DNA signature.. that is neither the mother's nor the fathers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The DNA isn't what makes an individual
> 
> I believe it was Cecil who brought up identical twins
> 
> your premise is fallacious
Click to expand...


Not entirely.  DNA is one way of distinguishing one individual from another.  It is not, however, the only criteria for one to be considered an individual organism, which is a good thing since, as I pointed out, indentical twins have identical DNA.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you wanted to make serious arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, at least he's stopped going around claiming that the American left is forcing people to abort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's moved on to arguing that birth is an insignificant event in human life.
Click to expand...

It's funny he argues that since he probably spends much of his time in a fetal position. Or *foe*tal position as he spells it.

Methinks he has fetus envy.


----------



## Dr.Drock

JBeukema said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should abortion be a capital crime - murder?  With the death penalty in play for women who get abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how much of a tax increase and how large of a government program all these supposed "small government conservatives" would want to have put in place to hunt down all the young women.
> 
> The task force, the government program, police, lawyers, wiretaps, prisons, lobbies, we're probably talking hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
> 
> Besides common sense says all making abortions illegal would do would create a black market for them, just like the drug war has done.  So essentially the "pro-life" crowd just wants abortions done by black market thugs rather than doctors or self-done, and they want them performed in back alleys and bathrooms rather than doctor's clinics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Criminalizing _x_ does not end all instances of _x_, therefore _x_ should be legal?'
> 
> Do you really want to run with that?
Click to expand...


That's not what I said, you did.  I gave multiple examples as to why it wasn't feasible.

My point is if it's important to you to end abortions, making them illegal won't.  What you want is to punish a tiny % of performed abortions, much like the pro-drug war crowd wants trillions spent to punish a tiny % of drug use despite it having almost zero impact on how many people and how often they use drugs.


----------



## AllieBaba

So if people insist on committing crimes, then we should make those crimes legal?

You realize that's exactly what you're saying, right?

It's the same argument the drug users use...."People are going to use regardless, so it should all be legal".


----------



## Cecilie1200

DiamondDave said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as a human shares part of it's DNA with a chimp.... does not mean it is the same.. the child has it's own UNIQUE DNA signature.. that is neither the mother's nor the fathers....
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA isn't what makes an individual
> 
> I believe it was Cecil who brought up identical twins
> 
> your premise is fallacious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already mentioned the phenotypes as well
Click to expand...


I think identical twins have the same phenotype as well.  That's why they're called "identical".

It is my understanding that if a person with an identical twin commits a crime, any forensic evidence found can only narrow it down to "It was one of them", and the prosecutor is screwed unless there's some other sort of evidence pointing to one or the other.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her exact same DNA?
> 
> You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should abortion be a capital crime - murder? With the death penalty in play for women who get abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not likely to happen in a society that so thoroughly undervalues children. People don't get the death penalty for killing CHILDREN now, it's unlikely they will ever get the death penalty for killing unborn children.
Click to expand...


Well, it is a fact that most murders in general do not get the death penalty, so nothing says that if society at some point decides to make abortion illegal and view it as an unlawful killing of a human being, it is therefore compelled to make it a capital crime.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> So if people insist on committing crimes, then we should make those crimes legal?
> 
> You realize that's exactly what you're saying, right?
> 
> It's the same argument the drug users use...."People are going to use regardless, so it should all be legal".



I have to disagree.  That's not what he's saying.  It's what he's IMPLYING, because he doesn't have the balls to say it and stand by it.  As long as he just implies it really loudly, he can pretend he has deniability.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people insist on committing crimes, then we should make those crimes legal?
> 
> You realize that's exactly what you're saying, right?
> 
> It's the same argument the drug users use...."People are going to use regardless, so it should all be legal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree.  That's not what he's saying.  It's what he's IMPLYING, because he doesn't have the balls to say it and stand by it.  As long as he just implies it really loudly, he can pretend he has deniability.
Click to expand...


Lol better to just make baseless accusations about false assumptions you've already made than to actually read what I said and have an adult discussion.


----------



## Robert

Dr.Drock said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you're the one trying to play the abortion issue as a black and white thing.  "You're either a hideous baby killer or you're on the moral highground kissing every baby's forehead with me."
> 
> Anything I consider a baby, pregnancies at a certain point and babies in countries we're bombing, I am against them being killed.  So in all circumstances where I consider something a baby and not a fetus I'm against the killing.
> 
> You can't say you stick to that principle.  You aren't anti-war and since you consider all fetuses babies and you aren't against abortions in all circumstances than you don't even stick to it then.  So you have no moral issue with foreign babies having their heads blown off and you don't care about the babies in the instances of abortion you approve of.
> 
> So, we're back to square 1, you're a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!! So since you have no problem murdering children through abortion but have an absolute issue in taking a life through conflict while at the same time as supporting a president who has now murdered a lot of children.....Who would you say is the larger Hypocrite? hmmmmm Seems to me there is nothing hypocritical about my stance on the issue but there appears to be plenty with yours hmmmm how funny is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one good thing I've ever said about Obama, I would certainly never vote for him, or any other democrat, or any republican.  I'm a fiscal conservative, so I can't vote for either of the 2 popular parties.
> 
> You take a stance where you're on here pretending it's based on baby-killing, my posts have proven that's not the case with you.
> 
> See you can make excuses for baby-killing, thus you don't really have a moral issue with it as you pretend to on this thread.
Click to expand...


Good Grief You've proven nothing and shown nothing except you are completely dishonest my stance is quite clear there is no ambiguity there is nothing hidden I've shown you several times what the core issue with me is. 

 Here Let me ask this of you Drock since this seems to be the only way that you might understand.

Do you support Death on Demand..... Simple Yes or No 

As a society it is my belief that we should not condone nor accept the principle premise that life is so cheap that killing it is the same as throwing away a used napkin very little thought is given to the decision. Can our society survive treating life like so much garbage to be thrown away when its inconvenient to the person who was not forced to have sex or not provide some form of protection.

Or are you so guttural that life means nothing to you as you've indicated.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people insist on committing crimes, then we should make those crimes legal?
> 
> You realize that's exactly what you're saying, right?
> 
> It's the same argument the drug users use...."People are going to use regardless, so it should all be legal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree.  That's not what he's saying.  It's what he's IMPLYING, because he doesn't have the balls to say it and stand by it.  As long as he just implies it really loudly, he can pretend he has deniability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol better to just make baseless accusations about false assumptions you've already made than to actually read what I said and have an adult discussion.
Click to expand...


Nothing baseless about it.  Your own posts provided the basis for my analysis of your character.  Don't blame ME if your words are revealing and you don't like what they reveal.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Robert said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!! So since you have no problem murdering children through abortion but have an absolute issue in taking a life through conflict while at the same time as supporting a president who has now murdered a lot of children.....Who would you say is the larger Hypocrite? hmmmmm Seems to me there is nothing hypocritical about my stance on the issue but there appears to be plenty with yours hmmmm how funny is that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one good thing I've ever said about Obama, I would certainly never vote for him, or any other democrat, or any republican.  I'm a fiscal conservative, so I can't vote for either of the 2 popular parties.
> 
> You take a stance where you're on here pretending it's based on baby-killing, my posts have proven that's not the case with you.
> 
> See you can make excuses for baby-killing, thus you don't really have a moral issue with it as you pretend to on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Grief You've proven nothing and shown nothing except you are completely dishonest my stance is quite clear there is no ambiguity there is nothing hidden I've shown you several times what the core issue with me is.
> 
> Here Let me ask this of you Drock since this seems to be the only way that you might understand.
> 
> Do you support Death on Demand..... Simple Yes or No
> 
> As a society it is my belief that we should not condone nor accept the principle premise that life is so cheap that killing it is the same as throwing away a used napkin very little thought is given to the decision. Can our society survive treating life like so much garbage to be thrown away when its inconvenient to the person who was not forced to have sex or not provide some form of protection.
> 
> Or are you so guttural that life means nothing to you as you've indicated.
Click to expand...


Death on demand no i don't, but I don't think abortion is that, so you're asking me a loaded question.  Hence my example with society handling miscarriages differently than babies dying in car wrecks, nobody views these as equal situations.  There's just some people who like to pretend they do, so they can pretend they're on a moral highground and have an excuse to look down on people who simply have a different opinion on a political issue.

Again, I don't think it's ending life.

And again, why aren't you constantly speaking out against wars?  You're still pretending that killing babies is why you're pro-life?  Are you mad about all the babies we killed in vietnam, iraq, afghanistan?  Or do you excuse all those because they're foreign babies, who deserve death because they were coincidentally born on enemy soil?


----------



## JBeukema

Dr.Drock said:


> Again, I don't think it's ending life.




Do you believe the Earth is flat?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree.  That's not what he's saying.  It's what he's IMPLYING, because he doesn't have the balls to say it and stand by it.  As long as he just implies it really loudly, he can pretend he has deniability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol better to just make baseless accusations about false assumptions you've already made than to actually read what I said and have an adult discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing baseless about it.  Your own posts provided the basis for my analysis of your character.  Don't blame ME if your words are revealing and you don't like what they reveal.
Click to expand...


I explained it quite clearly, but you are have an intellect-free/emotion-based assumption made.  I can't help you break free from your baseless assumptions, only you can do that.


----------



## Dr.Drock

JBeukema said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think it's ending life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the Earth is flat?
Click to expand...


Someone who wants religion pushed into law is asking me if i believe a crazy old scientific idea made up by a religious book?


----------



## Robert

Dr.Drock said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one good thing I've ever said about Obama, I would certainly never vote for him, or any other democrat, or any republican.  I'm a fiscal conservative, so I can't vote for either of the 2 popular parties.
> 
> You take a stance where you're on here pretending it's based on baby-killing, my posts have proven that's not the case with you.
> 
> See you can make excuses for baby-killing, thus you don't really have a moral issue with it as you pretend to on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Grief You've proven nothing and shown nothing except you are completely dishonest my stance is quite clear there is no ambiguity there is nothing hidden I've shown you several times what the core issue with me is.
> 
> Here Let me ask this of you Drock since this seems to be the only way that you might understand.
> 
> Do you support Death on Demand..... Simple Yes or No
> 
> As a society it is my belief that we should not condone nor accept the principle premise that life is so cheap that killing it is the same as throwing away a used napkin very little thought is given to the decision. Can our society survive treating life like so much garbage to be thrown away when its inconvenient to the person who was not forced to have sex or not provide some form of protection.
> 
> Or are you so guttural that life means nothing to you as you've indicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death on demand no i don't, but I don't think abortion is that, so you're asking me a loaded question.  Hence my example with society handling miscarriages differently than babies dying in car wrecks, nobody views these as equal situations.  There's just some people who like to pretend they do, so they can pretend they're on a moral highground and have an excuse to look down on people who simply have a different opinion on a political issue.
> 
> Again, I don't think it's ending life.
> 
> And again, why aren't you constantly speaking out against wars?  You're still pretending that killing babies is why you're pro-life?  Are you mad about all the babies we killed in vietnam, iraq, afghanistan?  Or do you excuse all those because they're foreign babies, who deserve death because they were coincidentally born on enemy soil?
Click to expand...


LMAO!! so who's here claiming the moral high ground......Ok fine I get it you're  intellectually dishonest that's fine should have known better. Conversation over.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol better to just make baseless accusations about false assumptions you've already made than to actually read what I said and have an adult discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing baseless about it.  Your own posts provided the basis for my analysis of your character.  Don't blame ME if your words are revealing and you don't like what they reveal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it quite clearly, but you are have an intellect-free/emotion-based assumption made.  I can help you break free from your baseless assumptions, only you can do that.
Click to expand...


Once again, you IMPLIED that because illegalizing abortion would not prevent ALL abortions, there was no point in doing so.  Then, when you were called on that, you responded with, "I never said that."

Please "explain clearly" where anything I have said so far is incorrect.

Since it is NOT in any way incorrect, there is therefore nothing "intellect-free" or "emotion-based" in my statement that you attempted to say something without actually saying it, so as to allow yourself deniability.

If you can "explain clearly" where any of THAT is incorrect, please feel free.


----------



## xsited1

JBeukema said:


> Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Be Honest?



True.  They should just say the woman has the right to kill her unborn child because she doesn't want it.  (They already advocate killing unborn children in poor countries and seem to be fine with that.)


----------



## Dr.Drock

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing baseless about it.  Your own posts provided the basis for my analysis of your character.  Don't blame ME if your words are revealing and you don't like what they reveal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it quite clearly, but you are have an intellect-free/emotion-based assumption made.  I can help you break free from your baseless assumptions, only you can do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you IMPLIED that because illegalizing abortion would not prevent ALL abortions, there was no point in doing so.  Then, when you were called on that, you responded with, "I never said that."
> 
> Please "explain clearly" where anything I have said so far is incorrect.
> 
> Since it is NOT in any way incorrect, there is therefore nothing "intellect-free" or "emotion-based" in my statement that you attempted to say something without actually saying it, so as to allow yourself deniability.
> 
> If you can "explain clearly" where any of THAT is incorrect, please feel free.
Click to expand...


No my point is that it wouldn't do anything to lessen abortions, like the drug war hasn't done anything to lessen drug use.

You want your taxes increased, government size increased, government spending increased for the sole purpose of punishing a tiny % of women who had abortions.  Has nothing to do with "saving the baby."


----------



## Caroljo

Anguille said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> This subject is now closed for me. You dont want answers. You dont give a fuck, right? So why "dare" anyone to disagree with you and then jump their shit because you dont like what they say when they do answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's the pro-abortion spokesperson Art who said he didn't give a fuck what anybody thought.
> 
> What was said is that the pro-life people don't care what you DO to your body, except in the event that you are using it to inflict harm.
> 
> If it's too sensitive a subject for you, you shouldn't bring it up.
> 
> And whether or not you want a baby, it doesn't matter, it is still your responsibility. We don't get to kill off people we don't want around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about people we don't want in us?
Click to expand...


Then don't take any chances on getting pregnant!  Simple!


----------



## Dr.Drock

Robert said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Grief You've proven nothing and shown nothing except you are completely dishonest my stance is quite clear there is no ambiguity there is nothing hidden I've shown you several times what the core issue with me is.
> 
> Here Let me ask this of you Drock since this seems to be the only way that you might understand.
> 
> Do you support Death on Demand..... Simple Yes or No
> 
> As a society it is my belief that we should not condone nor accept the principle premise that life is so cheap that killing it is the same as throwing away a used napkin very little thought is given to the decision. Can our society survive treating life like so much garbage to be thrown away when its inconvenient to the person who was not forced to have sex or not provide some form of protection.
> 
> Or are you so guttural that life means nothing to you as you've indicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death on demand no i don't, but I don't think abortion is that, so you're asking me a loaded question.  Hence my example with society handling miscarriages differently than babies dying in car wrecks, nobody views these as equal situations.  There's just some people who like to pretend they do, so they can pretend they're on a moral highground and have an excuse to look down on people who simply have a different opinion on a political issue.
> 
> Again, I don't think it's ending life.
> 
> And again, why aren't you constantly speaking out against wars?  You're still pretending that killing babies is why you're pro-life?  Are you mad about all the babies we killed in vietnam, iraq, afghanistan?  Or do you excuse all those because they're foreign babies, who deserve death because they were coincidentally born on enemy soil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!! so who's here claiming the moral high ground......Ok fine I get it you're  intellectually dishonest that's fine should have known better. Conversation over.
Click to expand...


My very first post in this thread stated quite clearly that moral and intellectual people could be on the pro-life side or the pro-choice side, you obviously disagree, hence you being the one playing the moral highground.  Falsely albeit, but you're trying.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it quite clearly, but you are have an intellect-free/emotion-based assumption made.  I can help you break free from your baseless assumptions, only you can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you IMPLIED that because illegalizing abortion would not prevent ALL abortions, there was no point in doing so.  Then, when you were called on that, you responded with, "I never said that."
> 
> Please "explain clearly" where anything I have said so far is incorrect.
> 
> Since it is NOT in any way incorrect, there is therefore nothing "intellect-free" or "emotion-based" in my statement that you attempted to say something without actually saying it, so as to allow yourself deniability.
> 
> If you can "explain clearly" where any of THAT is incorrect, please feel free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No my point is that it wouldn't do anything to lessen abortions, like the drug war hasn't done anything to lessen drug use.
Click to expand...


In other words, exactly what I and others SAID that you said.

By the way, how do you KNOW it hasn't lessened drug use?  What is your evidence that drug usage would be no greater if they were legal and widely available?

You certainly do make a habit of stating your personal opinions as settled, proven fact.



Dr.Drock said:


> You want your taxes increased, government size increased, government spending increased for the sole purpose of punishing a tiny % of women who had abortions.  Has nothing to do with "saving the baby."



Speaking of baseless . . . When have I EVER said I wanted my taxes increased in regards to abortion?  That was YOUR fallacious assertion, to which no one ever agreed.  In fact, most of us just ignored it as ignorant, emotional, extremist drivel and didn't comment on it at all.  (Please interpret this as the only comment I think it deserves, and the only one I intend to give it.)

Thanks for telling me what my motives are and are not, Miss Cleo.  Can you also give me Saturday's Powerball numbers?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you IMPLIED that because illegalizing abortion would not prevent ALL abortions, there was no point in doing so.  Then, when you were called on that, you responded with, "I never said that."
> 
> Please "explain clearly" where anything I have said so far is incorrect.
> 
> Since it is NOT in any way incorrect, there is therefore nothing "intellect-free" or "emotion-based" in my statement that you attempted to say something without actually saying it, so as to allow yourself deniability.
> 
> If you can "explain clearly" where any of THAT is incorrect, please feel free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No my point is that it wouldn't do anything to lessen abortions, like the drug war hasn't done anything to lessen drug use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, exactly what I and others SAID that you said.
> 
> By the way, how do you KNOW it hasn't lessened drug use?  What is your evidence that drug usage would be no greater if they were legal and widely available?
> 
> You certainly do make a habit of stating your personal opinions as settled, proven fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want your taxes increased, government size increased, government spending increased for the sole purpose of punishing a tiny % of women who had abortions.  Has nothing to do with "saving the baby."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of baseless . . . When have I EVER said I wanted my taxes increased in regards to abortion?  That was YOUR fallacious assertion, to which no one ever agreed.  In fact, most of us just ignored it as ignorant, emotional, extremist drivel and didn't comment on it at all.  (Please interpret this as the only comment I think it deserves, and the only one I intend to give it.)
> 
> Thanks for telling me what my motives are and are not, Miss Cleo.  Can you also give me Saturday's Powerball numbers?
Click to expand...


1.) My opinions are opinions, not facts.  We're all predicting what a hypothetical future would bring with illegal abortions.
2.) I don't know how making abortions illegal wouldn't cause for a need of an enormous amount of government spending, which requires taxes.
3.) I'm not telling you what your motives are, I'm telling you in my opinion what I think would be accomplished if your motives were put into law.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No my point is that it wouldn't do anything to lessen abortions, like the drug war hasn't done anything to lessen drug use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, exactly what I and others SAID that you said.
> 
> By the way, how do you KNOW it hasn't lessened drug use?  What is your evidence that drug usage would be no greater if they were legal and widely available?
> 
> You certainly do make a habit of stating your personal opinions as settled, proven fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want your taxes increased, government size increased, government spending increased for the sole purpose of punishing a tiny % of women who had abortions.  Has nothing to do with "saving the baby."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of baseless . . . When have I EVER said I wanted my taxes increased in regards to abortion?  That was YOUR fallacious assertion, to which no one ever agreed.  In fact, most of us just ignored it as ignorant, emotional, extremist drivel and didn't comment on it at all.  (Please interpret this as the only comment I think it deserves, and the only one I intend to give it.)
> 
> Thanks for telling me what my motives are and are not, Miss Cleo.  Can you also give me Saturday's Powerball numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.) My opinions are opinions, not facts.  We're all predicting what a hypothetical future would bring with illegal abortions.
> 2.) I don't know how making abortions illegal wouldn't cause for a need of an enormous amount of government spending, which requires taxes.
> 3.) I'm not telling you what your motives are, I'm telling you in my opinion what I think would be accomplished if your motives were put into law.
Click to expand...


1)  I know your opinions are not fact.  That is why I would appreciate it if you stop asserting them as if they WERE fact.  And YOU are predicting what the future would bring with illegal abortions.  I haven't predicted a damned thing, and others who discuss the changes it would make in society are basing their guesses on history, rather than wild supposition.

2)  That is because you insist on projecting all manner of things that "must" happen if abortion were illegal, like "hunting down girls".  No one has suggested doing so except you.

3)  You are indeed telling me what my motives are when you say, "You want your taxes increased, government size increased, government spending increased for the sole purpose of punishing a tiny % of women who had abortions.  Has nothing to do with 'saving the baby'."  Furthermore, how can you be telling me what you think would be accomplished if my motives were put into law if you are not telling me what my motives are?  Certainly _I _have not made any statements to you about my motives.


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr.Drock said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it quite clearly, but you are have an intellect-free/emotion-based assumption made. I can help you break free from your baseless assumptions, only you can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you IMPLIED that because illegalizing abortion would not prevent ALL abortions, there was no point in doing so. Then, when you were called on that, you responded with, "I never said that."
> 
> Please "explain clearly" where anything I have said so far is incorrect.
> 
> Since it is NOT in any way incorrect, there is therefore nothing "intellect-free" or "emotion-based" in my statement that you attempted to say something without actually saying it, so as to allow yourself deniability.
> 
> If you can "explain clearly" where any of THAT is incorrect, please feel free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No my point is that it wouldn't do anything to lessen abortions, like the drug war hasn't done anything to lessen drug use.
> 
> You want your taxes increased, government size increased, government spending increased for the sole purpose of punishing a tiny % of women who had abortions. Has nothing to do with "saving the baby."
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

Abortions increased EXPONENTIALLY when abortion was legalized. It follows that they will decrease EXPONENTIALLY when it is made illegal, again. At best there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the number of abortions will remain the same if it is illegal.

Scare tactics and fear mongering. You must really have a good reason for protecting the baby rapists who impregnate teeny bop girls and are protected by PP.


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you IMPLIED that because illegalizing abortion would not prevent ALL abortions, there was no point in doing so. Then, when you were called on that, you responded with, "I never said that."
> 
> Please "explain clearly" where anything I have said so far is incorrect.
> 
> Since it is NOT in any way incorrect, there is therefore nothing "intellect-free" or "emotion-based" in my statement that you attempted to say something without actually saying it, so as to allow yourself deniability.
> 
> If you can "explain clearly" where any of THAT is incorrect, please feel free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No my point is that it wouldn't do anything to lessen abortions, like the drug war hasn't done anything to lessen drug use.
> 
> You want your taxes increased, government size increased, government spending increased for the sole purpose of punishing a tiny % of women who had abortions. Has nothing to do with "saving the baby."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Abortions increased EXPONENTIALLY when abortion was legalized. It follows that they will decrease EXPONENTIALLY when it is made illegal, again. At best there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the number of abortions will remain the same if it is illegal.
> 
> Scare tactics and fear mongering. You must really have a good reason for protecting the baby rapists who impregnate teeny bop girls and are protected by PP.
Click to expand...


Lol this goes right in line with your standard style of posting Allie.  Accuse someone else of something, then do it yourself.  Like how you accuse everyone of being a religious bigot towards your religion, yet you're an outspoken and proud religious bigot of ppl who don't share your religion.

Scare tactics and fearmongering by saying people who are pro-choice protect baby-rapers.  Who would want those who were raped by a baby-raper to be punished for a potential choice they make?  Me or you?

Good day folks, see you tomorrow.


----------



## JBeukema

Dr.Drock said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think it's ending life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the Earth is flat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone who wants religion pushed into law
Click to expand...

Who? Where?


----------



## JBeukema

Dr.Drock said:


> No my point is that it wouldn't do anything to lessen abortions



1) So we shouldn't make homicide illegal if it doesn't stop homicide?

2)If laws regarding abortion don't prevent women from having abortions, why are the pro-abortionists complaining about the laws in the first place?


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you IMPLIED that because illegalizing abortion would not prevent ALL abortions, there was no point in doing so.  Then, when you were called on that, you responded with, "I never said that."
> 
> Please "explain clearly" where anything I have said so far is incorrect.
> 
> Since it is NOT in any way incorrect, there is therefore nothing "intellect-free" or "emotion-based" in my statement that you attempted to say something without actually saying it, so as to allow yourself deniability.
> 
> If you can "explain clearly" where any of THAT is incorrect, please feel free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No my point is that it wouldn't do anything to lessen abortions, like the drug war hasn't done anything to lessen drug use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, exactly what I and others SAID that you said.
> 
> By the way, how do you KNOW it hasn't lessened drug use?  What is your evidence that drug usage would be no greater if they were legal and widely available?
Click to expand...



Looking at the opium epidemic prior to criminalization, I think there's a case to be made that, without these laws, we would've ended up like China post Opium War


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you IMPLIED that because illegalizing abortion would not prevent ALL abortions, there was no point in doing so. Then, when you were called on that, you responded with, "I never said that."
> 
> Please "explain clearly" where anything I have said so far is incorrect.
> 
> Since it is NOT in any way incorrect, there is therefore nothing "intellect-free" or "emotion-based" in my statement that you attempted to say something without actually saying it, so as to allow yourself deniability.
> 
> If you can "explain clearly" where any of THAT is incorrect, please feel free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No my point is that it wouldn't do anything to lessen abortions, like the drug war hasn't done anything to lessen drug use.
> 
> You want your taxes increased, government size increased, government spending increased for the sole purpose of punishing a tiny % of women who had abortions. Has nothing to do with "saving the baby."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Abortions increased EXPONENTIALLY when abortion was legalized.
Click to expand...


How do you know this?

What are the numbers and what is your source for them? How do we know how much of an apparent increase is an increase in abortions versus an increase in reporting?


----------



## Anguille

Caroljo said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's the pro-abortion spokesperson Art who said he didn't give a fuck what anybody thought.
> 
> What was said is that the pro-life people don't care what you DO to your body, except in the event that you are using it to inflict harm.
> 
> If it's too sensitive a subject for you, you shouldn't bring it up.
> 
> And whether or not you want a baby, it doesn't matter, it is still your responsibility. We don't get to kill off people we don't want around us.
> 
> 
> 
> What about people we don't want in us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't take any chances on getting pregnant!  Simple!
Click to expand...

 That's your solution?  I suppose you tell people trying to avoid rape not to have orifices.


----------



## Anguille

manifold said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I think I will abort myself from this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem to be work'n out so well for you.
> 
> Prolly shoulda said partially abort.
> 
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
Click to expand...


I'm laboring to get out.
BWYGD


----------



## JBeukema

Anguille said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about people we don't want in us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't take any chances on getting pregnant!  Simple!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your solution?  I suppose you tell people trying to avoid rape not to have orifices.
Click to expand...

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% 

Plan B One-Step


----------



## Anguille

JBeukema said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't take any chances on getting pregnant!  Simple!
> 
> 
> 
> That's your solution?  I suppose you tell people trying to avoid rape not to have orifices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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%
> 
> Plan B One-Step
Click to expand...

Beukenema, you don't get it. No surprise.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No my point is that it wouldn't do anything to lessen abortions, like the drug war hasn't done anything to lessen drug use.
> 
> You want your taxes increased, government size increased, government spending increased for the sole purpose of punishing a tiny % of women who had abortions. Has nothing to do with "saving the baby."
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Abortions increased EXPONENTIALLY when abortion was legalized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know this?
> 
> What are the numbers and what is your source for them? How do we know how much of an apparent increase is an increase in abortions versus an increase in reporting?
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that you think it's possible that 1.21 million abortions (Guttmacher Institute numbers for 2008) were performed each year prior to Roe v. Wade in secret, without anyone noticing?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should abortion be a capital crime - murder? With the death penalty in play for women who get abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not likely to happen in a society that so thoroughly undervalues children. People don't get the death penalty for killing CHILDREN now, it's unlikely they will ever get the death penalty for killing unborn children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it is a fact that most murders in general do not get the death penalty, so nothing says that if society at some point decides to make abortion illegal and view it as an unlawful killing of a human being, it is therefore compelled to make it a capital crime.
Click to expand...


Should hiring someone to murder your 2 year old child be a capital crime???


----------



## AllieBaba

Most people who want their infants dead do it themselves. They rarely are even convicted of murder.


----------



## AllieBaba

And in the case of abortion, there are people who actually cheer them on! Art, for example, and Care! Kill those babies, rah rah!


----------



## Gadawg73

With all the problems this nation faces abortion  is maybe, maybe 179th on the list.
Abortion: a NON ISSUE.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> And in the case of abortion, there are people who actually cheer them on! Art, for example, and Care! Kill those babies, rah rah!



It cannot be said enough. You are an idiot.


----------



## Anguille

Gadawg73 said:


> With all the problems this nation faces abortion  is maybe, maybe 179th on the list.
> Abortion: a NON ISSUE.



True.


----------



## AllieBaba

Oh and anguille. A good baby-killing thread always pulls you out of the woodwork.


----------



## AllieBaba

Anguille said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all the problems this nation faces abortion is maybe, maybe 179th on the list.
> Abortion: a NON ISSUE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
Click to expand...

 
I put the welfare of infants pretty high on my list of priorities. \

Everybody knows that the people who support abortion don't, it's not exactly news that you rank child welfare somewhere below gay marriage and the price of cosmetic surgery.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all the problems this nation faces abortion is maybe, maybe 179th on the list.
> Abortion: a NON ISSUE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I put the welfare of infants pretty high on my list of priorities. \
> 
> Everybody knows that the people who support abortion don't, it's not exactly news that you rank child welfare somewhere below gay marriage and the price of cosmetic surgery.
Click to expand...


An infant is a walking baby.
I put them very high on my priorities.
Higher than abortion. 
Infants will be paying the debt we have run up.
The debt is more important issue than abortion. Abortion is a non issue.
No law stops it. How dense do you have to be. One state bans it. They go to the next state.
Well DUH. 
I OPPOSE ABORTION just like I oppose smoking, irresponsible parents and a thousand other things.
I oppose the doctors that wrote the "it was in the best interest of the mother" when abortion was illegal.
How do you stop that? If Roe was overturned tomorrow don't you know that 70%+ of abortions STILL WOULD HAPPEN.
If you don't you either will not admit it due to stubborness, which I believe is the real answer, or you ar dumb as hell which I do not believe. 
Abortion is A NON ISSUE.


----------



## AllieBaba

An infant is a WALKING baby?

So they aren't infants until what, 9 months or so?

Fucking freak.


----------



## R.D.

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put the welfare of infants pretty high on my list of priorities. \
> 
> Everybody knows that the people who support abortion don't, it's not exactly news that you rank child welfare somewhere below gay marriage and the price of cosmetic surgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An infant is a walking baby.
> .
Click to expand...

Thats a toddler, idiot


----------



## AllieBaba

Abortion is a non-issue to you because you want those particular children dead and gone. I know that.

That doesn't make it a non-issue for the majority of Americans.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> An infant is a WALKING baby?
> 
> So they aren't infants until what, 9 months or so?
> 
> Fucking freak.



I notice you are unable to refute anything else he says.


----------



## AllieBaba

I didn't read anything else. Why would I? You open your argument with a moronism, I'm not giving credence to anything else that's said.

Not that I give that retard any credence anyway.


----------



## Immanuel

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put the welfare of infants pretty high on my list of priorities. \
> 
> Everybody knows that the people who support abortion don't, it's not exactly news that you rank child welfare somewhere below gay marriage and the price of cosmetic surgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An infant is a walking baby.
> I put them very high on my priorities.
> Higher than abortion.
> Infants will be paying the debt we have run up.
> The debt is more important issue than abortion. Abortion is a non issue.
> No law stops it. How dense do you have to be. One state bans it. They go to the next state.
> Well DUH.
> I OPPOSE ABORTION just like I oppose smoking, irresponsible parents and a thousand other things.
> I oppose the doctors that wrote the "it was in the best interest of the mother" when abortion was illegal.
> How do you stop that? If Roe was overturned tomorrow don't you know that 70%+ of abortions STILL WOULD HAPPEN.
> If you don't you either will not admit it due to stubborness, which I believe is the real answer, or you ar dumb as hell which I do not believe.
> Abortion is A NON ISSUE.
Click to expand...


You know something?  If I thought that overturning Roe would save approximately 300,000 lives I would definitely support overturning it.  I have come to the conclusion, unlike Allie (I wish I could believe she was correct in her analysis) that overturning Roe would not save any lives.  But, you seem to believe that doing so would save nearly 300,000 lives so maybe...

I disagree with you.  Abortion is a major issue this country faces and for many reasons.  However, I am glad to know that you along with most pro choice people do, in fact, oppose abortion.  We may see things differently in our beliefs about the role of government in this issue, but as long as most of us oppose abortion there is still hope.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Most abortions are simply birth control. The women that get those do not seek abortions if they are illegal. They get them because they're easy  and they're told it's acceptable to get them. Quit telling girls and women that, and remove the ease with which they can get them, of course the numbers drop.

The flaw in this thinking is the concept that all women who get abortions are in desperate situations. They aren't. They just screwed up and don't want to deal with a pregnancy. It isn't even about the baby. It's the pregnancy. Cuz anyone can get rid of a baby once it's born.


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Most abortions are simply birth control. The women that get those do not seek abortions if they are illegal. They get them because they're easy  and they're told it's acceptable to get them. Quit telling girls and women that, and remove the ease with which they can get them, of course the numbers drop.
> 
> The flaw in this thinking is the concept that all women who get abortions are in desperate situations. They aren't. They just screwed up and don't want to deal with a pregnancy. It isn't even about the baby. It's the pregnancy. Cuz anyone can get rid of a baby once it's born.



I have to disagree with you, Allie, abortion has been to prevalent in our lives for to long now and now we have RU-486 to assist them.  Not to mention the fact that even when abortion was illegal it was still quite common.  

I do not have the faith in the fear of the law that you have.  Women will seek abortions and have them whether or not they are legal.  

Also, if Roe is overturned then it will go back to the states and we will end up with a patchwork of states that allow abortion and those that don't.  Clearly New York and California will not ban it in its entirety.  So, no abortion will be stopped at all.  With today's ease of transportation, one can get to either one of those two states in a matter of hours and at very little expense.

I wish I could agree with you.  I simply believe you are mistaken.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

yeah well the facts don't bear that out. Not only did the numbers increase when they were made legal, they continued to climb, and climb, and climb as legalized abortion was pushed by the schools and became accepted by the main stream.

There's been a small decrease over the last few years, attributable directly to the fact that abortion is no longer preached the way it was in the 70s and early 80s, and as it becomes more and more obvious to everyone that it's just about killing babies. There's no other purpose for abortion, that's the beginning and end of it, and people, as they recognize that, have quit promoting it with the degree of vigor they once did.


----------



## midcan5

Both of these threads should be the Religion section.

"It seems to me that a case can be made for taking a human life statute that dates the origin of personhood at conception to be an "establishment" of religious doctrine. The argument runs as follows. For reasons given above, it is quite contrary to common sense to claim that a newly fertilized human ovum is already an actual person. Employing the term 'person' in the normal fashion, no one thinks of a fertilized egg in that way. The only arguments that have been advanced to the conclusion that fertilized eggs are people, common sense notwithstanding, are arguments with theological premises. These premises are part of large theological and philosophical systems that are very much worthy of respect indeed, but they can neither be established nor refuted without critical discussion of the whole systems of which they form a part. In fact, many conscientious persons reject them, often in favor of doctrines stemming from rival theological systems; so for the state to endorse the personhood of newly fertilized ova would be for the state to embrace one set of controversial theological tenets rather than others, in effect to enforce the teaching of some churches against those of other churches (and nonchurches), and to back up this enforcement with severe criminal penalties. The state plays this constitutionally prohibited role when it officially affirms a doctrine that is opposed to common sense and understanding and whose only proposed arguments proceed from theological premises. This case, it seems to me, is a good one even if there is reason, as there might be, for affirming the personhood of fetuses in the second or third trimester of pregnancy."  Joel Feinberg  Joel Feinberg, Abortion


----------



## AllieBaba

See, lol. Midcan trolling. 

Admit it, bigot, you want it moved to the religion section so you can start bashing Christians in it.

Pssst...abortion isn't a religion. I know, I know, it's worshipped by many as a religion, but so far, it hasn't gotten that tax exempt status.


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> yeah well the facts don't bear that out. Not only did the numbers increase when they were made legal, they continued to climb, and climb, and climb as legalized abortion was pushed by the schools and became accepted by the main stream.
> 
> There's been a small decrease over the last few years, attributable directly to the fact that abortion is no longer preached the way it was in the 70s and early 80s, and as it becomes more and more obvious to everyone that it's just about killing babies. There's no other purpose for abortion, that's the beginning and end of it, and people, as they recognize that, have quit promoting it with the degree of vigor they once did.



One area that leads me to disagree with you is as you stated here.  It has become accepted.  Making it illegal will not change that at least not for 50 years or so.  

I agree the way to reduce abortions is to change the fact that it is so acceptable.  Making it illegal may, in fact, make that much harder than simply working to make it socially unacceptable.

Smoking pot has been illegal forever yet people do it all the time.  It is extremely rare to find someone who can legitimately claim never to have smoked it or who will even claim not to have smoked it.  I am one of those that has never done so.  The smell of it makes me gag.  Making abortion illegal won't stop it in my opinion.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Well you're welcome to believe that. You are, of course, wrong, though. 

Guttmacher Institute: Abortion

Everyone should educate themselves on this issue.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> Most abortions are simply birth control. .



Technically speaking, all abortions are birth control. But if by your mis worded statement you mean to imply that most women who undergo an abortion are doing so because they didn't use birth control I'd like to see some facts to substantiate that claim.

Everyone I've known personally who has had a n abortion did so after their birth control failed.
I've also read that the high rate of abortion in Russia is due to the unavailability of other forms of birth control. I imagine that is the case in most other areas of the world where abortion rates are high. 

In any case, whether people who fail to use birth control pills, condoms, abstinence, etc are careless or not, it does not justify denying them a basic human right.


----------



## AllieBaba

Read this, Immie:

"
*The number and rate of abortions are in part dependent*
*on the accessibility of abortion services, which may*
*be affected by the number of providers, gestational limits,*
*cost and antiabortion harassment. The number of abortion*
*providers in the United States has been declining*
*steadily*:* It peaked in 1982, at 2,900 facilities, and had
fallen to 1,800 by 2005.​​​​1 In that year, 87% of counties
lacked an abortion provider, and 35% of women aged
15&#8211;44 lived in those counties;1 some of these women may​
lack the time or resources to travel to a provider."

I think it's pretty obvious that when abortion isn't legal, the rate drops substantially.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4304111.pdf


----------



## Anguille

midcan5 said:


> Both of these threads should be the Religion section.


Perhaps. I think the Misogyny section might also be appropriate.


----------



## Ravi

AllieBaba said:


> legalized abortion was pushed by the schools


Why must you lie?


----------



## JBeukema

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put the welfare of infants pretty high on my list of priorities. \
> 
> Everybody knows that the people who support abortion don't, it's not exactly news that you rank child welfare somewhere below gay marriage and the price of cosmetic surgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An infant is a walking baby.
> I put them very high on my priorities.
> Higher than abortion.
> Infants will be paying the debt we have run up.
Click to expand...


So would the babies you killed, had you not killed them

Gotta love that line of thinking though: people only matter if we can exploit them


> The debt is more important issue than abortion. Abortion is a non issue.



Homicide is never a non-issue


> If Roe was overturned tomorrow don't you know that 70%+ of abortions STILL WOULD HAPPEN.


So you're saying criminalizing the act saved at lest one life?


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most abortions are simply birth control. The women that get those do not seek abortions if they are illegal. They get them because they're easy  and they're told it's acceptable to get them. Quit telling girls and women that, and remove the ease with which they can get them, of course the numbers drop.
> 
> The flaw in this thinking is the concept that all women who get abortions are in desperate situations. They aren't. They just screwed up and don't want to deal with a pregnancy. It isn't even about the baby. It's the pregnancy. Cuz anyone can get rid of a baby once it's born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with you, Allie
Click to expand...


Reality agrees with her

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


----------



## NYcarbineer

AllieBaba said:


> Most abortions are simply birth control. The women that get those do not seek abortions if they are illegal. They get them because they're easy  and they're told it's acceptable to get them. Quit telling girls and women that, and remove the ease with which they can get them, of course the numbers drop.
> 
> The flaw in this thinking is the concept that all women who get abortions are in desperate situations. They aren't. They just screwed up and don't want to deal with a pregnancy. It isn't even about the baby. It's the pregnancy. Cuz anyone can get rid of a baby once it's born.



The European Union abortion rate is far lower than that in the U.S.

What's the difference in their abortion law(s)?


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Read this, Immie:
> 
> "
> *The number and rate of abortions are in part dependent*
> *on the accessibility of abortion services, which may*
> *be affected by the number of providers, gestational limits,*
> *cost and antiabortion harassment. The number of abortion*
> *providers in the United States has been declining*
> *steadily*:* It peaked in 1982, at 2,900 facilities, and had
> fallen to 1,800 by 2005.​​​​1 In that year, 87% of counties
> lacked an abortion provider, and 35% of women aged
> 1544 lived in those counties;1 some of these women may​
> lack the time or resources to travel to a provider."
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious that when abortion isn't legal, the rate drops substantially.
> 
> http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4304111.pdf



Well, when you consider that, according to StateHealthFacts.org (the Kaiser Family Foundation), the national abortion rate per 1,000 women (aged 15-44) is 16, while in South Dakota, which only has one abortion provider, it's 5, it seems obvious that if it's not available, women just live without them.  By contrast, New York State had 31 per 1,000 women.


----------



## JBeukema

JBeukema said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most abortions are simply birth control. The women that get those do not seek abortions if they are illegal. They get them because they're easy  and they're told it's acceptable to get them. Quit telling girls and women that, and remove the ease with which they can get them, of course the numbers drop.
> 
> The flaw in this thinking is the concept that all women who get abortions are in desperate situations. They aren't. They just screwed up and don't want to deal with a pregnancy. It isn't even about the baby. It's the pregnancy. Cuz anyone can get rid of a baby once it's born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with you, Allie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality agrees with her
> 
> 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
Click to expand...



Before someone says it's a conservative source:



> The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the "Center for Family  Planning Program Development", a semi-autonomous division of The Planned Parenthood Federation of America.


Guttmacher Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most abortions are simply birth control. The women that get those do not seek abortions if they are illegal. They get them because they're easy  and they're told it's acceptable to get them. Quit telling girls and women that, and remove the ease with which they can get them, of course the numbers drop.
> 
> The flaw in this thinking is the concept that all women who get abortions are in desperate situations. They aren't. They just screwed up and don't want to deal with a pregnancy. It isn't even about the baby. It's the pregnancy. Cuz anyone can get rid of a baby once it's born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with you, Allie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality agrees with her
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


And how does forcing those women to have the baby, under threat of life imprisonment if they don't, make things better?


----------



## JBeukema

The same way threatening to lock me up if I shoot you in the face makes things better

Should all homicide be legal, or only killing people _you_ don't want alive?


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Read this, Immie:
> 
> "
> *The number and rate of abortions are in part dependent*
> *on the accessibility of abortion services, which may*
> *be affected by the number of providers, gestational limits,*
> *cost and antiabortion harassment. The number of abortion*
> *providers in the United States has been declining*
> *steadily*:* It peaked in 1982, at 2,900 facilities, and had
> fallen to 1,800 by 2005.​​1 In that year, 87% of counties
> lacked an abortion provider, and 35% of women aged
> 15&#8211;44 lived in those counties;1 some of these women may​
> lack the time or resources to travel to a provider."
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious that when abortion isn't legal, the rate drops substantially.
> 
> http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4304111.pdf



Dagnammit Allie!  I'm getting old.  Did you really need to make it so small and then use so many size commands that it will take 5 minutes to remove them?  

I still do not agree with you.  You make the claim that the number of abortions sky-rocketed after Roe became law.  The only thing that sky-rocketed was the number of reported abortions.  We have no way of accurately counting the unreported abortions either before or after Roe.  For all we know, there may be 5 million abortions performed in the U.S. every year rather than the 1 million reported.

Also, this is propaganda by Guttmacher.  They are trying to scare people into believing that if Roe were overturned abortions and access to them would fall.  This is nothing but fear-mongering on the part of the left.

Immie


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> You make the claim that the number of abortions sky-rocketed after Roe became law.  The only thing that sky-rocketed was the number of reported abortions.  We have no way of accurately counting the unreported abortions either before or after Roe.



True.

I imagine that the rate of infanticide per capita - I'm talking about genuine infanticide, not the misconception some anti choicers conflate it with - may have gone down after Roe also.


----------



## AllieBaba

JBeukema said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with you, Allie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality agrees with her
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Before someone says it's a conservative source:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the "Center for Family Planning Program Development", a semi-autonomous division of The Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guttmacher Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

 
Lol..no, the Guttmacher Institute is definitely NOT conservative, and has a strong bias FOR the legality of abortion. But they're the only ones that gather the numbers. What numbers they are provided by PP. Of course THOSE numbers are completely fabricated, and the numbers STILL show that legalization of abortion did nothing except increase the rate of abortion to a ridiculous degree.


----------



## AllieBaba

Immanuel said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read this, Immie:
> 
> "
> *The number and rate of abortions are in part dependent*
> *on the accessibility of abortion services, which may*
> *be affected by the number of providers, gestational limits,*
> *cost and antiabortion harassment. The number of abortion*
> *providers in the United States has been declining*
> *steadily*:* It peaked in 1982, at 2,900 facilities, and had​
> fallen to 1,800 by 2005.
> 1 In that year, 87% of counties
> lacked an abortion provider, and 35% of women aged
> 1544 lived in those counties;​​
> 1 some of these women may
> lack the time or resources to travel to a provider."
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious that when abortion isn't legal, the rate drops substantially.
> 
> http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4304111.pdf
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagnammit Allie! I'm getting old. Did you really need to make it so small and then use so many size commands that it will take 5 minutes to remove them?
> 
> I still do not agree with you. You make the claim that the number of abortions sky-rocketed after Roe became law. The only thing that sky-rocketed was the number of reported abortions. We have no way of accurately counting the unreported abortions either before or after Roe. For all we know, there may be 5 million abortions performed in the U.S. every year rather than the 1 million reported.
> 
> Also, this is propaganda by Guttmacher. They are trying to scare people into believing that if Roe were overturned abortions and access to them would fall. This is nothing but fear-mongering on the part of the left.
> 
> Immie​
Click to expand...



I know, me too...it copied and pasted in that ridiculous font and working with my faulty keyboard, I opted not to fix it because I'd probably just delete everything or end up posting a fragment from some other topic in the middle of it.

It's not small in the link. 

And the numbers of reported abortions NOW are no more reliable than the numbers of reported abortions then. EVERYBODY IN THE INDUSTRY AGREES that the abortion rate skyrocketed after Roe v. Wade. Everybody, Immie. Gottmacher is NOT motivated by the desire to increase numbers, when decreasing the numbers would prove the original claim of the pro-abortionists that legalized abortions would DECREASE the numbers of abortions.

I don't believe Gottmacher cooks their numbers. They don't need to, Planned Parenthood cooks theirs.

So really we have no way of knowing what the numbers are. I know very well that I know more people who have obtained abortions (and multiple abortions!) than my mother knew in her day. More people get abortions now because they're legal, they're easy, and they're local. 

Put obstacles in the way and there will still be those who will go to any lengths (though it's unnecessary)..those people exist today. Botched abortions STILL kill women, and probably more than they used to. But everybody agrees that having legal abortions means a lot more abortions are taking place. There are lots of women who would not get an abortion if it was illegal. They either wouldn't get pregnant in the first place, or they'd just have the baby and deal with it. ​


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read this, Immie:
> 
> "
> *The number and rate of abortions are in part dependent*
> *on the accessibility of abortion services, which may*
> *be affected by the number of providers, gestational limits,*
> *cost and antiabortion harassment. The number of abortion*
> *providers in the United States has been declining*
> *steadily*:* It peaked in 1982, at 2,900 facilities, and had​
> fallen to 1,800 by 2005.
> 1 In that year, 87% of counties
> lacked an abortion provider, and 35% of women aged
> 1544 lived in those counties;​​
> 1 some of these women may
> lack the time or resources to travel to a provider."
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious that when abortion isn't legal, the rate drops substantially.
> 
> http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4304111.pdf
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagnammit Allie! I'm getting old. Did you really need to make it so small and then use so many size commands that it will take 5 minutes to remove them?
> 
> I still do not agree with you. You make the claim that the number of abortions sky-rocketed after Roe became law. The only thing that sky-rocketed was the number of reported abortions. We have no way of accurately counting the unreported abortions either before or after Roe. For all we know, there may be 5 million abortions performed in the U.S. every year rather than the 1 million reported.
> 
> Also, this is propaganda by Guttmacher. They are trying to scare people into believing that if Roe were overturned abortions and access to them would fall. This is nothing but fear-mongering on the part of the left.
> 
> Immie​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know, me too...it copied and pasted in that ridiculous font and working with my faulty keyboard, I opted not to fix it because I'd probably just delete everything or end up posting a fragment from some other topic in the middle of it.
> 
> It's not small in the link.
> 
> And the numbers of reported abortions NOW are no more reliable than the numbers of reported abortions then. EVERYBODY IN THE INDUSTRY AGREES that the abortion rate skyrocketed after Roe v. Wade. Everybody, Immie. Gottmacher is NOT motivated by the desire to increase numbers, when decreasing the numbers would prove the original claim of the pro-abortionists that legalized abortions would DECREASE the numbers of abortions.
> 
> I don't believe Gottmacher cooks their numbers. They don't need to, Planned Parenthood cooks theirs.
> 
> So really we have no way of knowing what the numbers are. I know very well that I know more people who have obtained abortions (and multiple abortions!) than my mother knew in her day. More people get abortions now because they're legal, they're easy, and they're local.
> 
> Put obstacles in the way and there will still be those who will go to any lengths (though it's unnecessary)..those people exist today. Botched abortions STILL kill women, and probably more than they used to. But everybody agrees that having legal abortions means a lot more abortions are taking place. There are lots of women who would not get an abortion if it was illegal. They either wouldn't get pregnant in the first place, or they'd just have the baby and deal with it. ​
Click to expand...


I would agree, the numbers are most likely cooked by PP, but then AGI is an arm of PP so my guess is that they are fully aware of the possibility that many abortions are not reported.

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality agrees with her
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before someone says it's a conservative source:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the "Center for Family Planning Program Development", a semi-autonomous division of The Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guttmacher Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol..no, the Guttmacher Institute is definitely NOT conservative, and has a strong bias FOR the legality of abortion. But they're the only ones that gather the numbers. What numbers they are provided by PP. Of course THOSE numbers are completely fabricated, and the numbers STILL show that legalization of abortion did nothing except increase the rate of abortion to a ridiculous degree.
Click to expand...


The CDC also gathers numbers, and theirs closely coincide with the Guttmacher Institute.


----------



## AllieBaba

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before someone says it's a conservative source:
> 
> 
> Guttmacher Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..no, the Guttmacher Institute is definitely NOT conservative, and has a strong bias FOR the legality of abortion. But they're the only ones that gather the numbers. What numbers they are provided by PP. Of course THOSE numbers are completely fabricated, and the numbers STILL show that legalization of abortion did nothing except increase the rate of abortion to a ridiculous degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CDC also gathers numbers, and theirs closely coincide with the Guttmacher Institute.
Click to expand...

 
Last I checked the CDC got their numbers from Gottmacher.


----------



## Luissa

AllieBaba said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read this, Immie:
> 
> "
> *The number and rate of abortions are in part dependent*
> *on the accessibility of abortion services, which may*
> *be affected by the number of providers, gestational limits,*
> *cost and antiabortion harassment. The number of abortion*
> *providers in the United States has been declining*
> *steadily*:* It peaked in 1982, at 2,900 facilities, and had​
> fallen to 1,800 by 2005.
> 1 In that year, 87% of counties
> lacked an abortion provider, and 35% of women aged
> 1544 lived in those counties;​​
> 1 some of these women may
> lack the time or resources to travel to a provider."
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious that when abortion isn't legal, the rate drops substantially.
> 
> http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4304111.pdf
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagnammit Allie! I'm getting old. Did you really need to make it so small and then use so many size commands that it will take 5 minutes to remove them?
> 
> I still do not agree with you. You make the claim that the number of abortions sky-rocketed after Roe became law. The only thing that sky-rocketed was the number of reported abortions. We have no way of accurately counting the unreported abortions either before or after Roe. For all we know, there may be 5 million abortions performed in the U.S. every year rather than the 1 million reported.
> 
> Also, this is propaganda by Guttmacher. They are trying to scare people into believing that if Roe were overturned abortions and access to them would fall. This is nothing but fear-mongering on the part of the left.
> 
> Immie​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know, me too...it copied and pasted in that ridiculous font and working with my faulty keyboard, I opted not to fix it because I'd probably just delete everything or end up posting a fragment from some other topic in the middle of it.
> 
> It's not small in the link.
> 
> And the numbers of reported abortions NOW are no more reliable than the numbers of reported abortions then. EVERYBODY IN THE INDUSTRY AGREES that the abortion rate skyrocketed after Roe v. Wade. Everybody, Immie. Gottmacher is NOT motivated by the desire to increase numbers, when decreasing the numbers would prove the original claim of the pro-abortionists that legalized abortions would DECREASE the numbers of abortions.
> 
> I don't believe Gottmacher cooks their numbers. They don't need to, Planned Parenthood cooks theirs.
> 
> So really we have no way of knowing what the numbers are. I know very well that I know more people who have obtained abortions (and multiple abortions!) than my mother knew in her day. More people get abortions now because they're legal, they're easy, and they're local.
> 
> Put obstacles in the way and there will still be those who will go to any lengths (though it's unnecessary)..those people exist today. Botched abortions STILL kill women, and probably more than they used to. But everybody agrees that having legal abortions means a lot more abortions are taking place. There are lots of women who would not get an abortion if it was illegal. They either wouldn't get pregnant in the first place, or they'd just have the baby and deal with it. ​
Click to expand...


or they would kill themselves, or do something that would kill the baby. 
In a perfect world your theory would work.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..no, the Guttmacher Institute is definitely NOT conservative, and has a strong bias FOR the legality of abortion. But they're the only ones that gather the numbers. What numbers they are provided by PP. Of course THOSE numbers are completely fabricated, and the numbers STILL show that legalization of abortion did nothing except increase the rate of abortion to a ridiculous degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CDC also gathers numbers, and theirs closely coincide with the Guttmacher Institute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last I checked the CDC got their numbers from Gottmacher.
Click to expand...


No, they don't.  They get their health statistics from state and local health departments.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Luissa said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dagnammit Allie! I'm getting old. Did you really need to make it so small and then use so many size commands that it will take 5 minutes to remove them?
> 
> I still do not agree with you. You make the claim that the number of abortions sky-rocketed after Roe became law. The only thing that sky-rocketed was the number of reported abortions. We have no way of accurately counting the unreported abortions either before or after Roe. For all we know, there may be 5 million abortions performed in the U.S. every year rather than the 1 million reported.
> 
> Also, this is propaganda by Guttmacher. They are trying to scare people into believing that if Roe were overturned abortions and access to them would fall. This is nothing but fear-mongering on the part of the left.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, me too...it copied and pasted in that ridiculous font and working with my faulty keyboard, I opted not to fix it because I'd probably just delete everything or end up posting a fragment from some other topic in the middle of it.
> 
> It's not small in the link.
> 
> And the numbers of reported abortions NOW are no more reliable than the numbers of reported abortions then. EVERYBODY IN THE INDUSTRY AGREES that the abortion rate skyrocketed after Roe v. Wade. Everybody, Immie. Gottmacher is NOT motivated by the desire to increase numbers, when decreasing the numbers would prove the original claim of the pro-abortionists that legalized abortions would DECREASE the numbers of abortions.
> 
> I don't believe Gottmacher cooks their numbers. They don't need to, Planned Parenthood cooks theirs.
> 
> So really we have no way of knowing what the numbers are. I know very well that I know more people who have obtained abortions (and multiple abortions!) than my mother knew in her day. More people get abortions now because they're legal, they're easy, and they're local.
> 
> Put obstacles in the way and there will still be those who will go to any lengths (though it's unnecessary)..those people exist today. Botched abortions STILL kill women, and probably more than they used to. But everybody agrees that having legal abortions means a lot more abortions are taking place. There are lots of women who would not get an abortion if it was illegal. They either wouldn't get pregnant in the first place, or they'd just have the baby and deal with it.
> [/LEFT]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or they would kill themselves, or do something that would kill the baby.
> In a perfect world your theory would work.
Click to expand...


I'm glad to know that you think women being too pig-stupid to have a sense of self-preservation is a major problem in America.


----------



## AllieBaba

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CDC also gathers numbers, and theirs closely coincide with the Guttmacher Institute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked the CDC got their numbers from Gottmacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They get their health statistics from state and local health departments.
Click to expand...

 
Ok, Cecilie...look at the reference list on their report:

"
*References*


Smith JC. Abortion surveillance report, hospital abortions, annual summary 1969. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Services and Mental Health Administration, National Communicable Disease Center; 1970.
CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2005. MMWR 2008;57(No. SS-13).
Henshaw SK, Kost K. Trends in the characteristics of women obtaining abortions, 1974 to 2004. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute; 2008. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/23/TrendsWomenAbortions-wTables.pdf 
	

. Accessed November 10, 2010. 
Jones RK, Kost K, Singh S, Henshaw SK, Finer LB. Trends in abortion in the United States. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2009;52:119--29.
Ventura SJ, Abma JC, Mosher WD, Henshaw SK. Estimated pregnancy rates by outcome for the United States, 1990--2005: an update. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009;58(4).
Ventura SJ, Mosher WD, Curtin SC, Abma JC, Henshaw S. Trends in pregnancies and pregnancy rates by outcome: estimates for the United States, 1976--1996. Vital Health Stat 2000;21(56).
Henshaw SK, Kost K. Abortion patients in 1994--1995: characteristics and contraceptive use. Fam Plann Perspect 1996;28:140--7, 58
Henshaw SK, Silverman J. The characteristics and prior contraceptive use of U.S. abortion patients. Fam Plann Perspect 1988;20:158--68.
Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000--2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002;34:226--35.
Jones RK, Finer LB, Singh S. Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients, 2008. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf 
	

. Accessed November 10, 2010. 
Jones RK, Kooistra K. Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2011;43:41-50.
CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2006. MMWR 2009;58(No. SS-8).
CDC. Abortion surveillance, 1981. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, CDC; 1985.
Guttmacher Institute. State policies in brief: abortion reporting requirements. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.com/statecenter/spibs/spib_ARR.pdf 
	

. Accessed November 10, 2010. "
Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2007

So as you see, the CDC gets many if not most of its numbers from Gottmacher.

Thank you. Thank you. Flowers are not necessary.


----------



## Luissa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, me too...it copied and pasted in that ridiculous font and working with my faulty keyboard, I opted not to fix it because I'd probably just delete everything or end up posting a fragment from some other topic in the middle of it.
> 
> It's not small in the link.
> 
> And the numbers of reported abortions NOW are no more reliable than the numbers of reported abortions then. EVERYBODY IN THE INDUSTRY AGREES that the abortion rate skyrocketed after Roe v. Wade. Everybody, Immie. Gottmacher is NOT motivated by the desire to increase numbers, when decreasing the numbers would prove the original claim of the pro-abortionists that legalized abortions would DECREASE the numbers of abortions.
> 
> I don't believe Gottmacher cooks their numbers. They don't need to, Planned Parenthood cooks theirs.
> 
> So really we have no way of knowing what the numbers are. I know very well that I know more people who have obtained abortions (and multiple abortions!) than my mother knew in her day. More people get abortions now because they're legal, they're easy, and they're local.
> 
> Put obstacles in the way and there will still be those who will go to any lengths (though it's unnecessary)..those people exist today. Botched abortions STILL kill women, and probably more than they used to. But everybody agrees that having legal abortions means a lot more abortions are taking place. There are lots of women who would not get an abortion if it was illegal. They either wouldn't get pregnant in the first place, or they'd just have the baby and deal with it.
> [/LEFT]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or they would kill themselves, or do something that would kill the baby.
> In a perfect world your theory would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad to know that you think women being too pig-stupid to have a sense of self-preservation is a major problem in America.
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with being pig stupid. You also shouldn't judge people you know nothing about. You only know the numbers, and what you believe, you don't know why someone had abortion. Statistics are just statistics.


----------



## manifold

Seems to me that it's the pro-oppression crowd that are the ones struggling with honesty here.


But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## Anguille

Cecilie1200 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, me too...it copied and pasted in that ridiculous font and working with my faulty keyboard, I opted not to fix it because I'd probably just delete everything or end up posting a fragment from some other topic in the middle of it.
> 
> It's not small in the link.
> 
> And the numbers of reported abortions NOW are no more reliable than the numbers of reported abortions then. EVERYBODY IN THE INDUSTRY AGREES that the abortion rate skyrocketed after Roe v. Wade. Everybody, Immie. Gottmacher is NOT motivated by the desire to increase numbers, when decreasing the numbers would prove the original claim of the pro-abortionists that legalized abortions would DECREASE the numbers of abortions.
> 
> I don't believe Gottmacher cooks their numbers. They don't need to, Planned Parenthood cooks theirs.
> 
> So really we have no way of knowing what the numbers are. I know very well that I know more people who have obtained abortions (and multiple abortions!) than my mother knew in her day. More people get abortions now because they're legal, they're easy, and they're local.
> 
> Put obstacles in the way and there will still be those who will go to any lengths (though it's unnecessary)..those people exist today. Botched abortions STILL kill women, and probably more than they used to. But everybody agrees that having legal abortions means a lot more abortions are taking place. There are lots of women who would not get an abortion if it was illegal. They either wouldn't get pregnant in the first place, or they'd just have the baby and deal with it.
> [/LEFT]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or they would kill themselves, or do something that would kill the baby.
> In a perfect world your theory would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad to know that you think women being too pig-stupid to have a sense of self-preservation is a major problem in America.
Click to expand...


I'm not glad to know you haven't an ounce of compassion in your entire body. It saddens me.


----------



## Anguille

Luissa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> or they would kill themselves, or do something that would kill the baby.
> In a perfect world your theory would work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad to know that you think women being too pig-stupid to have a sense of self-preservation is a major problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with being pig stupid. You also shouldn't judge people you know nothing about. You only know the numbers, and what you believe, you don't know why someone had abortion. Statistics are just statistics.
Click to expand...


Passing judgement is SoSilly's raison d'être.

She probably only thinks that women who have killed themselves because abortion was unavailable or unacceptable to them are not deserving of consideration because, afterall, they are "baby killers" too. 

My friend's grandmother poisoned herself after her drunk of a husband raped her one more time, causing her to become pregnant for the 8th time. They don't really know if the poisoning was intended for suicide or to miscarry the fetus but either way it was tragic.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> The same way threatening to lock me up if I shoot you in the face makes things better
> 
> Should all homicide be legal, or only killing people _you_ don't want alive?



So taking RU486 to terminate a pregnancy is no different than shooting someone in the face?

Really?

Your position is extremist.  Do you accept that?


----------



## AllieBaba

Anguille said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> or they would kill themselves, or do something that would kill the baby.
> In a perfect world your theory would work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad to know that you think women being too pig-stupid to have a sense of self-preservation is a major problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not glad to know you haven't an ounce of compassion in your entire body. It saddens me.
Click to expand...

 
I know. Compassion for babies is soooo misplaced! They're worthless and therefore not worthy of compassion.


----------



## JBeukema

If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth.


----------



## Gadawg73

"You are for abortion because you want babies dead" is the argument I hear here.

"You are for decriminalizing of drugs because you want drug users dead" is the same thing.
"You are for alcohol and tobacco legal because you want drinkers and smokers dead" 

You folks are eat up with the DUMBASS.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked the CDC got their numbers from Gottmacher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They get their health statistics from state and local health departments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, Cecilie...look at the reference list on their report:
> 
> "
> *References*
> 
> 
> Smith JC. Abortion surveillance report, hospital abortions, annual summary 1969. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Services and Mental Health Administration, National Communicable Disease Center; 1970.
> CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2005. MMWR 2008;57(No. SS-13).
> Henshaw SK, Kost K. Trends in the characteristics of women obtaining abortions, 1974 to 2004. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute; 2008. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/23/TrendsWomenAbortions-wTables.pdf
> 
> 
> . Accessed November 10, 2010.
> Jones RK, Kost K, Singh S, Henshaw SK, Finer LB. Trends in abortion in the United States. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2009;52:119--29.
> Ventura SJ, Abma JC, Mosher WD, Henshaw SK. Estimated pregnancy rates by outcome for the United States, 1990--2005: an update. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009;58(4).
> Ventura SJ, Mosher WD, Curtin SC, Abma JC, Henshaw S. Trends in pregnancies and pregnancy rates by outcome: estimates for the United States, 1976--1996. Vital Health Stat 2000;21(56).
> Henshaw SK, Kost K. Abortion patients in 1994--1995: characteristics and contraceptive use. Fam Plann Perspect 1996;28:140--7, 58
> Henshaw SK, Silverman J. The characteristics and prior contraceptive use of U.S. abortion patients. Fam Plann Perspect 1988;20:158--68.
> Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000--2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002;34:226--35.
> Jones RK, Finer LB, Singh S. Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients, 2008. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf
> 
> 
> . Accessed November 10, 2010.
> Jones RK, Kooistra K. Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2011;43:41-50.
> CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2006. MMWR 2009;58(No. SS-8).
> CDC. Abortion surveillance, 1981. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, CDC; 1985.
> Guttmacher Institute. State policies in brief: abortion reporting requirements. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.com/statecenter/spibs/spib_ARR.pdf
> 
> 
> . Accessed November 10, 2010. "
> Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2007
> 
> So as you see, the CDC gets many if not most of its numbers from Gottmacher.
> 
> Thank you. Thank you. Flowers are not necessary.
Click to expand...


Without reading the entire report, which I don't have time to do right now, I have no idea what specific statements were made to which those footnotes relate.  However, if you look on the very first page, you see this:

Description of System: *Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). *This information is provided voluntarily. For 2007, data were received from 49 reporting areas. For the purpose of trend analysis, data were evaluated from the 45 areas that reported data every year during the preceding decade (1998--2007). Abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) were calculated using census and natality data, respectively.

(emphasis mine)

I prefer chocolates to flowers, thanks.


----------



## AllieBaba

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They get their health statistics from state and local health departments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, Cecilie...look at the reference list on their report:
> 
> "
> *References*
> 
> 
> Smith JC. Abortion surveillance report, hospital abortions, annual summary 1969. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Services and Mental Health Administration, National Communicable Disease Center; 1970.
> CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2005. MMWR 2008;57(No. SS-13).
> Henshaw SK, Kost K. Trends in the characteristics of women obtaining abortions, 1974 to 2004. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute; 2008. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/23/TrendsWomenAbortions-wTables.pdf
> 
> 
> . Accessed November 10, 2010.
> Jones RK, Kost K, Singh S, Henshaw SK, Finer LB. Trends in abortion in the United States. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2009;52:119--29.
> Ventura SJ, Abma JC, Mosher WD, Henshaw SK. Estimated pregnancy rates by outcome for the United States, 1990--2005: an update. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009;58(4).
> Ventura SJ, Mosher WD, Curtin SC, Abma JC, Henshaw S. Trends in pregnancies and pregnancy rates by outcome: estimates for the United States, 1976--1996. Vital Health Stat 2000;21(56).
> Henshaw SK, Kost K. Abortion patients in 1994--1995: characteristics and contraceptive use. Fam Plann Perspect 1996;28:140--7, 58
> Henshaw SK, Silverman J. The characteristics and prior contraceptive use of U.S. abortion patients. Fam Plann Perspect 1988;20:158--68.
> Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000--2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002;34:226--35.
> Jones RK, Finer LB, Singh S. Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients, 2008. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf
> 
> 
> . Accessed November 10, 2010.
> Jones RK, Kooistra K. Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2011;43:41-50.
> CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2006. MMWR 2009;58(No. SS-8).
> CDC. Abortion surveillance, 1981. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, CDC; 1985.
> Guttmacher Institute. State policies in brief: abortion reporting requirements. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.com/statecenter/spibs/spib_ARR.pdf
> 
> 
> . Accessed November 10, 2010. "
> Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2007
> 
> So as you see, the CDC gets many if not most of its numbers from Gottmacher.
> 
> Thank you. Thank you. Flowers are not necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without reading the entire report, which I don't have time to do right now, I have no idea what specific statements were made to which those footnotes relate. However, if you look on the very first page, you see this:
> 
> Description of System: *Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). *This information is provided voluntarily. For 2007, data were received from 49 reporting areas. For the purpose of trend analysis, data were evaluated from the 45 areas that reported data every year during the preceding decade (1998--2007). Abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) were calculated using census and natality data, respectively.
> 
> (emphasis mine)
> 
> I prefer chocolates to flowers, thanks.
Click to expand...

 
Read it. They get stats from a tiny number of clinics and is voluntary. They cite Gottmacher REPEATEDLY in their report.

Chocolates.
And flowers...I like daffodils this time of the year.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Luissa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> or they would kill themselves, or do something that would kill the baby.
> In a perfect world your theory would work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad to know that you think women being too pig-stupid to have a sense of self-preservation is a major problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with being pig stupid. You also shouldn't judge people you know nothing about. You only know the numbers, and what you believe, you don't know why someone had abortion. Statistics are just statistics.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter why they had an abortion.  All I need to know is that women are, by and large, intelligent human beings with a healthy sense of self-preservation and the basic common sense to act upon it.  The number of women in this country stupid and self-destructive enough to stick the legendary and apocryphal coat hanger up their coochies is too vanishingly small to be making public policy on.

And by the way, that tiny number of ignorant, crazy bitches would inevitably kill themselves in some OTHER inane and stupid way, because they're no brighter about any OTHER life choices, either.  So there you go.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad to know that you think women being too pig-stupid to have a sense of self-preservation is a major problem in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not glad to know you haven't an ounce of compassion in your entire body. It saddens me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. Compassion for babies is soooo misplaced! They're worthless and therefore not worthy of compassion.
Click to expand...


Honestly, what would you know about compassion? You and So Silly have got to be the bitterest broads on these boards. No offence.


----------



## AllieBaba

Anguille said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not glad to know you haven't an ounce of compassion in your entire body. It saddens me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. Compassion for babies is soooo misplaced! They're worthless and therefore not worthy of compassion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, what would you know about compassion? You and So Silly have got to be the bitterest broads on these boards. No offence.
Click to expand...

 
Anguille, honey, don't you think you might be projecting...just a....eeensy weensy bit? Hmm? Just a smidge?


----------



## AllieBaba

And of course my definition of compassion is almost, by definition, somebss.ody who feels a sense of obligation to those beings who are less fortunate or unable to protect themselves.

So if it's uncompassionate to feel pity for the vulnerable, then uncompassionate I am, I guess.

Tell us what you do for a living, Ang. Have you chosen to work with those less fortunate and subsequently earn a meager living? Have you followed a more lucrative path that insulates you from the suffering of others? Or do you just hate everyone?


----------



## Anguille

I think I hit a nerve with Allie. LOL!


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, Cecilie...look at the reference list on their report:
> 
> "
> *References*
> 
> 
> Smith JC. Abortion surveillance report, hospital abortions, annual summary 1969. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Services and Mental Health Administration, National Communicable Disease Center; 1970.
> CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2005. MMWR 2008;57(No. SS-13).
> Henshaw SK, Kost K. Trends in the characteristics of women obtaining abortions, 1974 to 2004. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute; 2008. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/23/TrendsWomenAbortions-wTables.pdf
> 
> 
> . Accessed November 10, 2010.
> Jones RK, Kost K, Singh S, Henshaw SK, Finer LB. Trends in abortion in the United States. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2009;52:119--29.
> Ventura SJ, Abma JC, Mosher WD, Henshaw SK. Estimated pregnancy rates by outcome for the United States, 1990--2005: an update. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009;58(4).
> Ventura SJ, Mosher WD, Curtin SC, Abma JC, Henshaw S. Trends in pregnancies and pregnancy rates by outcome: estimates for the United States, 1976--1996. Vital Health Stat 2000;21(56).
> Henshaw SK, Kost K. Abortion patients in 1994--1995: characteristics and contraceptive use. Fam Plann Perspect 1996;28:140--7, 58
> Henshaw SK, Silverman J. The characteristics and prior contraceptive use of U.S. abortion patients. Fam Plann Perspect 1988;20:158--68.
> Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000--2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002;34:226--35.
> Jones RK, Finer LB, Singh S. Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients, 2008. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf
> 
> 
> . Accessed November 10, 2010.
> Jones RK, Kooistra K. Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2011;43:41-50.
> CDC. Abortion surveillance---United States, 2006. MMWR 2009;58(No. SS-8).
> CDC. Abortion surveillance, 1981. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, CDC; 1985.
> Guttmacher Institute. State policies in brief: abortion reporting requirements. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute. Available at http://www.guttmacher.com/statecenter/spibs/spib_ARR.pdf
> 
> 
> . Accessed November 10, 2010. "
> Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2007
> 
> So as you see, the CDC gets many if not most of its numbers from Gottmacher.
> 
> Thank you. Thank you. Flowers are not necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without reading the entire report, which I don't have time to do right now, I have no idea what specific statements were made to which those footnotes relate. However, if you look on the very first page, you see this:
> 
> Description of System: *Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). *This information is provided voluntarily. For 2007, data were received from 49 reporting areas. For the purpose of trend analysis, data were evaluated from the 45 areas that reported data every year during the preceding decade (1998--2007). Abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) were calculated using census and natality data, respectively.
> 
> (emphasis mine)
> 
> I prefer chocolates to flowers, thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read it. They get stats from a tiny number of clinics and is voluntary. They cite Gottmacher REPEATEDLY in their report.
> 
> Chocolates.
> And flowers...I like daffodils this time of the year.
Click to expand...


It is, indeed, voluntary.  Nevertheless, that IS still where they get their stats.  If you continue to read their paper, you will see that they clearly TELL you that repeatedly.  Further on, they give a more detailed description of their system, and it says, again:

_Each year, CDC requests tabulated data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City) to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining abortions in the United States.

. . .

In most states, collection of abortion data is facilitated by the legal requirement for hospitals, facilities, and physicians to report abortions to a central health agency (14). These central health agencies voluntarily provide CDC the aggregate numbers for the abortion data they have collected (15). _

Furthermore, if you actually go through and READ the footnoted passages that reference the Guttmacher Institute, you will see that they are NOT being referenced as the primary source of abortion statistics.  They are being referenced as corroboration of the CDC's primary statistics, derived from separate sources.  Essentially, they are saying, "See?  Other people are getting the same numbers with THEIR methods, so ours are probably accurate."

So once again, the CDC does not get its statistics from the Guttmacher Institute.  They get them from state government agencies, and COMPARE them with the numbers the Guttmacher Institute gets from its sources.


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> I think I hit a nerve with Allie. LOL!



I think you are good at hitting nerves.  In fact, I think you practice at it daily.  

edit: In fact, you use me for practice quite often. 

Immie


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I hit a nerve with Allie. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are good at hitting nerves.  In fact, I think you practice at it daily.
> 
> edit: In fact, you use me for practice quite often.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


But you know I only do it out of love.


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I hit a nerve with Allie. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are good at hitting nerves.  In fact, I think you practice at it daily.
> 
> edit: In fact, you use me for practice quite often.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you know I only do it out of love.
Click to expand...


Of course I do.  

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

Are we to believe 1/4 pregnancies are due to rape or incest or present a mortal danger to the mother?



> We set out to determine the number of known pregnancies in 2003. We say  "known" because some pregnancies end due to natural causes at a very  early stage, often before the woman even realizes she is pregnant. CDC  only offers statistics for fetal deaths beginning at a fetal age of 20  weeks, so thats the parameter well use in our calculations.
> 
> To calculate the number of known pregnancies, we added together three  figures: the number of live births, the number of fetal deaths (these  include natural miscarriages and stillbirths), and the number of  abortions. Heres the data for 2003:
> 
> Live births: 4,090,007
> Fetal deaths: 25,653
> Abortions: 1,250,000
> 
> Total known pregnancies: 5,365,660
> 
> So abortions account for 23.2 percent of all known pregnancies.



source


----------



## Grace

Its late. Im tired. And Im an idiot for coming back in this thread. But, instead of farting rainbows and unicorns out my ass, Im just gonna spit it out.

Im fucking TIRED of reading the INCONVENIENCE card about why SOME women opt to have an abortion. ITS NOT AN INCONFUCKINGVENIENCE. Its a HORRIBLE decision to FUCKING make to remove a baby from ones womb. IT ISNT FUCKING EASY. Calling those that do such a thing is just as bad as calling Nam Vets Baby Killers and spitting in their face when they came home. SOMETIMES SHIT HAPPENS. 
A baby growing in a womb NOT ASKED FOR (and YES WE KNOW WHAT BIRTH CONTROL IS YOU FUCKTARDS) and PLANTED THERE AGAINST OUR WILL whether its from a family member or a stranger is most assuredly considered to carry full term then placing it up for adoption..along with the mental anguish the HOST has to deal with deciding what is best for the HOST AND the baby itself.

So...you finger wagglers who whine and bitch and fucking moan about those who make that decision and call them baby killers and offer all kinds of FUCKING reasons WHY we should carry such a burden for NINE FUCKING MONTHS can KISS MY FUCKING ASS.

This pisses me off no end and Im fed up with it. Thats what I get for being bored and wandering back in here. Entirely my fault. But at least I said what I fucking felt like saying for fucking once.

You think it should go full term? Then YOU pay for the shrink during those nine months, YOU pay the hospital bills and YOU take the kid when its born. Otherwise, STFU.


----------



## Grace

Now that I spilled my guts in extreme anger..a first for me since being here..I extend my apologies and will return to full fluff mode. ONCE IM COOLED OFF. But for now...this subject SUCKS.


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> Its late. Im tired. And Im an idiot for coming back in this thread. But, instead of farting rainbows and unicorns out my ass, Im just gonna spit it out.
> 
> Im fucking TIRED of reading the INCONVENIENCE card about why SOME women opt to have an abortion. ITS NOT AN INCONFUCKINGVENIENCE. Its a HORRIBLE decision to FUCKING make to remove a baby from ones womb. IT ISNT FUCKING EASY. Calling those that do such a thing is just as bad as calling Nam Vets Baby Killers and spitting in their face when they came home. SOMETIMES SHIT HAPPENS.
> A baby growing in a womb NOT ASKED FOR (and YES WE KNOW WHAT BIRTH CONTROL IS YOU FUCKTARDS) and PLANTED THERE AGAINST OUR WILL whether its from a family member or a stranger is most assuredly considered to carry full term then placing it up for adoption..along with the mental anguish the HOST has to deal with deciding what is best for the HOST AND the baby itself.
> 
> So...you finger wagglers who whine and bitch and fucking moan about those who make that decision and call them baby killers and offer all kinds of FUCKING reasons WHY we should carry such a burden for NINE FUCKING MONTHS can KISS MY FUCKING ASS.
> 
> This pisses me off no end and Im fed up with it. Thats what I get for being bored and wandering back in here. Entirely my fault. But at least I said what I fucking felt like saying for fucking once.
> 
> You think it should go full term? Then YOU pay for the shrink during those nine months, YOU pay the hospital bills and YOU take the kid when its born. Otherwise, STFU.



My Dear Gracie,

Perhaps you should read those slides from Alan Guttmacher that have been provided in several threads by yours truly.  One of those slides shows the primary reasons that women choose to have abortions.  Ninety three percent of the primary reasons are for convenience sake.  That in no way implies that the decision was easy to make.  It simply means that the woman chose to have an abortion because she didn't feel like having a baby at that particular time.  That means the abortion was chosen for convenience sake.  

Three percent were for fetal abnormalities.
Three percent were for the health of the mother.
One percent due to rape or incest.
Another four percent for reasons given as "other".

Here is a link to the slides:

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/011003/ov_ab.pdf

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Anguille said:


> I think I hit a nerve with Allie. LOL!


 
I always find it irritating when people who advocate for the slaughter of children call those who believe in protecting the vulnerable "non-compassionate".


----------



## AllieBaba

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without reading the entire report, which I don't have time to do right now, I have no idea what specific statements were made to which those footnotes relate. However, if you look on the very first page, you see this:
> 
> Description of System: *Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). *This information is provided voluntarily. For 2007, data were received from 49 reporting areas. For the purpose of trend analysis, data were evaluated from the 45 areas that reported data every year during the preceding decade (1998--2007). Abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) were calculated using census and natality data, respectively.
> 
> (emphasis mine)
> 
> I prefer chocolates to flowers, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read it. They get stats from a tiny number of clinics and is voluntary. They cite Gottmacher REPEATEDLY in their report.
> 
> Chocolates.
> And flowers...I like daffodils this time of the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is, indeed, voluntary. Nevertheless, that IS still where they get their stats. If you continue to read their paper, you will see that they clearly TELL you that repeatedly. Further on, they give a more detailed description of their system, and it says, again:
> 
> _Each year, CDC requests tabulated data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City) to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining abortions in the United States._
> 
> _. . ._
> 
> _In most states, collection of abortion data is facilitated by the legal requirement for hospitals, facilities, and physicians to report abortions to a central health agency (14). These central health agencies voluntarily provide CDC the aggregate numbers for the abortion data they have collected (15). _
> 
> Furthermore, if you actually go through and READ the footnoted passages that reference the Guttmacher Institute, you will see that they are NOT being referenced as the primary source of abortion statistics. They are being referenced as corroboration of the CDC's primary statistics, derived from separate sources. Essentially, they are saying, "See? Other people are getting the same numbers with THEIR methods, so ours are probably accurate."
> 
> So once again, the CDC does not get its statistics from the Guttmacher Institute. They get them from state government agencies, and COMPARE them with the numbers the Guttmacher Institute gets from its sources.
Click to expand...

 
My lord you are so full of shit.

Once again, the CDC DOES get stats from Guttmacher. Whether they use them to compare (wtf are you talking about) or not is a moot point. They still get stats from Guttmacher.

I was right, you were wrong, get over it.


----------



## AllieBaba

PS...I read the article, I read the references. I do know how to read this shit, Care. I read and reference this stuff for work and school.

So go back, take a fucking pill, and get over it.


----------



## JBeukema

IMEURU said:


> Im fucking TIRED of reading the INCONVENIENCE card about why SOME women opt to have an abortion.


93% is 'some'?


> ITS NOT AN INCONFUCKINGVENIENCE. Its a HORRIBLE decision to FUCKING make to remove a baby from ones womb. IT ISNT FUCKING EASY.



Apparently, a sizable number of women disagree



> One third of women who had an abortion [in 2008] were on their second, third  or even eighth termination, new figures show.


Women having multiple abortions reaches record high - Times Online



> A baby growing in a womb NOT ASKED FOR (and YES WE KNOW WHAT BIRTH CONTROL IS YOU FUCKTARDS) and PLANTED THERE AGAINST OUR WILL


1% of abortions...

Why Women Have Abortions


----------



## Robert

IMEURU said:


> Its late. Im tired. And Im an idiot for coming back in this thread. But, instead of farting rainbows and unicorns out my ass, Im just gonna spit it out.
> 
> Im fucking TIRED of reading the INCONVENIENCE card about why SOME women opt to have an abortion. ITS NOT AN INCONFUCKINGVENIENCE. Its a HORRIBLE decision to FUCKING make to remove a baby from ones womb. IT ISNT FUCKING EASY. Calling those that do such a thing is just as bad as calling Nam Vets Baby Killers and spitting in their face when they came home. SOMETIMES SHIT HAPPENS.
> A baby growing in a womb NOT ASKED FOR (and YES WE KNOW WHAT BIRTH CONTROL IS YOU FUCKTARDS) and PLANTED THERE AGAINST OUR WILL whether its from a family member or a stranger is most assuredly considered to carry full term then placing it up for adoption..along with the mental anguish the HOST has to deal with deciding what is best for the HOST AND the baby itself.
> 
> So...you finger wagglers who whine and bitch and fucking moan about those who make that decision and call them baby killers and offer all kinds of FUCKING reasons WHY we should carry such a burden for NINE FUCKING MONTHS can KISS MY FUCKING ASS.
> 
> This pisses me off no end and Im fed up with it. Thats what I get for being bored and wandering back in here. Entirely my fault. But at least I said what I fucking felt like saying for fucking once.
> 
> You think it should go full term? Then YOU pay for the shrink during those nine months, YOU pay the hospital bills and YOU take the kid when its born. Otherwise, STFU.



So keep your fucking legs closed..... just because you can open them shouldn't mean you have the right to murder.


----------



## AllieBaba

IMEURU said:


> Its late. Im tired. And Im an idiot for coming back in this thread. But, instead of farting rainbows and unicorns out my ass, Im just gonna spit it out.
> 
> Im fucking TIRED of reading the INCONVENIENCE card about why SOME women opt to have an abortion. ITS NOT AN INCONFUCKINGVENIENCE. Its a HORRIBLE decision to FUCKING make to remove a baby from ones womb. IT ISNT FUCKING EASY. Calling those that do such a thing is just as bad as calling Nam Vets Baby Killers and spitting in their face when they came home. SOMETIMES SHIT HAPPENS.
> A baby growing in a womb NOT ASKED FOR (and YES WE KNOW WHAT BIRTH CONTROL IS YOU FUCKTARDS) and PLANTED THERE AGAINST OUR WILL whether its from a family member or a stranger is most assuredly considered to carry full term then placing it up for adoption..along with the mental anguish the HOST has to deal with deciding what is best for the HOST AND the baby itself.
> 
> So...you finger wagglers who whine and bitch and fucking moan about those who make that decision and call them baby killers and offer all kinds of FUCKING reasons WHY we should carry such a burden for NINE FUCKING MONTHS can KISS MY FUCKING ASS.
> 
> This pisses me off no end and Im fed up with it. Thats what I get for being bored and wandering back in here. Entirely my fault. But at least I said what I fucking felt like saying for fucking once.
> 
> You think it should go full term? Then YOU pay for the shrink during those nine months, YOU pay the hospital bills and YOU take the kid when its born. Otherwise, STFU.


 
Spare us the emotional rant.

Read the stats. You're basing everything on your personal experience and while you find it compelling, you don't speak for everyone. 

And the burden is a baby. Grow the fuck up and give up the narcisissm. All you're doing is proving the case it's a selfish act.


----------



## AllieBaba

What a nut job, btw.


----------



## JBeukema

Grace is the abortionists' useful idiot. Rape and incest are ~1% of all abortions and repeat abortions hit an all-time high since such things were monitored in 2008 (I don't have the data for 2009 or 2010).

93% of all abortions are done out of convenience, this according to a group founded as an extension of Planned Parenthood. Women who are real victims are a very small minority, and deserve honest consideration of their trauma and suffering when considering what decisions they might make and why they might make them before casting judgment of their characters. To trot them out and parade them around to justify countless abortions as birth control, however, to is to use them and make a spectacle of their suffering. It trivializes what they've experienced by turning them from women with real experiences to nothing more than convenient rhetorical devices to be sent out on stage and used as an excuse for the 93% of abortions that are done out of simple convenience. It is like shooting a man for playing his music too loud and then parading a battered women in front of the court and claiming that, because of her suffering, your own cold-blooded actions somehow cannot be criticized.

Real feminists should be outraged by those who use and exploit these women thusly.


----------



## Immanuel

For the record, I had forgotten Grace had indicated that she had an abortion when I replied and if I sounded harsh, I apologize for it.

Grace, 

I don't believe that simply because an abortion is chosen for a purpose of convenience that it is an easy choice to make.  In some cases, it may very well be easy while in others it is probably heart-wrenching.  

Nor do I believe that a woman that has made that decision or has had to make that decision is a terrible person regardless of why she chose that option.  When we are faced with difficult decisions, we are not always thinking with clear minds.  We are afraid and we do things that in other circumstances we would never consider doing.

Abortion is a very difficult decision to have to make.  Unfortunately, the industry and our nation try to make it so easy that it becomes almost second nature.  That is a sad thing.  The taking of a human life should be a difficult decision to make in every instance.  

There is a quote by Robert E. Lee that goes something like this: "*It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it.*"

Robert E. Lee Quotes - The Quotations Page

The same thing applies in this situation.  It is good that abortion is terrible otherwise we would find it too easy to take the life within us.

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

I would imagine that killing an unborn human would weigh much more heavily on one's conscience than giving the infant up for adoption.


----------



## JBeukema

Zoom-boing said:


> I would imagine that killing an unborn human would weigh much more heavily on one's conscience than giving the infant up for adoption.



The *1/3* who are having their 2nd, 3rd, or *8th* abortion would seem to disagree


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey JB, have YOU ever had an abortion?


----------



## Zoom-boing

JBeukema said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would imagine that killing an unborn human would weigh much more heavily on one's conscience than giving the infant up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *1/3* who are having their 2nd, 3rd, or *8th* abortion would seem to disagree
Click to expand...


Yeah, guess I should have personalized that one even more.  My bad.

I knew a girl in h.s. who at 15 had already had 2 abortions and flat out said that was her method of birth control.


----------



## Jackson

I can only think it says something about our humanity or I should say in inhumanity when you think of the ease of which women consider abortions.

Just how can any woman do that?  I cannot even wrap that around my head.  Purposely taking a life of a child..MY child..ANY child>>> no I can't wrap that around my mind.  How can anyone?

Don't bring a psychiatrist, poor me, expense, into the discussion.  You might as well put a gun to your child's head that is already born.  There is no excuse.  Or your own head if it had been your mother's decision.


----------



## Grace

Keep my legs closed? Really? Tell that to the motherfucker that forced them open, asshole.

Immie, no problem. Thanks for the clarification.

JB, I speak for myself, as I do in all threads I participate in. I had one abortion as soon as I was told I was pregnant due to the attack. Unlike some, I dont lump everything or anyone into a tiny box I myself think they should fit in to according to my beliefs or opinions. I feel strongly about things I have experienced MYSELF.
Now you, too, can kiss my ass. Im nobodies idiot. Someone plants a seed in me that I fought against for planting, that seed IS going to be removed and I dont give a fuck what it is. Dont like it? Tough shit. Wanna call me a baby killer? Whatever floats your fucking leaky boat. And that goes for all of you who sit on your pedestals and judge others.


----------



## AllieBaba

Fuck off. You've judged every single one of us.

Rapes count for less than one percent of one percent of all abortions. And in the past, as now, women who were raped were able to legally obtain an abortion if they wanted one.

So what exactly is your argument? I lost it in the histrionics.


----------



## Grace

Suck my ass, Allie.
You cant even comprehend what has been said in this thread but ask me what my argument is?
Idiot fucktard.


----------



## AllieBaba

Zoom-boing said:


> I would imagine that killing an unborn human would weigh much more heavily on one's conscience than giving the infant up for adoption.


 
Women who choose to carry babies conceived in rape say that exactly. The ones I have heard speak  of it say they believe that there is a purpose for everything, and they cling to the notion that a child is a positive and wonderful thing that comes out of a terrible occurrence.


----------



## AllieBaba

IMEURU said:


> Suck my ass, Allie.
> You cant even comprehend what has been said in this thread but ask me what my argument is?
> Idiot fucktard.


 
Lol.
Nice. A great example of how abortion creates peace of mind and happiness for all who reach out for it.


----------



## AllieBaba

BTW, emu...how do you feel about that glib comment that the *other* board you frequented made this one look like kindergarten, now? Cuz you look like you're losing it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Now that I spilled my guts in extreme anger..a first for me since being here..I extend my apologies and will return to full fluff mode. ONCE IM COOLED OFF. But for now...this subject SUCKS.



Well, by all means, let's only ever discuss FUN political and social issues in this country.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> What a nut job, btw.



I don't think she's a nut job, but I do think you were correct about her being an immature narcissist who now apparently wants us to validate her decision and absolve her of all responsibility.

I hate to sound mean, because I actually kinda like Grace a bit, but someone get her some cheese for her whine.  Cripes.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Zoom-boing said:


> I would imagine that killing an unborn human would weigh much more heavily on one's conscience than giving the infant up for adoption.



At the risk of sounding cruel, if the decision was hard on HER, think how much harder it was on her baby.

Amazing how little sympathy that leaves me feeling.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would imagine that killing an unborn human would weigh much more heavily on one's conscience than giving the infant up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *1/3* who are having their 2nd, 3rd, or *8th* abortion would seem to disagree
Click to expand...


Ain't that the truth.  Once upon a time, I worked as a secretary in a fertility clinic.  (I have told this story on this board before, so forgive me if you've heard it before.)  I quit after a new patient came in because she had had THREE abortions in the past, and now that she FINALLY wanted to have children, she was unable to carry to term because she had essentially trained her body to eject any embryo so foolhardy as to try to take up residence.  She had miscarried twice since then, and now proposed to spend enormous amounts of money having our doctors undo the damage she had done to herself.  And they intended to help.  I, on the other hand, couldn't countenance being a part of such thing, and resigned to find another job.


----------



## Grace

How to recognize a narcissist.


Wrong.

You dont sound mean, Cecillie. Youre just stating your opinion. Same as I have. Albeit mine was a tad more colorful.

But, I guess anyone with a differing view is a narcissist according to allie.
So sorry I have anger to the guy that impregnated me. Not.
I need no validation from a bunch of strangers on a message board nor have I asked anywhere where I should be absolved of my situation. I dealt with it the best I could. My resentment comes from those who probably never experienced what they are finger waggling about. And even if they have, they had their own choices to make and who am I to judge their decision on what to do about it? Nobody. Just like those who judge me. Nobodies.

So..with that said. Continue on arguing amongst yourselves. I said my piece. But Ill keep the cheese handy to pass around if anyone else begins to whine with their own opinions. Ill share.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jackson said:


> I can only think it says something about our humanity or I should say in inhumanity when you think of the ease of which women consider abortions.
> 
> Just how can any woman do that?  I cannot even wrap that around my head.  Purposely taking a life of a child..MY child..ANY child>>> no I can't wrap that around my mind.  How can anyone?
> 
> Don't bring a psychiatrist, poor me, expense, into the discussion.  You might as well put a gun to your child's head that is already born.  There is no excuse.  Or your own head if it had been your mother's decision.



Couldn't tell you.  I had my first child under circumstances which would lead many women to get an abortion (No, I don't intend to share the details), and while I was certainly freaked out and scared about the whole thing, I still never considered the possibility of killing her.  My choices were strictly adoption vs. keeping.

I do understand, however, how tempting it is to wish you could make it all go away and be as if it never happened.  I just don't get how anyone can believe it's actually possible.


----------



## JBeukema

If all you're going to do is scream and cry and stamp your feet, why don't you just stay out of these threads?

It's obvious to everyone you can't have an honest and intelligent discussion about the subject without your emotions shutting down your brain.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Suck my ass, Allie.
> You cant even comprehend what has been said in this thread but ask me what my argument is?
> Idiot fucktard.



Take it up with your therapist.  If you're going to insist on spewing your personal life details all over the rest of us, we're going to have to demand $200 an hour.


----------



## AllieBaba

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a nut job, btw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think she's a nut job, but I do think you were correct about her being an immature narcissist who now apparently wants us to validate her decision and absolve her of all responsibility.
> 
> I hate to sound mean, because I actually kinda like Grace a bit, but someone get her some cheese for her whine. Cripes.
Click to expand...

 
Me too. I repped the shit out of her until she lost it  over abortion.

Why anyone would want to discuss abortion on a political message board when they have undealt with issues I don't know. I have argued this topic so many times, I have references memorized and my own copy down pat. And there's always some butt hurt girl who hasn't got her shit straight who thinks she can come into that sort of arena, where so much is at stake and people devote their LIVES to the debate of, and plead victimhood as a reason to lend credence to whatever she says.

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. You are not the only one like yourself, you are not special. I have met many, many women who have been raped, beaten, abused in every possible way. The silly idea that all women who have ever seen adversity NEED abortion and support it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Abortion has been preached as a cure all to our women for decades, and it is a huge factor in the societal mess we're in today; where women and children count for NOTHING. 

Women are being used, exploited, lied to, BUTCHERED in the abortion industry. And PP tries to tell women they NEED it, and WANT it. I can't think of anything sicker...until I think of the way women believe it and fall for it.

Then they end up in a bad situation and they think "an abortion will fix this! Everything will be great!" and find out they were wrong when it's too late.

Wrong about everything. Wrong about taking chances with the understanding that if all else fails, there's always abortion, wrong about thinking that people who work in the abortion industry have any sort of respect for life, let alone women.

Anyway, it's common for women to enter into this discussion to chant the pro abortion mantra, thinking they have some sort of higher authority and greater insight based on their own personal experience. Sorry, if your insight is showing you a world where abortion is ever right or good, then your insight is skewed and you need to spend some time alone with yourself getting it straightened out.


----------



## JBeukema

I'll say it again


JBeukema said:


> To trot [rape victims] out and parade them around to justify countless abortions as birth control... is to use them and make a spectacle of their suffering. It trivializes what they've experienced by turning them from women with real experiences to nothing more than convenient rhetorical devices to be sent out on stage and used as an excuse for the 93% of abortions that are done out of simple convenience. It is like shooting a man for playing his music too loud and then parading a battered women in front of the court and claiming that, because of her suffering, your own cold-blooded actions somehow cannot be criticized.
> 
> Real feminists should be outraged by those who use and exploit these women thusly.


----------



## AllieBaba

And let me head off the shrieking posts by harpees and fey abortion cheerleaders....

Pro lifers come from all walks of life and all experiences. Many of them have had abortions. Many of them have been raped and brutalized because that is the profile of women EVERYWHERE. Legalizing abortion doesn't make that better; all abortion does is make it easier for people who abuse women GET AWAY WITH IT.

Nobody in the pro life movement gives a shit if women sleep around, sluttery knows no religious economic boundary. the nature of our sex means that pregnancy, under whatever circumstances and they are varied, is always a risk. I'm a grown woman, not a 16 year old who could never imagine that someone could get pregnant and have it be anyone's fault but HERS. Most adult women are not judgmental of women who get pregnant in less than ideal situations, when they "shouldn't" or the result of a mistake or actual violence. I get it, most women who are pro-life get it. And we try really hard to communicate that. We fund wonderful programs that help thousands and thousands of women through unplanned pregnancies. 

It comes down to this..it's a big deal. It's a big deal no matter how you try to pretend it isn't. But please don't pretend the pro-life side doesn't *get* what it's like to have an unplanned pregnancy, or worse, paint them as people who have any desire to punish anyone except people who hurt women and children.

Because that's why we're pro-life. It's to actually protect people. Not to pare people down to fit a false idea.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> How to recognize a narcissist.
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You dont sound mean, Cecillie. Youre just stating your opinion. Same as I have. Albeit mine was a tad more colorful.
> 
> But, I guess anyone with a differing view is a narcissist according to allie.
> So sorry I have anger to the guy that impregnated me. Not.
> I need no validation from a bunch of strangers on a message board nor have I asked anywhere where I should be absolved of my situation. I dealt with it the best I could. My resentment comes from those who probably never experienced what they are finger waggling about. And even if they have, they had their own choices to make and who am I to judge their decision on what to do about it? Nobody. Just like those who judge me. Nobodies.
> 
> So..with that said. Continue on arguing amongst yourselves. I said my piece. But Ill keep the cheese handy to pass around if anyone else begins to whine with their own opinions. Ill share.



You don't have to be sorry for being angry with the guy who attacked you.  I was a victim of violence once (I've mentioned that on the board before, as well), and he is now dead.  I'm bang alongside the idea of anger and vengeance against violent criminal scum.

I have to disagree about your need for validation, though.  The fact that you keep coming here, blurting out your personal issues and traumas and getting defensive and emotional at any perception that someone MIGHT criticize you for them argues very strongly AGAINST your assertion that you're perfectly okay with your decision.  So does the apparent belief you have that you must defend ALL abortion in order to defend your own.  The truth is that the only person here who's really drawing a parallel between you and the majority of women who get abortions is YOU.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a nut job, btw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think she's a nut job, but I do think you were correct about her being an immature narcissist who now apparently wants us to validate her decision and absolve her of all responsibility.
> 
> I hate to sound mean, because I actually kinda like Grace a bit, but someone get her some cheese for her whine. Cripes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too. I repped the shit out of her until she lost it  over abortion.
> 
> Why anyone would want to discuss abortion on a political message board when they have undealt with issues I don't know. I have argued this topic so many times, I have references memorized and my own copy down pat. And there's always some butt hurt girl who hasn't got her shit straight who thinks she can come into that sort of arena, where so much is at stake and people devote their LIVES to the debate of, and plead victimhood as a reason to lend credence to whatever she says.
> 
> IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. You are not the only one like yourself, you are not special. I have met many, many women who have been raped, beaten, abused in every possible way. The silly idea that all women who have ever seen adversity NEED abortion and support it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Abortion has been preached as a cure all to our women for decades, and it is a huge factor in the societal mess we're in today; where women and children count for NOTHING.
> 
> Women are being used, exploited, lied to, BUTCHERED in the abortion industry. And PP tries to tell women they NEED it, and WANT it. I can't think of anything sicker...until I think of the way women believe it and fall for it.
> 
> Then they end up in a bad situation and they think "an abortion will fix this! Everything will be great!" and find out they were wrong when it's too late.
> 
> Wrong about everything. Wrong about taking chances with the understanding that if all else fails, there's always abortion, wrong about thinking that people who work in the abortion industry have any sort of respect for life, let alone women.
> 
> Anyway, it's common for women to enter into this discussion to chant the pro abortion mantra, thinking they have some sort of higher authority and greater insight based on their own personal experience. Sorry, if your insight is showing you a world where abortion is ever right or good, then your insight is skewed and you need to spend some time alone with yourself getting it straightened out.
Click to expand...


We're definitely on the same page with that.

Furthermore, I have very little patience in general with the whole "doctrine of infallibility", as Ann Coulter calls it, meaning the idea that if you can get a victim to state your position, they're automatically right and cannot be criticized or disagreed with.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> And let me head off the shrieking posts by harpees and fey abortion cheerleaders....
> 
> Pro lifers come from all walks of life and all experiences. Many of them have had abortions. Many of them have been raped and brutalized because that is the profile of women EVERYWHERE. Legalizing abortion doesn't make that better; all abortion does is make it easier for people who abuse women GET AWAY WITH IT.
> 
> Nobody in the pro life movement gives a shit if women sleep around, sluttery knows no religious economic boundary. the nature of our sex means that pregnancy, under whatever circumstances and they are varied, is always a risk. I'm a grown woman, not a 16 year old who could never imagine that someone could get pregnant and have it be anyone's fault but HERS. Most adult women are not judgmental of women who get pregnant in less than ideal situations, when they "shouldn't" or the result of a mistake or actual violence. I get it, most women who are pro-life get it. And we try really hard to communicate that. We fund wonderful programs that help thousands and thousands of women through unplanned pregnancies.
> 
> It comes down to this..it's a big deal. It's a big deal no matter how you try to pretend it isn't. But please don't pretend the pro-life side doesn't *get* what it's like to have an unplanned pregnancy, or worse, paint them as people who have any desire to punish anyone except people who hurt women and children.
> 
> Because that's why we're pro-life. It's to actually protect people. Not to pare people down to fit a false idea.



Very true.  WE are not the ones covering up for 30-year-old men impregnating 13-year-old girls in service of our political agenda.  Talk about facilitating the abuse of women!


----------



## AllieBaba

Or refusing to provide any statistical data that would show exactly what IS happening to bring women in for abortions. If we know the causes and the numbers, we can address the issue.

But for some reason, PP doesn't want us to have those numbers.


----------



## Grace

JBeukema said:


> If all you're going to do is scream and cry and stamp your feet, why don't you just stay out of these threads?
> 
> It's obvious to everyone you can't have an honest and intelligent discussion about the subject without your emotions shutting down your brain.




Well color me confused then, because from what Ive read lately, thats exactly what many are doing. So is crying and stamping of the feet a no no? 
Ive been honest. And Ive also discussed. Because some of you dont like HOW I discuss aint my prob. Its yours. As you said...deal with it.


----------



## Grace

Cecilie1200 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> How to recognize a narcissist.
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You dont sound mean, Cecillie. Youre just stating your opinion. Same as I have. Albeit mine was a tad more colorful.
> 
> But, I guess anyone with a differing view is a narcissist according to allie.
> So sorry I have anger to the guy that impregnated me. Not.
> I need no validation from a bunch of strangers on a message board nor have I asked anywhere where I should be absolved of my situation. I dealt with it the best I could. My resentment comes from those who probably never experienced what they are finger waggling about. And even if they have, they had their own choices to make and who am I to judge their decision on what to do about it? Nobody. Just like those who judge me. Nobodies.
> 
> So..with that said. Continue on arguing amongst yourselves. I said my piece. But Ill keep the cheese handy to pass around if anyone else begins to whine with their own opinions. Ill share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to be sorry for being angry with the guy who attacked you.  I was a victim of violence once (I've mentioned that on the board before, as well), and he is now dead.  I'm bang alongside the idea of anger and vengeance against violent criminal scum.
> 
> I have to disagree about your need for validation, though.  The fact that you keep coming here, blurting out your personal issues and traumas and getting defensive and emotional at any perception that someone MIGHT criticize you for them argues very strongly AGAINST your assertion that you're perfectly okay with your decision.  So does the apparent belief you have that you must defend ALL abortion in order to defend your own.  The truth is that the only person here who's really drawing a parallel between you and the majority of women who get abortions is YOU.
Click to expand...


Missed this one. Hmmm. You may have a point. Ill muse on it. And while Im doing that, Ill do it somewhere else besides here because obviously there is a..._something_..not sure of the word I want..... that I need to consider.
At least you spoke to me without the nastiness. Kind of. Makes a big difference on what sticks..and what flys over the proverbial roof.

Witht hat said...I AM done with this thread since I have things to think about.


----------



## JBeukema

> I AM done with this thread



You've said that before


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all you're going to do is scream and cry and stamp your feet, why don't you just stay out of these threads?
> 
> It's obvious to everyone you can't have an honest and intelligent discussion about the subject without your emotions shutting down your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well color me confused then, because from what Ive read lately, thats exactly what many are doing. So is crying and stamping of the feet a no no?
> Ive been honest. And Ive also discussed. Because some of you dont like HOW I discuss aint my prob. Its yours. As you said...deal with it.
Click to expand...


Pssst!  All that crying and stamping your feet get you when you are on the internet is a wet keyboard and sore feet.  

Do what I do?  Punch the crap out of an inanimate object in a near by location... wait!!! not your computer monitor or keyboard... trust me, that is not the answer... anyway, punch something real hard (with the side of your fist not the knuckles as they break too easily) and pretend it is that idiot Immie.  That will make you feel so much better.  Trust me, it works, except that instead of Immie, I pretend it is one of the local trolls I won't name him... er is it a her?  

Immie


----------



## Synthaholic

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.


False premise.  An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.


----------



## AllieBaba

When all else fails, subscribe to a Truthmatters thread. Those always cheer me up.


----------



## JBeukema

Synthaholic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> False premise.  An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.
Click to expand...



Red is to seven as sky is to waffle?


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> When all else fails, subscribe to a Truthmatters thread. Those always cheer me up.



Hmmmm, how on earth do her threads cheer you up?  They give me a headache every time.  

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Synthaholic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> False premise. An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.
Click to expand...

 

Huh?


----------



## AllieBaba

Immanuel said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> When all else fails, subscribe to a Truthmatters thread. Those always cheer me up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, how on earth do her threads cheer you up? They give me a headache every time.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
The people who post in them are funny. Either intentionally, when yanking her chain, or inadvertently, when spouting stupidity.


----------



## JBeukema

tm and deany are on ignore

boring trolls, they are


----------



## Cecilie1200

Synthaholic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> False premise.  An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.
Click to expand...


Speaking of false premises, how about the one that compares the reproductive cycles of two species from COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KINGDOMS?  And that's totally aside from the fact that this sentence didn't actually make a whole lot of sense.  I think you were going for "a fetus is no more a child".


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> When all else fails, subscribe to a Truthmatters thread. Those always cheer me up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, how on earth do her threads cheer you up? They give me a headache every time.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people post in them are funny. Either intentionally, when yanking her chain, or inadvertently, when spouting stupidity.
Click to expand...


Her inconsistent view of truth and facts are mind-boggling to say the least.  And her partisanship while actually seeming to believe that she is fair-minded is extremely irritating.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

I don't even read her posts. It's the responses to them.

I guess I'm the only one, lol.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> tm and deany are on ignore
> 
> boring trolls, they are



You know, I've never gotten around to ignoring rdean.  He's just not important enough to warrant the effort.


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> False premise.  An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of false premises, how about the one that compares the reproductive cycles of two species from COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KINGDOMS?  And that's totally aside from the fact that this sentence didn't actually make a whole lot of sense.  I think you were going for "a fetus is no more a child".
Click to expand...


Seeing as trees and humans are both organisms... I'm pretty sure synth is one of those special ed kids you told me to not make fun of


----------



## xsited1

Synthaholic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> False premise.  An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.
Click to expand...


Comparing human life to a tree...  Maybe we can make paper out of human beings and save the trees.  That's the ticket.


----------



## AllieBaba

He's just saying that babies aren't human.


----------



## JBeukema

humans and trees are both organisms...


----------



## xsited1

AllieBaba said:


> He's just saying that babies aren't human.



Since babies and young children can't take of themselves (i.e., aren't viable), I propose that mothers be given the right to abort their kids until the age of 7.  Except in the case of a pregnant woman being murdered.  In that case, it's a double homicide.

Isn't this fun?  Make up crap to justify murder.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth.



And to think it was you who started this thread accusing the pro-choice people of not being able to make a cogent well thought out argument.

Unreal.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> He's just saying that babies aren't human.



Just goes to show how many times I've heard these inane arguments, when I can glean them from complete incoherency.


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> I don't even read her posts. It's the responses to them.
> 
> I guess I'm the only one, lol.



That is probably a good thing for your own sanity.  I have begun avoiding her threads at times just to keep mine, but sometimes a topic will just catch my attention.

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to think it was you who started this thread accusing the pro-choice people of not being able to make a cogent well thought out argument.
> 
> Unreal.
Click to expand...


What about shooting it as it's crowning? Halfway out? One toe in?

Right after her water breaks?

Five minutes before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?
Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

  Three seconds before that?

The day before that?

Ten seconds before that?

One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?

When does what change?


----------



## Synthaholic

JBeukema said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> False premise.  An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red is to seven as sky is to waffle?
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> Speaking of false premises, how about the one that compares the reproductive cycles of two species from COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KINGDOMS?  And that's totally aside from the fact that this sentence didn't actually make a whole lot of sense.  I think you were going for "a fetus is no more a child".




JB said:




> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an *organism*. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.




Just because it's an organism doesn't make it a baby.  It's a seed, like an acorn is a seed that under the right conditions can become a tree.

If you need another analogy, let me know.


----------



## JBeukema

an unborn child is a seed?


you fail biology forever


----------



## AllieBaba

Naw, the seed is sperm.

Once it fertilizes the egg, you have a human.


----------



## JBeukema

the entire premise- comparing life cycles between different kingdoms- is ludicrous

next we'll get into whether viruses are organisms or machines


----------



## Synthaholic

JBeukema said:


> an unborn child is a seed?
> 
> 
> you fail biology forever


Your argument is that these organisms are the beginnings of a baby.  Correct?


----------



## JBeukema

It is a human child from the point of fertilization

that is the biological reality

at what point we deem a baby a toddler, a preteen, a teenager, an adult, and an old woman has nothing at all to do with whether it's okay to kill her in cold blood


----------



## Synthaholic

Answer my question, please.


----------



## PJzaBruin

Let's address the basic flaw in your initial premise:

"A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism."

The blastocyst is not an independent organism.  Yes, it is alive.  Yes, it is genetically human.  So is your pinky.  For a child born with an extra digit, so is the 6th toe on his foot, or the 6th finger on her hand.  But it is NOT a living human organism.

Until such time as it can survive independently from its mother, the fetus is more a part of the mother than it is "a living human organism."

Why couldn't you be honest about that?


----------



## JBeukema

> The blastocyst is not an independent organism.



Yes, it is. Biology 101.

To compare the finger of a child to the entire child proves how stupid a troll you are. Also, plenty of organisms are dependent on others for survival, not just at the early stage of development, but even dependent on members of other species. A roundworm is not a part of your body. No more time will be wasted with you.


----------



## Synthaholic

Are you running from my question, JB?


----------



## JBeukema

your idiotic question was answered


then the latest sock puppet came in to deny biology again and claim grandma ceases to be an organism when when she's on a ventilator 


why can't you people ever be honest?


----------



## snjmom

Well, it's quite obvious to most that birth is the cut off point since until that point, all sustenance is drawn from the mothers body.

And one always has the right to refuse sustenance to other organisms. If the state wants to step in and provide that sustenance, feel free to remove it from the current host and place it in a host of it's choosing.


----------



## editec

Whether or not a fetus is a child is not relevant to the discussion.

What IS relevant is who is responsible for that fetus.

Here's a test to determine who has authority over that fetus.

*Is the fetus growing inside your womb?*

*If yes - it is your fetus and you have absolute authority over it*

*If no- it is none of your business, STFU.*


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body.
> 
> 
> 
> *The child is not your body. Biology 101. *Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> Its nobodies business why I had it done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.
> 
> When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.
Click to expand...



Then Cesarean sectioning it out at 4 weeks, giving it birth, wont mater then if it is not part of a womans body.


----------



## Ravi

AllieBaba said:


> Naw, the seed is sperm.
> 
> Once it fertilizes the egg, you have a human.


No, the sperm would be more properly likened to pollen.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> It is a human child from the point of fertilization
> 
> that is the biological reality
> 
> at what point we deem a baby a toddler, a preteen, a teenager, an adult, and an old woman has nothing at all to do with whether it's okay to kill her in cold blood



That is not a biological reality.  There are reasons that the science of biology has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, fetus, for example.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to think it was you who started this thread accusing the pro-choice people of not being able to make a cogent well thought out argument.
> 
> Unreal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about shooting it as it's crowning? Halfway out? One toe in?
> 
> Right after her water breaks?
> 
> Five minutes before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> The day before that?
> 
> Ten seconds before that?
> 
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> 
> When does what change?
Click to expand...


According to your 'reasoning' 

there is absolutely no difference, by any measure of morality or criminality, between a woman who has used RU486 to terminate a pregnancy,

and Susan Smith, who for those who don't recall, was the woman who drowned her two children in her car.

Now, seriously people, be honest here...

...how many of you can wholeheartedly and without qualification agree with Beukema on his/her stance?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to think it was you who started this thread accusing the pro-choice people of not being able to make a cogent well thought out argument.
> 
> Unreal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about shooting it as it's crowning? Halfway out? One toe in?
> 
> Right after her water breaks?
> 
> Five minutes before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> The day before that?
> 
> Ten seconds before that?
> 
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> 
> When does what change?
Click to expand...


You are an extremist with no common sense, no logic, no reason.  You are hardly in a position to pass judgment on others in those realms.


----------



## Immanuel

NYcarbineer said:


> According to your 'reasoning'
> 
> there is absolutely no difference, by any measure of morality or criminality, between a woman who has used RU486 to terminate a pregnancy,
> 
> and Susan Smith, who for those who don't recall, was the woman who drowned her two children in her car.
> 
> Now, seriously people, be honest here...
> 
> ...how many of you can wholeheartedly and without qualification agree with Beukema on his/her stance?



How can anyone who ever reads things posted by JB possibly answer that question?  JB is all over the place in his posts.  One minute pro-life the next... kill them all.  You would have to clarify what JB's stance really is.

I do agree with him though about it being a life from the moment of conception.  Um, if that is his stance.

Immie


----------



## NYcarbineer

Immanuel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your 'reasoning'
> 
> there is absolutely no difference, by any measure of morality or criminality, between a woman who has used RU486 to terminate a pregnancy,
> 
> and Susan Smith, who for those who don't recall, was the woman who drowned her two children in her car.
> 
> Now, seriously people, be honest here...
> 
> ...how many of you can wholeheartedly and without qualification agree with Beukema on his/her stance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can anyone who ever reads things posted by JB possibly answer that question?  JB is all over the place in his posts.  One minute pro-life the next... kill them all.  You would have to clarify what JB's stance really is.
> 
> I do agree with him though about it being a life from the moment of conception.  Um, if that is his stance.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Here's JB's stance verbatim:

*If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth. *

So that is what you can agree or disagree with, if you prefer.


----------



## Immanuel

NYcarbineer said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your 'reasoning'
> 
> there is absolutely no difference, by any measure of morality or criminality, between a woman who has used RU486 to terminate a pregnancy,
> 
> and Susan Smith, who for those who don't recall, was the woman who drowned her two children in her car.
> 
> Now, seriously people, be honest here...
> 
> ...how many of you can wholeheartedly and without qualification agree with Beukema on his/her stance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can anyone who ever reads things posted by JB possibly answer that question?  JB is all over the place in his posts.  One minute pro-life the next... kill them all.  You would have to clarify what JB's stance really is.
> 
> I do agree with him though about it being a life from the moment of conception.  Um, if that is his stance.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's JB's stance verbatim:
> 
> *If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth. *
> 
> So that is what you can agree or disagree with, if you prefer.
Click to expand...


Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well, but I don't really care to do so.  I am also not 100% sure that is JB's actual beliefs as he trolls.

As to answering your question.  Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth.  And, I will say that I don't consider sentience to be a determining factor in this debate.  From the point of conception on, the offspring of a human couple is human.  No one can change that.

Induced abortion is the killing of a human being under all circumstances.  Whether or not it should be illegal in any or all circumstances is a completely different question.

Immie


----------



## NYcarbineer

Immanuel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can anyone who ever reads things posted by JB possibly answer that question?  JB is all over the place in his posts.  One minute pro-life the next... kill them all.  You would have to clarify what JB's stance really is.
> 
> I do agree with him though about it being a life from the moment of conception.  Um, if that is his stance.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's JB's stance verbatim:
> 
> *If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth. *
> 
> So that is what you can agree or disagree with, if you prefer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well, but I don't really care to do so.  I am also not 100% sure that is JB's actual beliefs as he trolls.
> 
> As to answering your question.  Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth.  And, I will say that I don't consider sentience to be a determining factor in this debate.  From the point of conception on, the offspring of a human couple is human.  No one can change that.
> 
> Induced abortion is the killing of a human being under all circumstances.  Whether or not it should be illegal in any or all circumstances is a completely different question.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Well, then you're as irrational as Beukema.


----------



## Immanuel

NYcarbineer said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's JB's stance verbatim:
> 
> *If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth. *
> 
> So that is what you can agree or disagree with, if you prefer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well, but I don't really care to do so.  I am also not 100% sure that is JB's actual beliefs as he trolls.
> 
> As to answering your question.  Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth.  And, I will say that I don't consider sentience to be a determining factor in this debate.  From the point of conception on, the offspring of a human couple is human.  No one can change that.
> 
> Induced abortion is the killing of a human being under all circumstances.  Whether or not it should be illegal in any or all circumstances is a completely different question.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then you're as irrational as Beukema.
Click to expand...


Wrong, but I have been called worse.

Immie


----------



## Shadow

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body.
> 
> 
> 
> *The child is not your body. Biology 101. *Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> Its nobodies business why I had it done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.
> 
> When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then Cesarean sectioning it out at 4 weeks, giving it birth, wont mater then if it is not part of a womans body.
Click to expand...


This is a stupid argument for abortion.  Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???

*A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health*, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.

Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.

Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a human child from the point of fertilization
> 
> that is the biological reality
> 
> at what point we deem a baby a toddler, a preteen, a teenager, an adult, and an old woman has nothing at all to do with whether it's okay to kill her in cold blood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a biological reality.  There are reasons that the science of biology has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, fetus, for example.
Click to expand...

A child is a young human. Zygotes, foetuses, and toddlers are all children.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> there is absolutely no difference, by any measure of morality or criminality, between a woman who has used RU486 to terminate a pregnancy,
> 
> and Susan Smith, who for those who don't recall, was the woman who drowned her two children in her car.




Then there you have it...



> Now, seriously people, be honest here...



you already said it. You can't tell me at what point anything fundamental about the nature of the child changes, making killing her go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing. Ergo, if it's not okay to kill someone in cold blood...


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And to think it was you who started this thread accusing the pro-choice people of not being able to make a cogent well thought out argument.
> 
> Unreal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about shooting it as it's crowning? Halfway out? One toe in?
> 
> Right after her water breaks?
> 
> Five minutes before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> The day before that?
> 
> Ten seconds before that?
> 
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> 
> When does what change?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an extremist with no common sense, no logic, no reason.  You are hardly in a position to pass judgment on others in those realms.
Click to expand...

So you can't answer the question? You can't tell me at what age it's okay to kill someone in cold blood?


Sounds like you're saying you know it to be indefensible murder o kill; an unborn child but you want to be able to do it anyway


----------



## AllieBaba

The smaller a child is, the less human it is, I guess.


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your 'reasoning'
> 
> there is absolutely no difference, by any measure of morality or criminality, between a woman who has used RU486 to terminate a pregnancy,
> 
> and Susan Smith, who for those who don't recall, was the woman who drowned her two children in her car.
> 
> Now, seriously people, be honest here...
> 
> ...how many of you can wholeheartedly and without qualification agree with Beukema on his/her stance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can anyone who ever reads things posted by JB possibly answer that question?  JB is all over the place in his posts.  One minute pro-life the next... kill them all.  You would have to clarify what JB's stance really is.
> 
> I do agree with him though about it being a life from the moment of conception.  Um, if that is his stance.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



I've spelled it out in multiple threads

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...o-abortion-crowd-be-honest-6.html#post3477722


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a human child from the point of fertilization
> 
> that is the biological reality
> 
> at what point we deem a baby a toddler, a preteen, a teenager, an adult, and an old woman has nothing at all to do with whether it's okay to kill her in cold blood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a biological reality.  There are reasons that the science of biology has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, fetus, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A child is a young human. Zygotes, foetuses, and toddlers are all children.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant semantics, and thus immaterial in this argument.


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can anyone who ever reads things posted by JB possibly answer that question?  JB is all over the place in his posts.  One minute pro-life the next... kill them all.  You would have to clarify what JB's stance really is.
> 
> I do agree with him though about it being a life from the moment of conception.  Um, if that is his stance.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's JB's stance verbatim:
> 
> *If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth. *
> 
> So that is what you can agree or disagree with, if you prefer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well
Click to expand...


The idiot quoted a pro-choice argument



The idiots don't even recognize their own arguments



Most 'choice'rs aren't pro-choice because they believe any of their arguments

they can't tell you why killing a baby is okay at one point but not at another

they can't make any rational or cogent arguments

they just want to be allowed to kill their babies

it's all about convenience and not being punished for their actions; there is nothing more to it


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about shooting it as it's crowning? Halfway out? One toe in?
> 
> Right after her water breaks?
> 
> Five minutes before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> The day before that?
> 
> Ten seconds before that?
> 
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> 
> When does what change?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an extremist with no common sense, no logic, no reason.  You are hardly in a position to pass judgment on others in those realms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't answer the question? You can't tell me at what age it's okay to kill someone in cold blood?
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're saying you know it to be indefensible murder o kill; an unborn child but you want to be able to do it anyway
Click to expand...


I support the principles established Roe v. Wade pretty much to the letter.  In my own words, I support a reasonable window of opportunity for a woman to get an abortion, protected as a right constitutionally, and thereafter I support the matter being open to legislative determination by the individual states.  I support the trimester delineation established by the SCOTUS as reasonable.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's JB's stance verbatim:
> 
> *If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth. *
> 
> So that is what you can agree or disagree with, if you prefer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well, but I don't really care to do so.  I am also not 100% sure that is JB's actual beliefs as he trolls.
> 
> As to answering your question.  Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth.  And, I will say that I don't consider sentience to be a determining factor in this debate.  From the point of conception on, the offspring of a human couple is human.  No one can change that.
> 
> Induced abortion is the killing of a human being under all circumstances.  Whether or not it should be illegal in any or all circumstances is a completely different question.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you're as irrational as Beukema.
Click to expand...


And there you have it. Carib thinks letting  12-year-old rape victim abort her pregnancy is irrational. And that not letting her get that abortion is also irrational.

Like most adherents of abortionism, he has only emotion guiding him and there is no room for cogent thought


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> The smaller a child is, the less human it is, I guess.


I wonder how they feel about dwarfs


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> here are reasons that the science of  biology has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, fetus, for  example.






NYcarbineer said:


> Irrelevant semantics, and thus immaterial in this argument.




Why can't you make up your mind or stick to one story?


----------



## AllieBaba

And every pro-abortionist I've ever talked to will say that at the root of their committment to child murder is the belief that there are TOO MANY PEOPLE. They don't give a shit about the mother, the baby or any individual, they want to reduce the population. Presumably to provide themselves with a better chance of success.

It's all eugenics. They want to pick and choose who will be born, and what types have babies. The same people also believe in non-consensual euthanasia, in state rearing of children, and sterilization of certain populations. They don't admit it up front, but if you get into a conversation with any of them about any of those topics, they can't hide it.


----------



## Gadawg73

Shadow said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The child is not your body. Biology 101. *Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful.
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.
> 
> When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Cesarean sectioning it out at 4 weeks, giving it birth, wont mater then if it is not part of a womans body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a stupid argument for abortion.  Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???
> 
> *A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health*, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.
> 
> Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.
> 
> Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.
Click to expand...


BS, if there ANY complications during labor MOST doctors want to do a cesarean. That decreases their liability if there are problems from waiting on the vaginal delivery.
Chord wrapped around the baby or any lowering of the baby heart rate are the top 2 reasons.


----------



## AllieBaba

Omg you're an idiot.


----------



## AllieBaba

Please, nobody listen to anything gadawg says about pregnancy or delivery. He has no fucking idea what he's talking about.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> I support the principles established Roe v. Wade


You mean perjury? Norma McCorvey has stated repeatedly that *her entire story was bullshit*


The case was decided based on perjury and therefore is null and void. If it were any other case, it would have been overturned and re-heard. 





> support the trimester delineation established by the SCOTUS as reasonable.


Why? Why is killing a woman's baby okay today but not in twelve hours?

Do you have any reason or argument other than that you want to be allowed to kill babies?


----------



## JBeukema

Gadawg73 said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Cesarean sectioning it out at 4 weeks, giving it birth, wont mater then if it is not part of a womans body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a stupid argument for abortion.  Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???
> 
> *A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health*, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.
> 
> Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.
> 
> Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS, if there ANY complications during labor MOST doctors want to do a cesarean. That decreases their liability if there are problems from waiting on the vaginal delivery.
> Chord wrapped around the baby or any lowering of the baby heart rate are the top 2 reasons.
Click to expand...



Bullshit. The umbilical cord was around my very neck. They didn't slice my mother open; the nurse manually removed the cord from my neck so the birthing could continue.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support the principles established Roe v. Wade
> 
> 
> 
> You mean perjury? Norma McCorvey has stated repeatedly that *her entire story was bullshit*
> 
> 
> The case was decided based on perjury and therefore is null and void. If it were any other case, it would have been overturned and re-heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> support the trimester delineation established by the SCOTUS as reasonable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? Why is killing a woman's baby okay today but not in twelve hours?
> 
> Do you have any reason or argument other than that you want to be allowed to kill babies?
Click to expand...


You've really begun to embarass yourself.

I guess your desire for cogent reasoned arguments wasn't applicable to you.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> here are reasons that the science of  biology has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, fetus, for  example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant semantics, and thus immaterial in this argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you make up your mind or stick to one story?
Click to expand...


I was referring to your semantics not mine.

Do you believe that disposing of fertilized eggs from a fertility clinic is capital murder?


----------



## Immanuel

JBeukema said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a stupid argument for abortion.  Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???
> 
> *A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health*, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.
> 
> Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.
> 
> Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS, if there ANY complications during labor MOST doctors want to do a cesarean. That decreases their liability if there are problems from waiting on the vaginal delivery.
> Chord wrapped around the baby or any lowering of the baby heart rate are the top 2 reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The umbilical cord was around my very neck. They didn't slice my mother open; the nurse manually removed the cord from my neck so the birthing could continue.
Click to expand...


I watched the doctor reach down and pull the cord from around my second daughter's neck.  I am thoroughly convinced he saved her life then and there.

Immie


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well, but I don't really care to do so.  I am also not 100% sure that is JB's actual beliefs as he trolls.
> 
> As to answering your question.  Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth.  And, I will say that I don't consider sentience to be a determining factor in this debate.  From the point of conception on, the offspring of a human couple is human.  No one can change that.
> 
> Induced abortion is the killing of a human being under all circumstances.  Whether or not it should be illegal in any or all circumstances is a completely different question.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you're as irrational as Beukema.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you have it. Carib thinks letting  12-year-old rape victim abort her pregnancy is irrational. And that not letting her get that abortion is also irrational.
> 
> Like most adherents of abortionism, he has only emotion guiding him and there is no room for cogent thought
Click to expand...


Don't lie about what I said, I was referring to this as irrational:

*Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth. *

which it is.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support the principles established Roe v. Wade
> 
> 
> 
> You mean perjury? Norma McCorvey has stated repeatedly that *her entire story was bullshit*
> 
> 
> The case was decided based on perjury and therefore is null and void. If it were any other case, it would have been overturned and re-heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> support the trimester delineation established by the SCOTUS as reasonable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? Why is killing a woman's baby okay today but not in twelve hours?
> 
> Do you have any reason or argument other than that you want to be allowed to kill babies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've really begun to embarass yourself.
> 
> I guess your desire for cogent reasoned arguments wasn't applicable to you.
Click to expand...


So you still can't say shooting you in the face is wrong?

You can't tell me why killing a baby is okay one day and wrong the next? 

You can't name a single reason the ruling is good or right? It just happens to suit your needs and your desire to babies?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Synthaholic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> False premise.  An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red is to seven as sky is to waffle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of false premises, how about the one that compares the reproductive cycles of two species from COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KINGDOMS?  And that's totally aside from the fact that this sentence didn't actually make a whole lot of sense.  I think you were going for "a fetus is no more a child".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> JB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an *organism*. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just because it's an organism doesn't make it a baby.  It's a seed, like an acorn is a seed that under the right conditions can become a tree.
> 
> If you need another analogy, let me know.
Click to expand...


You ARE aware that, as members of the ANIMAL kingdom, rather than the PLANT kingdom, humans don't HAVE seeds, right?  This is why I already pointed out that comparing two species from completely different KINGDOMS is a false premise, but you are apparently determined to continue making yourself sound like a fool.

Yes, the fact that a fetus is a human organism makes him a baby, because that is what humans, as mammals, HAVE.  We don't have seeds; we don't lay eggs; we don't begin our existences as one creature and then transform into another one in a chrysalis; we produce live young known as "babies".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Synthaholic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> an unborn child is a seed?
> 
> 
> you fail biology forever
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that these organisms are the beginnings of a baby.  Correct?
Click to expand...


No, dumbass,  that would be Mr. Plant Kingdom's argument.  JB's argument was that a fetus is an organism, and thus ALREADY a baby.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Synthaholic said:


> Answer my question, please.



_It is a human child from the point of fertilization

that is the biological reality

at what point we deem a baby a toddler, a preteen, a teenager, an adult, and an old woman has nothing at all to do with whether it's okay to kill her in cold blood_ 

You got a reading problem?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean perjury? Norma McCorvey has stated repeatedly that *her entire story was bullshit*
> 
> 
> The case was decided based on perjury and therefore is null and void. If it were any other case, it would have been overturned and re-heard. Why? Why is killing a woman's baby okay today but not in twelve hours?
> 
> Do you have any reason or argument other than that you want to be allowed to kill babies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've really begun to embarass yourself.
> 
> I guess your desire for cogent reasoned arguments wasn't applicable to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you still can't say shooting you in the face is wrong?
> 
> You can't tell me why killing a baby is okay one day and wrong the next?
> 
> You can't name a single reason the ruling is good or right? It just happens to suit your needs and your desire to babies?
Click to expand...


I have absolutely zero emotional investment in fetuses so you are really wasting your time trying to use the fallacy of appeal to emotion in this debate.

You have not made a cogent argument as to why a one hour old 2 cell zygote is a person, so don't be getting on me for not making cogent arguments.

Roe v Wade is reasonable and serves the best interests of our democratic society.  There is no identifiable greater good achieved by throwing women in prison for life, or executing them, for having a first trimester abortion.

It is an irrational, extreme position (yours that is) and no sane society allows itself to be governed by its irrational extremists.

Thankfully, we will never be governed by yours.


----------



## Synthaholic

JBeukema said:


> your idiotic question was answered




No it wasn't.  Here it is again:



Synthaholic said:


> Your argument is that these organisms are the beginnings of a baby.  Correct?


----------



## Immanuel

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've really begun to embarass yourself.
> 
> I guess your desire for cogent reasoned arguments wasn't applicable to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you still can't say shooting you in the face is wrong?
> 
> You can't tell me why killing a baby is okay one day and wrong the next?
> 
> You can't name a single reason the ruling is good or right? It just happens to suit your needs and your desire to babies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have absolutely zero emotional investment in fetuses so you are really wasting your time trying to use the fallacy of appeal to emotion in this debate.
> 
> You have not made a cogent argument as to why a one hour old 2 cell zygote is a person, so don't be getting on me for not making cogent arguments.
> 
> Roe v Wade is reasonable and serves the best interests of our democratic *society*.  There is no identifiable greater good achieved by throwing women in prison for life, or executing them, for having a first trimester abortion.
> 
> It is an irrational, extreme position (yours that is) and no sane society allows itself to be governed by its irrational extremists.
> 
> Thankfully, we will never be governed by yours.
Click to expand...


I think you had a typo there.  It should read party.  Because it serves the purpose of dividing this nation for the benefits of The Democratic Party not our democratic society.  And few, if any, have promoted throwing a woman in prison for even a day let alone life for any abortion let alone a first trimester abortion.

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

You can't tell me why killing a baby is okay one day and wrong the next? 


At what moment and for what rational reason did killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?

Do you have any argument other than 'we wanna be allowed to kill babies'?


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Please, nobody listen to anything gadawg says about pregnancy or delivery. He has no fucking idea what he's talking about.



You know nothing about medical liability or anything in the private sector.
Go back to you gummint tit job. No one in the private sector will hire you.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Omg you're an idiot.



Six states see dramatic rise in C-sections - USATODAY.com


----------



## Cecilie1200

PJzaBruin said:


> Let's address the basic flaw in your initial premise:
> 
> "A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism."
> 
> The blastocyst is not an independent organism.  Yes, it is alive.  Yes, it is genetically human.  So is your pinky.  For a child born with an extra digit, so is the 6th toe on his foot, or the 6th finger on her hand.  But it is NOT a living human organism.
> 
> Until such time as it can survive independently from its mother, the fetus is more a part of the mother than it is "a living human organism."
> 
> Why couldn't you be honest about that?



Let's examine the MANY basic flaws in YOUR premise.

A blastocyst IS an independent organism.  The problem here is that YOU don't understand what "independent" means in terms of organisms.  It does NOT mean "self-sufficient, needing no other organisms to provide nourishment or a safe living environment", because by that standard, NONE of us are independent organisms.  Nature shows us many organisms which cannot live outside the body of another organism, and many which are utterly dependent on other organisms to survive.  The blastocyst/embryo/fetus during gestation is but one of these organisms.  He is an organism because he meets all the criteria that define organisms:  growth, homeostasis, etc.  He is independent in the sense that he has separate systems from his mother, and is self-directing.  It is not the mother's body which controls his growth, development, and function; his own body does that.

Second flaw:  you also don't understand the difference between organs and organisms.  A pinky is not an organism.  It is an organ, and a PART of an organism.

A fetus is not part of his mother at any point in time, any more than a tape worm in her digestive tract would be "part of her body".

I'd ask why you couldn't be honest about that, but it's clear that it's because your education in biology is sadly lacking.  I suggest you sue the school district from which you graduated immediately.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> your idiotic question was answered
> 
> 
> then the latest sock puppet came in to deny biology again and claim grandma ceases to be an organism when when she's on a ventilator
> 
> 
> why can't you people ever be honest?



Because they're ignorant.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Omg you're an idiot.



http:A Risky Rise in C-Sections - US News and World Report

"Rising malpractice premiums may play a role"
Well DUH.
AllieBabble, you are a dumbass. Thanks for confirming it.
You will NEVER, EVER be able to out work, out research and out hustle me.
You are a gummint stooge that does not have to produce a profit for anyone.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Immanuel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can anyone who ever reads things posted by JB possibly answer that question?  JB is all over the place in his posts.  One minute pro-life the next... kill them all.  You would have to clarify what JB's stance really is.
> 
> I do agree with him though about it being a life from the moment of conception.  Um, if that is his stance.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's JB's stance verbatim:
> 
> *If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth. *
> 
> So that is what you can agree or disagree with, if you prefer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well, but I don't really care to do so.  I am also not 100% sure that is JB's actual beliefs as he trolls.
> 
> As to answering your question.  Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth.  And, I will say that I don't consider sentience to be a determining factor in this debate.  From the point of conception on, the offspring of a human couple is human.  No one can change that.
> 
> Induced abortion is the killing of a human being under all circumstances.  Whether or not it should be illegal in any or all circumstances is a completely different question.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


My understanding is that JB is pro-choice, but doesn't feel the need to lie and pretend basic biology is something that it isn't in order to facilitate being pro-choice.  I'm not entirely sure how he DOES justify abortion under those circumstances, though.


----------



## Shadow

Gadawg73 said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Cesarean sectioning it out at 4 weeks, giving it birth, wont mater then if it is not part of a womans body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a stupid argument for abortion.  Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???
> 
> *A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health*, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.
> 
> Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.
> 
> Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS, if there ANY complications during labor MOST doctors want to do a cesarean. That decreases their liability if there are problems from waiting on the vaginal delivery.
> Chord wrapped around the baby or any lowering of the baby heart rate are the top 2 reasons.
Click to expand...


Key word being "complications".  I know from experieince just how far they will actually go to avoid them.

Even in the case of a breech birth...they would much prefer to do a proceedure (aversion) to physically turn the baby around...rather than cut you open.


----------



## Immanuel

Cecilie1200 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's JB's stance verbatim:
> 
> *If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth. *
> 
> So that is what you can agree or disagree with, if you prefer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well, but I don't really care to do so.  I am also not 100% sure that is JB's actual beliefs as he trolls.
> 
> As to answering your question.  Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth.  And, I will say that I don't consider sentience to be a determining factor in this debate.  From the point of conception on, the offspring of a human couple is human.  No one can change that.
> 
> Induced abortion is the killing of a human being under all circumstances.  Whether or not it should be illegal in any or all circumstances is a completely different question.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My understanding is that JB is pro-choice, but doesn't feel the need to lie and pretend basic biology is something that it isn't in order to facilitate being pro-choice.  I'm not entirely sure how he DOES justify abortion under those circumstances, though.
Click to expand...


That has always been my impression too.  

Immie


----------



## Synthaholic

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support the principles established Roe v. Wade
> 
> 
> 
> You mean perjury? Norma McCorvey has stated repeatedly that *her entire story was bullshit*
Click to expand...



Why do you believe her 'post' version over her 'pre' version?


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> My understanding is that JB is pro-choice, but doesn't feel the need to lie and pretend basic biology is something that it isn't in order to facilitate being pro-choice.  I'm not entirely sure how he DOES justify abortion under those circumstances, though.


I value the mind, not the body. Basically, my argument is that until certain brain structures are present, the mind cannot emerge from a human brain. Hence, the child is fundamentally no different than someone in a persistent vegetative state. In one example, there person is gone. In the other, no individual yet exists. How can I harm a non-existent person? I am killing a living thing yet, but the system destroyed has not yet given rise to a unique mind. 

The internet might give rise to Skynet one day, but today it has not. Ergo, destroying that system by unplugging all the computers cannot harm an individual who does not exist.

I value not the flesh, but that which makes us unique individual persons. In religious terms, this individual essence is what the concept of the 'soul' is an attempt to understand and explain.


----------



## Gadawg73

Shadow said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a stupid argument for abortion.  Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???
> 
> *A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health*, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.
> 
> Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.
> 
> Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS, if there ANY complications during labor MOST doctors want to do a cesarean. That decreases their liability if there are problems from waiting on the vaginal delivery.
> Chord wrapped around the baby or any lowering of the baby heart rate are the top 2 reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Key word being "complications".  I know from experieince just how far they will actually go to avoid them.
Click to expand...


http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/04/csection-rates-association-lawsuits.html

Not what the doctors state and my cousin is a doctor.
They are on the increase because they want to do it and anything can be deemed a "complication".


----------



## Synthaholic

Cecilie1200 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> an unborn child is a seed?
> 
> 
> you fail biology forever
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that these organisms are the beginnings of a baby.  Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dumbass,  that would be Mr. Plant Kingdom's argument.  JB's argument was that a fetus is an organism, and thus ALREADY a baby.
Click to expand...

And he is wrong.


----------



## Synthaholic

Cecilie1200 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _It is a human child from the point of fertilization
> 
> that is the biological reality
> 
> at what point we deem a baby a toddler, a preteen, a teenager, an adult, and an old woman has nothing at all to do with whether it's okay to kill her in cold blood_
> 
> You got a reading problem?
Click to expand...

And again, he is wrong.


----------



## JBeukema

Synthaholic said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that these organisms are the beginnings of a baby.  Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, dumbass,  that would be Mr. Plant Kingdom's argument.  JB's argument was that a fetus is an organism, and thus ALREADY a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he is wrong.
Click to expand...


A baby is not a scientific term. Like 'child', it refers simply to a young human.

A foetus is a human at an early stage of development- a young human.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a human child from the point of fertilization
> 
> that is the biological reality
> 
> at what point we deem a baby a toddler, a preteen, a teenager, an adult, and an old woman has nothing at all to do with whether it's okay to kill her in cold blood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a biological reality.  There are reasons that the science of biology has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, fetus, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A child is a young human. Zygotes, foetuses, and toddlers are all children.
Click to expand...


NY has a point.  There IS a reason why biology/medicine has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, etc.  But that reason isn't what NY thinks it is.  Those terms exist to denote a specific stage in the life cycle/development of the baby, the same way we have the terms newborn, toddler, adolescent, and adult.  They don't exist to denote different life forms.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Omg you're an idiot.



*SLAM DUNK*

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/04/csection-rates-association-lawsuits.html

"Of the 9 most common reasons for obestric malpractice suits 6 allege failure to perform a C section or failure to perform a C section sooner"

Well DUH.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> The smaller a child is, the less human it is, I guess.



Which is funny, since I don't remember the definition of "human" saying anything about size.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> The smaller a child is, the less human it is, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how they feel about dwarfs
Click to expand...


I guess I'm glad I have really big babies, because it apparently means that MY kids are more human than other people's.


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a biological reality.  There are reasons that the science of biology has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, fetus, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> A child is a young human. Zygotes, foetuses, and toddlers are all children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NY has a point.  There IS a reason why biology/medicine has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, etc.  But that reason isn't what NY thinks it is.  Those terms exist to denote a specific stage in the life cycle/development of the baby, the same way we have the terms newborn, toddler, adolescent, and adult.  They don't exist to denote different life forms.
Click to expand...


I refer you to the post right above yours


'baby' and 'child' simply refer to young humans

an early stage of development  means youth

a foetus is a young human


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Omg you're an idiot.



What do you expect?  He's a man, and he's never been pregnant or had to give birth.  And he's sure as HELL not a doctor.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a stupid argument for abortion.  Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???
> 
> *A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health*, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.
> 
> Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.
> 
> Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS, if there ANY complications during labor MOST doctors want to do a cesarean. That decreases their liability if there are problems from waiting on the vaginal delivery.
> Chord wrapped around the baby or any lowering of the baby heart rate are the top 2 reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The umbilical cord was around my very neck. They didn't slice my mother open; the nurse manually removed the cord from my neck so the birthing could continue.
Click to expand...


True.  No doctor wants to put a woman in labor under anesthesia and cut her open if he can avoid it, and they will go to great lengths to keep the delivery vaginal if they can.  C-sections are strictly a last resort, because - John Edwards notwithstanding - they increase the risk to both the mother and the baby, which means they increase liability.


----------



## Shadow

Gadawg73 said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS, if there ANY complications during labor MOST doctors want to do a cesarean. That decreases their liability if there are problems from waiting on the vaginal delivery.
> Chord wrapped around the baby or any lowering of the baby heart rate are the top 2 reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Key word being "complications".  I know from experieince just how far they will actually go to avoid them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/04/csection-rates-association-lawsuits.html
> 
> Not what the doctors state and my cousin is a doctor.
> They are on the increase because they want to do it and anything can be deemed a "complication".
Click to expand...


Maybe everything can be "deemed" a complication.  But a C-Section can create complications for both the mother and child.  I thought pro choice folks were against "complications" to the mothers health?  Guess not huh?

*Top 5 Reasons Not To Have A C-Section *

Risks to Mother:

These days we tend to think of surgery as an easy fix for so many of our problems or concerns. We tend to forget that surgery is a life-threatening procedure, no matter how routine. Having a c-section means a longer recovery time, surgical risks such as infections, bleeding, and complications from anesthesia including pneumonia. There is an increased risk of blood clots, a higher chance of needing an emergency hysterectomy, and a higher incidence of a return trip to the hospital. C-sections leave the mother open for damage to her bowels and bladder, to increased blood loss and the need for a blood transfusion, as well as a higher risk of maternal death.


Top 5 Reasons Not To Have A C-Section | Parenting Squad


----------



## Cecilie1200

Synthaholic said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that these organisms are the beginnings of a baby.  Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, dumbass,  that would be Mr. Plant Kingdom's argument.  JB's argument was that a fetus is an organism, and thus ALREADY a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he is wrong.
Click to expand...


Gee, coming from you, that means . . . absolutely nothing.


----------



## AllieBaba

Cecilie1200 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a biological reality. There are reasons that the science of biology has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, fetus, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> A child is a young human. Zygotes, foetuses, and toddlers are all children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NY has a point. There IS a reason why biology/medicine has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, etc. But that reason isn't what NY thinks it is. Those terms exist to denote a specific stage in the life cycle/development of the baby, the same way we have the terms newborn, toddler, adolescent, and adult. They don't exist to denote different life forms.
Click to expand...

 
If I had a file for good abortion stuff that would go in it...


----------



## syrenn

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And to think it was you who started this thread accusing the pro-choice people of not being able to make a cogent well thought out argument.
> 
> Unreal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about shooting it as it's crowning? Halfway out? One toe in?
> 
> Right after her water breaks?
> 
> Five minutes before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> Three seconds before that?
> 
> The day before that?
> 
> Ten seconds before that?
> 
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> One millisecond before that?
> 
> When does what change?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to your 'reasoning'
> 
> there is absolutely no difference, by any measure of morality or criminality, between a woman who has used RU486 to terminate a pregnancy,
> 
> and Susan Smith, who for those who don't recall, was the woman who drowned her two children in her car.
> 
> Now, seriously people, be honest here...
> 
> ...how many of you can wholeheartedly and without qualification agree with Beukema on his/her stance?
Click to expand...



Some will some wont. Its an emotional call. I do not agree. What he is stomping his feet about is where you draw the line of "life" 

My threshold of where life in and of itself begins, for a baby, is where it can be a stand alone viable living entity. If that be with with medical help, fine, but it must have life for and of itself.


----------



## syrenn

Shadow said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The child is not your body. Biology 101. *Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful.
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.
> 
> When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Cesarean sectioning it out at 4 weeks, giving it birth, wont mater then if it is not part of a womans body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a stupid argument for abortion.  Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???
> 
> *A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health*, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.
> 
> Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.
> 
> Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.
Click to expand...


We have argued this before. An abortion carries the same medical risks of all of those things. 

This is not about the mother, this is about where you draw the line of where that "life" begins.


----------



## JBeukema

Plasmaball said:


> but i am being honest. Its not of your business what my family does.



oh no? Try that line when you're in court for domestic violence and let us know how that works out for ya





> what my wife, Gf, lover does with their body.


Another human being is not your body

Why can't you people ever be honest?



> abort your fetus.


You abort an attempt to copy a file. You don't 'abort' a human life- you kill a human being. People don't 'expire' like a newspaper subscription. They die. It's still fucking shell shock.


> That is your choice and should remain so


Like the choice to 'make a deposit' in an 'unwilling sperm recipient'?


----------



## Shadow

syrenn said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Cesarean sectioning it out at 4 weeks, giving it birth, wont mater then if it is not part of a womans body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a stupid argument for abortion.  Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???
> 
> *A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health*, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.
> 
> Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.
> 
> Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have argued this before. An abortion carries the same medical risks of all of those things.
> 
> This is not about the mother, this is about where you draw the line of where that "life" begins.
Click to expand...



Really??  I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> What he is stomping his feet about is where you draw the line of "life"



No, that's a question of biology that was settled a long time ago. Why can't you people ever be honest?



> My threshold of where life in and of itself begins, for a baby,



There is not room for opinion. You can't just decide that the earth is flat- it's round whether you like it or not.


----------



## JBeukema

Shadow said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a stupid argument for abortion.  Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???
> 
> *A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health*, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.
> 
> Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.
> 
> Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have argued this before. An abortion carries the same medical risks of all of those things.
> 
> This is not about the mother, this is about where you draw the line of where that "life" begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really??  I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?
Click to expand...

All they're sure about is that they want to kill their babies and not get in trouble.

Beyond that, they just make it up as they go


----------



## Shadow

JBeukema said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have argued this before. An abortion carries the same medical risks of all of those things.
> 
> This is not about the mother, this is about where you draw the line of where that "life" begins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really??  I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All they're sure about is that they want to kill their babies and not get in trouble.
> 
> Beyond that, they just make it up as they go
Click to expand...


Right...who cares if the mother gets sepsis (total body infections) as a result and dies.


----------



## AllieBaba

B-b-b-but..that only happens when abortions are ILLEGAL!


----------



## syrenn

Shadow said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a stupid argument for abortion.  Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???
> 
> *A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health*, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.
> 
> Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.
> 
> Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have argued this before. An abortion carries the same medical risks of all of those things.
> 
> This is not about the mother, this is about where you draw the line of where that "life" begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really??  I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?
Click to expand...


Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder

Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, child, teen, adult.

ALL are stages of_ human development_.  One stage isn't more human or less human than another stage.  The stage of development isn't what makes them human; the FACT that humans beget humans does.  How fucking hard is this to understand?  

The pro-choice side goes to great lengths to insist that "it's not really a human just yet".  Give it a rest.  If you're going to claim 'choice' as your argument at least have the balls to admit that your 'choice' (which includes abortion and yeah, that makes you pro-abortion no matter how much you cry that it doesn't) _ends the life of another human being_.  It doesn't end a blob of tissue or some other nonsense,  _it stops a beating human heart, it ends an individual human life_.  Stop dancing around that fact. Too bad you don't like it, too bad you find it distasteful.  Coming up with bullshit arguments (acorns and fetuses?  really??) are nothing more than your way of rationalizing/justifying the killing of a human being.  For crying out loud at least own up to what abortion does.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have argued this before. An abortion carries the same medical risks of all of those things.
> 
> This is not about the mother, this is about where you draw the line of where that "life" begins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really??  I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.
Click to expand...



So until a child is old enough to leave the table without falling and cracking its head, find a kitchen, and make a  fucking sandwich... kill it anytime, it;s cool with you?

Does she have to get a job and buy her own bread, or is it okay if we give her table scraps?


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What he is stomping his feet about is where you draw the line of "life"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's a question of biology that was settled a long time ago. Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My threshold of where life in and of itself begins, for a baby,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is not room for opinion. You can't just decide that the earth is flat- it's round whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...


You need to understand what is deemed as living tissue in terms of biology.

Blood cells are human, and they are living tissue, they do not have "life"
Skin cells are human, they are living tissue, they do not have "life"
Muscle cells are human, they are living tissue, they do not have "life"  

The same applies to zygotes and embryos. They are living tissue and they do not have "life"


----------



## JBeukema

Speaking of hearbeats...  is Dick Cheney human?


After all, there's no detectable heartbeat anymore... in fact, there's no heartbeat at all...


----------



## Shadow

syrenn said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have argued this before. An abortion carries the same medical risks of all of those things.
> 
> This is not about the mother, this is about where you draw the line of where that "life" begins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really??  I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.
Click to expand...


Yes...I know what your abortion "script" says.  I've read it all before.  It's still a stupid argument for abortion rights,since it goes against your main reason for wanting them in the first place. 

Yes...lets just "c-section" the hell out of everyone...to see a "what if" senario


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really??  I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So until a child is old enough to leave the table without falling and cracking its head, find a kitchen, and make a  fucking sandwich... kill it anytime, it;s cool with you?
> 
> Does she have to get a job and buy her own bread, or is it okay if we give her table scraps?
Click to expand...



Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What he is stomping his feet about is where you draw the line of "life"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's a question of biology that was settled a long time ago. Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My threshold of where life in and of itself begins, for a baby,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is not room for opinion. You can't just decide that the earth is flat- it's round whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to understand what is deemed as living tissue in terms of biology.
> 
> Blood cells are human, and they are living tissue, they do not have "life"
> Skin cells are human, they are living tissue, they do not have "life"
> Muscle cells are human, they are living tissue, they do not have "life"
> 
> The same applies to zygotes and embryos. They are living tissue and they do not have "life"
Click to expand...


Go to the library. Ask for a biology book.

Here are your vocabulary words for today:
organelle
cell
tissue
organ
organ system
organism
human being/homo sapien sapien

This is homework and is due back tomorrow.


----------



## Zoom-boing

syrenn said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have argued this before. An abortion carries the same medical risks of all of those things.
> 
> This is not about the mother, this is about where you draw the line of where that "life" begins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really??  I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> *Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life*.
Click to expand...


So that's your criteria for whether it's human or not? Of course it has life and that life will cease to exist within minutes of being taken from it's environment.  And?  

What if you were taken, as you are right now, and plopped down in the middle of Siberia.  Ill-equipped and ill-prepared.  You'd be dead within the hour.  But your reasoning of a 4 week old fetus is "c-section it out and if it lives then . . . .peachy"?  I don't even understand your logic on this.

If you c-section that fetus out and it dies (which it will as you took it from it's environment when it was ill-equipped and ill-prepared to survive in a different environment) that is murder.  How do you not get this?  

Abortion = the killing/ending/taking of another human life.


----------



## AllieBaba

Well he has a point. Babies at 9 months are likely to die if you sit them on the table without any sort of intervention.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So until a child is old enough to leave the table without falling and cracking its head, find a kitchen, and make a  fucking sandwich... kill it anytime, it;s cool with you?
> 
> Does she have to get a job and buy her own bread, or is it okay if we give her table scraps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

If I put a newborn on a table and leave her there for four weeks, she dies of starvation.

You must be a Spartan- they, too, believed in leaving unwanted babies to starve to death on a mountain.


----------



## JBeukema

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really??  I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> *Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's your criteria for whether it's human or not? Of course it has life and that life will cease to exist within minutes of being taken from it's environment.  And?
> 
> What if you were taken, as you are right now, and plopped down in the middle of Siberia.  Ill-equipped and ill-prepared.  You'd be dead within the hour.  But your reasoning of a 4 week old fetus is "c-section it out and if it lives then . . . .peachy"?  I don't even understand your logic on this.
Click to expand...

There is no logic to it


----------



## syrenn

Shadow said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really??  I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...I know what your abortion "script" says.  I've read it all before.  It's still a stupid argument for abortion rights,since it goes against your main reason for wanting them in the first place.
> 
> Yes...lets just "c-section" the hell out of everyone...to see a "what if" senario
Click to expand...


You cant argue with that can you? It is not a stupid argument as C-sections throws the whole " 'life' from fertilization" crap in the garbage. 

I don't care how it comes out of a woman if a woman wants it out. If the anti abortion crowd, pro life people want 4 week old tissue...fine. Pleas feel free to adopt what is handed to them after the c- section.


----------



## JBeukema

Plasmaball said:


> ah but your flaw again is using something that is illegal



So killing a man can be okay if he's a mormon? After all, that used to be legal, too.

Spousal rape was legal until the 60s and 70s.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Abortion:  the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. 

* my note:  the 'removal'.  Oh don't they make that sound all clean and non-violent?  

Pregnancy:  1. the state or condition of being pregnant   2. 	*the period from conception to childbirth*

Abortion | Define Abortion at Dictionary.com
Pregnancy | Define Pregnancy at Dictionary.com


Abortion ends/kills/destroys an individual human being's life.

Stop dancing around the facts.


----------



## AllieBaba

Plasmaball said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> but i am being honest. Its not of your business what my family does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh no? Try that line when you're in court for domestic violence and let us know how that works out for yaAnother human being is not your body
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> You abort an attempt to copy a file. You don't 'abort' a human life- you kill a human being. People don't 'expire' like a newspaper subscription. They die. It's still fucking shell shock.
> 
> 
> 
> That is your choice and should remain so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the choice to 'make a deposit' in an 'unwilling sperm recipient'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah but your flaw again is using something that is illegal and after birth.
> which seems to be a massive failure of pro-life people. /they consider these thing equal and they are not.
> 
> i am being honest.My wife who is 7 months right now as a baby inside her. notice how its inside her? You kind of need the female to have the baby..thats how it works till science can take over. we are not there yet.
> 
> you cant escape the fact the fetus comes after the woman.Your logic fails again. Your argument fails again over and over because pro-life people cant handle the simple concept of the facts.
> 
> i know exactly what is being aborted. i know exactly the choices that are being made. But i feel it is none of your business and i do not nor ever will need to consult you or anyone else on the matter with how i run my family and life.
> 
> Now you need to go and try to use rape to justify your argument? I guess if you flail wildly something might land eventually.
> 
> This is just sad.
Click to expand...

 
Murderers always feel it's nobody else's business who or why they kill. It's a TRAIT OF ALL MURDERERS. 

And I can certainly escape the "fact" that the woman comes before the fetus. Maybe she will choose to come before the fetus..but I know of women who choose to stop cancer treatments because they are pregnant, knowing their time is very limited if they do. They choose to put the "fetus" before themselves. Usually when the "fetus" isn't even a fetus yet.

What were you saying about flailing wildly? Because that post is a really good example of it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have argued this before. An abortion carries the same medical risks of all of those things.
> 
> This is not about the mother, this is about where you draw the line of where that "life" begins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really??  I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.
Click to expand...


Oh, WELL, by the same token, if you take a fish out of water and set it on the table, it'll die too.  I guess that means fish aren't alive in the first place.

Somehow, I think this "brilliant" standard of "if it dies under the right circumstances, it must not have been alive in the first place" is going to be a bit problematic.


----------



## JBeukema

Plasmaball said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> ah but your flaw again is using something that is illegal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So killing a man can be okay if he's a mormon? After all, that used to be legal, too.
> 
> Spousal rape was legal until the 60s and 70s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more flailing i see.
> If i need to explain the reasons why those are illegal to you, then its sadder than i thought.
Click to expand...

They weren't always illegal.

Yes, killing a young child is legal in the US. So were spousal rape, killing  a  mormon in Missouri, and slavery.

Do you have some sort of point?


----------



## AllieBaba

Zoom-boing said:


> Abortion: the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
> 
> * my note: the 'removal'. Oh don't they make that sound all clean and non-violent?
> 
> Pregnancy: 1. the state or condition of being pregnant 2.     *the period from conception to childbirth*
> 
> Abortion | Define Abortion at Dictionary.com
> Pregnancy | Define Pregnancy at Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Abortion ends/kills/destroys an individual human being's life.
> 
> Stop dancing around the facts.


 
Now, now, we all know that in the beginning stages of pregnancy women aren't pregnant with HUMAN babies. They just have little tumors growing in them until at some point they decide they want to turn it into a baby! Then and only then does that little mass of tissue magically become a human! It's a miracle! The miracle of carefully engineered and suitably unimportant life!


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really??  I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, WELL, by the same token, if you take a fish out of water and set it on the table, it'll die too.  I guess that means fish aren't alive in the first place.
> 
> Somehow, I think this "brilliant" standard of "if it dies under the right circumstances, it must not have been alive in the first place" is going to be a bit problematic.
Click to expand...



I'm still amazed that a non-living thing can die


----------



## Shadow

syrenn said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...I know what your abortion "script" says.  I've read it all before.  It's still a stupid argument for abortion rights,since it goes against your main reason for wanting them in the first place.
> 
> Yes...lets just "c-section" the hell out of everyone...to see a "what if" senario
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cant argue with that can you? It is not a stupid argument as C-sections throws the whole " 'life' from fertilization" crap in the garbage.
> 
> I don't care how it comes out of a woman if a woman wants it out. If the anti abortion crowd, pro life people want 4 week old tissue...fine. Pleas feel free to adopt what is handed to them after the c- section.
Click to expand...


Well..if you don't care how it gets "out" as long as it just "does"...how about you just let them continue to use a coat hanger then?  It's less expensive and they can do it at home.

A babies heart starts beating 20 days after conception. Your lame argument does not "dispute" anything.


----------



## Zoom-boing

AllieBaba said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion: the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
> 
> * my note: the 'removal'. Oh don't they make that sound all clean and non-violent?
> 
> Pregnancy: 1. the state or condition of being pregnant 2.     *the period from conception to childbirth*
> 
> Abortion | Define Abortion at Dictionary.com
> Pregnancy | Define Pregnancy at Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Abortion ends/kills/destroys an individual human being's life.
> 
> Stop dancing around the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now, we all know that in the beginning stages of pregnancy women aren't pregnant with HUMAN babies. They just have little tumors growing in them until at some point they decide they want to turn it into a baby! Then and only then does that little mass of tissue magically become a human! It's a miracle! The miracle of carefully engineered and suitably unimportant life!
Click to expand...


Oh, thought they were lima beans or some other plant . . .  you know, since they always like to bring up the whole acorn thing.


----------



## JBeukema

Plasmaball said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> ah but your flaw again is using something that is illegal and after birth.
> which seems to be a massive failure of pro-life people. /they consider these thing equal and they are not.
> 
> i am being honest.My wife who is 7 months right now as a baby inside her. notice how its inside her? You kind of need the female to have the baby..thats how it works till science can take over. we are not there yet.
> 
> you cant escape the fact the fetus comes after the woman.Your logic fails again. Your argument fails again over and over because pro-life people cant handle the simple concept of the facts.
> 
> i know exactly what is being aborted. i know exactly the choices that are being made. But i feel it is none of your business and i do not nor ever will need to consult you or anyone else on the matter with how i run my family and life.
> 
> Now you need to go and try to use rape to justify your argument? I guess if you flail wildly something might land eventually.
> 
> This is just sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murderers always feel it's nobody else's business who or why they kill. It's a TRAIT OF ALL MURDERERS.
> 
> And I can certainly escape the "fact" that the woman comes before the fetus. Maybe she will choose to come before the fetus..but I know of women who *choose* to stop cancer treatments because they are pregnant, knowing their time is very limited if they do. They *choose* to put the "fetus" before themselves. Usually when the "fetus" isn't even a fetus yet.
> 
> What were you saying about flailing wildly? Because that post is a really good example of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the bold......And if they decided to do such, that is their right.
> Their body, their rules.
Click to expand...



My penis. My rules. My choice.


Your ass...


Rape is cool with you, right? After all, I'm just exercising my right to control my body.

Can you tell me why raping you would be a not-okay thing?


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What he is stomping his feet about is where you draw the line of "life"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's a question of biology that was settled a long time ago. Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My threshold of where life in and of itself begins, for a baby,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is not room for opinion. You can't just decide that the earth is flat- it's round whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to understand what is deemed as living tissue in terms of biology.
> 
> Blood cells are human, and they are living tissue, they do not have "life"
> Skin cells are human, they are living tissue, they do not have "life"
> Muscle cells are human, they are living tissue, they do not have "life"
> 
> The same applies to zygotes and embryos. They are living tissue and they do not have "life"
Click to expand...


No, YOU need to understand the difference between "tissue" and "organisms".  Blood, skin, and muscle cells are not organisms.  They're JUST cells, parts of an organism.  A zygote/embryo, on the other hand, IS an organism.  I can't decide if you've just been avoiding reading the multiple, myriad explanations of this very simple biological concept, or if you're just pretending you haven't out of dishonesty.


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So until a child is old enough to leave the table without falling and cracking its head, find a kitchen, and make a  fucking sandwich... kill it anytime, it;s cool with you?
> 
> Does she have to get a job and buy her own bread, or is it okay if we give her table scraps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Why?  Is that your own private prerogative?


----------



## JBeukema

JBeukema said:


> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible act-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When you pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position.




So, plas, sy, and the others:

Are your retarded, liars, or both?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Plasmaball said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> but i am being honest. Its not of your business what my family does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh no? Try that line when you're in court for domestic violence and let us know how that works out for yaAnother human being is not your body
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> You abort an attempt to copy a file. You don't 'abort' a human life- you kill a human being. People don't 'expire' like a newspaper subscription. They die. It's still fucking shell shock.
> 
> 
> 
> That is your choice and should remain so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the choice to 'make a deposit' in an 'unwilling sperm recipient'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah but your flaw again is using something that is illegal and after birth.
> which seems to be a massive failure of pro-life people. /they consider these thing equal and they are not.
> 
> i am being honest.My wife who is 7 months right now as a baby inside her. notice how its inside her? You kind of need the female to have the baby..thats how it works till science can take over. we are not there yet.
> 
> you cant escape the fact the fetus comes after the woman.Your logic fails again. Your argument fails again over and over because pro-life people cant handle the simple concept of the facts.
> 
> i know exactly what is being aborted. i know exactly the choices that are being made. But i feel it is none of your business and i do not nor ever will need to consult you or anyone else on the matter with how i run my family and life.
> 
> Now you need to go and try to use rape to justify your argument? I guess if you flail wildly something might land eventually.
> 
> This is just sad.
Click to expand...


Can anyone else figure out what point this _farrago _is trying to make?  Are we going with "abortion should be legal because abortion is legal", or are we going with "the baby is younger than the mother, so he's not alive", or is it "babies don't spring into existence spontaneously, so they're not alive", or what the fuck else?

My toddler makes more sense than this.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cecilie1200 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's JB's stance verbatim:
> 
> *If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth. *
> 
> So that is what you can agree or disagree with, if you prefer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well, but I don't really care to do so.  I am also not 100% sure that is JB's actual beliefs as he trolls.
> 
> As to answering your question.  Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth.  And, I will say that I don't consider sentience to be a determining factor in this debate.  From the point of conception on, the offspring of a human couple is human.  No one can change that.
> 
> Induced abortion is the killing of a human being under all circumstances.  Whether or not it should be illegal in any or all circumstances is a completely different question.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My understanding is that JB is pro-choice, but doesn't feel the need to lie and pretend basic biology is something that it isn't in order to facilitate being pro-choice.  I'm not entirely sure how he DOES justify abortion under those circumstances, though.
Click to expand...


Beukema is equating an embryo to a person with the fallacious argument that they are both named 'human' therefore they must be equivalent in every aspect of humanness.  

It's a common mistake.


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh no? Try that line when you're in court for domestic violence and let us know how that works out for yaAnother human being is not your body
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> You abort an attempt to copy a file. You don't 'abort' a human life- you kill a human being. People don't 'expire' like a newspaper subscription. They die. It's still fucking shell shock.
> Like the choice to 'make a deposit' in an 'unwilling sperm recipient'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah but your flaw again is using something that is illegal and after birth.
> which seems to be a massive failure of pro-life people. /they consider these thing equal and they are not.
> 
> i am being honest.My wife who is 7 months right now as a baby inside her. notice how its inside her? You kind of need the female to have the baby..thats how it works till science can take over. we are not there yet.
> 
> you cant escape the fact the fetus comes after the woman.Your logic fails again. Your argument fails again over and over because pro-life people cant handle the simple concept of the facts.
> 
> i know exactly what is being aborted. i know exactly the choices that are being made. But i feel it is none of your business and i do not nor ever will need to consult you or anyone else on the matter with how i run my family and life.
> 
> Now you need to go and try to use rape to justify your argument? I guess if you flail wildly something might land eventually.
> 
> This is just sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can anyone else figure out what point this _farrago _is trying to make?  Are we going with "abortion should be legal because abortion is legal", or are we going with "the baby is younger than the mother, so he's not alive", or is it "babies don't spring into existence spontaneously, so they're not alive", or what the fuck else?
> 
> My toddler makes more sense than this.
Click to expand...


They don't know, Cecile. All they know is they want to kill their babies and not get in trouble.

The rest they just make up as they go. There is no underlying logic, reason, or cogent thought or justification.

That much is obvious in every single thread this subject comes up in.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, child, teen, adult.
> 
> ALL are stages of_ human development_.  One stage isn't more human or less human than another stage.  The stage of development isn't what makes them human; the FACT that humans beget humans does.  How fucking hard is this to understand?
> 
> The pro-choice side goes to great lengths to insist that "it's not really a human just yet".  Give it a rest.  If you're going to claim 'choice' as your argument at least have the balls to admit that your 'choice' (which includes abortion and yeah, that makes you pro-abortion no matter how much you cry that it doesn't) _ends the life of another human being_.  It doesn't end a blob of tissue or some other nonsense,  _it stops a beating human heart, it ends an individual human life_.  Stop dancing around that fact. Too bad you don't like it, too bad you find it distasteful.  Coming up with bullshit arguments (acorns and fetuses?  really??) are nothing more than your way of rationalizing/justifying the killing of a human being.  For crying out loud at least own up to what abortion does.



You refuse to acknowledge any difference between a fertilized human egg a few hours old, and yourself,

then do you also, in the interests of intellectual consistency, 

believe that the penalty for killing you should be, all else being equal, essentially the same as the killing of that fertilized egg?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well, but I don't really care to do so.  I am also not 100% sure that is JB's actual beliefs as he trolls.
> 
> As to answering your question.  Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth.  And, I will say that I don't consider sentience to be a determining factor in this debate.  From the point of conception on, the offspring of a human couple is human.  No one can change that.
> 
> Induced abortion is the killing of a human being under all circumstances.  Whether or not it should be illegal in any or all circumstances is a completely different question.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that JB is pro-choice, but doesn't feel the need to lie and pretend basic biology is something that it isn't in order to facilitate being pro-choice.  I'm not entirely sure how he DOES justify abortion under those circumstances, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beukema is equating an embryo to a person with the fallacious argument that they are both named 'human' therefore they must be equivalent in every aspect of humanness.
> 
> It's a common mistake.
Click to expand...


'Humanness'? You mean the condition of being human? Humans have human offspring. This is basic biology. The child is human from creation and remains human until death. there is no sliding scale of human-ness that you progress across as you age.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, child, teen, adult.
> 
> ALL are stages of_ human development_.  One stage isn't more human or less human than another stage.  The stage of development isn't what makes them human; the FACT that humans beget humans does.  How fucking hard is this to understand?
> 
> The pro-choice side goes to great lengths to insist that "it's not really a human just yet".  Give it a rest.  If you're going to claim 'choice' as your argument at least have the balls to admit that your 'choice' (which includes abortion and yeah, that makes you pro-abortion no matter how much you cry that it doesn't) _ends the life of another human being_.  It doesn't end a blob of tissue or some other nonsense,  _it stops a beating human heart, it ends an individual human life_.  Stop dancing around that fact. Too bad you don't like it, too bad you find it distasteful.  Coming up with bullshit arguments (acorns and fetuses?  really??) are nothing more than your way of rationalizing/justifying the killing of a human being.  For crying out loud at least own up to what abortion does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You refuse to acknowledge any difference between a fertilized human egg a few hours old, and yourself,
> 
> then do you also, in the interests of intellectual consistency,
> 
> believe that the penalty for killing you should be, all else being equal, essentially the same as the killing of that fertilized egg?
Click to expand...



How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, WELL, by the same token, if you take a fish out of water and set it on the table, it'll die too.  I guess that means fish aren't alive in the first place.
> 
> Somehow, I think this "brilliant" standard of "if it dies under the right circumstances, it must not have been alive in the first place" is going to be a bit problematic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still amazed that a non-living thing can die
Click to expand...


I'm amazed that these geniuses can find the ON button on the computer.


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well, but I don't really care to do so.  I am also not 100% sure that is JB's actual beliefs as he trolls.
> 
> As to answering your question.  Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth.  And, I will say that I don't consider sentience to be a determining factor in this debate.  From the point of conception on, the offspring of a human couple is human.  No one can change that.
> 
> Induced abortion is the killing of a human being under all circumstances.  Whether or not it should be illegal in any or all circumstances is a completely different question.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that JB is pro-choice, but doesn't feel the need to lie and pretend basic biology is something that it isn't in order to facilitate being pro-choice.  I'm not entirely sure how he DOES justify abortion under those circumstances, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beukema is equating an embryo to a person with the fallacious argument that they are both named 'human' therefore they must be equivalent in every aspect of humanness.
> 
> It's a common mistake.
Click to expand...


An infant and a teenager are both human.  Are they equivalent in every aspect of humanness?  Is one 'more human' than the other because of what developmental stage it is in? 

An embryo is a human being in the very earliest stages of development.  The stage of development doesn't make it human nor does it make it more human or less human; it is a human being from the very beginning.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Synthaholic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support the principles established Roe v. Wade
> 
> 
> 
> You mean perjury? Norma McCorvey has stated repeatedly that *her entire story was bullshit*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe her 'post' version over her 'pre' version?
Click to expand...


Because he's not rational.


----------



## JBeukema

Zoom-boing said:


> An embryo is a human being in the very earliest stages of development.



Wouldn't that actually be a zygote?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Zoom-boing said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion: the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
> 
> * my note: the 'removal'. Oh don't they make that sound all clean and non-violent?
> 
> Pregnancy: 1. the state or condition of being pregnant 2.     *the period from conception to childbirth*
> 
> Abortion | Define Abortion at Dictionary.com
> Pregnancy | Define Pregnancy at Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Abortion ends/kills/destroys an individual human being's life.
> 
> Stop dancing around the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now, we all know that in the beginning stages of pregnancy women aren't pregnant with HUMAN babies. They just have little tumors growing in them until at some point they decide they want to turn it into a baby! Then and only then does that little mass of tissue magically become a human! It's a miracle! The miracle of carefully engineered and suitably unimportant life!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, thought they were lima beans or some other plant . . .  you know, since they always like to bring up the whole acorn thing.
Click to expand...


My mom did tell me once when I was a kid that if you swallowed watermelon seeds, a watermelon would grow in your stomach, but I thought she was joking.


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, child, teen, adult.
> 
> ALL are stages of_ human development_.  One stage isn't more human or less human than another stage.  The stage of development isn't what makes them human; the FACT that humans beget humans does.  How fucking hard is this to understand?
> 
> The pro-choice side goes to great lengths to insist that "it's not really a human just yet".  Give it a rest.  If you're going to claim 'choice' as your argument at least have the balls to admit that your 'choice' (which includes abortion and yeah, that makes you pro-abortion no matter how much you cry that it doesn't) _ends the life of another human being_.  It doesn't end a blob of tissue or some other nonsense,  _it stops a beating human heart, it ends an individual human life_.  Stop dancing around that fact. Too bad you don't like it, too bad you find it distasteful.  Coming up with bullshit arguments (acorns and fetuses?  really??) are nothing more than your way of rationalizing/justifying the killing of a human being.  For crying out loud at least own up to what abortion does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You refuse to acknowledge any difference between a fertilized human egg a few hours old, and yourself,*
> 
> then do you also, in the interests of intellectual consistency,
> 
> believe that the penalty for killing you should be, all else being equal, essentially the same as the killing of that fertilized egg?
Click to expand...


What part of "different stages of human development" did you miss? 

Where did 'penalty' come into this?  

Yes, abortion destroys/kills/ends an individual human being just as shooting a grown person does.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Cecilie1200 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now, we all know that in the beginning stages of pregnancy women aren't pregnant with HUMAN babies. They just have little tumors growing in them until at some point they decide they want to turn it into a baby! Then and only then does that little mass of tissue magically become a human! It's a miracle! The miracle of carefully engineered and suitably unimportant life!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, thought they were lima beans or some other plant . . .  you know, since they always like to bring up the whole acorn thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mom did tell me once when I was a kid that if you swallowed watermelon seeds, a watermelon would grow in your stomach, but I thought she was joking.
Click to expand...


Chuckie on Rugrats thought the same thing.  lol


----------



## JBeukema

I remember that show


I liked that show


----------



## Zoom-boing

JBeukema said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo is a human being in the very earliest stages of development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that actually be a zygote?
Click to expand...


ALL are stages of a human being in development.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, child, teen, adult.
> 
> ALL are stages of_ human development_.  One stage isn't more human or less human than another stage.  The stage of development isn't what makes them human; the FACT that humans beget humans does.  How fucking hard is this to understand?
> 
> The pro-choice side goes to great lengths to insist that "it's not really a human just yet".  Give it a rest.  If you're going to claim 'choice' as your argument at least have the balls to admit that your 'choice' (which includes abortion and yeah, that makes you pro-abortion no matter how much you cry that it doesn't) _ends the life of another human being_.  It doesn't end a blob of tissue or some other nonsense,  _it stops a beating human heart, it ends an individual human life_.  Stop dancing around that fact. Too bad you don't like it, too bad you find it distasteful.  Coming up with bullshit arguments (acorns and fetuses?  really??) are nothing more than your way of rationalizing/justifying the killing of a human being.  For crying out loud at least own up to what abortion does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You refuse to acknowledge any difference between a fertilized human egg a few hours old, and yourself,
> 
> then do you also, in the interests of intellectual consistency,
> 
> believe that the penalty for killing you should be, all else being equal, essentially the same as the killing of that fertilized egg?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
Click to expand...


I don't remember what the abortion laws were in my state when I was born, or thereabouts.

How can you be pro-choice if you personally believe it's murder?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that JB is pro-choice, but doesn't feel the need to lie and pretend basic biology is something that it isn't in order to facilitate being pro-choice.  I'm not entirely sure how he DOES justify abortion under those circumstances, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beukema is equating an embryo to a person with the fallacious argument that they are both named 'human' therefore they must be equivalent in every aspect of humanness.
> 
> It's a common mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Humanness'? You mean the condition of being human? Humans have human offspring. This is basic biology. The child is human from creation and remains human until death. there is no sliding scale of human-ness that you progress across as you age.
Click to expand...


Since "humanness" isn't even a word, I think he might have been going for "humanity", and in fact, all humans ARE equivalent in every aspect of humanity.

If NY wants to say that he thinks some humans should be considered less important, less valuable, and therefore disposable, he should just have the _cojones _to say it, already.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, child, teen, adult.
> 
> ALL are stages of_ human development_.  One stage isn't more human or less human than another stage.  The stage of development isn't what makes them human; the FACT that humans beget humans does.  How fucking hard is this to understand?
> 
> The pro-choice side goes to great lengths to insist that "it's not really a human just yet".  Give it a rest.  If you're going to claim 'choice' as your argument at least have the balls to admit that your 'choice' (which includes abortion and yeah, that makes you pro-abortion no matter how much you cry that it doesn't) _ends the life of another human being_.  It doesn't end a blob of tissue or some other nonsense,  _it stops a beating human heart, it ends an individual human life_.  Stop dancing around that fact. Too bad you don't like it, too bad you find it distasteful.  Coming up with bullshit arguments (acorns and fetuses?  really??) are nothing more than your way of rationalizing/justifying the killing of a human being.  For crying out loud at least own up to what abortion does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You refuse to acknowledge any difference between a fertilized human egg a few hours old, and yourself,*
> 
> then do you also, in the interests of intellectual consistency,
> 
> believe that the penalty for killing you should be, all else being equal, essentially the same as the killing of that fertilized egg?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "different stages of human development" did you miss?
> 
> Where did 'penalty' come into this?
> 
> Yes, abortion destroys/kills/ends an individual human being just as shooting a grown person does.
Click to expand...


So you're another extremist.  Wow, someone must have sent up a bat signal.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You refuse to acknowledge any difference between a fertilized human egg a few hours old, and yourself,
> 
> then do you also, in the interests of intellectual consistency,
> 
> believe that the penalty for killing you should be, all else being equal, essentially the same as the killing of that fertilized egg?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't remember what the abortion laws were in my state when I was born, or thereabouts.
Click to expand...

Did I ask what the law was? I don't give a damn what the law says. Slavery and spousal rape were always wrong, even when they were legal.

You have claimed time and again that somewhere during the human lifespan, killing another person in cold blood goes from being an okay thing to a not okay thing. You want to kill unborn babies but object to me shooting you in the face today. What is the magical transformation that made it no longer okay to kill you and when did it take place?


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beukema is equating an embryo to a person with the fallacious argument that they are both named 'human' therefore they must be equivalent in every aspect of humanness.
> 
> It's a common mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Humanness'? You mean the condition of being human? Humans have human offspring. This is basic biology. The child is human from creation and remains human until death. there is no sliding scale of human-ness that you progress across as you age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since "humanness" isn't even a word, I think he might have been going for "humanity", and in fact, all humans ARE equivalent in every aspect of humanity.
> 
> If NY wants to say that he thinks some humans should be considered less important, less valuable, and therefore disposable, he should just have the _cojones _to say it, already.
Click to expand...


I wonder who founded Planned Parenthood and whether they might have thought something like that...


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, child, teen, adult.
> 
> ALL are stages of_ human development_.  One stage isn't more human or less human than another stage.  The stage of development isn't what makes them human; the FACT that humans beget humans does.  How fucking hard is this to understand?
> 
> The pro-choice side goes to great lengths to insist that "it's not really a human just yet".  Give it a rest.  If you're going to claim 'choice' as your argument at least have the balls to admit that your 'choice' (which includes abortion and yeah, that makes you pro-abortion no matter how much you cry that it doesn't) _ends the life of another human being_.  It doesn't end a blob of tissue or some other nonsense,  _it stops a beating human heart, it ends an individual human life_.  Stop dancing around that fact. Too bad you don't like it, too bad you find it distasteful.  Coming up with bullshit arguments (acorns and fetuses?  really??) are nothing more than your way of rationalizing/justifying the killing of a human being.  For crying out loud at least own up to what abortion does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You refuse to acknowledge any difference between a fertilized human egg a few hours old, and yourself,
> 
> then do you also, in the interests of intellectual consistency,
> 
> believe that the penalty for killing you should be, all else being equal, essentially the same as the killing of that fertilized egg?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
Click to expand...


I don't recall you ever refusing to acknowledge the difference between an embryo and yourself, aka that you're an adult and he's not.

Again, if NY wants to say that some humans should be considered a disposable underclass, then he should just say it and stop all this pussified rationalization.


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You refuse to acknowledge any difference between a fertilized human egg a few hours old, and yourself,*
> 
> then do you also, in the interests of intellectual consistency,
> 
> believe that the penalty for killing you should be, all else being equal, essentially the same as the killing of that fertilized egg?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "different stages of human development" did you miss?
> 
> Where did 'penalty' come into this?
> 
> Yes, abortion destroys/kills/ends an individual human being just as shooting a grown person does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're another extremist.  Wow, someone must have sent up a bat signal.
Click to expand...


Wow another pro-choice coward who has to justify their pov by referring to an unborn human as 'not-quite-human-yet'.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "different stages of human development" did you miss?
> 
> Where did 'penalty' come into this?
> 
> Yes, abortion destroys/kills/ends an individual human being just as shooting a grown person does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're another extremist.  Wow, someone must have sent up a bat signal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow another pro-choice coward who has to justify their pov by referring to an unborn human as 'not-quite-human-yet'.
Click to expand...


You didn't actually show the courage to answer my question.  What penalty do we impose on women having 1st trimester abortions, including the use of something like RU486, once you have outlawed abortion according to your principles?


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're another extremist.  Wow, someone must have sent up a bat signal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow another pro-choice coward who has to justify their pov by referring to an unborn human as 'not-quite-human-yet'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't actually show the courage to answer my question.  What penalty do we impose on women having 1st trimester abortions, including the use of something like RU486, once you have outlawed abortion according to your principles?
Click to expand...



Where did I ever say abortion will be outlawed?  You're putting words in my mouth that I never spoke then expect me to answer a question based upon that?  Please.

Why can't any of you pro-choice types admit that abortion ends/destroys/kills another human being?  Why must you hide behind blobs of tissue, viability and the like?

Why haven't you answered JB's questions?

Here, try answering this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161946-one-question.html

or this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161947-simple-question.html


----------



## Vast LWC

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



ROFL, the title of the thread calls out for "honesty", the first paragraph contains the following sentence:  "Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?"...

...and then you go on to accuse anyone who has an abortion of* murder*, and say that anyone who disagrees with your point should "*Shut their fucking mouth*".

Well done sir, well done.


----------



## JBeukema

Vast LWC said:


> ...and then you go on to accuse anyone who has an abortion of* murder*,



Do cite. I've never called anyone here a murderer for having an abortion. Some of them do seem to believe themselves to be murderers, though, judging by their inability to admit what they've done and defend what it is they advocate.

If it's not murder, if their positions can be justified, why can't they face what they've done?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and then you go on to accuse anyone who has an abortion of* murder*,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do cite. I've never called anyone here a murderer for having an abortion. Some of them do seem to believe themselves to be murderers, though, judging by their inability to admit what they've done and defend what it is they advocate.
> 
> If it's not murder, if their positions can be justified, why can't they face what they've done?
Click to expand...


You wouldn't call someone who killed their 2 year old child a murderer?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cecilie1200 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beukema is equating an embryo to a person with the fallacious argument that they are both named 'human' therefore they must be equivalent in every aspect of humanness.
> 
> It's a common mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Humanness'? You mean the condition of being human? Humans have human offspring. This is basic biology. The child is human from creation and remains human until death. there is no sliding scale of human-ness that you progress across as you age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since "humanness" isn't even a word, I think he might have been going for "humanity", and in fact, all humans ARE equivalent in every aspect of humanity.
> 
> If NY wants to say that he thinks some humans should be considered less important, less valuable, and therefore disposable, he should just have the _cojones _to say it, already.
Click to expand...


Humanness - Definition of Humanness by Webster's Online Dictionary

At least your ignorance of the English language is consistent with the rest of your idiocy, you sorry cow.

Now fuck off.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and then you go on to accuse anyone who has an abortion of* murder*,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do cite. I've never called anyone here a murderer for having an abortion. Some of them do seem to believe themselves to be murderers, though, judging by their inability to admit what they've done and defend what it is they advocate.
> 
> If it's not murder, if their positions can be justified, why can't they face what they've done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't call someone who killed their 2 year old child a murderer?
Click to expand...

You tell me. Is it murder?

Or is that not old enough for it to be wrong?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cecilie1200 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's a question of biology that was settled a long time ago. Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> 
> There is not room for opinion. You can't just decide that the earth is flat- it's round whether you like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to understand what is deemed as living tissue in terms of biology.
> 
> Blood cells are human, and they are living tissue, they do not have "life"
> Skin cells are human, they are living tissue, they do not have "life"
> Muscle cells are human, they are living tissue, they do not have "life"
> 
> The same applies to zygotes and embryos. They are living tissue and they do not have "life"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, YOU need to understand the difference between "tissue" and "organisms".  Blood, skin, and muscle cells are not organisms.  They're JUST cells, parts of an organism.  A zygote/embryo, on the other hand, IS an organism.  I can't decide if you've just been avoiding reading the multiple, myriad explanations of this very simple biological concept, or if you're just pretending you haven't out of dishonesty.
Click to expand...


What do you believe the penalty for illegal abortion should be?  What should the woman suffer as a penalty?  

I'm assuming you desire all abortion to be illegal.


----------



## Vast LWC

JBeukema said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and then you go on to accuse anyone who has an abortion of* murder*,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do cite. I've never called anyone here a murderer for having an abortion. Some of them do seem to believe themselves to be murderers, though, judging by their inability to admit what they've done and defend what it is they advocate.
> 
> If it's not murder, if their positions can be justified, why can't they face what they've done?
Click to expand...


How about this:



> To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.



Sound familiar?

A Rose by any other name...


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do cite. I've never called anyone here a murderer for having an abortion. Some of them do seem to believe themselves to be murderers, though, judging by their inability to admit what they've done and defend what it is they advocate.
> 
> If it's not murder, if their positions can be justified, why can't they face what they've done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't call someone who killed their 2 year old child a murderer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me. Is it murder?
> 
> Or is that not old enough for it to be wrong?
Click to expand...


Why can't you answer the question.  

Was Susan Smith convicted of murder?  She drowned her 2 children.  Was that a just and proper conviction?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't call someone who killed their 2 year old child a murderer?
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me. Is it murder?
> 
> Or is that not old enough for it to be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer the question.
> 
> Was Susan Smith convicted of murder?  She drowned her 2 children.  Was that a just and proper conviction?
Click to expand...

No idea. You refuse to tell me how old you have to be before killing you in cold blood becomes not-okay


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember what the abortion laws were in my state when I was born, or thereabouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I ask what the law was? I don't give a damn what the law says. Slavery and spousal rape were always wrong, even when they were legal.
> 
> You have claimed time and again that somewhere during the human lifespan, killing another person in cold blood goes from being an okay thing to a not okay thing. You want to kill unborn babies but object to me shooting you in the face today. What is the magical transformation that made it no longer okay to kill you and when did it take place?
Click to expand...


I already stated my position, clearly and in detail.  I'm not going to keep repeating it.


----------



## Vast LWC

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do cite. I've never called anyone here a murderer for having an abortion. Some of them do seem to believe themselves to be murderers, though, judging by their inability to admit what they've done and defend what it is they advocate.
> 
> If it's not murder, if their positions can be justified, why can't they face what they've done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't call someone who killed their 2 year old child a murderer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me. Is it murder?
> 
> Or is that not old enough for it to be wrong?
Click to expand...


A sperm is also living material, with the same DNA as a human, so is an egg.

Which means, by your logic, that every time someone masturbates or menstruates, they are "Murderers".


----------



## JBeukema

You never stated you opinion.You refused to answer the question.

At what point in your life did what suddenly change that made killing you in cold blood go from an okay thing to a no-okay thing?

You registered as a Democrat and that made killing you not-okay?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me. Is it murder?
> 
> Or is that not old enough for it to be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer the question.
> 
> Was Susan Smith convicted of murder?  She drowned her 2 children.  Was that a just and proper conviction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea. You refuse to tell me how old you have to be before killing you in cold blood becomes not-okay
Click to expand...


You have no idea whether or not Susan Smith murdered her 2 children?  Why are you trolling?  Is your position that weak?


----------



## JBeukema

Vast LWC said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't call someone who killed their 2 year old child a murderer?
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me. Is it murder?
> 
> Or is that not old enough for it to be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A sperm is also living material, with the same DNA as a human, so is an egg.
> 
> Which means, by your logic, that every time someone masturbates or menstruates, they are "Murderers".
Click to expand...


Today's vocabulary words:

cell
organism

You are to write a 200-word essay detailing the relation between the two. This assignment is due back when you come to class tomorrow.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> You never stated you opinion.You refused to answer the question.
> 
> At what point in your life did what suddenly change that made killing you in cold blood go from an okay thing to a no-okay thing?
> 
> You registered as a Democrat and that made killing you not-okay?



You would have to ask my mother.

I told you I support Roe v. Wade and essentially all the principles therein.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer the question.
> 
> Was Susan Smith convicted of murder?  She drowned her 2 children.  Was that a just and proper conviction?
> 
> 
> 
> No idea. You refuse to tell me how old you have to be before killing you in cold blood becomes not-okay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea whether or not Susan Smith murdered her 2 children?  Why are you trolling?  Is your position that weak?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether the kids were old enough to be human


you people can't seem to make up your mind on that


----------



## Mr Liberty

Where anyone stands on the is depended on when you think one becomes human. Abortionist and anti abortionist will never agree on when this happens.  Within the group, abortionist disagree, right up to the birth.  Senator Boxer "It not a baby until the parent decide to take it home"  
If society had decided it is not human during the first trimester, Then this premise should apply to all laws governing embryos. When a pregnant woman is assaulted and the pregnancy is terminated as a result of the assault,  The offender is guilty of manslaughter.  So, if the father of the embryo wants to evade responsibility of parenthood, (Do embryo have fathers?) he should only be held responsible for only the assault, since he did not want a child.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never stated you opinion.You refused to answer the question.
> 
> At what point in your life did what suddenly change that made killing you in cold blood go from an okay thing to a no-okay thing?
> 
> You registered as a Democrat and that made killing you not-okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to ask my mother.
> 
> I told you I support Roe v. Wade and essentially all the principles therein.
Click to expand...

What principles?

Perjury?


What happens when a child is 3 months along that makes killing her go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing? The law is convenient for you, but you can't seem to tel me why it's right.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never stated you opinion.You refused to answer the question.
> 
> At what point in your life did what suddenly change that made killing you in cold blood go from an okay thing to a no-okay thing?
> 
> You registered as a Democrat and that made killing you not-okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to ask my mother.
Click to expand...

So she decides when killing you is okay or nto?

So drowning a two-year-old isn't murder when the mother does it? After all, she seems to have decided it was okay


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow another pro-choice coward who has to justify their pov by referring to an unborn human as 'not-quite-human-yet'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't actually show the courage to answer my question.  What penalty do we impose on women having 1st trimester abortions, including the use of something like RU486, once you have outlawed abortion according to your principles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I ever say abortion will be outlawed?  You're putting words in my mouth that I never spoke then expect me to answer a question based upon that?  Please.
> 
> Why can't any of you pro-choice types admit that abortion ends/destroys/kills another human being?  Why must you hide behind blobs of tissue, viability and the like?
> 
> Why haven't you answered JB's questions?
> 
> Here, try answering this:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161946-one-question.html
> 
> or this:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161947-simple-question.html
Click to expand...


You believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent person, and yet you wouldn't make it illegal?

What the fuck is that?  What's your position on infanticide?  Should that also not be a crime?

(I swear you can certainly measure the irrationality of the anti-abortion crowd simply by the irrational shit they throw around, jeezus.)


----------



## JBeukema

Mr Liberty said:


> Where anyone stands on the is depended on when you think one becomes human.


One never becomes human. Humans have human children. The new organism is human from creation. This is a biological fact.

There is no more room for debate or opinion on that than there is over whether Earth is flat.


----------



## Vast LWC

JBeukema said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me. Is it murder?
> 
> Or is that not old enough for it to be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sperm is also living material, with the same DNA as a human, so is an egg.
> 
> Which means, by your logic, that every time someone masturbates or menstruates, they are "Murderers".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today's vocabulary words:
> 
> cell
> organism
> 
> You are to write a 200-word essay detailing the relation between the two. This assignment is due back when you come to class tomorrow.
Click to expand...


Sweet, here's some vocabulary words for you:

Zygote
Fetus
Child
ultra-partisan
HYPERBOLE

I'll give you my essay when you give me yours.  K?


----------



## Vast LWC

JBeukema said:


> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where anyone stands on the is depended on when you think one becomes human.
> 
> 
> 
> One never becomes human. Humans have human children. The new organism is human from creation. This is a biological fact.
> 
> There is no more room for debate or opinion on that than there is over whether Earth is flat.
Click to expand...


So are fingernail clippings.  That is a "biological fact".

But really, nothing I say is going to affect your hyperbolic statements, so there's no point.


----------



## Mr Liberty

JBeukema said:


> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where anyone stands on the is depended on when you think one becomes human.
> 
> 
> 
> One never becomes human. Humans have human children. The new organism is human from creation. This is a biological fact.
> 
> There is no more room for debate or opinion on that than there is over whether Earth is flat.
Click to expand...


Did You read my entire post or just the point, you choose to argue with?


----------



## JBeukema

Plasmaball said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> ah but your flaw again is using something that is illegal and after birth.
> which seems to be a massive failure of pro-life people. /they consider these thing equal and they are not.
> 
> i am being honest.My wife who is 7 months right now as a baby inside her. notice how its inside her? You kind of need the female to have the baby..thats how it works till science can take over. we are not there yet.
> 
> you cant escape the fact the fetus comes after the woman.Your logic fails again. Your argument fails again over and over because pro-life people cant handle the simple concept of the facts.
> 
> i know exactly what is being aborted. i know exactly the choices that are being made. But i feel it is none of your business and i do not nor ever will need to consult you or anyone else on the matter with how i run my family and life.
> 
> Now you need to go and try to use rape to justify your argument? I guess if you flail wildly something might land eventually.
> 
> This is just sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murderers always feel it's nobody else's business who or why they kill. It's a TRAIT OF ALL MURDERERS.
> 
> And I can certainly escape the "fact" that the woman comes before the fetus. Maybe she will choose to come before the fetus..but I know of women who *choose* to stop cancer treatments because they are pregnant, knowing their time is very limited if they do. They *choose* to put the "fetus" before themselves. Usually when the "fetus" isn't even a fetus yet.
> 
> What were you saying about flailing wildly? Because that post is a really good example of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the bold......And if they decided to do such, that is their right.
> Their body, their rules.
Click to expand...

Please make up your mind



Plasmaball said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does  my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to  acts which cause harm to another or does it not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, by definition if you are harming others then their rights are being violated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> Why this even needed to be asked is sad.
Click to expand...





JBeukema said:


> , you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your  emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not  speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is  you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position





Why can't you people ever honest?


----------



## JBeukema

Vast LWC said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sperm is also living material, with the same DNA as a human, so is an egg.
> 
> Which means, by your logic, that every time someone masturbates or menstruates, they are "Murderers".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today's vocabulary words:
> 
> cell
> organism
> 
> You are to write a 200-word essay detailing the relation between the two. This assignment is due back when you come to class tomorrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweet, here's some vocabulary words for you:
> 
> Zygote
> Fetus
> Child
Click to expand...



All stages in the life-cycle of a human being 

We're dealing with a human life at all stages, as you seem to be trying to point out now


----------



## JBeukema

Vast LWC said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where anyone stands on the is depended on when you think one becomes human.
> 
> 
> 
> One never becomes human. Humans have human children. The new organism is human from creation. This is a biological fact.
> 
> There is no more room for debate or opinion on that than there is over whether Earth is flat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are fingernail clippings.  That is a "biological fact".
Click to expand...


No, it's not. A human being is a human organism. Fingernail clippings are not organisms of any kind.

Why can't you people ever be honest?


----------



## AllieBaba

And why do they revel in stupidity?


----------



## Vast LWC

JBeukema said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> One never becomes human. Humans have human children. The new organism is human from creation. This is a biological fact.
> 
> There is no more room for debate or opinion on that than there is over whether Earth is flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are fingernail clippings.  That is a "biological fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not. A human being is a human organism. Fingernail clippings are not organisms of any kind.
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
Click to expand...


Why do insist on lying?

A small collection of cells is not a human being.

Requirements of being a human being include a body formed in a certain way, most importantly a brain, that can perform Thought Processes.

Otherwise, any body part cloned in a jar from stem cells is a "human being", and that's utter BS.

You're arguing a very real argument using semantics, just so that you can try and prove your hyperbolic, ultra-partisan point.


----------



## JBeukema

Vast LWC said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are fingernail clippings.  That is a "biological fact".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. A human being is a human organism. Fingernail clippings are not organisms of any kind.
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do insist on lying?
> 
> A small collection of cells is not a human being.
Click to expand...


We start out as a single cell, genius. Then we become two, then four, then eight...

Go ask a librarian where babies come from





> Requirements of being a human being include a body formed in a certain way, and, most importantly, Thought Processes.



No, it doesn't. You'll find no such requirements in any biology textbook or lecture on genetics.


> Otherwise, any body part cloned in a jar from stem cells is a "human being", and that's utter BS.



You don't seem to grasp how cloning works any better than you grasp biology.

If  I'm so hyper-partisan, maybe you can tell me what party I belong to? The county registrar doesn't seem to have me belonging to any of them


----------



## JBeukema

41 whole pages of denying basic biology before; now we see the first inklings of a different argument


----------



## taichiliberal

If the anti-abortion folk would work to mandate sex education and birth control availabilty in our society the way we do sports trivia and automobile ownership, then abortion would indeed be a rarity that would STILL be a private choice by the individual.

Instead, you get a bunch of hysterical, idealogical clowns with mantras like "sex educaton promotes promiscuity and STD's" and the like over the decades.

Bottom line: you don't like what your neighbor is doing in their bedroom or with their doctor, THEN MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS....because all the racial, class, religious and social prejudices will be waiting for all those new borns who no one wanted or want to know about as they grow up.


----------



## JBeukema

taichiliberal said:


> If the anti-abortion folk would work to mandate sex education and birth control availabilty in our society



By that reasoning, big cities full of free condoms should have no abortions

That's not the reality

1/3 of abortions are repeat business

Your premise is bullshit


----------



## Vast LWC

JBeukema said:


> We start out as a single cell, genius. Then we become two, then four, then eight...
> 
> Go ask a librarian where babies come from



No, we start out as a sperm and an egg.  



JBeukema said:


> Requirements of being a human being include a body formed in a certain way, and, most importantly, Thought Processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. You'll find no such requirements in any biology textbook or lecture on genetics.
Click to expand...


Funny then that the first place I looked, Wiki, said this:



> Humans, known taxonomically as Homo sapiens[3][4] (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man"),[5] are the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family. Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago.[6]
> 
> *Humans have a highly developed brain*, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other living species on Earth.* Other higher-level thought processes of humans, such as self-awareness, rationality, and sapience,[7][8][9] are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a "person".*



But wait, there's more:

From the Free Dictionary:



> human being -
> 
> Noun 1. any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae *characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage*



From Merriam-Webster:



> : a *bipedal* primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : man; broadly : hominid



I can provide much, much more evidence if you'd like.



JBeukema said:


> Otherwise, any body part cloned in a jar from stem cells is a "human being", and that's utter BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to grasp how cloning works any better than you grasp biology.
> 
> If  I'm so hyper-partisan, maybe you can tell me what party I belong to? The county registrar doesn't seem to have me belonging to any of them
Click to expand...


Wow, you're not registered with a party, that's so interesting, because being right or left wing hyperpartisan definitely requires party registration (not).


----------



## JBeukema

Vast LWC said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> We start out as a single cell, genius. Then we become two, then four, then eight...
> 
> Go ask a librarian where babies come from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we start out as a sperm and an egg.
Click to expand...



Those are cells which merge to create us. Neither is itself an organism. Prior to the union of the two, we do not exist.


Biology 101


> Funny then that the first place I looked, Wiki, said this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans have a highly developed brain*,
Click to expand...


So newborns aren't human? After all, human females have breasts, but not when they're first born

I guess that means Democrats and any child under the age, say, 17 isn't human


> : a *bipedal* primate mammal



So war vets who lose a leg cease to be human? 

Why can't you people ever be honest?


Or are you just that stupid?


----------



## Vast LWC

But wait, I'm not quite done.

From Biology Online :



> *Human *
> 
> Definition
> 
> noun, plural: humans
> 
> A *bipedal* primate belonging to the genus Homo, especially Homo sapiens.
> 
> 
> adjective
> 
> Of, pertaining to, having the attributes of, a being belonging to the species of the Homo sapiens.
> 
> 
> Supplement
> 
> In taxonomy, humans belong to the family Hominidae, of the Primates, under class Mammalia of phylum Chordata. *They are identified by the highly developed brain that confers advanced skills in abstract reasoning, articulate language, self-awareness, problem solving, and sapience. They are bipedal primates in having an erect carriage. They are skillful in handling objects with their hands. *
> 
> Humans may also be described as social animals capable of showing sympathy with other beings, and living life with (inherent) values and ethics.


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't actually show the courage to answer my question.  What penalty do we impose on women having 1st trimester abortions, including the use of something like RU486, once you have outlawed abortion according to your principles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I ever say abortion will be outlawed?  You're putting words in my mouth that I never spoke then expect me to answer a question based upon that?  Please.
> 
> Why can't any of you pro-choice types admit that abortion ends/destroys/kills another human being?  Why must you hide behind blobs of tissue, viability and the like?
> 
> Why haven't you answered JB's questions?
> 
> Here, try answering this:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161946-one-question.html
> 
> or this:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161947-simple-question.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent person, and yet you wouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> What the fuck is that?  What's your position on infanticide?  Should that also not be a crime?
> 
> (I swear you can certainly measure the irrationality of the anti-abortion crowd simply by the irrational shit they throw around, jeezus.)
Click to expand...


Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions?  If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions.  Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and_ saving_ those innocent lives.  Figures you couldn't see that on your own.

I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you.  Typical.


----------



## Vast LWC

JBeukema said:


> Those are cells which merge to create us. Neither is itself an organism. Prior to the union of the two, we do not exist.



That's a completely arbitrary and subjective interpretation, and does not jibe with scientific definitions.



JBeukema said:


> Biology 101
> 
> 
> 
> Funny then that the first place I looked, Wiki, said this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So newborns aren't human? After all, human females have breasts, but not when they're first born
> 
> I guess that means Democrats and any child under the age, say, 17 isn't human
> 
> 
> 
> : a *bipedal* primate mammal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So war vets who lose a leg cease to be human?
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> 
> Or are you just that stupid?
Click to expand...


And all of those are completely irrational arguments, as those are all examples of fully formed humans that are simply missing one attribute due to circumstance.

There is a large difference between that and a collection of cells that never formed into a human.

You might as well say water and carbon molecules are human beings, because they one day may form one.

A POTENTIAL to be something does not confer the attributes of that thing onto the substance in question.


----------



## JBeukema

Vast LWC said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are cells which merge to create us. Neither is itself an organism. Prior to the union of the two, we do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a completely arbitrary and subjective interpretation, and does not jibe with scientific definitions.
Click to expand...


Wrong. An organism can't exist before it comes into existence. Nothing can be that wish is non-existent.

A gamete is a cell belonging to a parent.

When merged with its counterpart, it forms a new organism.

That organism is alive and, if the gametes are form human parents, human.

This creation of a new living human being, by the very meaning of the words the moment a human life begins.



> And all of those are completely irrational arguments,



Yet you people keep repeating them





> as those are all examples of fully formed humans


As opposed to someone born missing a leg? Or someone who hasn't undergone puberty?





> that are simply missing one attribute due to circumstance.
> 
> There is a large difference between that and a collection of cells that never formed into a human.




You're trying to play word games because you can't face what you advocate. No biology textbook and no biologist or geneticist- nor anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge of the subject- is buying it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vast LWC said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and then you go on to accuse anyone who has an abortion of* murder*,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do cite. I've never called anyone here a murderer for having an abortion. Some of them do seem to believe themselves to be murderers, though, judging by their inability to admit what they've done and defend what it is they advocate.
> 
> If it's not murder, if their positions can be justified, why can't they face what they've done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sound familiar?
> 
> A Rose by any other name...
Click to expand...


Well, at least YOU are willing to admit that they're morally equivalent.  

However, I believe JB is well aware that the word "murder" is a legal term, not a medical or moral one, and that abortion is - at the moment - legal.  And I believe that is why he very specifically did NOT use it.  Which means that your accusation of him is false in letter AND in spirit:  what he said was technically, factually accurate, reasoned and unemotional, and completely honest.

Just because you don't LIKE having it pointed out that abortion is bringing about the death of a child doesn't make it a lie.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vast LWC said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't call someone who killed their 2 year old child a murderer?
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me. Is it murder?
> 
> Or is that not old enough for it to be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A sperm is also living material, with the same DNA as a human, so is an egg.
> 
> Which means, by your logic, that every time someone masturbates or menstruates, they are "Murderers".
Click to expand...


Ahh, the ever-popular "I'm too uneducated to know the definition of 'organism'" argument.  I wonder if it would be possible to sue the Department of Education for peopling the nation with such a bunch of scientific illiterates.  Just the annoyance factor alone should deserve some punitive reward.


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me. Is it murder?
> 
> Or is that not old enough for it to be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sperm is also living material, with the same DNA as a human, so is an egg.
> 
> Which means, by your logic, that every time someone masturbates or menstruates, they are "Murderers".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, the ever-popular "I'm too uneducated to know the definition of 'organism'" argument.  I wonder if it would be possible to sue the Department of Education for peopling the nation with such a bunch of scientific illiterates.  Just the annoyance factor alone should deserve some punitive reward.
Click to expand...

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFil...rts/2011-03-28-Knowledge-networks-nations.pdf


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vast LWC said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sperm is also living material, with the same DNA as a human, so is an egg.
> 
> Which means, by your logic, that every time someone masturbates or menstruates, they are "Murderers".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today's vocabulary words:
> 
> cell
> organism
> 
> You are to write a 200-word essay detailing the relation between the two. This assignment is due back when you come to class tomorrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweet, here's some vocabulary words for you:
> 
> Zygote
> Fetus
> Child
> ultra-partisan
> HYPERBOLE
> 
> I'll give you my essay when you give me yours.  K?
Click to expand...


Zygote - : a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell 

Fetus - : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth 

Child - a : an unborn or recently born person 

Ultra-partisan - Vast LWC

Hyperbole - Accusing someone of making statements they never made because you don't like their point.

What was there about these definitions that you thought was going to HELP your position?


----------



## AllieBaba

What bothers me is they obviously have the internet at their fingertips...and they refuse to look shit up, or they do look it up and then lie about it.

Either way. I'm equally alarmed by people who argue politics with exactly ZERO knowledge of history, and zero desire to learn.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vast LWC said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where anyone stands on the is depended on when you think one becomes human.
> 
> 
> 
> One never becomes human. Humans have human children. The new organism is human from creation. This is a biological fact.
> 
> There is no more room for debate or opinion on that than there is over whether Earth is flat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are fingernail clippings.  That is a "biological fact".
> 
> But really, nothing I say is going to affect your hyperbolic statements, so there's no point.
Click to expand...


It's a biological fact that fingernail clippings are what?  Organisms?  Where did YOU go to school?


----------



## AllieBaba

School? I don't need school to teach me this! After all, God & I create life when I will it!


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> One never becomes human. Humans have human children. The new organism is human from creation. This is a biological fact.
> 
> There is no more room for debate or opinion on that than there is over whether Earth is flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are fingernail clippings.  That is a "biological fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not. A human being is a human organism. Fingernail clippings are not organisms of any kind.
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
Click to expand...


Just for the record, fingernails aren't actually LIVING tissue, either, even before you cut them.  Fingernails and hair are made up of dead cells, which is why it doesn't hurt to cut them.


----------



## Anguille

Cecilie1200 said:


> Second flaw:  you also don't understand the difference between organs and organisms.  A pinky is not an organism.  It is an organ, and a PART of an organism.



A pinky is an appendage, not an organ.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> And why do they revel in stupidity?



You've got to wonder about any ideology or position so fervently clung to that one would rather appear more ignorant than a middle-school student rather than give it up.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vast LWC said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are fingernail clippings.  That is a "biological fact".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. A human being is a human organism. Fingernail clippings are not organisms of any kind.
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do insist on lying?
> 
> A small collection of cells is not a human being.
> 
> Requirements of being a human being include a body formed in a certain way, most importantly a brain, that can perform Thought Processes.
> 
> Otherwise, any body part cloned in a jar from stem cells is a "human being", and that's utter BS.
> 
> You're arguing a very real argument using semantics, just so that you can try and prove your hyperbolic, ultra-partisan point.
Click to expand...


Really?  Tell us where in ANY dictionary or science book on Earth you find the definition of "human being" that includes those requirements.  I would be fascinated to read it.

Once again, any body part, regardless of its origin, is NOT a human being because it is not an organism.  Look up the fucking word "organism", you twit.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. A human being is a human organism. Fingernail clippings are not organisms of any kind.
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do insist on lying?
> 
> A small collection of cells is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We start out as a single cell, genius. Then we become two, then four, then eight...
> 
> Go ask a librarian where babies come from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Requirements of being a human being include a body formed in a certain way, and, most importantly, Thought Processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. You'll find no such requirements in any biology textbook or lecture on genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise, any body part cloned in a jar from stem cells is a "human being", and that's utter BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to grasp how cloning works any better than you grasp biology.
> 
> If  I'm so hyper-partisan, maybe you can tell me what party I belong to? The county registrar doesn't seem to have me belonging to any of them
Click to expand...


The flaw in your obstinate effort to get people to call a fetus human is that you think there is some great absolute truth that condemns all taking of human life.

That's called begging the question.  Yes, in humans, the zygote, fetus, embryo are all human.

So what?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> effort to get people to call a fetus human



A human foetus is a human being.

This is a biological fact.





> is that you think there is some great absolute truth that condemns all taking of human life.







> Yes, in humans, the zygote, fetus, embryo are all human.



So it only took 44 pages for one of you people to admit we're killing a human being

Yet you say there's nothing inherently wrong with killing a human being

Which raises the question of why it took 44 pages for any of you people to admit what is is you advocate if you  really believe it's okay


----------



## JBeukema

Anguille said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second flaw:  you also don't understand the difference between organs and organisms.  A pinky is not an organism.  It is an organ, and a PART of an organism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pinky is an appendage, not an organ.
Click to expand...

Further strengthening her point.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I ever say abortion will be outlawed?  You're putting words in my mouth that I never spoke then expect me to answer a question based upon that?  Please.
> 
> Why can't any of you pro-choice types admit that abortion ends/destroys/kills another human being?  Why must you hide behind blobs of tissue, viability and the like?
> 
> Why haven't you answered JB's questions?
> 
> Here, try answering this:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161946-one-question.html
> 
> or this:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161947-simple-question.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent person, and yet you wouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> What the fuck is that?  What's your position on infanticide?  Should that also not be a crime?
> 
> (I swear you can certainly measure the irrationality of the anti-abortion crowd simply by the irrational shit they throw around, jeezus.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions?  If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions.  Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and_ saving_ those innocent lives.  Figures you couldn't see that on your own.
> 
> I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you.  Typical.
Click to expand...


If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder.  By anyone rational anyway.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> effort to get people to call a fetus human
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A human foetus is a human being.
> 
> This is a biological fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is that you think there is some great absolute truth that condemns all taking of human life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in humans, the zygote, fetus, embryo are all human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it only took 44 pages for one of you people to admit we're killing a human being
> 
> Yet you say there's nothing inherently wrong with killing a human being
> 
> Which raises the question of why it took 44 pages for any of you people to admit what is is you advocate if you  really believe it's okay
Click to expand...


That a fertilized egg can be called a human being in no way changes the fact that the difference between a fertilized egg and a born human being is so profound that the fact they share that general appellation is

immaterial to the issue of abortion.  Period.

I challenge you to prove that it is material.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vast LWC said:


> But wait, I'm not quite done.
> 
> From Biology Online :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Human *
> 
> Definition
> 
> noun, plural: humans
> 
> A *bipedal* primate belonging to the genus Homo, especially Homo sapiens.
> 
> 
> adjective
> 
> Of, pertaining to, having the attributes of, a being belonging to the species of the Homo sapiens.
> 
> 
> Supplement
> 
> In taxonomy, humans belong to the family Hominidae, of the Primates, under class Mammalia of phylum Chordata. *They are identified by the highly developed brain that confers advanced skills in abstract reasoning, articulate language, self-awareness, problem solving, and sapience. They are bipedal primates in having an erect carriage. They are skillful in handling objects with their hands. *
> 
> Humans may also be described as social animals capable of showing sympathy with other beings, and living life with (inherent) values and ethics.
Click to expand...


Oh, you were done when you started talking, jackass.  You're just too ignorant to recognize how stupid you're making yourself sound.

The definition of the human species as an aggregate is NOT the definition of "human being", moron.  That's what JB is trying, none-too-gently, to tell you.  If you could define "human being" by the recognizable characteristics of the human race as a whole - which by design refer only to fully-mature adults - that would leave anyone who was slightly anomalous and didn't hit the average in every respect defined as "not a human being", which is ludicrous.

Look at "bipedal", as JB pointed out.  Certainly humans AS A RACE are bipedal, but what about people who lose their legs to accidents, disease, or war?  Do they stop being defined as human beings because they, individually, no longer meet the racial standard?  What about a person whose mother took Thalidomide, causing him to be born with only one leg?  Is HE not a human being because he NEVER met the racial description of "bipedal"?

Let's look at "advanced skills of abstract reasoning, articulate language, self-awareness, problem-solving, and sapience".  Does that mean a two-month-old infant, who has none of those things, is not a human being?  How about a severely retarded person?

My CHRIST, you people are scary.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> That a fertilized egg can be called a human being in no way changes the fact that the difference between a fertilized egg and a born human being is so profound that the fact they share that general appellation is
> 
> immaterial to the issue of abortion.  Period.
> 
> I challenge you to prove that it is material.


It's your argument. What is the difference? What changes? When does it change? How can we measure or detect that change?


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> Let's look at "advanced skills of abstract reasoning, articulate language, self-awareness, problem-solving, and sapience".  Does that mean a two-month-old infant, who has none of those things, is not a human being?  How about a severely retarded person?


Sara Palin and other mothers of special-needs children would like you to stop using that word.

You meant to ask 'How about a Democrat'


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That a fertilized egg can be called a human being in no way changes the fact that the difference between a fertilized egg and a born human being is so profound that the fact they share that general appellation is
> 
> immaterial to the issue of abortion.  Period.
> 
> I challenge you to prove that it is material.
> 
> 
> 
> It's your argument. What is the difference? What changes? When does it change? How can we measure or detect that change?
Click to expand...


No, it was your claim that there is no difference whatsoever between a fertilized egg and ME,

and therefore there is no difference in killing either one.

So far all you've been able to do is give them the same general name.  I say that name is immaterial to the issue.

Prove that it isn't, or show us some other evidence of your claim.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vast LWC said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are cells which merge to create us. Neither is itself an organism. Prior to the union of the two, we do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a completely arbitrary and subjective interpretation, and does not jibe with scientific definitions.
Click to expand...


When you say "scientific definitions", do you mean when you query Wikipedia for the wrong thing?  THAT "scientific definitions"?

Because otherwise, what JB said is EXACTLY in line with basic biology.  Sperm and ova are cells, not organisms, which are parts of the bodies of other organisms.  When they join and form a NEW organism, that organism is where we begin to exist.



Vast LWC said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biology 101
> 
> 
> So newborns aren't human? After all, human females have breasts, but not when they're first born
> 
> I guess that means Democrats and any child under the age, say, 17 isn't human
> 
> 
> 
> : a *bipedal* primate mammal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So war vets who lose a leg cease to be human?
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> 
> Or are you just that stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all of those are completely irrational arguments, as those are all examples of fully formed humans that are simply missing one attribute due to circumstance.
Click to expand...


But your definition didn't include "barring circumstance".  Face it, troll.  You looked up the wrong thing and tried to apply the definition of the human SPECIES to individual human BEINGS.  You screwed the pooch.



Vast LWC said:


> There is a large difference between that and a collection of cells that never formed into a human.



Unfortunately for you, a fetus is not a "collection of cells that never formed into a human", because a fetus IS a human organism.  It is what EVERY human organism is at that stage of its existence.

Being a "collection of cells" doesn't translate to "not a human being".  YOU are a collection of cells yourself.  And once again, there is NOWHERE in science - or basic English - that defines "human being" by "possessing adult configuration".



Vast LWC said:


> You might as well say water and carbon molecules are human beings, because they one day may form one.



No, they won't.  They might someday be PART of a human being, but they will never form one.



Vast LWC said:


> A POTENTIAL to be something does not confer the attributes of that thing onto the substance in question.



The only thing a fetus has a "potential to become" is an adult, if you leave him alone.  In that sense, you are correct.  The potential to be an adult someday is not being an adult right now.

But being a mature, fully-grown adult is also not a requirement for being a human being.


----------



## Anguille

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent person, and yet you wouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> What the fuck is that?  What's your position on infanticide?  Should that also not be a crime?
> 
> (I swear you can certainly measure the irrationality of the anti-abortion crowd simply by the irrational shit they throw around, jeezus.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions?  If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions.  Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and_ saving_ those innocent lives.  Figures you couldn't see that on your own.
> 
> I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you.  Typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder.  By anyone rational anyway.
Click to expand...


Kudos to you for having the patience to try to reason with these wackos.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That a fertilized egg can be called a human being in no way changes the fact that the difference between a fertilized egg and a born human being is so profound that the fact they share that general appellation is
> 
> immaterial to the issue of abortion.  Period.
> 
> I challenge you to prove that it is material.
> 
> 
> 
> It's your argument. What is the difference? What changes? When does it change? How can we measure or detect that change?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it was your claim that there is no difference whatsoever between a fertilized egg and ME,
> 
> and therefore there is no difference in killing either one.
Click to expand...


So you can't tell me what the difference is?



> So far all you've been able to do is give them the same general name.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second flaw:  you also don't understand the difference between organs and organisms.  A pinky is not an organism.  It is an organ, and a PART of an organism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pinky is an appendage, not an organ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Further strengthening her point.
Click to expand...


Who says an appendage isn't also an organ?

Appendage - : a subordinate or derivative body part; especially : a limb or analogous part (as a seta) 

Organ - : a differentiated structure (as a heart or kidney) consisting of cells and tissues and performing some specific function in an organism 

I don't see anything about the two that's mutually exclusive.  It's not what one normally thinks of as an organ, but frankly, neither is the skin until it's pointed out.  A pinky is a structure, differentiated from any other structure in the body (aside from the other pinky), made up of cells and tissues, and performing a specific function in an organism.

Either way, it ain't a separate organism, and arguing the semantics of EXACTLY what sort of body part it's classified as isn't going to make the argument that it's no different from a fetus any more correct.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at "advanced skills of abstract reasoning, articulate language, self-awareness, problem-solving, and sapience".  Does that mean a two-month-old infant, who has none of those things, is not a human being?  How about a severely retarded person?
> 
> 
> 
> Sara Palin and other mothers of special-needs children would like you to stop using that word.
> 
> You meant to ask 'How about a Democrat'
Click to expand...


No, I didn't, because retardation is involuntary.  Being a Democrat is a choice.  Sort of like getting yourself lobotomized.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> School? I don't need school to teach me this! After all, God &* I create life when I will it*!



Assuming you and C are for real, that you and Cecilie are mothers is a chilling thought.

After the way you and she dug your fangs and talons into Imeuru a few pages back after she showed the courage to reveal she had had an abortion after being raped, it's even more apparent to me and no doubt to others that the two of you vicious  harpies are devoid of human feelings and compassion. Hatred can destroy the person who bears it. I wonder what caused the two of you to become such miserable fucks


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's your argument. What is the difference? What changes? When does it change? How can we measure or detect that change?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was your claim that there is no difference whatsoever between a fertilized egg and ME,
> 
> and therefore there is no difference in killing either one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't tell me what the difference is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far all you've been able to do is give them the same general name.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


A fertilized human egg is 2 cells with its genetic material virtually the only thing it has in common with a born human being.  

Do you deny that's the only similarity?  Other than your name for them?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Anguille said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions?  If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions.  Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and_ saving_ those innocent lives.  Figures you couldn't see that on your own.
> 
> I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you.  Typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder.  By anyone rational anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for having the patience to try to reason with these wackos.
Click to expand...


Sadly, I find it fun.


----------



## Anguille

NYcarbineer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder.  By anyone rational anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for having the patience to try to reason with these wackos.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, I find it fun.
Click to expand...


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was your claim that there is no difference whatsoever between a fertilized egg and ME,
> 
> and therefore there is no difference in killing either one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't tell me what the difference is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far all you've been able to do is give them the same general name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fertilized human egg is 2 cells with its genetic material virtually the only thing it has in common with a born human being.
> 
> Do you deny that's the only similarity?  Other than your name for them?
Click to expand...

Fail.

The ovum, once fertilized, ceases to be an ovum. The two gametes (ovum and spermatozoon) form a zygote. The zygote is the first stage of human development. We start out as a single cell. Then comes cleavage and we become two cells. Then four, then eight, then 16, and so on.

Did they not have sex ed when you were in school? Go to the library and ask for a book on embryology and human embryogenesis.

If killing some people is okay and killing others isn't, what is the difference?

If it has something to do with the person's age, then at what age does killing you go from being an okay thing to a not okay thing? At what point does what change that makes killing you in cold blood no longer okay?


----------



## Ravi

Does anyone else wish that Buttemia had been aborted?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't tell me what the difference is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fertilized human egg is 2 cells with its genetic material virtually the only thing it has in common with a born human being.
> 
> Do you deny that's the only similarity?  Other than your name for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail.
> 
> The ovum, once fertilized, ceases to be an ovum. The two gametes (ovum and spermatozoon) form a zygote. The zygote is the first stage of human development. We start out as a single cell. Then comes cleavage and we become two cells. Then four, then eight, then 16, and so on.
> 
> Did they not have sex ed when you were in school? Go to the library and ask for a book on embryology and human embryogenesis.
> 
> If killing some people is okay and killing others isn't, what is the difference?
> 
> If it has something to do with the person's age, then at what age does killing you go from being an okay thing to a not okay thing? At what point does what change that makes killing you in cold blood no longer okay?
Click to expand...


We are debating your contention that the fertilized egg is absolutely the same thing as an adult human.

You have offered no similarity other than the genetic material in the cells.  That is an immaterial difference.

Remember, you said using RU486 was no different than killing a born human.

That is absolutely false, since there is no material similarity between a fertilized egg and a born human.

You have offered nothing material to prove they are identical.  In form, a fertilized human egg is far more similar to the fertilized egg of many non-human species than it is to a fully grown human being.

The case for declaring the killing of that fertilized egg to be no different than the killing of a born human is without material support.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Oh for the record, Beukema said in post 100 that a woman having an abortion would probably be best described as manslaughter.


----------



## Mr Liberty

taichiliberal said:


> If the anti-abortion folk would work to mandate sex education and birth control availabilty in our society the way we do sports trivia and automobile ownership, then abortion would indeed be a rarity that would STILL be a private choice by the individual.
> 
> Instead, you get a bunch of hysterical, idealogical clowns with mantras like "sex educaton promotes promiscuity and STD's" and the like over the decades.
> 
> Bottom line: you don't like what your neighbor is doing in their bedroom or with their doctor, THEN MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS....because all the racial, class, religious and social prejudices will be waiting for all those new borns who no one wanted or want to know about as they grow up.


I have always promoted sexual education and support pregnancy prevention.  I don't think you should be able to use abortion as birth control.  That is what their doing.  Is it right to take drugs while pregnant? No, Because it can harm the baby. If it is morally wrong to harm the baby at any point during development, then it is wrong to kill it.


----------



## AllieBaba

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fertilized human egg is 2 cells with its genetic material virtually the only thing it has in common with a born human being.
> 
> Do you deny that's the only similarity? Other than your name for them?
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> The ovum, once fertilized, ceases to be an ovum. The two gametes (ovum and spermatozoon) form a zygote. The zygote is the first stage of human development. We start out as a single cell. Then comes cleavage and we become two cells. Then four, then eight, then 16, and so on.
> 
> Did they not have sex ed when you were in school? Go to the library and ask for a book on embryology and human embryogenesis.
> 
> If killing some people is okay and killing others isn't, what is the difference?
> 
> If it has something to do with the person's age, then at what age does killing you go from being an okay thing to a not okay thing? At what point does what change that makes killing you in cold blood no longer okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are debating your contention that the fertilized egg is absolutely the same thing as an adult human.
> 
> You have offered no similarity other than the genetic material in the cells. That is an immaterial difference.
> 
> Remember, you said using RU486 was no different than killing a born human.
> 
> That is absolutely false, since there is no material similarity between a fertilized egg and a born human.
> 
> You have offered nothing material to prove they are identical. In form, a fertilized human egg is far more similar to the fertilized egg of many non-human species than it is to a fully grown human being.
> 
> The case for declaring the killing of that fertilized egg to be no different than the killing of a born human is without material support.
Click to expand...

 
You used material three times in that.

And I don't believe he said they were identical. I don't think anybody said that. 

Do you want to try again without attributing false assertions?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> We are debating your contention that the fertilized egg is absolutely the same thing as an adult human.




Do cite that claim

why can't you people ever not lie?


> Remember, you said using RU486 was no different than killing a born human.



Did I? Please cite the post in question and read it very carefully and slowly


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> The ovum, once fertilized, ceases to be an ovum. The two gametes (ovum and spermatozoon) form a zygote. The zygote is the first stage of human development. We start out as a single cell. Then comes cleavage and we become two cells. Then four, then eight, then 16, and so on.
> 
> Did they not have sex ed when you were in school? Go to the library and ask for a book on embryology and human embryogenesis.
> 
> If killing some people is okay and killing others isn't, what is the difference?
> 
> If it has something to do with the person's age, then at what age does killing you go from being an okay thing to a not okay thing? At what point does what change that makes killing you in cold blood no longer okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are debating your contention that the fertilized egg is absolutely the same thing as an adult human.
> 
> You have offered no similarity other than the genetic material in the cells. That is an immaterial difference.
> 
> Remember, you said using RU486 was no different than killing a born human.
> 
> That is absolutely false, since there is no material similarity between a fertilized egg and a born human.
> 
> You have offered nothing material to prove they are identical. In form, a fertilized human egg is far more similar to the fertilized egg of many non-human species than it is to a fully grown human being.
> 
> The case for declaring the killing of that fertilized egg to be no different than the killing of a born human is without material support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used material three times in that.
> 
> And I don't believe he said they were identical. I don't think anybody said that.
> 
> Do you want to try again without attributing false assertions?
Click to expand...


----------



## NYcarbineer

AllieBaba said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> The ovum, once fertilized, ceases to be an ovum. The two gametes (ovum and spermatozoon) form a zygote. The zygote is the first stage of human development. We start out as a single cell. Then comes cleavage and we become two cells. Then four, then eight, then 16, and so on.
> 
> Did they not have sex ed when you were in school? Go to the library and ask for a book on embryology and human embryogenesis.
> 
> If killing some people is okay and killing others isn't, what is the difference?
> 
> If it has something to do with the person's age, then at what age does killing you go from being an okay thing to a not okay thing? At what point does what change that makes killing you in cold blood no longer okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are debating your contention that the fertilized egg is absolutely the same thing as an adult human.
> 
> You have offered no similarity other than the genetic material in the cells. That is an immaterial difference.
> 
> Remember, you said using RU486 was no different than killing a born human.
> 
> That is absolutely false, since there is no material similarity between a fertilized egg and a born human.
> 
> You have offered nothing material to prove they are identical. In form, a fertilized human egg is far more similar to the fertilized egg of many non-human species than it is to a fully grown human being.
> 
> The case for declaring the killing of that fertilized egg to be no different than the killing of a born human is without material support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used material three times in that.
> 
> And I don't believe he said they were identical. I don't think anybody said that.
> 
> Do you want to try again without attributing false assertions?
Click to expand...


Well yes I think he has;  certainly he is free to elaborate, revise, reassert, or whatever.

Do you wish to stipulate there is a profound difference between a fertilized egg and a born person, that they bear virtually no physical similarity other than their DNA?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are debating your contention that the fertilized egg is absolutely the same thing as an adult human.
> 
> You have offered no similarity other than the genetic material in the cells. That is an immaterial difference.
> 
> Remember, you said using RU486 was no different than killing a born human.
> 
> That is absolutely false, since there is no material similarity between a fertilized egg and a born human.
> 
> You have offered nothing material to prove they are identical. In form, a fertilized human egg is far more similar to the fertilized egg of many non-human species than it is to a fully grown human being.
> 
> The case for declaring the killing of that fertilized egg to be no different than the killing of a born human is without material support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You used material three times in that.
> 
> And I don't believe he said they were identical. I don't think anybody said that.
> 
> Do you want to try again without attributing false assertions?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Are you now acknowledging that I am correct?  That there is virtually no similarity between a fertilized egg and a born person?

Or do you continue to claim there is no difference?

If the latter, then prove that a 2 celled entity is identical to a zillion celled fully developed human person, and thus it is justified to assign the exact same standards of treatment to both.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are debating your contention that the fertilized egg is absolutely the same thing as an adult human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do cite that claim
> 
> why can't you people ever not lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, you said using RU486 was no different than killing a born human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I? Please cite the post in question and read it very carefully and slowly
Click to expand...


I read it, and your qualifications were not material.

Are you now acknowledging a profound difference between a fertilized egg and a born person or not?

State your position, honestly, and clearly.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> that a 2 celled entity is identical to a zillion celled fully developed human person, and thus it is justified to assign the exact same standards of treatment to both.



No two people are identical; your premise is bullshit


----------



## JBeukema

Carib claims there's some meaningful difference, but can't say what it is?


----------



## Synthaholic

Anguille said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second flaw:  you also don't understand the difference between organs and organisms.  A pinky is not an organism.  It is an organ, and a PART of an organism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pinky is an appendage, not an organ.
Click to expand...

Quiet, you!  Don't you know that *Cecilie1200 *is an expert?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> that a 2 celled entity is identical to a zillion celled fully developed human person, and thus it is justified to assign the exact same standards of treatment to both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No two people are identical; your premise is bullshit
Click to expand...


We are talking about them being the same in the context of killing them.  You say there is no difference between killing the 2 celled version of a human and the fully developed born version of a human.

I say that is preposterous.

I would suggest that in the event you think I have misrepresented your position that you make that known by *clearly and unequivocally stating your exact position*.  As opposed to the obfuscation you're prone to.

I have no desire to misrepresent your specific views, but when you don't state them clearly, it becomes difficult.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> that a 2 celled entity is identical to a zillion celled fully developed human person, and thus it is justified to assign the exact same standards of treatment to both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No two people are identical; your premise is bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking about them being the same in the context of killing them.
Click to expand...

Oh, so they have to have the same skin colour as you? They have to be the same religion? What, exactly, are the criteria for being a 'real' human?





> You say there is no difference between killing the 2 celled version of a human and the fully developed born version of a human.



Do cite

Why can't you people ever be honest?



> make that known by *clearly and unequivocally stating your exact position*.


I have. Multiple times. Three times in this very thread.

Not my fault you never learned how to read.

Now, answer the question: at what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Does anyone else wish that Buttemia had been aborted?



No, not particularly, there aren't any on this site that I feel that way about... well, except for... {loss of connection requires this post to remain incomplete}... sorry, for some reason I can't finish that sentence.  

Immie


----------



## snjmom

> What, exactly, are the criteria for being a 'real' human?



Removal from the host.

What is your take on embryos in fertility clinics? Do the frozen embryos have the right to demand a host to continue their development?


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else wish that Buttemia had been aborted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not particularly, there aren't any on this site that I feel that way about... well, except for... {loss of connection requires this post to remain incomplete}... sorry, for some reason I can't finish that sentence.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



Off topic, but I think Babble is the product of an unfertilized egg.


----------



## Cecilie1200

snjmom said:


> What, exactly, are the criteria for being a 'real' human?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Removal from the host.
> 
> What is your take on embryos in fertility clinics? Do the frozen embryos have the right to demand a host to continue their development?
Click to expand...


In what science book did you find this "removal from the host" criteria for being a human being?  Which dictionary or encyclopedia?  What exactly is your source for this assertion?


----------



## snjmom

Cecilie1200 said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, are the criteria for being a 'real' human?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Removal from the host.
> 
> What is your take on embryos in fertility clinics? Do the frozen embryos have the right to demand a host to continue their development?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what science book did you find this "removal from the host" criteria for being a human being?  Which dictionary or encyclopedia?  What exactly is your source for this assertion?
Click to expand...


I'm taking a real human to be one with legal protections and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My source is the Constitution.




> The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted* U.S. citizenship to all persons born* in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.


----------



## JBeukema

snjmom said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Removal from the host.
> 
> What is your take on embryos in fertility clinics? Do the frozen embryos have the right to demand a host to continue their development?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what science book did you find this "removal from the host" criteria for being a human being?  Which dictionary or encyclopedia?  What exactly is your source for this assertion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taking a real human to be one with legal protections and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> My source is the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Great, another Statist

COTUS didn't recognize blacks and women as people for a long time, either

So... which version of the constitution is the 'right' one?


----------



## Cecilie1200

snjmom said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Removal from the host.
> 
> What is your take on embryos in fertility clinics? Do the frozen embryos have the right to demand a host to continue their development?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what science book did you find this "removal from the host" criteria for being a human being?  Which dictionary or encyclopedia?  What exactly is your source for this assertion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taking a real human to be one with legal protections and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> My source is the Constitution.
Click to expand...




Okay, two problems here.  One, the Constitution doesn't define "real human" anywhere in it, nor does it ever mention life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That would be the Declaration of Independence.  So please explain to me how your source for a "real human being" definition can POSSIBLY be the US Constitution.

Second problem is, if one must have legal protections to be a "real human being", does that mean that slaves were not real human beings prior to emancipation and the end of the War Between the States, and somehow real humanity was magically conveyed upon them at that point?  Because I gotta say, that Abraham Lincoln didn't know his own strength, if that was the case.  Someone should nominate that man for canonization, pulling off a miracle like that!



snjmom said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted* U.S. citizenship to all persons born* in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.
Click to expand...


So it WAS emancipation that magically conveyed "real human being" status on the slaves.

The only question that remains then is what they were before Congress and the President magically made them into humans.


----------



## snjmom

Quite obviously, they were open season.

What right does the fetus have to demand the use of the body of another?


----------



## snjmom

> Great, another Statist
> 
> COTUS didn't recognize blacks and women as people for a long time, either
> 
> So... which version of the constitution is the 'right' one?



I thought your question is when is it ok to kill a human. 

It's ok to kill a human that doesn't have the protections of the state. 

It's quite simple.


----------



## Cecilie1200

snjmom said:


> Quite obviously, they were open season.
> 
> What right does the fetus have to demand the use of the body of another?



I realize that you're trying as hard as you can to make this all about "abortion is legal, so there", but THIS?  Is there a language in which this post makes sense?  Because it sure as shit doesn't in English.


----------



## JBeukema

snjmom said:


> Great, another Statist
> 
> COTUS didn't recognize blacks and women as people for a long time, either
> 
> So... which version of the constitution is the 'right' one?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought your question is when is it ok to kill a human.
> 
> It's ok to kill a human that doesn't have the protections of the state.
> 
> It's quite simple.
Click to expand...


That's what we heard when the natives were being wiped out.

Statism and genocide. Gotta love you people.


----------



## Synthaholic

Cecilie1200 said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what science book did you find this "removal from the host" criteria for being a human being?  Which dictionary or encyclopedia?  What exactly is your source for this assertion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm taking a real human to be one with legal protections and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> My source is the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, two problems here.  One, the Constitution doesn't define "real human" anywhere in it, nor does it ever mention life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That would be the Declaration of Independence.  So please explain to me how your source for a "real human being" definition can POSSIBLY be the US Constitution.
> 
> Second problem is, if one must have legal protections to be a "real human being", does that mean that slaves were not real human beings prior to emancipation and the end of the War Between the States, and somehow real humanity was magically conveyed upon them at that point?  Because I gotta say, that Abraham Lincoln didn't know his own strength, if that was the case.  Someone should nominate that man for canonization, pulling off a miracle like that!
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted* U.S. citizenship to all persons born* in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it WAS emancipation that magically conveyed "real human being" status on the slaves.
> 
> *The only question that remains then is what they were before Congress and the President magically made them into humans*.
Click to expand...



Only 3/5 human.  Also, property.


----------



## snjmom

Are you advocating for personal responsibility for our forebears? Should we now have reparations?

That's reality. Without the state to protect your rights, they are subject to the power gradient between you and every other human being. 

Cecilie. It is quite plain English. Does the fetus have the right to force you to carry it, by law? If it is to be considered a person with a right to life, does that right supercede your right to decide what will live in your body?


----------



## snjmom

> Only 3/5 human. Also, property.



Correct. Just like corporations are persons with the full protection of the Bill of Rights.


----------



## AllieBaba

snjmom said:


> Quite obviously, they were open season.
> 
> What right does the fetus have to demand the use of the body of another?


 
The same right a child has to demand care and protection from his parents.

The rights are not demanded; they are basic human gifts that we do not deny each other. The right to life, in other words. It's the first and foremost right, and no human has the right to take it from another human when that human has no say.


----------



## Cecilie1200

snjmom said:


> Great, another Statist
> 
> COTUS didn't recognize blacks and women as people for a long time, either
> 
> So... which version of the constitution is the 'right' one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought your question is when is it ok to kill a human.
> 
> It's ok to kill a human that doesn't have the protections of the state.
> 
> It's quite simple.
Click to expand...


Leaving aside for a moment the fact that I don't really believe for a second that you thought "real human being" meant "someone you can't kill", are you saying that legality conveys morality?  That passing a law to do something makes it moral?  How, then, do you decide what laws to pass and what to legalize, if there's no moral standard except that provided by what is ALREADY legal?


----------



## snjmom

AllieBaba said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite obviously, they were open season.
> 
> What right does the fetus have to demand the use of the body of another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same right a child has to demand care and protection from his parents.
> 
> The rights are not demanded; they are basic human gifts that we do not deny each other. The right to life, in other words. It's the first and foremost right, and no human has the right to take it from another human when that human has no say.
Click to expand...


A child has no right to demand care and protection from his parents. The state has the right to sever parental rights if it so wishes. We deny this right to life all the time. We deny medical care. We deny shelter. We deny food. 

Don't be naive.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Synthaholic said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm taking a real human to be one with legal protections and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> My source is the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, two problems here.  One, the Constitution doesn't define "real human" anywhere in it, nor does it ever mention life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That would be the Declaration of Independence.  So please explain to me how your source for a "real human being" definition can POSSIBLY be the US Constitution.
> 
> Second problem is, if one must have legal protections to be a "real human being", does that mean that slaves were not real human beings prior to emancipation and the end of the War Between the States, and somehow real humanity was magically conveyed upon them at that point?  Because I gotta say, that Abraham Lincoln didn't know his own strength, if that was the case.  Someone should nominate that man for canonization, pulling off a miracle like that!
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it WAS emancipation that magically conveyed "real human being" status on the slaves.
> 
> *The only question that remains then is what they were before Congress and the President magically made them into humans*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only 3/5 human.  Also, property.
Click to expand...


Your Constitutional scholarship rivals your biological and medical learning.  

The Constitution never said anyone was" 3/5 human".  The Enumeration Clause, dealing with how Representatives are apportioned, says this:

". . . which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Doesn't say a damned thing about anyone being a fraction of a human, or even a fraction of a person.

Property, on the other hand, they definitely WERE.  That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not they were "real human beings".  So again, if they weren't humans until the Civil Rights Act magically conveyed humanity upon them, what sort of animal were they?  Or perhaps they were insects?  Plants?


----------



## AllieBaba

snjmom said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite obviously, they were open season.
> 
> What right does the fetus have to demand the use of the body of another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same right a child has to demand care and protection from his parents.
> 
> The rights are not demanded; they are basic human gifts that we do not deny each other. The right to life, in other words. It's the first and foremost right, and no human has the right to take it from another human when that human has no say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A child has no right to demand care and protection from his parents. The state has the right to sever parental rights if it so wishes. We deny this right to life all the time. We deny medical care. We deny shelter. We deny food.
> 
> Don't be naive.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, well, if you deny those things to your infant, you will go to jail.

There are rights, they are listed here and there in things like constitutions, bibles and korans; even primitive people recognize basic rights.

And you are naive and ignorant if you don't know that. Since I assume you are neither, I assume you are being duplicitous.


----------



## syrenn

Cecilie1200 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really??  I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, WELL, by the same token, if you take a fish out of water and set it on the table, it'll die too.  I guess that means fish aren't alive in the first place.
> 
> Somehow, I think this "brilliant" standard of "if it dies under the right circumstances, it must not have been alive in the first place" is going to be a bit problematic.
Click to expand...



Fish do not live in the air, humans do. 

Put a human, any human underwater it will die just the same as a fish out of water. 

I am not saying that 4 week old aborted tissue is not "living." So long as the tissue is not necrotic it is living tissue.  Living tissue does not mean it is a "life" as far as i am concerned. Your heart is living human tissue. The heart, in and of itself is not a human with a "life".


----------



## snjmom

Cecilie1200 said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great, another Statist
> 
> COTUS didn't recognize blacks and women as people for a long time, either
> 
> So... which version of the constitution is the 'right' one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought your question is when is it ok to kill a human.
> 
> It's ok to kill a human that doesn't have the protections of the state.
> 
> It's quite simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leaving aside for a moment the fact that I don't really believe for a second that you thought "real human being" meant "someone you can't kill", are you saying that legality conveys morality?  That passing a law to do something makes it moral?  How, then, do you decide what laws to pass and what to legalize, if there's no moral standard except that provided by what is ALREADY legal?
Click to expand...


I took real human being to be someone that you can't kill without punishment. I am saying that legality is a reflection of morality. If the morals of the day don't consider a particular human to be under the protection of the state, then there are no punishments for killing said human and certain aspects of society may celebrate those actions. You can find evidence of this throughout history and all over the globe.


----------



## Cecilie1200

snjmom said:


> Are you advocating for personal responsibility for our forebears? Should we now have reparations?
> 
> That's reality. Without the state to protect your rights, they are subject to the power gradient between you and every other human being.
> 
> Cecilie. It is quite plain English. Does the fetus have the right to force you to carry it, by law? If it is to be considered a person with a right to life, does that right supercede your right to decide what will live in your body?



You're still blithering.  Are you drunk?  Is that why you're unable to make sense?  Who's advocating ANYTHING having to do with our forebears?

What the holy hell do legally-protected rights have to do with whether or not someone is a "real human being" (your words)?  What in the blazes are you BABBLING about?

THIS is quite plain English:  STOP TRYING TO TOPIC-HOP.  Just because you want to leap past any discussion of the basic facts upon which legal decisions are and should be made and go straight to a discussion of "This should be legal because it's legal" doesn't mean you get to.  If you want to set your own topic, make your own thread.  Don't come barging in here trying to impose YOUR topic choices on a discussion that's already begun.

If you're too cowardly to address the conversation at hand, get gone.


----------



## AllieBaba

Our hearts don't have their own heart, and they never grow one.

Because they aren't a human. A baby is.


----------



## AllieBaba

snjmom said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought your question is when is it ok to kill a human.
> 
> It's ok to kill a human that doesn't have the protections of the state.
> 
> It's quite simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving aside for a moment the fact that I don't really believe for a second that you thought "real human being" meant "someone you can't kill", are you saying that legality conveys morality? That passing a law to do something makes it moral? How, then, do you decide what laws to pass and what to legalize, if there's no moral standard except that provided by what is ALREADY legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took real human being to be someonY
> Ye that you can't kill without punishment. I am saying that legality is a reflection of morality. If the morals of the day don't consider a particular human to be under the protection of the state, then there are no punishments for killing said human and certain aspects of society may celebrate those actions. You can find evidence of this throughout history and all over the globe.
Click to expand...

 This is too vague, you need to be more specific. What does "certain aspects of society may celebrate those actions" mean? You say there's evidence; refer to it. 

Because I have no idea WHAT the fuck you're trying to say.


----------



## syrenn

AllieBaba said:


> Our hearts don't have their own heart, and they never grow one.
> 
> Because they aren't a human. A baby is.




It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our hearts don't have their own heart, and they never grow one.
> 
> Because they aren't a human. A baby is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"
Click to expand...

So we're back to you idiots failing biology 101 and knowing what a human being is


----------



## JBeukema

If what you advocate isn't wrong, why can't you admit to yourselves what you advocate?


----------



## snjmom

> Yes, well, if you deny those things to your infant, you will go to jail.
> 
> There are rights, they are listed here and there in things like constitutions, bibles and korans; even primitive people recognize basic rights.
> 
> And you are naive and ignorant if you don't know that. Since I assume you are neither, I assume you are being duplicitous.



No, I will have my parental rights severed. The child will be placed in foster care or put up for adoption. Where in the constitution does it say that you have to provide for your child? Most of the religious edicts are presumptive of an obedient child and admonish the parent to turn away the disobedient child and let it fend for itself.

Again, the reality is that children are just as much of a burden as they are a joy and that society benefits as a whole if the children that are brought into the world are welcome and planned for.


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life"   Abortion=murder
> 
> Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, WELL, by the same token, if you take a fish out of water and set it on the table, it'll die too.  I guess that means fish aren't alive in the first place.
> 
> Somehow, I think this "brilliant" standard of "if it dies under the right circumstances, it must not have been alive in the first place" is going to be a bit problematic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fish do not live in the air, humans do.
> 
> Put a human, any human underwater it will die just the same as a fish out of water.
> 
> I am not saying that 4 week old aborted tissue is not "living." So long as the tissue is not necrotic it is living tissue.  Living tissue does not mean it is a "life" as far as i am concerned. Your heart is living human tissue. The heart, in and of itself is not a human with a "life".
Click to expand...


Oh?  Humans live in air, huh?  In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity?  I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".

Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive.  In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.

It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote.  An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism.  Period.  This is not an arguable biological fact.  A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus.  A heart is an organ IN an organism.  A fetus is an organism.


----------



## AllieBaba

snjmom said:


> Yes, well, if you deny those things to your infant, you will go to jail.
> 
> There are rights, they are listed here and there in things like constitutions, bibles and korans; even primitive people recognize basic rights.
> 
> And you are naive and ignorant if you don't know that. Since I assume you are neither, I assume you are being duplicitous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I will have my parental rights severed. The child will be placed in foster care or put up for adoption. Where in the constitution does it say that you have to provide for your child? Most of the religious edicts are presumptive of an obedient child and admonish the parent to turn away the disobedient child and let it fend for itself.
> 
> Again, the reality is that children are just as much of a burden as they are a joy and that society benefits as a whole if the children that are brought into the world are welcome and planned for.
Click to expand...

 
If the child is in your care then you are responsible for it. You may give it away. You may not sell it, however, and you must provide for it until such time as another person takes on the burden.

Did you know you can be prosecuted for coming upon a child that is alone, even though you have never seen that child before, and then leaving that child...and the child gets hurt? WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILDREN. The law recognizes this and mankind recognizes this. 

If you deliver your baby and walk away and leave it in a motel room, even if you call someone to tell them, you can and will be prosecuted. You not wanting to care for that baby doesn't mean you aren't expected to, and that you're not responsible for its well being.

This is basic stuff.


----------



## AllieBaba

Syrenn you can't be serious that you think people aren't obliged to care for their children, even when they don't want to. Because that's over the top ridiculous. Women are prosecuted EVERY DAY for walking away from their kids without first providing adequately for them.


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our hearts don't have their own heart, and they never grow one.
> 
> Because they aren't a human. A baby is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we're back to you idiots failing biology 101 and knowing what a human being is
Click to expand...


Do i say the tissue is not human? I say the tissue is not a stand alone "life"


----------



## snjmom

Cecilie1200 said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you advocating for personal responsibility for our forebears? Should we now have reparations?
> 
> That's reality. Without the state to protect your rights, they are subject to the power gradient between you and every other human being.
> 
> Cecilie. It is quite plain English. Does the fetus have the right to force you to carry it, by law? If it is to be considered a person with a right to life, does that right supercede your right to decide what will live in your body?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still blithering.  Are you drunk?  Is that why you're unable to make sense?  Who's advocating ANYTHING having to do with our forebears?
> 
> What the holy hell do legally-protected rights have to do with whether or not someone is a "real human being" (your words)?  What in the blazes are you BABBLING about?
> 
> THIS is quite plain English:  STOP TRYING TO TOPIC-HOP.  Just because you want to leap past any discussion of the basic facts upon which legal decisions are and should be made and go straight to a discussion of "This should be legal because it's legal" doesn't mean you get to.  If you want to set your own topic, make your own thread.  Don't come barging in here trying to impose YOUR topic choices on a discussion that's already begun.
> 
> If you're too cowardly to address the conversation at hand, get gone.
Click to expand...


If you would read the thread cecilie, you would see the forbears was a response to the Native American genocide brought up by JB. 

Plain English. Is a fetus human? Yes. Does it have the right to reside in your womb if you choose not to carry it? No. Do you have the right to expel it in a legally approved manner, even if the unfortunate consequence is the death of said human? Yes.

Simple enough?


----------



## Cecilie1200

snjmom said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought your question is when is it ok to kill a human.
> 
> It's ok to kill a human that doesn't have the protections of the state.
> 
> It's quite simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving aside for a moment the fact that I don't really believe for a second that you thought "real human being" meant "someone you can't kill", are you saying that legality conveys morality?  That passing a law to do something makes it moral?  How, then, do you decide what laws to pass and what to legalize, if there's no moral standard except that provided by what is ALREADY legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took real human being to be someone that you can't kill without punishment. I am saying that legality is a reflection of morality. If the morals of the day don't consider a particular human to be under the protection of the state, then there are no punishments for killing said human and certain aspects of society may celebrate those actions. You can find evidence of this throughout history and all over the globe.
Click to expand...


Just another example of how the pro-abortion crowd can't be honest.  I'd have to believe you're an even bigger idiot than I currently do to believe you actually interpreted the phrase "real human being" to have anything to do with the law.

And no, you're NOT saying legality is a reflection of morality, because you are very clearly saying that something is moral BECAUSE it is legal.

Stop trying to save this mess you've made.  You fucked up, you made a fool of yourself, just accept it and move on, because you're NEVER going to be able to make it seem as though you weren't talking out of your ass.


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our hearts don't have their own heart, and they never grow one.
> 
> Because they aren't a human. A baby is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"
Click to expand...


And you base the assertion that a fetus has no "stand-alone life" on what?  Your continued, deliberately-obtuse ignorance on the subject of what "independent life" actually means in biological terms?


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"
> 
> 
> 
> So we're back to you idiots failing biology 101 and knowing what a human being is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do i say the tissue is not human? I say the tissue is not a stand alone "life"
Click to expand...

So we're back to not knowing what a human being is?


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"
> 
> 
> 
> So we're back to you idiots failing biology 101 and knowing what a human being is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do i say the tissue is not human? I say the tissue is not a stand alone "life"
Click to expand...


And you continue to be egregiously wrong and stupid in so doing.  And I say "stupid" because you're not just ignorant and uneducated on this topic, but you are WILLFULLY so.  You have CHOSEN to cling to your ignorance of biology, which is the very embodiment of "stupid".


----------



## snjmom

The original premise was is it any different to abort a fetus than to shoot a baby that is born.

Just because you can't understand what I'm saying doesn't necessarily make me the fool.


----------



## syrenn

Cecilie1200 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, WELL, by the same token, if you take a fish out of water and set it on the table, it'll die too.  I guess that means fish aren't alive in the first place.
> 
> Somehow, I think this "brilliant" standard of "if it dies under the right circumstances, it must not have been alive in the first place" is going to be a bit problematic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fish do not live in the air, humans do.
> 
> Put a human, any human underwater it will die just the same as a fish out of water.
> 
> I am not saying that 4 week old aborted tissue is not "living." So long as the tissue is not necrotic it is living tissue.  Living tissue does not mean it is a "life" as far as i am concerned. Your heart is living human tissue. The heart, in and of itself is not a human with a "life".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  Humans live in air, huh?  In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity?  I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".
> 
> Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive.  In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote.  An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism.  Period.  This is not an arguable biological fact.  A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus.  A heart is an organ IN an organism.  A fetus is an organism.
Click to expand...



Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life" 

Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.


----------



## Truthseeker420

sperm is alive,is masterbation murder?


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fish do not live in the air, humans do.
> 
> Put a human, any human underwater it will die just the same as a fish out of water.
> 
> I am not saying that 4 week old aborted tissue is not "living." So long as the tissue is not necrotic it is living tissue.  Living tissue does not mean it is a "life" as far as i am concerned. Your heart is living human tissue. The heart, in and of itself is not a human with a "life".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  Humans live in air, huh?  In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity?  I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".
> 
> Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive.  In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote.  An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism.  Period.  This is not an arguable biological fact.  A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus.  A heart is an organ IN an organism.  A fetus is an organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"
> 
> Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.
Click to expand...


Do you deny that a fetus is an organism?  Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism.  You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier.  Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.

What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient.  For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.


----------



## syrenn

AllieBaba said:


> Syrenn you can't be serious that you think people aren't obliged to care for their children, even when they don't want to. Because that's over the top ridiculous. Women are prosecuted EVERY DAY for walking away from their kids without first providing adequately for them.




 I do think that  BOTH parents are _more then obliged_ to care for their children. That is one reason i advocate abortion of unwanted children. Unwanted, unloved, uncared for children are so incredibly sad. Both parents should be prosecuted for neglecting their children.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fish do not live in the air, humans do.
> 
> Put a human, any human underwater it will die just the same as a fish out of water.
> 
> I am not saying that 4 week old aborted tissue is not "living." So long as the tissue is not necrotic it is living tissue.  Living tissue does not mean it is a "life" as far as i am concerned. Your heart is living human tissue. The heart, in and of itself is not a human with a "life".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  Humans live in air, huh?  In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity?  I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".
> 
> Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive.  In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote.  An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism.  Period.  This is not an arguable biological fact.  A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus.  A heart is an organ IN an organism.  A fetus is an organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"
> 
> Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.
Click to expand...

So it's a living organism, but it's not a life?



WTF is a 'stand alone life' is not a living organism?

I swear, abortionism is a religion. You people sound like the YECs demanding creationism be taught in the schools, dancing around the definition of a scientific theory


----------



## syrenn

Cecilie1200 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our hearts don't have their own heart, and they never grow one.
> 
> Because they aren't a human. A baby is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you base the assertion that a fetus has no "stand-alone life" on what?  Your continued, deliberately-obtuse ignorance on the subject of what "independent life" actually means in biological terms?
Click to expand...



 Will 4 week old fetal cells live by themselves? Will 4 week old tissue that has been c-sections out of a womb live?


----------



## snjmom

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  Humans live in air, huh?  In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity?  I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".
> 
> Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive.  In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote.  An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism.  Period.  This is not an arguable biological fact.  A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus.  A heart is an organ IN an organism.  A fetus is an organism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"
> 
> Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's a living organism, but it's not a life?
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is a 'stand alone life' is not a living organism?
> 
> I swear, abortionism is a religion. You people sound like the YECs demanding creationism be taught in the schools, dancing around the definition of a scientific theory
Click to expand...


 Is a fetus human? Yes. Does it have the right to reside in your womb if you choose not to carry it? No. Do you have the right to expel it in a legally approved manner, even if the unfortunate consequence is the death of said human? Yes.

That's pretty straightforward, no?


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syrenn you can't be serious that you think people aren't obliged to care for their children, even when they don't want to. Because that's over the top ridiculous. Women are prosecuted EVERY DAY for walking away from their kids without first providing adequately for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do think that  BOTH parents are _more then obliged_ to care for their children. That is one reason i advocate abortion of unwanted children. Unwanted, unloved, uncared for children are so incredibly sad. Both parents should be prosecuted for neglecting their children.
Click to expand...


Killing them is better than finding them a good home?

The entire baby-killing industry knows it's indefensible. You know what you advocate in nothing other than cold-blooded murder.

It's why you hide behind euphemisms like 'aborting' a human life as though it were nothing more than an attempt to move a file in DOS.

People don't 'pass away', they die. You don't 'abort' a life, you kill.

If what you advocate is justifiable, why can't you face what it is you advocate?


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we're back to you idiots failing biology 101 and knowing what a human being is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do i say the tissue is not human? I say the tissue is not a stand alone "life"
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we're back to not knowing what a human being is?
Click to expand...


I know the difference between human tissue and what a human being is, yes. You seem not to however. 

And where does you penchant for eugenics come into play into all of this i wonder?


----------



## JBeukema

You keep appealing to the law.

It should be legal because it's legal?

What about slavery and spousal rape?

Abortionism is Statism


----------



## syrenn

Cecilie1200 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we're back to you idiots failing biology 101 and knowing what a human being is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do i say the tissue is not human? I say the tissue is not a stand alone "life"
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you continue to be egregiously wrong and stupid in so doing.  And I say "stupid" because you're not just ignorant and uneducated on this topic, but you are WILLFULLY so.  You have CHOSEN to cling to your ignorance of biology, which is the very embodiment of "stupid".
Click to expand...




 Nice try at deflection. Do try and answer a simple question? 

Will 4 week old fetal tissue live outside of the womb? Will 8 week old tissue live outside of the womb? Is it adoptable at 4 or 8 weeks?


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i say the tissue is not human? I say the tissue is not a stand alone "life"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we're back to not knowing what a human being is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the difference between human tissue and what a human being is, yes. You seem not to however.
Click to expand...


Evidently not. Unless you admit your earlier posts were simple outright lying



> And where does you penchant for eugenics come into play into all of this i wonder?



You say outright you believe in killing off the uwanted and you want to talk about eugenics?


----------



## Shadow

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  Humans live in air, huh?  In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity?  I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".
> 
> Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive.  In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote.  An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism.  Period.  This is not an arguable biological fact.  A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus.  A heart is an organ IN an organism.  A fetus is an organism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"
> 
> Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's a living organism, but it's not a life?
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is a 'stand alone life' is not a living organism?
> 
> I swear, abortionism is a religion. You people sound like the YECs demanding creationism be taught in the schools, dancing around the definition of a scientific theory
Click to expand...


Don't even try to understand her stupid argument.  She just has a bunch of meaningless bullet points she constantly throws out there...pretending she actually has a point.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> i advocate abortion of unwanted children.


Killing off the unwanted. 

Where have we heard that before?


No wonder PP was founded by a eugenicist. Explains the name, too, when you think about it.


----------



## syrenn

Cecilie1200 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  Humans live in air, huh?  In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity?  I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".
> 
> Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive.  In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote.  An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism.  Period.  This is not an arguable biological fact.  A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus.  A heart is an organ IN an organism.  A fetus is an organism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"
> 
> Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that a fetus is an organism?  Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism.  You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier.  Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.
> 
> What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient.  For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.
Click to expand...




I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"

Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  Humans live in air, huh?  In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity?  I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".
> 
> Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive.  In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote.  An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism.  Period.  This is not an arguable biological fact.  A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus.  A heart is an organ IN an organism.  A fetus is an organism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"
> 
> Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's a living organism, but it's not a life?
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is a 'stand alone life' is not a living organism?
> 
> I swear, abortionism is a religion. You people sound like the YECs demanding creationism be taught in the schools, dancing around the definition of a scientific theory
Click to expand...



How dense are you? 

Take your organism out of the womb and see if your organism lives. Rather simple don't you think?.

That is a stand alone life.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host.



I'd like to see you live without your gut flora



> It is only tissue as far as I am concerned



like evolution is just a guess?





> , until it has a "life" of its own


It does from creation, unless you're back to just making shit up


> . There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"



In short, science doesn't matter when it doesn't support your faith and what you _need_ to be true


Abortionism really is a religion


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"
> 
> Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.
> 
> 
> 
> So it's a living organism, but it's not a life?
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is a 'stand alone life' is not a living organism?
> 
> I swear, abortionism is a religion. You people sound like the YECs demanding creationism be taught in the schools, dancing around the definition of a scientific theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dense are you?
> 
> Take your organism out of the womb and see if your organism lives. Rather simple don't you think?.
> 
> That is a stand alone life.
Click to expand...

Let's take you out of your natural habitat, too

how long can you survive in space or underwater?


----------



## AllieBaba

Babies can't survive period without someone assisting them.

It's a worthless argument..that something isn't human because it can't feed and clothe itself. It's patently untrue.


----------



## Ravi

Cecilie1200 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, two problems here.  One, the Constitution doesn't define "real human" anywhere in it, nor does it ever mention life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That would be the Declaration of Independence.  So please explain to me how your source for a "real human being" definition can POSSIBLY be the US Constitution.
> 
> Second problem is, if one must have legal protections to be a "real human being", does that mean that slaves were not real human beings prior to emancipation and the end of the War Between the States, and somehow real humanity was magically conveyed upon them at that point?  Because I gotta say, that Abraham Lincoln didn't know his own strength, if that was the case.  Someone should nominate that man for canonization, pulling off a miracle like that!
> 
> 
> 
> So it WAS emancipation that magically conveyed "real human being" status on the slaves.
> 
> *The only question that remains then is what they were before Congress and the President magically made them into humans*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only 3/5 human.  Also, property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Constitutional scholarship rivals your biological and medical learning.
> 
> The Constitution never said anyone was" 3/5 human".  The Enumeration Clause, dealing with how Representatives are apportioned, says this:
> 
> ". . . which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
> 
> Doesn't say a damned thing about anyone being a fraction of a human, or even a fraction of a person.
> 
> Property, on the other hand, they definitely WERE.  That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not they were "real human beings".  So again, if they weren't humans until the Civil Rights Act magically conveyed humanity upon them, what sort of animal were they?  Or perhaps they were insects?  Plants?
Click to expand...

You've answered your own question but you're too stupid to see that. They were included in the phrase "all other persons." And you know who wasn't included in that phrase? The unborn. The founders didn't count the unborn as persons and neither do rational people.

Because they're not and the constitution backs that up.

Loser.


----------



## Immanuel

snjmom said:


> Are you advocating for personal responsibility for our forebears? Should we now have reparations?
> 
> That's reality. Without the state to protect your rights, they are subject to the power gradient between you and every other human being.
> 
> Cecilie. It is quite plain English. Does the fetus have the right to force you to carry it, by law? If it is to be considered a person with a right to life, does that right supercede your right to decide what will live in your body?



So, you are saying that the fact that our current government from January 22, 1973 through today is screwed up in the "head" so to speak is the problem of unborn and thus they should die if the mother so chooses?

Our government is not always right.  It was not right when it treated human beings who were black as 3/5 human and slaves.  It was not right when it treated women as less than human and refused them the right to vote along with many other rights.  It is not right today in torturing human beings who have never even been tried for terrorism.  There are many things wrong with our society (yet I would never choose to live anywhere else on a permanent basis).  

Simply because our government does not recognize a particular right, does not mean that right does not exist.  

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

syrenn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"
> 
> Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that a fetus is an organism?  Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism.  You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier.  Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.
> 
> What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient.  For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"
> 
> Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?
Click to expand...


And what pray tell gives you the right to make the decision that it does not have life as far as you are concerned?

Forgive me because you and I are friends and I respect much of what you say but dagnamit, who made you God?

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent person, and yet you wouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> What the fuck is that?  What's your position on infanticide?  Should that also not be a crime?
> 
> (I swear you can certainly measure the irrationality of the anti-abortion crowd simply by the irrational shit they throw around, jeezus.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions?  If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions.  Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and_ saving_ those innocent lives.  Figures you couldn't see that on your own.
> 
> I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you.  Typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder.  By anyone rational anyway.
Click to expand...


Again you completely and totally ignore my entire post, my entire point.  Unfuckingbelievable.  Punishing the woman isn't my ballyiwick, it's yours so stop projecting it onto me.  And your statement above makes zero sense.  Punishment does not dictate whether something is murder, the law does and unfortunately our law okayed the killing of unborn human beings. You are truly dumber than a rock.

I realize you want to put me into some kind of rw extremist box . . have fun with it because I'm not fitting and I'm not playing your game.  Once again, punishing the woman isn't what pro-life is about it is about preventing abortion thus _preventing the destruction of innocent human life_.  



Anguille said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions?  If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions.  Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and_ saving_ those innocent lives.  Figures you couldn't see that on your own.
> 
> I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you.  Typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder.  By anyone rational anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for having the patience to try to reason with these wackos.
Click to expand...


And look at you clapping along like a trained seal or something.  You know what?  Good.  Remember this the next time you try and pigeon hole me with your "pro-lifers don't care about the woman they only care about the unborn" bullshit.  mmmkay?


Neither one of you have answered JB's question:

"At what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?"  

Want to try answering this or are you just going to bounce back with more projection?  Never mind, I already know the answer to _that _question.


----------



## Zoom-boing

syrenn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"
> 
> Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that a fetus is an organism?  Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism.  You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier.  Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.
> 
> What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient.  For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"
> 
> Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?
Click to expand...


Of course not.  But whether it lives outside of its environment doesn't determine its humanness or not.  Humans beget humans.  From conception to delivery and beyond, they are human beings.  Different stages to be sure, but human beings at each and every stage.  

If I took you as you are right now and plopped you in the middle of Siberia you'd be dead within the hour.  Does that make you less human because you're unprepared and unequipped to survive in a hostile environment?

This is the part that I think many are not getting.  Developmental stages of a  human being are just that . . . stages of development.  But what is living and growing inside of a woman is a human being.  How can you possibly say it is anything else?  That it is just a blob of tissue?  If it were just a blob of tissue, if it isn't "life" as you claim . . . then an abortion wouldn't be something a woman would seek.  

I posted these definitions earlier and they went ignored.

Abortion:  the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. 

Pregnancy:  1. 	the state or condition of being pregnant 2.  the period from conception to childbirth


----------



## Zoom-boing

syrenn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"
> 
> Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that a fetus is an organism?  Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism.  You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier.  Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.
> 
> What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient.  For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as* i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"*
> 
> Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?
Click to expand...


Then what exactly is the point of abortion?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> No two people are identical; your premise is bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about them being the same in the context of killing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so they have to have the same skin colour as you? They have to be the same religion? What, exactly, are the criteria for being a 'real' human?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say there is no difference between killing the 2 celled version of a human and the fully developed born version of a human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do cite
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> make that known by *clearly and unequivocally stating your exact position*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. Multiple times. Three times in this very thread.
> 
> Not my fault you never learned how to read.
> 
> Now, answer the question: at what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
Click to expand...


State your position.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else wish that Buttemia had been aborted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not particularly, there aren't any on this site that I feel that way about... well, except for... {loss of connection requires this post to remain incomplete}... sorry, for some reason I can't finish that sentence.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic, but I think Babble is the product of an unfertilized egg.
Click to expand...


Beukema is a classic troll.  He wants to argue against your stand while not revealing his own.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  Humans live in air, huh?  In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity?  I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".
> 
> Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive.  In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote.  An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism.  Period.  This is not an arguable biological fact.  A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus.  A heart is an organ IN an organism.  A fetus is an organism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"
> 
> Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's a living organism, but it's not a life?
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is a 'stand alone life' is not a living organism?
> 
> I swear, abortionism is a religion. You people sound like the YECs demanding creationism be taught in the schools, dancing around the definition of a scientific theory
Click to expand...


Yes, it's a living organism, but at fertilization it bears not the slightest resemblance to a human being.
There is nothing unreasonable about allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages, and to protect her right to do so.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> i advocate abortion of unwanted children.
> 
> 
> 
> Killing off the unwanted.
> 
> Where have we heard that before?
> 
> 
> No wonder PP was founded by a eugenicist. Explains the name, too, when you think about it.
Click to expand...


Hitler?  lol

Oh wait, the Nazis were anti-abortion.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...

...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,

and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.

I will stipulate that it is human.  I will stipulate that it is an organism.  I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.

Please...begin...


----------



## AllieBaba

NYcarbineer said:


> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human. I will stipulate that it is an organism. I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...


 
Why should we argue something we've never asserted in the first place?


----------



## Immanuel

NYcarbineer said:


> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human.  I will stipulate that it is an organism.  I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...



Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?

A fetus is human.  No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.

The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter.  What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number.  We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.  

Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work.  We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

Immanuel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human.  I will stipulate that it is an organism.  I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?
> 
> A fetus is human.  No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.
> 
> The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter.  What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number.  We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.
> 
> Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work.  We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Outstanding post, Immie! 

I wonder how they'll spin this.


----------



## Immanuel

Zoom-boing said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human.  I will stipulate that it is an organism.  I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?
> 
> A fetus is human.  No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.
> 
> The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter.  What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number.  We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.
> 
> Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work.  We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outstanding post, Immie!
> 
> I wonder how they'll spin this.
Click to expand...


I can already answer that in NY's words... "Then you are as irrational as he is", but he won't provide any solutions either.

Immie


----------



## syrenn

AllieBaba said:


> Babies can't survive period without someone assisting them.
> 
> It's a worthless argument..that something isn't human because it can't feed and clothe itself. It's patently untrue.





I have never suggested that babies can survive on their own without assistance. 

I do ask the still unanswered question: Will 4 week old fetal tissue that has been c-sectioned out have "life"?  Feel free to give it all the assistance you want, all the life saving support you want but will it have "life"?  Is there something there to save that will live?


----------



## xsited1

syrenn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Babies can't survive period without someone assisting them.
> 
> It's a worthless argument..that something isn't human because it can't feed and clothe itself. It's patently untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never suggested that babies can survive on their own without assistance.
> 
> I do ask the still unanswered question: Will 4 week old fetal tissue that has been c-sectioned out have "life"?  Feel free to give it all the assistance you want, all the life saving support you want but will it have "life"?  Is there something there to save that will live?
Click to expand...


Not today, but medical science is advancing at a remarkable rate and it wouldn't surprise me if in the future a 4 week old could be taken out of the womb and allowed to develop in an incubator.


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only 3/5 human.  Also, property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Constitutional scholarship rivals your biological and medical learning.
> 
> The Constitution never said anyone was" 3/5 human".  The Enumeration Clause, dealing with how Representatives are apportioned, says this:
> 
> ". . . which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
> 
> Doesn't say a damned thing about anyone being a fraction of a human, or even a fraction of a person.
> 
> Property, on the other hand, they definitely WERE.  That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not they were "real human beings".  So again, if they weren't humans until the Civil Rights Act magically conveyed humanity upon them, what sort of animal were they?  Or perhaps they were insects?  Plants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've answered your own question but you're too stupid to see that. They were included in the phrase "all other persons." And you know who wasn't included in that phrase? The unborn. The founders didn't count the unborn as persons and neither do rational people.
> 
> Because they're not and the constitution backs that up.
> 
> Loser.
Click to expand...


You know who else wasn't counted?

Women.

We needed a constitutional amendment to make it clear that females are people, too. 

(Clearly, you're not familiar with the suffragettes.)

So let's go ahead and run with your argument and see where that takes us, eh?


----------



## syrenn

Immanuel said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that a fetus is an organism?  Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism.  You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier.  Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.
> 
> What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient.  For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"
> 
> Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what pray tell gives you the right to make the decision that it does not have life as far as you are concerned?
> 
> Forgive me because you and I are friends and I respect much of what you say but dagnamit, who made you God?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



Will 4 week old C-sectioned out tissue live? Will it be a baby?  That is what gives me the right to say it is not a life as far as i am concerned. The tissue is living, the tissue is human but the tissue does not have stand alone life. 

I do not pretend to be god. I do understand life and what a baby is. 4 week old tissue is not a baby. 

I get the part where everyone is crying "murder" over an abortion. A C-sections is not an abortion. A C-section would be giving birth to what ever it is that is there.  How hard is that for everyone to understand? 

If 4 week old tissue has a life of its own..i am saying give it that life. Give it a c-sectioned birth. The woman no longer has it inside her body, it has not been destroyed in an abortion. If the tissue is a baby let it have it live if it has a life. You could also say..let god decide.


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Constitutional scholarship rivals your biological and medical learning.
> 
> The Constitution never said anyone was" 3/5 human".  The Enumeration Clause, dealing with how Representatives are apportioned, says this:
> 
> ". . . which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
> 
> Doesn't say a damned thing about anyone being a fraction of a human, or even a fraction of a person.
> 
> Property, on the other hand, they definitely WERE.  That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not they were "real human beings".  So again, if they weren't humans until the Civil Rights Act magically conveyed humanity upon them, what sort of animal were they?  Or perhaps they were insects?  Plants?
> 
> 
> 
> You've answered your own question but you're too stupid to see that. They were included in the phrase "all other persons." And you know who wasn't included in that phrase? The unborn. The founders didn't count the unborn as persons and neither do rational people.
> 
> Because they're not and the constitution backs that up.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know who else wasn't counted?
> 
> Women.
> 
> We needed a constitutional amendment to make it clear that females are people, too.
> 
> (Clearly, you're not familiar with the suffragettes.)
> 
> So let's go ahead and run with your argument and see where that takes us, eh?
Click to expand...

Wrong. Even the simplest research proves you wrong.



> The three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation.  The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth  of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to  population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a  committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied  by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of  every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes."[1][2]  The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include  slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount  of taxes to be paid. As Thomas Jefferson  wrote in his notes on the debates, the southern states would be taxed  "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the  northern would be taxed on numbers only."[3]


 wikipedia

Loser.


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions?  If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions.  Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and_ saving_ those innocent lives.  Figures you couldn't see that on your own.
> 
> I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you.  Typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder.  By anyone rational anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you completely and totally ignore my entire post, my entire point.  Unfuckingbelievable.  Punishing the woman isn't my ballyiwick, it's yours so stop projecting it onto me.  And your statement above makes zero sense.  Punishment does not dictate whether something is murder, the law does and unfortunately our law okayed the killing of unborn human beings. You are truly dumber than a rock.
> 
> I realize you want to put me into some kind of rw extremist box . . have fun with it because I'm not fitting and I'm not playing your game.  Once again, punishing the woman isn't what pro-life is about it is about preventing abortion thus _preventing the destruction of innocent human life_.
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder.  By anyone rational anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for having the patience to try to reason with these wackos.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And look at you clapping along like a trained seal or something.  You know what?  Good.  Remember this the next time you try and pigeon hole me with your "pro-lifers don't care about the woman they only care about the unborn" bullshit.  mmmkay?
> 
> 
> Neither one of you have answered JB's question:
> 
> "At what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?"
> 
> Want to try answering this or are you just going to bounce back with more projection?  Never mind, I already know the answer to _that _question.
Click to expand...

Hey there, little ankle biter. Having another meltdown?


----------



## AllieBaba

Well that was fairly convoluted. You are saying you understand babies can't live without assistance, but if you have to give them assistance to live, they aren't really alive?

You do realize that fertilized eggs are started in petrie dishes and transplanted into women, right? So technically, they are living, with assistance, outside of the mother. 

And we are able to keep babies at younger and younger ages alive. What will happen to your argument when we are able to maintain life and grown of babies from that magical 4-week point? What will the justification be then for allowing mothers to kill them, when if a stranger would do it, it would be murder?


----------



## AllieBaba

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've answered your own question but you're too stupid to see that. They were included in the phrase "all other persons." And you know who wasn't included in that phrase? The unborn. The founders didn't count the unborn as persons and neither do rational people.
> 
> Because they're not and the constitution backs that up.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know who else wasn't counted?
> 
> Women.
> 
> We needed a constitutional amendment to make it clear that females are people, too.
> 
> (Clearly, you're not familiar with the suffragettes.)
> 
> So let's go ahead and run with your argument and see where that takes us, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Even the simplest research proves you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes."[1][2] The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only."[3]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wikipedia
> 
> Loser.
Click to expand...

 
Wiki is find for information for which there is no argument. It's a great source for getting information about documents, recorded history, established government frameworks, etc.

And I would love to see what research proves him wrong. Please provide it.


----------



## JBeukema

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that a fetus is an organism?  Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism.  You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier.  Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.
> 
> What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient.  For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"
> 
> Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not.  But whether it lives outside of its environment doesn't determine its humanness or not.  Humans beget humans.  From conception to delivery and beyond, they are human beings.  Different stages to be sure, but human beings at each and every stage.
> 
> If I took you as you are right now and plopped you in the middle of Siberia you'd be dead within the hour.  Does that make you less human because you're unprepared and unequipped to survive in a hostile environment?
> 
> This is the part that I think many are not getting.  Developmental stages of a  human being are just that . . . stages of development.  But what is living and growing inside of a woman is a human being.  How can you possibly say it is anything else?  That it is just a blob of tissue?  If it were just a blob of tissue, if it isn't "life" as you claim . . . then an abortion wouldn't be something a woman would seek.
> 
> I posted these definitions earlier and they went ignored.
> 
> Abortion:  the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
> 
> Pregnancy:  1.     the state or condition of being pregnant 2.  the period from conception to childbirth
Click to expand...


Once again, Arthur Koestler comes to mind. Clearly, they _need_ to have been something other than human when they were at their youngest. I do not believe it is an inability to be honest with others so much as an inability to admit _to themselves_ what they advocate and/or have done. 

This cognitive dissonance seems to be a defense mechanism born out of a deep moral conundrum: they believe in their heart of hearts that they are murderers but they also need to believe they are good people, so they must find a way to convince _themselves_ that what their actions are okay. Since they cannot convince themselves that killing the innocent and defenseless is acceptable, they instead undergo complex mental gymnastics to convince themselves that the child was somehow not alive or not human.

That is why they become so emotional during these discussions. I have had more than one of them try every attempt to spin their way around from the simple fact that their actions led to the death of a human being. Ultimately, their final response boils down to pure emotion. They are angry because the facts lead them to conclude they are murderers. That realization, that conclusion, that judgment of their own actions they are so desperate to avoid facing is their primary motivation. They cannot reconcile what they know to be true with what they need to believe, so they construct for themselves a unique faith that, like so any other faiths we commonly call religion, places the cause above the facts. 

_To   deny the truth is an act of service. This, of course, is why  it is   useless to discuss any particular aspect of [the matter] with  [these people]. Any genuine intellectual contact which you have  with  her  involves a challenge to her fundamental faith, a struggle for  her  soul._
-Adapted from Arthur Koestler's contribution to [ame="http://www.amazon.com/God-That-Failed-Arthur-Koestler/dp/0231123957/"]_The God That Failed_[/ame]

It is also why they so oft feel the need to claim that only the religious Right opposes abortion for moral or religious reasons. If opposition to the act can be deemed merely a religious objection, then it can be dismissed as merely a different faith.​


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder.  By anyone rational anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you completely and totally ignore my entire post, my entire point.  Unfuckingbelievable.  Punishing the woman isn't my ballyiwick, it's yours so stop projecting it onto me.  And your statement above makes zero sense.  Punishment does not dictate whether something is murder, the law does and unfortunately our law okayed the killing of unborn human beings. You are truly dumber than a rock.
> 
> I realize you want to put me into some kind of rw extremist box . . have fun with it because I'm not fitting and I'm not playing your game.  Once again, punishing the woman isn't what pro-life is about it is about preventing abortion thus _preventing the destruction of innocent human life_.
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for having the patience to try to reason with these wackos.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And look at you clapping along like a trained seal or something.  You know what?  Good.  Remember this the next time you try and pigeon hole me with your "pro-lifers don't care about the woman they only care about the unborn" bullshit.  mmmkay?
> 
> 
> Neither one of you have answered JB's question:
> 
> "At what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?"
> 
> Want to try answering this or are you just going to bounce back with more projection?  Never mind, I already know the answer to _that _question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey there, little ankle biter. Having another meltdown?
Click to expand...


Another?  I never had a first one, let alone a second  . . .  that was wishful thinking on your part. 

btw, you forgot to answer the question.


----------



## Anguille

xsited1 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Babies can't survive period without someone assisting them.
> 
> It's a worthless argument..that something isn't human because it can't feed and clothe itself. It's patently untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never suggested that babies can survive on their own without assistance.
> 
> I do ask the still unanswered question: Will 4 week old fetal tissue that has been c-sectioned out have "life"?  Feel free to give it all the assistance you want, all the life saving support you want but will it have "life"?  Is there something there to save that will live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not today, but medical science is advancing at a remarkable rate and it wouldn't surprise me if in the future a 4 week old could be taken out of the womb and allowed to develop in an incubator.
Click to expand...

Better yet, implanted into a man. I can't wait to see how some men suddenly see the light when it becomes a case of *them* getting pregnant.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> at fertilization it bears not the slightest resemblance to a human being.




So, basically, your argument boils down to: 'Killing the ******* and chinks isn't wrong because they don't look like me?'


----------



## syrenn

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that a fetus is an organism?  Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism.  You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier.  Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.
> 
> What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient.  For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"
> 
> Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not.  But whether it lives outside of its environment doesn't determine its humanness or not.  Humans beget humans.  From conception to delivery and beyond, they are human beings.  Different stages to be sure, but human beings at each and every stage.
> 
> If I took you as you are right now and plopped you in the middle of Siberia you'd be dead within the hour.  Does that make you less human because you're unprepared and unequipped to survive in a hostile environment?
> 
> This is the part that I think many are not getting.  Developmental stages of a  human being are just that . . . stages of development.  But what is living and growing inside of a woman is a human being.  How can you possibly say it is anything else?  That it is just a blob of tissue?  If it were just a blob of tissue, if it isn't "life" as you claim . . . then an abortion wouldn't be something a woman would seek.
> 
> I posted these definitions earlier and they went ignored.
> 
> Abortion:  the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
> 
> Pregnancy:  1. 	the state or condition of being pregnant 2.  the period from conception to childbirth
Click to expand...



Where do i say that the tissue is not human? Where do i ever say it is not living tissue? Don't misunderstand what i am saying. 

Do i say plop the tissue out into Siberia? I say put it on the table. Have that 4 week old mass of tissue worked over any way you want and given all the life support it can get. Will it live?

No one has the right to force someone else to be an incubator for a something that can be construed as a parasite. I know those are harsh terms but it is what it is. 4 week old fetal human tissue _cannot survive _without its host. 

Again, i do not say abortion  do i? I say c- section, a form of birth. *Birth *effectively ends pregnancy.

JB asks is it human from conception. Yes it is
Jb asks is that tissue alive. Yes it is

Alive and having a _life of its own _are two very different things.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> i advocate abortion of unwanted children.
> 
> 
> 
> Killing off the unwanted.
> 
> Where have we heard that before?
> 
> 
> No wonder PP was founded by a eugenicist. Explains the name, too, when you think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hitler?  lol
Click to expand...

Not quite

Margaret Sanger

Founded PP in the hopes that the negroes could be convinced to remove themselves from the planet


----------



## syrenn

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that a fetus is an organism?  Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism.  You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier.  Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.
> 
> What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient.  For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as* i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"*
> 
> Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what exactly is the point of abortion?
Click to expand...



Do I say abortion? 

I say give it birth with a c- section.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> I will stipulate that it is human.  I will stipulate that it is an organism.  I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.




So... at what point did what change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?


----------



## Immanuel

syrenn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"
> 
> Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what pray tell gives you the right to make the decision that it does not have life as far as you are concerned?
> 
> Forgive me because you and I are friends and I respect much of what you say but dagnamit, who made you God?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Will 4 week old C-sectioned out tissue live? Will it be a baby?  That is what gives me the right to say it is not a life as far as i am concerned. The tissue is living, the tissue is human but the tissue does not have stand alone life.
> 
> I do not pretend to be god. I do understand life and what a baby is. 4 week old tissue is not a baby.
> 
> I get the part where everyone is crying "murder" over an abortion. A C-sections is not an abortion. A C-section would be giving birth to what ever it is that is there.  How hard is that for everyone to understand?
> 
> If 4 week old tissue has a life of its own..i am saying give it that life. Give it a c-sectioned birth. The woman no longer has it inside her body, it has not been destroyed in an abortion. If the tissue is a baby let it have it live if it has a life. You could also say..let god decide.
Click to expand...


No, Syrenn you are not saying give it life.  As of today's medical technology you know full well that removing it from the womb is a death sentence.  You are in fact, playing God.



> 4 week old tissue is not a baby.



This is nothing more than your opinion.  My opinion is that you are 100% wrong.  It is a baby in a very early stage of development and I am pretty sure that biology back me up on that.

Immie


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what pray tell gives you the right to make the decision that it does not have life as far as you are concerned?
> 
> Forgive me because you and I are friends and I respect much of what you say but dagnamit, who made you God?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will 4 week old C-sectioned out tissue live? Will it be a baby?  That is what gives me the right to say it is not a life as far as i am concerned. The tissue is living, the tissue is human but the tissue does not have stand alone life.
> 
> I do not pretend to be god. I do understand life and what a baby is. 4 week old tissue is not a baby.
> 
> I get the part where everyone is crying "murder" over an abortion. A C-sections is not an abortion. A C-section would be giving birth to what ever it is that is there.  How hard is that for everyone to understand?
> 
> If 4 week old tissue has a life of its own..i am saying give it that life. Give it a c-sectioned birth. The woman no longer has it inside her body, it has not been destroyed in an abortion. If the tissue is a baby let it have it live if it has a life. You could also say..let god decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Syrenn you are not saying give it life.  As of today's medical technology you know full well that removing it from the womb is a death sentence.  You are in fact, playing God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 week old tissue is not a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is nothing more than your opinion.  My opinion is that you are 100% wrong.  It is a baby in a very early stage of development and I am pretty sure that biology back me up on that.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Except biology doesn't back you up. It's crazy forced birthers who call fetuses babies, not scientists. 

I think we can all agree, however, that there is a  big difference between something that breathes on it's own and something that does not.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> [
> I get the part where everyone is crying "murder" over an abortion.



The only people in this thread who seem to think abortion is murder are the pro-abortionists. If you didn't know in your own heart that you advocate the cold-blooded murder of a child, you wouldn't have to lie to yourself about what you advocate and try to convince yourself that we're somehow dealing with a not-alive non-human- non-organism.



> A C-sections is not an abortion.


If used to end the pregnancy and end bring about the child's death, yet it is.





> A C-section would be giving birth to what ever it is that is there.  How hard is that for everyone to understand?



Anyone else reminded of 'partial birth'?





> If 4 week old tissue has a life of its own




So it *is* 'stand-alone life'? Can you please one story and stick with it?





> let god decide.


I don't believe in your god


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've answered your own question but you're too stupid to see that. They were included in the phrase "all other persons." And you know who wasn't included in that phrase? The unborn. The founders didn't count the unborn as persons and neither do rational people.
> 
> Because they're not and the constitution backs that up.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know who else wasn't counted?
> 
> Women.
> 
> We needed a constitutional amendment to make it clear that females are people, too.
> 
> (Clearly, you're not familiar with the suffragettes.)
> 
> So let's go ahead and run with your argument and see where that takes us, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Even the simplest research proves you wrong.
Click to expand...



19th Amendment. If women were people, they'd have been covered by previous Constitutional language.


----------



## Zoom-boing

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"
> 
> Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  But whether it lives outside of its environment doesn't determine its humanness or not.  Humans beget humans.  From conception to delivery and beyond, they are human beings.  Different stages to be sure, but human beings at each and every stage.
> 
> If I took you as you are right now and plopped you in the middle of Siberia you'd be dead within the hour.  Does that make you less human because you're unprepared and unequipped to survive in a hostile environment?
> 
> This is the part that I think many are not getting.  Developmental stages of a  human being are just that . . . stages of development.  But what is living and growing inside of a woman is a human being.  How can you possibly say it is anything else?  That it is just a blob of tissue?  If it were just a blob of tissue, if it isn't "life" as you claim . . . then an abortion wouldn't be something a woman would seek.
> 
> I posted these definitions earlier and they went ignored.
> 
> Abortion:  the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
> 
> Pregnancy:  1. 	the state or condition of being pregnant 2.  the period from conception to childbirth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where do i say that the tissue is not human? Where do i ever say it is not living tissue? Don't misunderstand what i am saying.
> 
> Do i say plop the tissue out into Siberia? I say put it on the table. Have that 4 week old mass of tissue worked over any way you want and given all the life support it can get. Will it live?
> 
> No one has the right to force someone else to be an incubator for a something that can be construed as a parasite. I know those are harsh terms but it is what it is. 4 week old fetal human tissue _cannot survive _without its host.
> 
> Again, i do not say abortion  do i? I say c- section, a form of birth. *Birth *effectively ends pregnancy.
> 
> JB asks is it human from conception. Yes it is
> Jb asks is that tissue alive. Yes it is
> 
> Alive and having a _life of its own _are two very different things.
Click to expand...


Do you not understand that human beings develop through various stages before they are fully capable of living outside of the womb?  Whether you c-section it out, deliver it out, abort . . .what means you use . . . how can you expect a human being in the earliest stages to survive in an environment it is not yet equipped to survive in?  Surviving -- _viability_ -- doesn't determine if a fetus is a human being or not.  That 'blob of living tissue' you refer to IS a human being in one of the earliest stages of development.  To state otherwise is a lie.

I never said to put a 4 week fetus into Siberia . . . I said if _you _were to be plopped into Siberia, as you are right at this moment, you'd die within an hour because you are neither prepared nor equipped to survive in that environment. . . just as a human being taken from it's environment too soon is not prepared or equipped to survive in that environment.  

Does putting you into a hostile environment (in which you will surely die) make you less human?  Because if I'm understanding your argument, you're saying that putting a 4 week fetus into a hostile environment (in which it will surely die) makes it less human.


----------



## syrenn

Immanuel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human.  I will stipulate that it is an organism.  I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?
> 
> A fetus is human.  No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.
> 
> The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter.  What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number.  We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.
> 
> Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work.  We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



I don't disagree with you one bit. The goal is to not have so many pregnancies. 

The problem i have with the pro life people is that they do not adopt the children that are unwanted. They talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk when it comes time to raise up all of these little people. I dont see many pro lifers who are willing to give up their time and money and homes to support the masses in the foster care system now. 

The alternative would be for every who is pro life to register as pro life and get in line for the  adoption of next baby that is born who is wanted. I don't see that happening any time soon.


----------



## Ravi

AllieBaba said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know who else wasn't counted?
> 
> Women.
> 
> We needed a constitutional amendment to make it clear that females are people, too.
> 
> (Clearly, you're not familiar with the suffragettes.)
> 
> So let's go ahead and run with your argument and see where that takes us, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Even the simplest research proves you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes."[1][2] The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only."[3]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wikipedia
> 
> Loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki is find for information for which there is no argument. It's a great source for getting information about documents, recorded history, established government frameworks, etc.
> 
> And I would love to see what research proves him wrong. Please provide it.
Click to expand...

It's right there in black and white, Babble, I'm just sorry you are too retarded to understand that women were counted as persons as were blacks, thus destroying one of Buttemia's pet arguments.


----------



## syrenn

xsited1 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Babies can't survive period without someone assisting them.
> 
> It's a worthless argument..that something isn't human because it can't feed and clothe itself. It's patently untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never suggested that babies can survive on their own without assistance.
> 
> I do ask the still unanswered question: Will 4 week old fetal tissue that has been c-sectioned out have "life"?  Feel free to give it all the assistance you want, all the life saving support you want but will it have "life"?  Is there something there to save that will live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not today, but medical science is advancing at a remarkable rate and it wouldn't surprise me if in the future a 4 week old could be taken out of the womb and allowed to develop in an incubator.
Click to expand...


And i am good with that.


----------



## JBeukema

Anguille said:


> I think we can all agree, however, that there is a  big difference between something that breathes on it's own and something that does not.








?


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know who else wasn't counted?
> 
> Women.
> 
> We needed a constitutional amendment to make it clear that females are people, too.
> 
> (Clearly, you're not familiar with the suffragettes.)
> 
> So let's go ahead and run with your argument and see where that takes us, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Even the simplest research proves you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 19th Amendment. If women were people, they'd have been covered by previous Constitutional language.
Click to expand...

What a coward you are, Buttemia.


----------



## syrenn

AllieBaba said:


> Well that was fairly convoluted. You are saying you understand babies can't live without assistance, but if you have to give them assistance to live, they aren't really alive?
> 
> You do realize that fertilized eggs are started in petrie dishes and transplanted into women, right? So technically, they are living, with assistance, outside of the mother.
> 
> And we are able to keep babies at younger and younger ages alive. What will happen to your argument when we are able to maintain life and grown of babies from that magical 4-week point? What will the justification be then for allowing mothers to kill them, when if a stranger would do it, it would be murder?




Do i say abortion? Do i say killing?


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human.  I will stipulate that it is an organism.  I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?
> 
> A fetus is human.  No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.
> 
> The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter.  What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number.  We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.
> 
> Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work.  We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you one bit. The goal is to not have so many pregnancies.
Click to expand...


Stop fucking every Tom, Dick, and Harry without birth control

Take the pill, use a condom, wash with foam, stop being a slut. With these simple steps, you can avoid pregnancy.


----------



## R.D.

syrenn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you one bit.* The goal is to not have so many pregnancies.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this before and don't know if it was answered (long thread)
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that was fairly convoluted. You are saying you understand babies can't live without assistance, but if you have to give them assistance to live, they aren't really alive?
> 
> You do realize that fertilized eggs are started in petrie dishes and transplanted into women, right? So technically, they are living, with assistance, outside of the mother.
> 
> And we are able to keep babies at younger and younger ages alive. What will happen to your argument when we are able to maintain life and grown of babies from that magical 4-week point? What will the justification be then for allowing mothers to kill them, when if a stranger would do it, it would be murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do i say abortion? Do i say killing?
Click to expand...


No, you can't admit to yourself what you advocate because you know it's indefensible.


----------



## AllieBaba

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Killing off the unwanted.
> 
> Where have we heard that before?
> 
> 
> No wonder PP was founded by a eugenicist. Explains the name, too, when you think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not quite
> 
> Margaret Sanger
> 
> Founded PP in the hopes that the negroes could be convinced to remove themselves from the planet
Click to expand...

 
Not just blacks, but all types of "undesirables". She wanted to eliminate poor people, stupid people, people with imperfections either mentally, financially, or physically.

She was a hard core eugenecist (sorry, I have a hard time with that spelling). They soft soap it now (lots of revision going on), but it's true nonetheless.


----------



## AllieBaba

R.D. said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you one bit.* The goal is to not have so many pregnancies.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this before and don't know if it was answered (long thread)
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought the goal was to reduce abortions...
> 
> If we're reducing pregnancy, then you might as well keep abortion because it's certainly effective for THAT.
Click to expand...


----------



## Anguille

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?
> 
> A fetus is human.  No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.
> 
> The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter.  What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number.  We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.
> 
> Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work.  We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you one bit. The goal is to not have so many pregnancies.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop fucking every Tom, Dick, and Harry without birth control
> 
> Take the pill, use a condom, wash with foam, *stop being a slut.* With these simple steps, you can avoid pregnancy.
Click to expand...


Clearly, Puke-Enema has not been gettin' any for a long time.


----------



## syrenn

Immanuel said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what pray tell gives you the right to make the decision that it does not have life as far as you are concerned?
> 
> Forgive me because you and I are friends and I respect much of what you say but dagnamit, who made you God?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will 4 week old C-sectioned out tissue live? Will it be a baby?  That is what gives me the right to say it is not a life as far as i am concerned. The tissue is living, the tissue is human but the tissue does not have stand alone life.
> 
> I do not pretend to be god. I do understand life and what a baby is. 4 week old tissue is not a baby.
> 
> I get the part where everyone is crying "murder" over an abortion. A C-sections is not an abortion. A C-section would be giving birth to what ever it is that is there.  How hard is that for everyone to understand?
> 
> If 4 week old tissue has a life of its own..i am saying give it that life. Give it a c-sectioned birth. The woman no longer has it inside her body, it has not been destroyed in an abortion. If the tissue is a baby let it have it live if it has a life. You could also say..let god decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Syrenn you are not saying give it life.  As of today's medical technology you know full well that removing it from the womb is a death sentence.  You are in fact, playing God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 week old tissue is not a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is nothing more than your opinion.  My opinion is that you are 100% wrong.  It is a baby in a very early stage of development and I am pretty sure that biology back me up on that.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Yes, i do know very well that 4 week old tissue will not survive. Therefor it is not a stand alone life and is dependent on a host. If god is going to come into this then god has the ability to make it live. 

The whole abortion issue is ALL about opinion. No ones opinions are ever in line with others.


----------



## JBeukema

Anguille said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you one bit. The goal is to not have so many pregnancies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop fucking every Tom, Dick, and Harry without birth control
> 
> Take the pill, use a condom, wash with foam, *stop being a slut.* With these simple steps, you can avoid pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, Puke-Enema has not been gettin' any for a long time.
Click to expand...



I don't believe in sleeping with someone if I can't fathom myself being the father of her children and being happy rearing our child together.

Maybe if you people adopted a similar standard you wouldn't have to struggle with knowing you're murderers.


----------



## R.D.

AllieBaba said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this before and don't know if it was answered (long thread)
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the goal was to reduce abortions...
> 
> If we're reducing pregnancy, then you might as well keep abortion because it's certainly effective for THAT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tru dat
> 
> 
> I just can wrap my brain around a defender of abortion agreeing that they should be reduced.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ravi

I'm surprised Buttemia isn't arguing that anyone under 18 isn't a person because they aren't allowed to vote. He thinks women only became persons when they were allowed to vote.



The guy is just that stupid.


----------



## Anguille

JBeukema said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop fucking every Tom, Dick, and Harry without birth control
> 
> Take the pill, use a condom, wash with foam, *stop being a slut.* With these simple steps, you can avoid pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, Puke-Enema has not been gettin' any for a long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in sleeping with someone if I can't fathom myself being the father of her children and being happy rearing our child together.
> 
> Maybe if you people adopted a similar standard you wouldn't have to struggle with knowing you're murderers.
Click to expand...


So I was right. You ain't been gettin' none.


----------



## JBeukema

So they were people but not citizens?

Or citizens but not people?

I'm pretty sure they were recognized as citizens.

It's your argument. I don't give a shit what the law has to say.

Spousal rape was legal until the early 90s in the U.S.

When you appeal to the Law, you prove yourself a Statist with no principles.


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will 4 week old C-sectioned out tissue live? Will it be a baby?  That is what gives me the right to say it is not a life as far as i am concerned. The tissue is living, the tissue is human but the tissue does not have stand alone life.
> 
> I do not pretend to be god. I do understand life and what a baby is. 4 week old tissue is not a baby.
> 
> I get the part where everyone is crying "murder" over an abortion. A C-sections is not an abortion. A C-section would be giving birth to what ever it is that is there.  How hard is that for everyone to understand?
> 
> If 4 week old tissue has a life of its own..i am saying give it that life. Give it a c-sectioned birth. The woman no longer has it inside her body, it has not been destroyed in an abortion. If the tissue is a baby let it have it live if it has a life. You could also say..let god decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Syrenn you are not saying give it life.  As of today's medical technology you know full well that removing it from the womb is a death sentence.  You are in fact, playing God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 week old tissue is not a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is nothing more than your opinion.  My opinion is that you are 100% wrong.  It is a baby in a very early stage of development and I am pretty sure that biology back me up on that.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except biology doesn't back you up. It's crazy forced birthers who call fetuses babies, not scientists.
> 
> I think we can all agree, however, that there is a  big difference between something that breathes on it's own and something that does not.
Click to expand...


Biology does back me up that a human zygote is a human.
Biology does back me up that a human embryo is a human.
Biology does back me up that a human fetus is a human.
Biology does back me up that a human infant is a human.
Biology does back me up that a human toddler is a human.
Biology does back me up that a human teenager is a human.  Well, I think I had better check on that one first.  
Biology does back me up that a human adult is a human.

No, we cannot come to that agreement using the apparent definition of "difference" you seem to want to use.

Immie


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> So they were people but not citizens?
> 
> Or citizens but not people?
> 
> I'm pretty sure they were recognized as citizens.
> 
> It's your argument. I don't give a shit what the law has to say.
> 
> Spousal rape was legal until the early 90s in the U.S.
> 
> When you appeal to the Law, you prove yourself a Statist with no principles.


Who are you talking to, Buttemia? It has always been your argument that slaves weren't persons but you've been proven wrong. By the constitution, the very document you pretend to understand and worship.

Delicious!


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> The only people in this thread who seem to think abortion is murder are the pro-abortionists. If you didn't know in your own heart that you advocate the cold-blooded murder of a child, you wouldn't have to lie to yourself about what you advocate and try to convince yourself that we're somehow dealing with a not-alive non-human- non-organism.





I have never said that fetal tissue was not alive, non human or a non organism. You do however do say that abortions is = to murder. 



JBeukema said:


> If used to end the pregnancy and end bring about the child's death, yet it is.




The procedures for an abortion and a c-section are very different. A c- section is a from of birth 





JBeukema said:


> So it *is* 'stand-alone life'? Can you please one story and stick with it?



Then if it IS a stand alone life and not just living tissue... give it birth so that it can live.  How hard is that to understand?





JBeukema said:


> I don't believe in your god




What makes you think its my god? 

.


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Syrenn you are not saying give it life.  As of today's medical technology you know full well that removing it from the womb is a death sentence.  You are in fact, playing God.
> 
> 
> 
> This is nothing more than your opinion.  My opinion is that you are 100% wrong.  It is a baby in a very early stage of development and I am pretty sure that biology back me up on that.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except biology doesn't back you up. It's crazy forced birthers who call fetuses babies, not scientists.
> 
> I think we can all agree, however, that there is a  big difference between something that breathes on it's own and something that does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biology does back me up that a human zygote is a human.
> Biology does back me up that a human embryo is a human.
> Biology does back me up that a human fetus is a human.
> Biology does back me up that a human infant is a human.
> Biology does back me up that a human toddler is a human.
> Biology does back me up that a human teenager is a human.  Well, I think I had better check on that one first.
> Biology does back me up that a human adult is a human.
> 
> No, we cannot come to that agreement using the apparent definition of "difference" you seem to want to use.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

This was not your original statement.


----------



## Anguille

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they were people but not citizens?
> 
> Or citizens but not people?
> 
> I'm pretty sure they were recognized as citizens.
> 
> It's your argument. I don't give a shit what the law has to say.
> 
> Spousal rape was legal until the early 90s in the U.S.
> 
> When you appeal to the Law, you prove yourself a Statist with no principles.
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to, Buttemia? It has always been your argument that slaves weren't persons but you've been proven wrong. By the constitution, the very document you pretend to understand and worship.
> 
> Delicious!
Click to expand...

He will say anything, anything at all, to get a little attention.


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they were people but not citizens?
> 
> Or citizens but not people?
> 
> I'm pretty sure they were recognized as citizens.
> 
> It's your argument. I don't give a shit what the law has to say.
> 
> Spousal rape was legal until the early 90s in the U.S.
> 
> When you appeal to the Law, you prove yourself a Statist with no principles.
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to, Buttemia? It has always been your argument that slaves weren't persons
Click to expand...




You're the only one to claim that the Constitution had anything to do with whether or not a human being is a person



Ravi said:


> They were included in the phrase "all other  persons." And you know who wasn't included in that phrase? The unborn.  The founders didn't count the unborn as persons and neither do rational  people.
> 
> Because they're not and the constitution backs that up.





> By the constitution, the very document you pretend to understand and worship.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> The procedures for an abortion and a c-section are very different. A c- section is a from of birth



An abortion is anything done that ends the life of the unborn child. Methodology has nothing to do with it.



> What makes you think its my god?
> 
> .


You're the only one bringing your god into it


----------



## Immanuel

syrenn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human.  I will stipulate that it is an organism.  I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?
> 
> A fetus is human.  No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.
> 
> The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter.  What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number.  We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.
> 
> Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work.  We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you one bit. The goal is to not have so many pregnancies.
> 
> The problem i have with the pro life people is that they do not adopt the children that are unwanted. They talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk when it comes time to raise up all of these little people. I dont see many pro lifers who are willing to give up their time and money and homes to support the masses in the foster care system now.
> 
> The alternative would be for every who is pro life to register as pro life and get in line for the  adoption of next baby that is born who is wanted. I don't see that happening any time soon.
Click to expand...


I would hope that you meant so many unwanted pregnancies.

I have not yet adopted nor have I been privileged enough to take in foster children.  It has been our goal to do so when our children grow up and move out.  So far they have achieved the grow up part, but I have not found the key to get them to move out 

But we have in the past supported organizations that support mothers in crisis pregnancies.

Situations do not always warrant the taking in of other children.



> I dont see many pro lifers who are willing to give up their time and money and homes to support the masses in the foster care system now.



Maybe you just aren't looking?  And maybe if you are talking about people on sites such as this one, they simply are not talking about it.  The bible says (paraphrased) not to toot your own horn.  



> The alternative would be for every who is pro life to register as pro life and get in line for the  adoption of next baby that is born who is wanted. I don't see that happening any time soon.



I would actually love to be foster parents, but truthfully, I am not even sure they would allow me to be as we were at one time accused of a crime we did not commit... we were accused of neglect and I said, we did not commit that crime.  Nothing worse than having a damned bureaucrat knocking on your door threatening to take your children away from you if you don't drop your drawers and bend over!

Immie


----------



## syrenn

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  But whether it lives outside of its environment doesn't determine its humanness or not.  Humans beget humans.  From conception to delivery and beyond, they are human beings.  Different stages to be sure, but human beings at each and every stage.
> 
> If I took you as you are right now and plopped you in the middle of Siberia you'd be dead within the hour.  Does that make you less human because you're unprepared and unequipped to survive in a hostile environment?
> 
> This is the part that I think many are not getting.  Developmental stages of a  human being are just that . . . stages of development.  But what is living and growing inside of a woman is a human being.  How can you possibly say it is anything else?  That it is just a blob of tissue?  If it were just a blob of tissue, if it isn't "life" as you claim . . . then an abortion wouldn't be something a woman would seek.
> 
> I posted these definitions earlier and they went ignored.
> 
> Abortion:  the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
> 
> Pregnancy:  1. 	the state or condition of being pregnant 2.  the period from conception to childbirth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do i say that the tissue is not human? Where do i ever say it is not living tissue? Don't misunderstand what i am saying.
> 
> Do i say plop the tissue out into Siberia? I say put it on the table. Have that 4 week old mass of tissue worked over any way you want and given all the life support it can get. Will it live?
> 
> No one has the right to force someone else to be an incubator for a something that can be construed as a parasite. I know those are harsh terms but it is what it is. 4 week old fetal human tissue _cannot survive _without its host.
> 
> Again, i do not say abortion  do i? I say c- section, a form of birth. *Birth *effectively ends pregnancy.
> 
> JB asks is it human from conception. Yes it is
> Jb asks is that tissue alive. Yes it is
> 
> Alive and having a _life of its own _are two very different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not understand that human beings develop through various stages before they are fully capable of living outside of the womb?  Whether you c-section it out, deliver it out, abort . . .what means you use . . . how can you expect a human being in the earliest stages to survive in an environment it is not yet equipped to survive in?  Surviving -- _viability_ -- doesn't determine if a fetus is a human being or not.  That 'blob of living tissue' you refer to IS a human being in one of the earliest stages of development.  To state otherwise is a lie.
> 
> I never said to put a 4 week fetus into Siberia . . . I said if _you _were to be plopped into Siberia, as you are right at this moment, you'd die within an hour because you are neither prepared nor equipped to survive in that environment. . . just as a human being taken from it's environment too soon is not prepared or equipped to survive in that environment.
> 
> Does putting you into a hostile environment (in which you will surely die) make you less human?  Because if I'm understanding your argument, you're saying that putting a 4 week fetus into a hostile environment (in which it will surely die) makes it less human.
Click to expand...




Yes, i know the developmental cycle of humans. 

Again, i don't not dispute that the tissue is human. Nor have i stated that it is not human.

As you say yourself, 4 week old fetal tissue is not viable. And that is rather my point.  Viability is what gives it life. It has nothing to do with it being more, or less, human.


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?
> 
> A fetus is human.  No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.
> 
> The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter.  What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number.  We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.
> 
> Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work.  We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you one bit. The goal is to not have so many pregnancies.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop fucking every Tom, Dick, and Harry without birth control
> 
> Take the pill, use a condom, wash with foam, stop being a slut. With these simple steps, you can avoid pregnancy.
Click to expand...



Stop fucking every Tina, Donna and Harriot, stop being a man whore and use a condom. 

Do i say anything to disagree with birth control?


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> Viability is what gives it life.


Viability is a meaningless subjective term.

You cannot survive without your gut flora


You cannot survive out of your environment


If I cut your femoral artery, you cannot survive without drastic medical intervention


None of these facts make you 'not a life'

How remain a twit, however

I'm sorry for you. Hopefully some day you can accept that you are a murderer, forgive yourself, and move truly move on.


----------



## syrenn

R.D. said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you one bit.* The goal is to not have so many pregnancies.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this before and don't know if it was answered (long thread)
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...



Why in the world would anyone ever try to get pregnant only to end it?  The goal of less unplanned pregnancies would be less abortions.


----------



## JBeukema

1/3 of abortions are repeat business

The whole birth control sob story is bullshit


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that was fairly convoluted. You are saying you understand babies can't live without assistance, but if you have to give them assistance to live, they aren't really alive?
> 
> You do realize that fertilized eggs are started in petrie dishes and transplanted into women, right? So technically, they are living, with assistance, outside of the mother.
> 
> And we are able to keep babies at younger and younger ages alive. What will happen to your argument when we are able to maintain life and grown of babies from that magical 4-week point? What will the justification be then for allowing mothers to kill them, when if a stranger would do it, it would be murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do i say abortion? Do i say killing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't admit to yourself what you advocate because you know it's indefensible.
Click to expand...



Oh, and what is that? I know exactly what it is that i advocate.


----------



## R.D.

syrenn said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this before and don't know if it was answered (long thread)
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why in the world would anyone ever try to get pregnant only to end it?  The goal of less unplanned pregnancies would be less abortions.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today abortions are birth control.  Its not they tried rather they didn't care enough to try not to.
Click to expand...


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> I know exactly what it is that i advocate.


Why can't you admit it to yourself? Why dance around it all this time?

Also, a child might be 'viable' in one room but not another, depending simply on gepgraphic location and proximity to medical personnel and equipment.

If killing these children is okay, why can't you just say 'I support killing innocent and defenseless young children and believe it okay because________'?

What about shooting you in the face today? Is that okay? You can't survive without numerous other lifeforms yourself. If killing you in cold blood is not okay, then why? What changed when that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> You're the only one bringing your god into it




 sorry to disappoint you but Immie was. the one to bring god into it. You responded to my response to him. Do keep up.


----------



## Ravi

Anguille said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they were people but not citizens?
> 
> Or citizens but not people?
> 
> I'm pretty sure they were recognized as citizens.
> 
> It's your argument. I don't give a shit what the law has to say.
> 
> Spousal rape was legal until the early 90s in the U.S.
> 
> When you appeal to the Law, you prove yourself a Statist with no principles.
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to, Buttemia? It has always been your argument that slaves weren't persons but you've been proven wrong. By the constitution, the very document you pretend to understand and worship.
> 
> Delicious!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will say anything, anything at all, to get a little attention.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it's pretty easy to conclude that he's a pathological liar. He certainly can't admit to being wrong, ever, and as you can see he twists everyone's words to mean something they don't.


----------



## AllieBaba

Ravi, that's just nonsense. He hasn't lied in this thread.

If he has, please point to it. I can think of many instances where you've lied, though...both about what people have said and about events.


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Viability is what gives it life.
> 
> 
> 
> Viability is a meaningless subjective term.
> 
> You cannot survive without your gut flora
> 
> 
> You cannot survive out of your environment
> 
> 
> If I cut your femoral artery, you cannot survive without drastic medical intervention
> 
> 
> None of these facts make you 'not a life'
> 
> How remain a twit, however
> 
> I'm sorry for you. Hopefully some day you can accept that you are a murderer, forgive yourself, and move truly move on.
Click to expand...


Viability is the exact issue, it is not subjective. It is the point where the living tissue has a "life" of its own. 

I don't see anyone not wanting to carry their gut flora for 9 months either. Nor do i see them trying to remove their mitochondria. We are specifically speaking of fetal tissue.

So long your environment does not require the forced rental of someone else's body, then i agree with you.  Individuals have the right to remove what ever the do not want from their own bodies.


----------



## beowolfe

Epsilon Delta said:


> Ok, so let's make it clear and honest: *Abortion is murder.*
> 
> It's just a form of murder I happen to agree with!



If abortion is murder, then capital punishment is also murder.  Also, it is not the government's position to tell a wome when she can or can not remove a fetus from her body.


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> 1/3 of abortions are repeat business
> 
> The whole birth control sob story is bullshit




I am also for forced sterilization...of all replete offenders. Both men and women alike.


----------



## AllieBaba

Told you folks.

Anyone who supports abortion supports population control and eugenics. ANYONE. I've never met one person who claims they support it for the sake of the children and the women who doesn't REALLY support it because they want to control other people's breeding habits.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's a living organism, but it's not a life?
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is a 'stand alone life' is not a living organism?
> 
> I swear, abortionism is a religion. You people sound like the YECs demanding creationism be taught in the schools, dancing around the definition of a scientific theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How dense are you?
> 
> Take your organism out of the womb and see if your organism lives. Rather simple don't you think?.
> 
> That is a stand alone life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's take you out of your natural habitat, too
> 
> how long can you survive in space or underwater?
Click to expand...


Apparently, the definition of "stand-alone life" is "being able to survive in whatever environment Syrenn arbitrarily decides you should, regardless of what environment Nature has actually designed you to live in".  Good to know abortionistas don't have a God complex or anything.


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what it is that i advocate.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you admit it to yourself? Why dance around it all this time?
> 
> Also, a child might be 'viable' in one room but not another, depending simply on gepgraphic location and proximity to medical personnel and equipment.
> 
> If killing these children is okay, why can't you just say 'I support killing innocent and defenseless young children and believe it okay because________'?
> 
> What about shooting you in the face today? Is that okay? You can't survive without numerous other lifeforms yourself. If killing you in cold blood is not okay, then why? What changed when that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
Click to expand...



Because 4 week old tissue is not a baby nor is it a child. Something you fail to understand.


----------



## syrenn

AllieBaba said:


> Told you folks.
> 
> Anyone who supports abortion supports population control and eugenics. ANYONE. I've never met one person who claims they support it for the sake of the children and the women who doesn't REALLY support it because they want to control other people's breeding habits.




JB here is a huge proponent of eugenics..or have you not been paying attention in other threads.


----------



## beowolfe

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1/3 of abortions are repeat business
> 
> The whole birth control sob story is bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am also for forced sterilization...of all replete offenders. Both men and women alike.
Click to expand...


And just who died and named you Hitler?


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to, Buttemia? It has always been your argument that slaves weren't persons but you've been proven wrong. By the constitution, the very document you pretend to understand and worship.
> 
> Delicious!
> 
> 
> 
> He will say anything, anything at all, to get a little attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I think it's pretty easy to conclude that he's a pathological liar. He certainly can't admit to being wrong, ever
Click to expand...



http://www.google.com/search?q=jbeukema+"not+the+first+time"+I've+been+wrong+site%3Ausmessageboard.com


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Babies can't survive period without someone assisting them.
> 
> It's a worthless argument..that something isn't human because it can't feed and clothe itself. It's patently untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never suggested that babies can survive on their own without assistance.
> 
> I do ask the still unanswered question: Will 4 week old fetal tissue that has been c-sectioned out have "life"?  Feel free to give it all the assistance you want, all the life saving support you want but will it have "life"?  Is there something there to save that will live?
Click to expand...


No, you just keep suggesting that being helpless somehow makes them "less alive" . . . at least when you WANT them to be.

What you're actually doing is repeating the already-many-times answered question, because you didn't like the answers and you DESPERATELY want to believe you're making some sort of important point.

One more time:  Yes, if you put a helpless being into an environment for which Nature never designed it, and ignore it, it will die.  Which still means that it was a living organism prior to you killing it.  Fragility does not disqualify anyone from humanity.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> Viability is the exact issue


So everyone in the ICU ceases to be a person? If I walk into the hospital and start shooting them the head, that's be okay?




> , it is not subjective.


Yes, it it. Preemies who could not be saved a decade ago can be saved today. 'Viability' is a meaningless buzzword.





> It is the point where the living tissue has a "life" of its own.



No, that's fertilization. Biology 101



> So long your environment does not require the forced rental of someone else's body


You had plenty of chances to avoid pregnancy. You could not fuck. You could use the pill, the rods, the foam, condoms, or a myriad of other methods of preventing pregnancy. You can use Plan B to prevent implantation of the zygote in the uterine wall...

Unless you've been strapped to a bed the whole time or something, you've had plenty of opportunity to not get pregnant. You made your decisions. You made your choices. Now it's time to grow up and be a big girl. If you're big enough to fuck, you're big enough to responsible- just like the guy who knocked you up. 

Are you big enough to make your own decisions and be responsible for them or not?


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what it is that i advocate.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you admit it to yourself? Why dance around it all this time?
> 
> Also, a child might be 'viable' in one room but not another, depending simply on gepgraphic location and proximity to medical personnel and equipment.
> 
> If killing these children is okay, why can't you just say 'I support killing innocent and defenseless young children and believe it okay because________'?
> 
> What about shooting you in the face today? Is that okay? You can't survive without numerous other lifeforms yourself. If killing you in cold blood is not okay, then why? What changed when that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because 4 week old tissue is not a baby nor is it a child. Something you fail to understand.
Click to expand...

There's a science by the name of Biology.

There's also something called Genetics.


They disagree with your religion.


----------



## beowolfe

AllieBaba said:


> Told you folks.
> 
> Anyone who supports abortion supports population control and eugenics. ANYONE. I've never met one person who claims they support it for the sake of the children and the women who doesn't REALLY support it because they want to control other people's breeding habits.



That would be true only if the government were forcing abortions on people.  You guys don't even seem to know the meaning of things that you propose (population control, eugenics).  I find it amazing that all of the people trying to give the government the right to decide what happens with a woman's body are predominately men!  I guess you still feel the need to control women.


----------



## Zoom-boing

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do i say that the tissue is not human? Where do i ever say it is not living tissue? Don't misunderstand what i am saying.
> 
> Do i say plop the tissue out into Siberia? I say put it on the table. Have that 4 week old mass of tissue worked over any way you want and given all the life support it can get. Will it live?
> 
> No one has the right to force someone else to be an incubator for a something that can be construed as a parasite. I know those are harsh terms but it is what it is. 4 week old fetal human tissue _cannot survive _without its host.
> 
> Again, i do not say abortion  do i? I say c- section, a form of birth. *Birth *effectively ends pregnancy.
> 
> JB asks is it human from conception. Yes it is
> Jb asks is that tissue alive. Yes it is
> 
> Alive and having a _life of its own _are two very different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand that human beings develop through various stages before they are fully capable of living outside of the womb?  Whether you c-section it out, deliver it out, abort . . .what means you use . . . how can you expect a human being in the earliest stages to survive in an environment it is not yet equipped to survive in?  Surviving -- _viability_ -- doesn't determine if a fetus is a human being or not.  That 'blob of living tissue' you refer to IS a human being in one of the earliest stages of development.  To state otherwise is a lie.
> 
> I never said to put a 4 week fetus into Siberia . . . I said if _you _were to be plopped into Siberia, as you are right at this moment, you'd die within an hour because you are neither prepared nor equipped to survive in that environment. . . just as a human being taken from it's environment too soon is not prepared or equipped to survive in that environment.
> 
> Does putting you into a hostile environment (in which you will surely die) make you less human?  Because if I'm understanding your argument, you're saying that putting a 4 week fetus into a hostile environment (in which it will surely die) makes it less human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, i know the developmental cycle of humans.
> 
> Again, i don't not dispute that the tissue is human. Nor have i stated that it is not human.
> 
> As you say yourself, 4 week old fetal tissue is not viable. And that is rather my point.  Viability is what gives it life. It has nothing to do with it being more, or less, human.
Click to expand...


Um, it isn't "tissue" it is a human being in the earliest stages of development.  

Viability gives it life?  I disagree with that.  You are a human being.  You would not be viable in Siberia as you are right at this moment.  Both are true statements.  The same statements can be applied to a fetus (substitute table for Siberia).  It is viable in the womb and it is a (early developing) human being, a human _life_.  Taken prematurely from it's environment and it will die.  It can only die if it was life to begin with.  Viability doesn't determine whether it is a human being.

So for you when the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb is when you would say no to abortion?  Anything prior to that and abortion is ok?  (just asking for clarification)

While we disagree on this issue, thank you for discussing it rationally and calming and not flinging falsehoods, like others in here have done.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> at fertilization it bears not the slightest resemblance to a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, basically, your argument boils down to: 'Killing the ******* and chinks isn't wrong because they don't look like me?'
Click to expand...


That, or "My own ignorance is enough reason for other people to die", since of course, an embryo at fertilization looks EXACTLY like a human being . . . all human beings look that way _at that stage of their lives_.  What Idiot Boy ACTUALLY means is that an embryo at fertilization doesn't look like AN ADULT HUMAN, and there's no reason he should.  My toddler doesn't look like an adult human being, either, but that doesn't mean HE'S not human.

And yes, NY, I realize that my toddler looks more like an adult human being than an embryo does, before you bother to triumphantly point that out.  This is because my toddler is much closer to being an adult than an embryo is.  Once again, both of them look EXACTLY like all human beings do AT THAT STAGE OF THEIR LIVES.


----------



## R.D.

beowolfe said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Told you folks.
> 
> Anyone who supports abortion supports population control and eugenics. ANYONE. I've never met one person who claims they support it for the sake of the children and the women who doesn't REALLY support it because they want to control other people's breeding habits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be true only if the government were forcing abortions on people.  You guys don't even seem to know the meaning of things that you propose (population control, eugenics).  I find it amazing that all of the people trying to give the government the right to decide what happens with a woman's body are predominately men!  I guess you still feel the need to control women.
Click to expand...


It's the individual  body within hers....back of the line


----------



## JBeukema

beowolfe said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Told you folks.
> 
> Anyone who supports abortion supports population control and eugenics. ANYONE. I've never met one person who claims they support it for the sake of the children and the women who doesn't REALLY support it because they want to control other people's breeding habits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be true only if the government were forcing abortions on people.
Click to expand...


Are you familiar with a Ms Margaret Sanger?





> You guys don't even seem to know the meaning of things that you propose (population control, eugenics)


Says someone who thinks compulsory eugenics are the only eugenics

Liberal eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JBeukema

Cecil... I'm using you as a baseline for what a human looks like and NY looks nothing like you in a few key areas *stares at those areas with a blank stare and drools*


----------



## Immanuel

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only one bringing your god into it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry to disappoint you but Immie was. the one to bring god into it. You responded to my response to him. Do keep up.
Click to expand...


Actually, that is not exactly true.  I asked you who made you God. Since we all know you are not really God, I was not bringing God into this discussion.

Immie


----------



## ABikerSailor

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions?  If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions.  Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and_ saving_ those innocent lives.  Figures you couldn't see that on your own.
> 
> I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you.  Typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder.  By anyone rational anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you completely and totally ignore my entire post, my entire point.  Unfuckingbelievable.  Punishing the woman isn't my ballyiwick, it's yours so stop projecting it onto me.  And your statement above makes zero sense.  Punishment does not dictate whether something is murder, the law does and unfortunately our law okayed the killing of unborn human beings. You are truly dumber than a rock.
> 
> I realize you want to put me into some kind of rw extremist box . . have fun with it because I'm not fitting and I'm not playing your game.  Once again, punishing the woman isn't what pro-life is about it is about preventing abortion thus _preventing the destruction of innocent human life_.
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder.  By anyone rational anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for having the patience to try to reason with these wackos.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And look at you clapping along like a trained seal or something.  You know what?  Good.  Remember this the next time you try and pigeon hole me with your "pro-lifers don't care about the woman they only care about the unborn" bullshit.  mmmkay?
> 
> 
> Neither one of you have answered JB's question:
> 
> "At what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?"
> 
> Want to try answering this or are you just going to bounce back with more projection?  Never mind, I already know the answer to _that _question.
Click to expand...


At what time?  Right around the 40 day mark.  It's when scientists have proven the mass of cells does not develop a nervous system until after that point.

It's also referred to in Judaic theology, because it states that the embryo created by your parents doesn't get a soul (a small piece of God's energy He carves out from Himself for us), until around the 40 day point.

Short answer to your question?  At about a month and a half is when it changes to something that could be considered human.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  But whether it lives outside of its environment doesn't determine its humanness or not.  Humans beget humans.  From conception to delivery and beyond, they are human beings.  Different stages to be sure, but human beings at each and every stage.
> 
> If I took you as you are right now and plopped you in the middle of Siberia you'd be dead within the hour.  Does that make you less human because you're unprepared and unequipped to survive in a hostile environment?
> 
> This is the part that I think many are not getting.  Developmental stages of a  human being are just that . . . stages of development.  But what is living and growing inside of a woman is a human being.  How can you possibly say it is anything else?  That it is just a blob of tissue?  If it were just a blob of tissue, if it isn't "life" as you claim . . . then an abortion wouldn't be something a woman would seek.
> 
> I posted these definitions earlier and they went ignored.
> 
> Abortion:  the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
> 
> Pregnancy:  1. 	the state or condition of being pregnant 2.  the period from conception to childbirth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do i say that the tissue is not human? Where do i ever say it is not living tissue? Don't misunderstand what i am saying.
> 
> Do i say plop the tissue out into Siberia? I say put it on the table. Have that 4 week old mass of tissue worked over any way you want and given all the life support it can get. Will it live?
> 
> No one has the right to force someone else to be an incubator for a something that can be construed as a parasite. I know those are harsh terms but it is what it is. 4 week old fetal human tissue _cannot survive _without its host.
> 
> Again, i do not say abortion  do i? I say c- section, a form of birth. *Birth *effectively ends pregnancy.
> 
> JB asks is it human from conception. Yes it is
> Jb asks is that tissue alive. Yes it is
> 
> Alive and having a _life of its own _are two very different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not understand that human beings develop through various stages before they are fully capable of living outside of the womb?  Whether you c-section it out, deliver it out, abort . . .what means you use . . . how can you expect a human being in the earliest stages to survive in an environment it is not yet equipped to survive in?  Surviving -- _viability_ -- doesn't determine if a fetus is a human being or not.  That 'blob of living tissue' you refer to IS a human being in one of the earliest stages of development.  To state otherwise is a lie.
> 
> I never said to put a 4 week fetus into Siberia . . . I said if _you _were to be plopped into Siberia, as you are right at this moment, you'd die within an hour because you are neither prepared nor equipped to survive in that environment. . . just as a human being taken from it's environment too soon is not prepared or equipped to survive in that environment.
> 
> Does putting you into a hostile environment (in which you will surely die) make you less human?  Because if I'm understanding your argument, you're saying that putting a 4 week fetus into a hostile environment (in which it will surely die) makes it less human.
Click to expand...


I thought her argument was "It's small and helpless and fragile, so that makes it okay to kill it", an attitude that in school-age children is generally called "bullying".


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Viability is what gives it life.
> 
> 
> 
> Viability is a meaningless subjective term.
> 
> You cannot survive without your gut flora
> 
> 
> You cannot survive out of your environment
> 
> 
> If I cut your femoral artery, you cannot survive without drastic medical intervention
> 
> 
> None of these facts make you 'not a life'
> 
> How remain a twit, however
> 
> I'm sorry for you. Hopefully some day you can accept that you are a murderer, forgive yourself, and move truly move on.
Click to expand...


Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be "gut _fauna_", since flora would be plants, and you're talking about bacteria, right?

Not sure either of them is 100% correct.


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Told you folks.
> 
> Anyone who supports abortion supports population control and eugenics. ANYONE. I've never met one person who claims they support it for the sake of the children and the women who doesn't REALLY support it because they want to control other people's breeding habits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JB here is a huge proponent of eugenics..or have you not been paying attention in other threads.
Click to expand...


That is a completely different point of disagreement with JB, which largely involves matters of strictly opinion on both sides.  At least HE isn't a lying sack trying rationalize away what he really believes by ignoring scientific fact.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Cecil... I'm using you as a baseline for what a human looks like and NY looks nothing like you in a few key areas *stares at those areas with a blank stare and drools*





Honestly, I can't believe actual adults (at least putatively) say ignorant shit like "doesn't look like a human" in public.  As though anyone expects or SHOULD expect a fetus to look like an adult.  And they never even QUESTION the ridiculousness of their assumption that "human being" means "ADULT human being", like that's the only variety they come in.


----------



## Zoom-boing

ABikerSailor said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder.  By anyone rational anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you completely and totally ignore my entire post, my entire point.  Unfuckingbelievable.  Punishing the woman isn't my ballyiwick, it's yours so stop projecting it onto me.  And your statement above makes zero sense.  Punishment does not dictate whether something is murder, the law does and unfortunately our law okayed the killing of unborn human beings. You are truly dumber than a rock.
> 
> I realize you want to put me into some kind of rw extremist box . . have fun with it because I'm not fitting and I'm not playing your game.  Once again, punishing the woman isn't what pro-life is about it is about preventing abortion thus _preventing the destruction of innocent human life_.
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for having the patience to try to reason with these wackos.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And look at you clapping along like a trained seal or something.  You know what?  Good.  Remember this the next time you try and pigeon hole me with your "pro-lifers don't care about the woman they only care about the unborn" bullshit.  mmmkay?
> 
> 
> Neither one of you have answered JB's question:
> 
> "At what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?"
> 
> Want to try answering this or are you just going to bounce back with more projection?  Never mind, I already know the answer to _that _question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At what time?  Right around the 40 day mark.  It's when scientists have proven the mass of cells does not develop a nervous system until after that point.
> 
> It's also referred to in Judaic theology, because it states that the embryo created by your parents doesn't get a soul (a small piece of God's energy He carves out from Himself for us), until around the 40 day point.
> 
> Short answer to your question?  *At about a month and a half is when it changes to something that could be considered human.*
Click to expand...


It is human from the moment of conception, to say otherwise is a lie.  Humans conceive and give birth to humans; fetuses don't "morph" into a human at some arbitrary 40 day mark.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AllieBaba said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human. I will stipulate that it is an organism. I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we argue something we've never asserted in the first place?
Click to expand...


1.  You can't speak for everyone 

2.  Are you saying you support the right to an abortion in the 1st trimester?

3.  Are you saying you support the legal use of RU486?

4.  Are you saying you support the morning after pill's use?

5.  Are you saying abortion in the 1st trimester is not murder?


----------



## NYcarbineer

AllieBaba said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human. I will stipulate that it is an organism. I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we argue something we've never asserted in the first place?
Click to expand...


Beukema said using RU486 was no different than shooting a born person.  Do you agree?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Immanuel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human.  I will stipulate that it is an organism.  I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?
> 
> A fetus is human.  No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.
> 
> The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter.  What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number.  We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.
> 
> Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work.  We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Why would you not want to punish murderers if you believe abortion is murder?  That's daft.

Or, if you don't believe abortion is murder, then quit claiming that the fetus is no different than a born person.


----------



## AllieBaba

Immie has said all along that he doesn't think it would help matters to make abortion illegal.
He's just said he thinks it's wrong.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human.  I will stipulate that it is an organism.  I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?
> 
> A fetus is human.  No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.
> 
> The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter.  What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number.  We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.
> 
> Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work.  We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outstanding post, Immie!
> 
> I wonder how they'll spin this.
Click to expand...


If you don't believe women and doctors should be punished as killers for aborting fetuses then you don't believe the fetus is a living human being with personhood and deserving of the protections that go with that status;  you believe it is something else, which is exactly the justification for the permissibility of abortion in the first place.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AllieBaba said:


> Immie has said all along that he doesn't think it would help matters to make abortion illegal.
> He's just said he thinks it's wrong.



Then he's pro-choice.


----------



## AllieBaba

I think they should be prosecuted, if abortion is made illegal.


----------



## AllieBaba

NYcarbineer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie has said all along that he doesn't think it would help matters to make abortion illegal.
> He's just said he thinks it's wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then he's pro-choice.
Click to expand...

 no shit.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you completely and totally ignore my entire post, my entire point.  Unfuckingbelievable.  Punishing the woman isn't my ballyiwick, it's yours so stop projecting it onto me.  And your statement above makes zero sense.  Punishment does not dictate whether something is murder, the law does and unfortunately our law okayed the killing of unborn human beings. You are truly dumber than a rock.
> 
> I realize you want to put me into some kind of rw extremist box . . have fun with it because I'm not fitting and I'm not playing your game.  Once again, punishing the woman isn't what pro-life is about it is about preventing abortion thus _preventing the destruction of innocent human life_.
> 
> 
> 
> And look at you clapping along like a trained seal or something.  You know what?  Good.  Remember this the next time you try and pigeon hole me with your "pro-lifers don't care about the woman they only care about the unborn" bullshit.  mmmkay?
> 
> 
> Neither one of you have answered JB's question:
> 
> "At what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?"
> 
> Want to try answering this or are you just going to bounce back with more projection?  Never mind, I already know the answer to _that _question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what time?  Right around the 40 day mark.  It's when scientists have proven the mass of cells does not develop a nervous system until after that point.
> 
> It's also referred to in Judaic theology, because it states that the embryo created by your parents doesn't get a soul (a small piece of God's energy He carves out from Himself for us), until around the 40 day point.
> 
> Short answer to your question?  *At about a month and a half is when it changes to something that could be considered human.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is human from the moment of conception, to say otherwise is a lie.  Humans conceive and give birth to humans; fetuses don't "morph" into a human at some arbitrary 40 day mark.
Click to expand...


They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more.  A fertilized egg is not a person.  Aborting it is not murdering a person.


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> At what time?  Right around the 40 day mark.  It's when scientists have proven the mass of cells does not develop a nervous system until after that point.
> 
> It's also referred to in Judaic theology, because it states that the embryo created by your parents doesn't get a soul (a small piece of God's energy He carves out from Himself for us), until around the 40 day point.
> 
> Short answer to your question?  *At about a month and a half is when it changes to something that could be considered human.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is human from the moment of conception, to say otherwise is a lie.  Humans conceive and give birth to humans; fetuses don't "morph" into a human at some arbitrary 40 day mark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more.  A fertilized egg is not a person.  Aborting it is not murdering a person.
Click to expand...


Humans conceive humans.  From the beginning it is human. They're not human because '"that's what we've named them", they're human because HUMANS BEGET HUMANS.  How utterly stupid are you that you can't just admit this?  It's not a dog or a cat or an acorn . . _it is a human_.  It is a life that is in one of the very earliest stages of development and abortion is the killing/ending/destruction of a human life.  It isn't considered murder because it has been made legal.  That doesn't change the fact of what abortion does.


----------



## Zoom-boing

AllieBaba said:


> I think they should be prosecuted, if abortion is made illegal.



It won't ever be made illegal, imo.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Immie has said all along that he doesn't think it would help matters to make abortion illegal.
> He's just said he thinks it's wrong.



Same here but the "pro abortion" label is used.
I adamantly oppose abortion. 
I know of NO ONE that is pro abortion.
But I hear it all the time AFTER I have won the debate.


----------



## Immanuel

NYcarbineer said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human.  I will stipulate that it is an organism.  I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?
> 
> A fetus is human.  No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.
> 
> The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter.  What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number.  We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.
> 
> Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work.  We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you not want to punish murderers if you believe abortion is murder?  That's daft.
> 
> Or, if you don't believe abortion is murder, then quit claiming that the fetus is no different than a born person.
Click to expand...


Don't lie about my position please.

I have never said it was murder.  Our laws allow for the taking of life in certain situations.  Abortion is not murder because the courts have declared it to be legal.  Being legal does not equate to being right.

My position has always been fewer abortions and never to punish the abortionist or the mother.

Please cease from lying about my position.

Immie


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> I think they should be prosecuted, if abortion is made illegal.



And who decides which doctor is telling lies and which one is telling the truth?
Government?
You do know that it will be doctors performing those "illegal" abortions.
And you believe they will be prosecuted.
"It was done for the safety of the mother"
Those of us that work in the court system know that abortion laws are almost impossible to prosecute UNLESS:
You are poor and have no $$$$$. 
Real world is hard for some folks to understand.
"Just the facts maam"


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> At what time?  Right around the 40 day mark.  It's when scientists have proven the mass of cells does not develop a nervous system until after that point.
> 
> It's also referred to in Judaic theology, because it states that the embryo created by your parents doesn't get a soul (a small piece of God's energy He carves out from Himself for us), until around the 40 day point.
> 
> Short answer to your question?  *At about a month and a half is when it changes to something that could be considered human.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is human from the moment of conception, to say otherwise is a lie.  Humans conceive and give birth to humans; fetuses don't "morph" into a human at some arbitrary 40 day mark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more.  A fertilized egg is not a person.  Aborting it is not murdering a person.
Click to expand...



So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...

What is a 'person'?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human. I will stipulate that it is an organism. I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we argue something we've never asserted in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  You can't speak for everyone
> 
> 2.  Are you saying you support the right to an abortion in the 1st trimester?
> 
> 3.  Are you saying you support the legal use of RU486?
> 
> 4.  Are you saying you support the morning after pill's use?
> 
> 5.  Are you saying abortion in the 1st trimester is not murder?
Click to expand...

You're arguing that there's a difference.


It's on you to show that difference


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...
> 
> ...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,
> 
> and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.
> 
> I will stipulate that it is human. I will stipulate that it is an organism. I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.
> 
> Please...begin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we argue something we've never asserted in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beukema said using RU486 was no different than shooting a born person.  Do you agree?
Click to expand...

Did I now?

Please site the alleged post in full


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> quit claiming that the fetus is no different than a born person.


Who claimed that? Where? Do cite.


----------



## PixieStix

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is human from the moment of conception, to say otherwise is a lie.  Humans conceive and give birth to humans; fetuses don't "morph" into a human at some arbitrary 40 day mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more.  A fertilized egg is not a person.  Aborting it is not murdering a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...
> 
> What is a 'person'?
Click to expand...


A person..would be the body of a human


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is human from the moment of conception, to say otherwise is a lie.  Humans conceive and give birth to humans; fetuses don't "morph" into a human at some arbitrary 40 day mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more.  A fertilized egg is not a person.  Aborting it is not murdering a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...
> 
> What is a 'person'?
Click to expand...


That's the new concept they've invented to argue about now that their old arguments have been shown to be scientific bullshit.  Instead of basing our decisions on hard fact, we're going to go with fuzzy, philosophical jargon about "personhood" that can basically mean anything they want to define it as at any given moment.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PixieStix said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more.  A fertilized egg is not a person.  Aborting it is not murdering a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...
> 
> What is a 'person'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person..would be the body of a human
Click to expand...


Depending on the context.

Webster's defines it as "a man, woman, or child, regarded as having a distinct individuality".  Merriam-Webster defines it simply as "human; individual".

Of course, if you're saying "in person", then it means "physically present", yes.


----------



## JBeukema

PixieStix said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more.  A fertilized egg is not a person.  Aborting it is not murdering a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...
> 
> What is a 'person'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person..would be the body of a human
Click to expand...


Which would make us people from the moment the zygote is created.





Is someone with no legs less of a person than someone with legs?


If the body of a human is a person and persons have rights, do dead bodies have rights? Or are only living bodies people?

What if I take a headless body and keep it alive by feeding it having machines handle its breathing and respiration?

Would a genetically engineered life-form made from combining human non-human DNA be a person? 

What about a race of intelligent extraterrestrials? Or sentient machines?

If angels from heaven came down and spoke to us, would you consider them persons, though they had no bodies?


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...
> 
> What is a 'person'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person..would be the body of a human
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depending on the context.
> 
> Webster's defines it as "a man, woman, or child, regarded as having a distinct individuality".
Click to expand...

What, exactly, does it mean to have 'distinct individuality'?

It is a physical thing? Where do conjoined twins fit in this model?


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?
> 
> A fetus is human.  No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.
> 
> The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter.  What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number.  We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.
> 
> Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work.  We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outstanding post, Immie!
> 
> I wonder how they'll spin this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you don't believe women and doctors should be punished as killers for aborting fetuses then you don't believe the fetus is a living human being with personhood and deserving of the protections that go with that status*;  you believe it is something else, which is exactly the justification for the permissibility of abortion in the first place.
Click to expand...


False and stop projecting your pov onto me.  It's the last time I'm going to ask.  I've already answered this about 10 pages back.  My position is very closely akin to Immies.  Too bad you don't like our answers and keep changing our pov from what we are saying to what _you think _we should be saying.

When are you going to answer JB's question, asked numerous times throughout this thread?  

"At what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?"


----------



## Zoom-boing

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> quit claiming that the fetus is no different than a born person.
> 
> 
> 
> Who claimed that? Where? Do cite.
Click to expand...


Don't you know?  WE ALL claimed it when he projected it onto us.  Come JB, get with the program!  We say one thing and he twists it and claims we said something _he _believes then expects us to answer his questions based on that falsehood.  Our_ actual_ pov is irrelevant.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Cecilie1200 said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...
> 
> What is a 'person'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person..would be the body of a human
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depending on the context.
> 
> Webster's defines it as "a man, woman, or child, regarded as having a distinct individuality".  Merriam-Webster defines it simply as "human; individual".
> 
> Of course, if you're saying "in person", then it means "physically present", yes.
Click to expand...


I prefer the Seuss definition:   a person's a person no matter how small.


----------



## Anguille

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1/3 of abortions are repeat business
> 
> The whole birth control sob story is bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am also for forced sterilization...of all replete offenders. Both men and women alike.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ravi

Anguille said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1/3 of abortions are repeat business
> 
> The whole birth control sob story is bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am also for forced sterilization...of all replete offenders. Both men and women alike.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Why do you hate the replete?


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also for forced sterilization...of all replete offenders. Both men and women alike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate the replete?
Click to expand...

Well, abortionism always has been tied to eugenics


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate the replete?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, abortionism always has been tied to eugenics
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that my joke went over your head, no it hasn't.

Though I can honestly say that you are an argument for eugenics all by yourself.


----------



## Shadow

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"
> 
> Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  But whether it lives outside of its environment doesn't determine its humanness or not.  Humans beget humans.  From conception to delivery and beyond, they are human beings.  Different stages to be sure, but human beings at each and every stage.
> 
> If I took you as you are right now and plopped you in the middle of Siberia you'd be dead within the hour.  Does that make you less human because you're unprepared and unequipped to survive in a hostile environment?
> 
> This is the part that I think many are not getting.  Developmental stages of a  human being are just that . . . stages of development.  But what is living and growing inside of a woman is a human being.  How can you possibly say it is anything else?  That it is just a blob of tissue?  If it were just a blob of tissue, if it isn't "life" as you claim . . . then an abortion wouldn't be something a woman would seek.
> 
> I posted these definitions earlier and they went ignored.
> 
> Abortion:  the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
> 
> Pregnancy:  1. 	the state or condition of being pregnant 2.  the period from conception to childbirth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where do i say that the tissue is not human? Where do i ever say it is not living tissue? Don't misunderstand what i am saying.
> 
> Do i say plop the tissue out into Siberia? I say put it on the table. Have that 4 week old mass of tissue worked over any way you want and given all the life support it can get. Will it live?
> 
> No one has the right to force someone else to be an incubator for a something that can be construed as a parasite. I know those are harsh terms but it is what it is. 4 week old fetal human tissue _cannot survive _without its host.
> 
> Again,* i do not say abortion  do i? I say c- section, a form of birth.* *Birth *effectively ends pregnancy.
> 
> JB asks is it human from conception. Yes it is
> Jb asks is that tissue alive. Yes it is
> 
> Alive and having a _life of its own _are two very different things.
Click to expand...



*How to Understand the Hysterectomy or Cesarean Section Abortion Procedure*

How to Understand the Hysterectomy or Cesarean Section Abortion Procedure | eHow.com


----------



## ABikerSailor

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is human from the moment of conception, to say otherwise is a lie.  Humans conceive and give birth to humans; fetuses don't "morph" into a human at some arbitrary 40 day mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more.  A fertilized egg is not a person.  Aborting it is not murdering a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans conceive humans.  From the beginning it is human. They're not human because '"that's what we've named them", they're human because HUMANS BEGET HUMANS.  How utterly stupid are you that you can't just admit this?  It's not a dog or a cat or an acorn . . _it is a human_.  It is a life that is in one of the very earliest stages of development and abortion is the killing/ending/destruction of a human life.  It isn't considered murder because it has been made legal.  That doesn't change the fact of what abortion does.
Click to expand...


You're right.  Humans do create other humans via breeding.  However, there is one distinct thing in all societies as well as theologies that define what it is specifically to be "human".

It's called free will, and your soul.  Animals must act by instinct, and, many theologies that say the thing that separates us from the animals is that small piece of God called our soul.

Scientifically speaking, it's also the point where we finally develop a nervous sytem and a brain that is programmed to act with free will.

So no.........it's not "human" until it's developed a nervous sytem, sometime after the 40 day mark.

Unless, you're a staunch supporter of the GOP and think that being soul less is "human".


----------



## frazzledgear

IMEURU said:


> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.



Oh please -no more of the "no one but a woman can understand it" BULLSHIT!  Are you SERIOUSLY saying that only another WOMAN could possibly understand whatever rationale you told yourself before getting an abortion?  That must mean you think the people who cannot possibly understand are MEN, just ignorant men who have no idea what its like to find themselves pregnant at an inconvenient time of life whether that issue of convenience has to do with location, job, personal relationship, finances, waking up on the wrong side of the bed or any possible combination etc. etc.  Only a WOMAN could possibly understand being saddled with a kid they would rather see dead, right?  Only a WOMAN would understand your belief that the value of another human life is determined by someone other than the owner of that life?  Does that also mean you value the opinion of women over that of men when it comes to the issue of abortion itself?  

I don't care what your personal situation was and I don't care what kind of justifications you had to tell yourself to get an abortion -it is IRRELEVANT to this discussion.  So you had an abortion and disposed of your own child like the trash it was to you. * Does the fact that was your own personal value judgment on the life of your own child place any obligation on everyone else to agree with those justifications or try to convince themselves as well that the youngest of human lives just don't count as a human life?*   Does that mean because YOU had an abortion and then smugly claim "unless you are a woman..." THAT somehow MEANS something in this discussion?  Why would the fact you chose to have an abortion have a damn thing to do with this discussion about the fact it is a human life being killed?  Do you SERIOUSLY expect others to agree with you that the true value of another human life is properly determined by someone who doesn't even own it and if someone who doesn't own that life decides it is trash everyone else must agree with that as well  -just because that is what you did?  _Oh and then lay that piece of crap bullshit that no one could possibly understand why that is ok except another WOMAN?_  Are you for real?  

What I as a WOMAN really DO understand is your defensiveness about what you did and why you feel the need to continue defending it in your own mind instead of coming to grips with the horror and immorality of what you did and realize you never did have a "right" to take the life of your child just because its existence was inconvenient for you at the moment.  Its easier to tell yourself it was a good, humane, decent and moral decision and then brush it off as "unless you are a woman..." bullshit.  As a woman I really do understand why you are doing that but not because I am a woman  -rationalizing the bad decisions we make in life is NOT restricted to just one gender! 

Apparently you are under the impression it is women who would most understand (and approve) your decision to have an abortion, that it is WOMEN who would most agree with you that if you decide the life of your own child is trash it is ok to dispose of it like trash.   Guess again.  It isn't WOMEN who are most likely to agree and support your decision to kill your own child.  The majority of all women oppose abortion on demand and the overwhelming majority of women who have had a baby oppose it -probably because it is impossible to deny that the person inside them really is a human and not a theoretical guppy after all.  It is SINGLE MEN who support abortion on demand!  Gee, I wonder why that is.   By the way, that is also strongly correlated to why the number one cause of death for a pregnant woman changed from "accidents" and "complications of pregnancy" prior to Roe v. Wade to HOMICIDE in less than a decade following that ruling.  Homicide that is almost without exception at the hands of their baby's father when he gets really, really pissed off when the woman refuses to have an abortion at HIS demand and he really, really wants his kid dead and out of his way!   Being pregnant when the daddy wants his kid dead is a dangerous time for a woman.  

67% of all women who have abortions say they were pressured into getting one against their will by the father.  Women who oppose a man exercising his "right" to an abortion on HIS demand increase their own risk of death.   Abortion on demand protects MEN -and the life of your child doesn't even enter into the equation.  Just because you chose to end the life of your child for reasons you think only another woman could possibly understand in NO way obligates ANYONE to support your decision to do it.  And it is WOMEN themselves who are the LEAST likely to do so.


----------



## taichiliberal

JBeukema said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the anti-abortion folk would work to mandate sex education and birth control availabilty in our society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that reasoning, big cities full of free condoms should have no abortions
> 
> That's not the reality
> 
> 1/3 of abortions are repeat business
> 
> Your premise is bullshit
Click to expand...


The reality is that YOU edited out what you didn't want to hear.  For those interested in an HONEST discussion:

_If the anti-abortion folk would work to mandate sex education and birth control availabilty in our society the way we do sports trivia and automobile ownership, then abortion would indeed be a rarity that would STILL be a private choice by the individual.

*Instead, you get a bunch of hysterical, idealogical clowns with mantras like "sex educaton promotes promiscuity and STD's" and the like over the decades.*
Bottom line: you don't like what your neighbor is doing in their bedroom or with their doctor, THEN MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS....because all the racial, class, religious and social prejudices will be waiting for all those new borns who no one wanted or want to know about as they grow up. _

Just because "big cities" are "full of condoms" that doesn't mean that they are being sold to minors, does it genius?

Where did you get this "1/3 of abortions are repeat business" from?  Did they tell you the percentage of abortions that are done by adult women?  Married women? Teenagers? 

The "reality" JB, is that your long on half assed propaganda, and short on logic based in reality....similar to what I previously described.


----------



## taichiliberal

Mr Liberty said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the anti-abortion folk would work to mandate sex education and birth control availabilty in our society the way we do sports trivia and automobile ownership, then abortion would indeed be a rarity that would STILL be a private choice by the individual.
> 
> Instead, you get a bunch of hysterical, idealogical clowns with mantras like "sex educaton promotes promiscuity and STD's" and the like over the decades.
> 
> Bottom line: you don't like what your neighbor is doing in their bedroom or with their doctor, THEN MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS....because all the racial, class, religious and social prejudices will be waiting for all those new borns who no one wanted or want to know about as they grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> I have always promoted sexual education and support pregnancy prevention.  I don't think you should be able to use abortion as birth control.  That is what their doing.  Is it right to take drugs while pregnant? No, Because it can harm the baby. If it is morally wrong to harm the baby at any point during development, then it is wrong to kill it.
Click to expand...


1)  One of the recent Catholic Popes described using ANY type of birth control device as a sin.  So I hope you're not religious.

2) Abortion is NOT "birth control", as birth control has been to prevent conception.  An abortion is a medical procedure of a different nature as to say, the implanting of an IUD.

3) Your analogy of taking drugs has to do with folk who have decided to have the baby and bring it to full term....that is NOT the case with abortion cases.

4) Abortion foes railed against use of the "morning after" pill.  What's your stance on that?


----------



## syrenn

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand that human beings develop through various stages before they are fully capable of living outside of the womb?  Whether you c-section it out, deliver it out, abort . . .what means you use . . . how can you expect a human being in the earliest stages to survive in an environment it is not yet equipped to survive in?  Surviving -- _viability_ -- doesn't determine if a fetus is a human being or not.  That 'blob of living tissue' you refer to IS a human being in one of the earliest stages of development.  To state otherwise is a lie.
> 
> I never said to put a 4 week fetus into Siberia . . . I said if _you _were to be plopped into Siberia, as you are right at this moment, you'd die within an hour because you are neither prepared nor equipped to survive in that environment. . . just as a human being taken from it's environment too soon is not prepared or equipped to survive in that environment.
> 
> Does putting you into a hostile environment (in which you will surely die) make you less human?  Because if I'm understanding your argument, you're saying that putting a 4 week fetus into a hostile environment (in which it will surely die) makes it less human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, i know the developmental cycle of humans.
> 
> Again, i don't not dispute that the tissue is human. Nor have i stated that it is not human.
> 
> As you say yourself, 4 week old fetal tissue is not viable. And that is rather my point.  Viability is what gives it life. It has nothing to do with it being more, or less, human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, it isn't "tissue" it is a human being in the earliest stages of development.
> 
> Viability gives it life?  I disagree with that.  You are a human being.  You would not be viable in Siberia as you are right at this moment.  Both are true statements.  The same statements can be applied to a fetus (substitute table for Siberia).  It is viable in the womb and it is a (early developing) human being, a human _life_.  Taken prematurely from it's environment and it will die.  It can only die if it was life to begin with.  Viability doesn't determine whether it is a human being.
> 
> So for you when the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb is when you would say no to abortion?  Anything prior to that and abortion is ok?  (just asking for clarification)
> 
> While we disagree on this issue, thank you for discussing it rationally and calming and not flinging falsehoods, like others in here have done.
Click to expand...



My threshold for removing a fetus is about 9 weeks, that is my end point. In that time a person has had enough time to make up their minds. Anything longer then that the pregnancy has gone to far in my opinion, and it is viable...


----------



## syrenn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do i say that the tissue is not human? Where do i ever say it is not living tissue? Don't misunderstand what i am saying.
> 
> Do i say plop the tissue out into Siberia? I say put it on the table. Have that 4 week old mass of tissue worked over any way you want and given all the life support it can get. Will it live?
> 
> No one has the right to force someone else to be an incubator for a something that can be construed as a parasite. I know those are harsh terms but it is what it is. 4 week old fetal human tissue _cannot survive _without its host.
> 
> Again, i do not say abortion  do i? I say c- section, a form of birth. *Birth *effectively ends pregnancy.
> 
> JB asks is it human from conception. Yes it is
> Jb asks is that tissue alive. Yes it is
> 
> Alive and having a _life of its own _are two very different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand that human beings develop through various stages before they are fully capable of living outside of the womb?  Whether you c-section it out, deliver it out, abort . . .what means you use . . . how can you expect a human being in the earliest stages to survive in an environment it is not yet equipped to survive in?  Surviving -- _viability_ -- doesn't determine if a fetus is a human being or not.  That 'blob of living tissue' you refer to IS a human being in one of the earliest stages of development.  To state otherwise is a lie.
> 
> I never said to put a 4 week fetus into Siberia . . . I said if _you _were to be plopped into Siberia, as you are right at this moment, you'd die within an hour because you are neither prepared nor equipped to survive in that environment. . . just as a human being taken from it's environment too soon is not prepared or equipped to survive in that environment.
> 
> Does putting you into a hostile environment (in which you will surely die) make you less human?  Because if I'm understanding your argument, you're saying that putting a 4 week fetus into a hostile environment (in which it will surely die) makes it less human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought her argument was "It's small and helpless and fragile, so that makes it okay to kill it", an attitude that in school-age children is generally called "bullying".
Click to expand...



Not even close.


----------



## syrenn

Zoom-boing said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you completely and totally ignore my entire post, my entire point.  Unfuckingbelievable.  Punishing the woman isn't my ballyiwick, it's yours so stop projecting it onto me.  And your statement above makes zero sense.  Punishment does not dictate whether something is murder, the law does and unfortunately our law okayed the killing of unborn human beings. You are truly dumber than a rock.
> 
> I realize you want to put me into some kind of rw extremist box . . have fun with it because I'm not fitting and I'm not playing your game.  Once again, punishing the woman isn't what pro-life is about it is about preventing abortion thus _preventing the destruction of innocent human life_.
> 
> And look at you clapping along like a trained seal or something.  You know what?  Good.  Remember this the next time you try and pigeon hole me with your "pro-lifers don't care about the woman they only care about the unborn" bullshit.  mmmkay?
> 
> 
> Neither one of you have answered JB's question:
> 
> "At what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?"
> 
> Want to try answering this or are you just going to bounce back with more projection?  Never mind, I already know the answer to _that _question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what time?  Right around the 40 day mark.  It's when scientists have proven the mass of cells does not develop a nervous system until after that point.
> 
> It's also referred to in Judaic theology, because it states that the embryo created by your parents doesn't get a soul (a small piece of God's energy He carves out from Himself for us), until around the 40 day point.
> 
> Short answer to your question?  *At about a month and a half is when it changes to something that could be considered human.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is human from the moment of conception, to say otherwise is a lie.  Humans conceive and give birth to humans; fetuses don't "morph" into a human at some arbitrary 40 day mark.
Click to expand...



No, the morph from a mass of human tissue into a human baby, which if healthy has a life of its own.


----------



## syrenn

Ravi said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also for forced sterilization...of all replete offenders. Both men and women alike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate the replete?
Click to expand...


Ah well shit, repeat offenders.


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate the replete?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, abortionism always has been tied to eugenics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it hasn't.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of margaret sanger?


----------



## JBeukema

taichiliberal said:


> _
> *Instead, you get a bunch of hysterical, idealogical clowns with mantras like "sex educaton promotes promiscuity and STD's" and the like over the decades.*_



So now you expect us to believe that the majority of schools are teaching abstinence-only?

And all you little Democrats who teach your kids where to get abortions don't teach them to not sleep around without protection _why_?
If they can find their way to PP for an abortion, there's no reason they can't find their way there to get some condoms





> Bottom line: you don't like what your neighbor is doing in their bedroom or with their doctor, THEN MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS



Nobody cares what you and your partner do behind closed doors with your own bodies.

An unborn child's not your body.

Try a new spiel.

If you want to know the numbers and where they come from, learn to use Google.

Even Planned Parenthood states that 93% of abortions are done for simple convenience.


----------



## JBeukema

taichiliberal said:


> 1)  One of the recent Catholic Popes described using ANY type of birth control device as a sin.  So I hope you're not religious.



There's no point dragging your religion into this.





> 2) Abortion is NOT "birth control"



It is used as such in 93% of cases





> 3) Your analogy of taking drugs has to do with folk who have decided to have the baby and bring it to full term....that is NOT the case with abortion cases.



His analogy has to do with acts that harm the unborn. Most people would consider killing someone to be causing harm.



> 4) Abortion foes railed against use of the "morning after" pill.  What's your stance on that?


How 'bout focusing on what he's said and not on what you want him to have said?


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> My threshold for removing a fetus is about 9 weeks my end point. In that time a person has had enough time to make up their minds. Anything longer then that the pregnancy has gone to far in my opinion, and the and it is viable...



Define: viable

We can save preemies today we couldn't have decades ago. It's a moving target. 

Does grandma become free game when she's on a respirator?

Why does 'viability' mean anything at all?


Had enough time? What about all the time you had to decide to not engage in unprotected sex or to keep your clothes on if you're not ready to provide and care for a child?


----------



## AllieBaba

taichiliberal said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the anti-abortion folk would work to mandate sex education and birth control availabilty in our society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that reasoning, big cities full of free condoms should have no abortions
> 
> That's not the reality
> 
> 1/3 of abortions are repeat business
> 
> Your premise is bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reality is that YOU edited out what you didn't want to hear. For those interested in an HONEST discussion:
> 
> _If the anti-abortion folk would work to mandate sex education and birth control availabilty in our society the way we do sports trivia and automobile ownership, then abortion would indeed be a rarity that would STILL be a private choice by the individual._
> 
> _*Instead, you get a bunch of hysterical, idealogical clowns with mantras like "sex educaton promotes promiscuity and STD's" and the like over the decades.*_
> _Bottom line: you don't like what your neighbor is doing in their bedroom or with their doctor, THEN MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS....because all the racial, class, religious and social prejudices will be waiting for all those new borns who no one wanted or want to know about as they grow up. _
> 
> Just because "big cities" are "full of condoms" that doesn't mean that they are being sold to minors, does it genius?
> 
> Where did you get this "1/3 of abortions are repeat business" from? Did they tell you the percentage of abortions that are done by adult women? Married women? Teenagers?
> 
> The "reality" JB, is that your long on half assed propaganda, and short on logic based in reality....similar to what I previously described.
Click to expand...

pos

This is supposed to be the *honest* discussion?

LOL!

BTW, FALSE PREMISE, AD HOMINEM


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> At what time?  Right around the 40 day mark.  It's when scientists have proven the mass of cells does not develop a nervous system until after that point.
> 
> It's also referred to in Judaic theology, because it states that the embryo created by your parents doesn't get a soul (a small piece of God's energy He carves out from Himself for us), until around the 40 day point.
> 
> Short answer to your question?  *At about a month and a half is when it changes to something that could be considered human.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is human from the moment of conception, to say otherwise is a lie.  Humans conceive and give birth to humans; fetuses don't "morph" into a human at some arbitrary 40 day mark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, the morph from a mass of human tissue into a human baby, which if healthy has a life of its own.
Click to expand...

There is no such morph. 

Ask the local library for a biology book and a book on embryology


----------



## JBeukema

Why can't you people ever be honest?

Oh yeah, and at what point did what change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing and why did it make killing you suddenly not-okay?


----------



## Grace

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My threshold for removing a fetus is about 9 weeks my end point. In that time a person has had enough time to make up their minds. Anything longer then that the pregnancy has gone to far in my opinion, and the and it is viable...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define: viable
> 
> We can save preemies today we couldn't have decades ago. It's a moving target.
> 
> Does grandma become free game when she's on a respirator?
> 
> Why does 'viability' mean anything at all?
> 
> 
> Had enough time? What about all the time you had to decide to not engage in unprotected sex or to keep your clothes on if you're not ready to provide and care for a child?
Click to expand...


How about this variable? It was time enough for the guy to keep his dick in his pants and since he didnt, had a woody and thought hed show some "power" and "control" and his banty rooster mentality needed to force himself on someone weaker to step up and own what he did, but didnt, and therefore got his sorry ass thrown in jail because what he did was ILLEGAL and called RAPE. 

Howzat for variables, insinuations, finger pointing and overall GUESSING scenarios of which nobody knows jack shit about while arguing a point over and over and over and over again?


----------



## JBeukema

Rape victims account for 1% of abortions

Parading them around to justify the 93% of abortions that are done out of simple convenience is bullshit. It is nothing short of the exploitation of their suffering to serve the political and economic interests of the abortion industry.


----------



## Grace

I dont give one iota what the percentages are. YOU DONT KNOW SQUAT and Im sick of reading your drivel.


----------



## Grace

> Rape victims account for 1% of abortions



REPORTED rape victims. REPORTED. Obviously you DO believe everything you read on the net. I thought so.


----------



## JBeukema

IMEURU said:


> Rape victims account for 1% of abortions
> 
> 
> 
> REPORTED rape victims. REPORTED. Obviously you DO believe everything you read on the net. I thought so.
Click to expand...

Those numbers are from the abortion industry itself, genius


----------



## Grace

Want to read whats on the net? FINE. Here ya go! Got LOTS to cut and paste for ya. Ill take my time, though. Wouldnt wanna overwhelm ya, ya know.



> One reported forcible rape or attempted rape takes place approximately every six minutes in the United States. This statistic does not included unreported rapes or other sexual assaults, including assaults against men or many children (boys, or girls sexually assaulted but not raped).
> A history of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect can be found in the background of many adolescent sex offenders.
> 75% percent of women raped are between the ages of 15 and 21. The average age is 18.
> Only 16 percent of rapes are ever reported to the police.
> In the United States, every 2-3 minutes a woman is sexually assaulted.
> 87% of all sexual assault victims are female.
> The single most effective strategy used to stop an assault is an immediate physical and verbal response.
> 97% of all sexual assault offenders are male.
> 85% of all sexual assaults are committed by a family member, friend, or acquaintance of the victim.
> In over one-third of all sexual assaults, the assailant attacks the victim in the victim's own home.
> Rape is the most under-reported crime in the United States.





> Statistics
> 
> In a study conducted by the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers interviewed 8,000 women and 8,000 men. Using a definition of rape that includes forced vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse, the survey found that 1 in 6 women had experienced an attempted rape or a completed rape.
> 
> At the time they were raped:
> 
> 22% were under the age of twelve
> 54% were under the age of eighteen
> 83% were under the age of twenty-five
> 
> In the same study, 1 in 33 men had experienced a sexual assault.
> 
> Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice, 1998
> 
> 
> 
> In the Rape in America study, 60% of the women who reported being raped were under 18 years old:
> 
> 29.3% were less than 11 years old
> 32.3% were between 11 and 17
> 22.2% were between 18 and 24
> 7.1% were between 25 and 29
> 6.1% were older than 29
> 3.0% age was not available
> 
> Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, National Victim Center, 1992
> 
> 
> 
> Youths 12-17 are two to three times more likely to be sexually assaulted than adults.
> 
> National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000



Fuck it. Do your own huntin'

Google


----------



## Grace

JBeukema said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape victims account for 1% of abortions
> 
> 
> 
> REPORTED rape victims. REPORTED. Obviously you DO believe everything you read on the net. I thought so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those numbers are from the abortion industry itself, genius
Click to expand...


Yeah? Written by whom?_ Pro Lifers_, GENIUS?


----------



## AllieBaba

IMEURU said:


> Rape victims account for 1% of abortions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REPORTED rape victims. REPORTED. Obviously you DO believe everything you read on the net. I thought so.
Click to expand...

 
Reported to the clinic ppl, not the law. 

So should we just make up a number and call it good?


----------



## JBeukema

IMEURU said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> REPORTED rape victims. REPORTED. Obviously you DO believe everything you read on the net. I thought so.
> 
> 
> 
> Those numbers are from the abortion industry itself, genius
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? Written by whom?_ Pro Lifers_, GENIUS?
Click to expand...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttmacher_Institute#cite_note-mission-0 The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the "Center for  Family Planning Program Development", a semi-autonomous division of The Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Guttmacher Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​


----------



## AllieBaba

IMEURU said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> REPORTED rape victims. REPORTED. Obviously you DO believe everything you read on the net. I thought so.
> 
> 
> 
> Those numbers are from the abortion industry itself, genius
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? Written by whom?_ Pro Lifers_, GENIUS?
Click to expand...

 
The CDC & Guttmacher Institute.

Most decidedly NOT pro-lifers.


----------



## Grace

All men are deadbeat dads.
All men rape women and they like 'em young.
All men fantasize about raping boys.
All men have dicks the size of an eraser.
All men cant get it up 99 percent of the time.

See how that goes, GENIUS? I can slap shit out there too as fact when its nothing but bullshit.

Im pretty sure I can find some websites backing up some of those claims, too, and parade them around like its all true when I know damn well it isnt...but hey. Thats whats being done the past few days on this neverending judge and jury about baby killers, INCONVENIENCES, "SHE should have kept her legs shut" and "SHE should have used birth control" bullshit that is rampant here.


----------



## Grace

AllieBaba said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape victims account for 1% of abortions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REPORTED rape victims. REPORTED. Obviously you DO believe everything you read on the net. I thought so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reported to the clinic ppl, not the law.
> 
> So should we just make up a number and call it good?
Click to expand...


Why the fuck not?
Seems everyone is fucking is.


----------



## AllieBaba

?


----------



## JBeukema

IMEURU said:


> See how that goes, GENIUS? I can slap shit out there too as fact when its nothing but bullshit.



Nobody doubts you ability to lie


The abortion industry exploits rape victims


Any real feminist would be disgusted by the way they use women for their own economic ends


----------



## JBeukema

IMEURU said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> REPORTED rape victims. REPORTED. Obviously you DO believe everything you read on the net. I thought so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reported to the clinic ppl, not the law.
> 
> So should we just make up a number and call it good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why the fuck not?
> Seems everyone is fucking is.
Click to expand...

Was that supposed to be a sentence?


----------



## Grace

????



> Had enough time? What about all the time you had to decide to not engage in unprotected sex or to keep your clothes on if you're not ready to provide and care for a child?



I dont know if your male of female, Allie. But I can tell you one damn thing. ANY MAN that says that shit CONTINUALLY in MULTIPLE threads is no man. Hes a fucktard sitting on some make believe pedestal and Ive had ENOUGH.


----------



## JBeukema

Grace, you need to take your sexism up with a counselor or a priest or something. Your hatred will eat you alive.


----------



## Grace

And you need to shut your fucking mouth.


----------



## JBeukema

If you can't keep your emotions under control and discuss the matter honesty and cogently like an adult, maybe you should your excuse yourself from such discussions.

Hopefully you can forgive yourself some day.


----------



## frazzledgear

taichiliberal said:


> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the anti-abortion folk would work to mandate sex education and birth control availabilty in our society the way we do sports trivia and automobile ownership, then abortion would indeed be a rarity that would STILL be a private choice by the individual.
> 
> Instead, you get a bunch of hysterical, idealogical clowns with mantras like "sex educaton promotes promiscuity and STD's" and the like over the decades.
> 
> Bottom line: you don't like what your neighbor is doing in their bedroom or with their doctor, THEN MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS....because all the racial, class, religious and social prejudices will be waiting for all those new borns who no one wanted or want to know about as they grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> I have always promoted sexual education and support pregnancy prevention.  I don't think you should be able to use abortion as birth control.  That is what their doing.  Is it right to take drugs while pregnant? No, Because it can harm the baby. If it is morally wrong to harm the baby at any point during development, then it is wrong to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  One of the recent Catholic Popes described using ANY type of birth control device as a sin.  So I hope you're not religious.
> 
> 2) Abortion is NOT "birth control", as birth control has been to prevent conception.  An abortion is a medical procedure of a different nature as to say, the implanting of an IUD.
> 
> 3) Your analogy of taking drugs has to do with folk who have decided to have the baby and bring it to full term....that is NOT the case with abortion cases.
> 
> 4) Abortion foes railed against use of the "morning after" pill.  What's your stance on that?
Click to expand...




Your argument that an even more detailed sex education and handing out contraceptives to more public school children who are not yet mature enough to deal with the consequences of sex will somehow improve both their decision making skills and our abortion rate is LUDICROUS on its face and a totally specious argument.  But it IS the typical fallback position of pro-abortion extremists who insist on re-writing all known information to suit themselves instead.  You think it plays better to PRETEND that the people getting abortions are all those pathetic, scared and ignorant teenagers who just haven't been given enough information about how to "properly" have sex while avoiding getting pregnant.  Or an STD apparently since that rate is sky high too.  Yeah, its all because our public schools aren't acting like a birth control clinic instead of an institution of education!  Of course!  

The only problem for you is REALITY.  Something liberals don't deal with very well anyway.  There are roughly 1.2 million abortions every year and half of those getting them are 25 years or older.  Teenagers aren't even the second most common age group and represent only 17% of all abortions.  In case you can't figure that one out it means 83% of all abortions are NOT teenage girls.  Another poster said 1/3 were repeaters but actually 45% of all abortions were repeats in 1995 and it is still rising - the majority of all abortions are expected to be repeat abortions by 2015.  Incredibly more than a quarter of all repeaters have had more than two.  Clearly not people with any compunction about paying someone to destroy their own offspring and clearly not encouraged to have any respect for the very existence of a human life at all.  So maybe you can argue women in general are just too stupid to figure out how to avoid unwanted pregnancy.  A disproportionate percent of all women who have an abortion are black or Hispanic.    Are you going to suggest that even a woman in her 20s still can't be expected to figure out how to avoid unwanted pregnancy?  Or is it just black and Hispanic women or what?  Because the face people like you like to pretend represents those most likely to get an abortion is NOT the teen face you like to stick on it -but an older, more mature, certainly more knowledgeable and worldly woman who not only knows how to avoid pregnancy -but a shocking percentage of whom obviously choose NOT to avoid it, continue on until they get pregnant AGAIN and then simply hire someone to kill their child AGAIN instead of acting responsibly and avoiding creating another human life in the first place.  Obviously led to believe that having another one of their children killed is of no more importance than the bowel movement they had that morning.   

So in light of your comment about all the people you claim don't care and never would care about any of the aborted children if they lived -are you suggesting that it really is primarily black children who need to die and get off our planet because in your mind it is somehow more "humane" to just kill them than have to deal with them alive?  What is your explanation about why there is such a disproportionate percent of black babies being aborted and how do you REALLY defend that given the fact the biggest supporters and defenders of abortion are white men?  The ONLY people whose opinion counts about whether they are better off dead or not are the very people you want to make sure will never express that opinion in the first place!  NOT YOUR CALL to make for ANYONE else.  

The majority of all women oppose abortion on demand and the overwhelming majority of women who have had a baby oppose it.  Hard for them to keep pretending it might be a guppy in there when its a person who comes out, huh.  In reality it is people like YOU who are in the minority and the EXTREMISTS.   Sorry if you convinced yourself that finding it acceptable to kill the youngest of humans for the "crime" of making mommy unhappy about their very existence makes you the reasonable one here.  Guess again.   

Given the we are NOT dealing with adolescents getting abortions after all that just PERHAPS instead of teaching kids how to have sex that if we taught them the harsh realities of single parenthood for teens;  the number of doors that slam shut and possibly forever;  the true expense of raising a child;  explicit information about the true nature of STDs and the impact the incurable ones will have on them for the rest of their lives and possibly that of any child they may have;  the responsibilities a parent has and the legal consequences they may face for failing to live up to them; the value of human life and the importance of respecting human life;  who has the real right to decide the value of a human life - whether it is the owner of that life or someone who finds the existence of that life objectionable for any reason;  what a fetus looks like, its stage of development and what happens to it during an abortion both early in pregnancy and in a late term abortion.  If you really feel like teens lack INFORMATION then just MAYBE its THAT kind of explicit information which is typically handled in a single hour IF AT ALL in most sex ed classes but may well have a bigger impact on reducing the irresponsible sexual activity of teens and on our abortion rates overall, huh?  And give them that important information BEFORE they find themselves dealing with the unwanted consequences of early sexual activity.  Because teaching them how to have sex, where to get contraceptives and how to use them has NOT worked at all.  Oh NO, people like you ridicule and scoff at that idea and believe an approach entirely devoid of any value judgment regardless of how serious the possible consequences can be for more than just one person, a method that is now provably nothing but giving implicit permission and even encouragement to kids to engage in adult behavior before they are actually adults is preferable and gets "better" results!  You have got to be kidding given the fact statistics are screaming YOU ARE WRONG!  Given the REALITY of the skyrocket increase in the out-of-wedlock pregnancy from 15.5% in 1973 to  36% now and the same kind of sharp rise in STD transmission rates it is blatantly obvious that the already incredibly explicit sex instructions hasn't been working out so good after all, has it?   _*There is nothing in REALITY to back up your delusion that teenagers with their adolescent brains will actually start making mature, adult decisions if they just have more INFORMATION about how to have sex like an adult but without the brain of one!*_  In fact, it has PROVABLY turned out to be the exact opposite!  We have MORE teens engaged in sex and the more who engage in it, the more UNWANTED CONSEQUENCES result from that!  Which means we have even MORE kids who lack the emotional maturity to handle the consequences being faced with them anyway!  THAT is what happens when teens are not actively discouraged to postpone sexual behavior until a time they have developed the mental and emotional skills to deal with the potential consequences which can be life altering and life threatening!  Giving them more explicit instructions and a free condom will still never impart the MATURITY to deal with those consequences.   I have NO problem educating children about how their bodies work and reproduction-THAT is the proper function of sex ed.  Even if people like you want to keep blinders on about what your FAILED policies you keep pushing have done -and now insist the "solution" is to double down on them!  What do you really need to see before it will cause you to re-evaluate your own position and realize that maybe, just MAYBE you were WRONG?   How like a typical liberal you are to just refuse to even consider that you might be wrong given the fact that rates of unwanted pregnancy and disease have more than DOUBLED since undergoing the radical change in the way we educate our kids about how sex and reproduction!  Wow, talk about being totally OBTUSE!

It should be pretty plain to people with even a rudimentary level of intelligence that the extremists like YOU got it wrong because everything got worse when we all pretended we can't possibly expect children to refrain from engaging in an adult activity before they are emotionally mature enough to deal with the consequences.   Saying we need abortion on demand AND even MORE explicit sex ed while handing out contraceptives is in reality encouraging and rewarding even more promiscuous, irresponsible and IMMATURE decisions from teenagers in the provably wrong and stupid belief that it will help protect them from the unwanted consequences of their own poor decisions.  Poor decisions we are actually encouraging and giving our approval and permission to make instead of discouraging it and has provably resulted in MORE of them making that poor decision and the more who are engaged in it, the higher the rate of unwanted consequences!  All the while people like you insist we must still pursue a provably failed policy and agenda that will continue to keep encouraging and rewarding children for making poor decisions in the first place and insisting we aren't doing it enough yet -this is the circular argument of a liberal.  And we all know liberals are short on critical thinking skills and rational thinking in the first place.  You couldn't have highlighted that any better for us, thank you.

BTW -I don't give a shit what kind of sex acts two consenting adults may do in the privacy of their bedroom. But like millions and millions of others in this country I absolutely draw the line at pretending killing their unwanted child is part of someone's sex life.  That you think of it as part of someone's sex life is weird, extremist and utterly revolting frankly.


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, abortionism always has been tied to eugenics
> 
> 
> 
> no it hasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever heard of margaret sanger?
Click to expand...

Another lie of yours easily disproven. Abortion was around long before your hero Sanger.

History of abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My threshold for removing a fetus is about 9 weeks my end point. In that time a person has had enough time to make up their minds. Anything longer then that the pregnancy has gone to far in my opinion, and the and it is viable...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define: viable
> 
> We can save preemies today we couldn't have decades ago. It's a moving target.
> 
> Does grandma become free game when she's on a respirator?
> 
> Why does 'viability' mean anything at all?
> 
> 
> Had enough time? What about all the time you had to decide to not engage in unprotected sex or to keep your clothes on if you're not ready to provide and care for a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about this variable? It was time enough for the guy to keep his dick in his pants and since he didnt, had a woody and thought hed show some "power" and "control" and his banty rooster mentality needed to force himself on someone weaker to step up and own what he did, but didnt, and therefore got his sorry ass thrown in jail because what he did was ILLEGAL and called RAPE.
> 
> Howzat for variables, insinuations, finger pointing and overall GUESSING scenarios of which nobody knows jack shit about while arguing a point over and over and over and over again?
Click to expand...


According to AGI, that is the case in 1% of abortions or less.

I hope the dude stays in prison for a lifetime.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> REPORTED rape victims. REPORTED. Obviously you DO believe everything you read on the net. I thought so.
> 
> 
> 
> Those numbers are from the abortion industry itself, genius
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? Written by whom?_ Pro Lifers_, GENIUS?
Click to expand...


Grace get a grip!

Your stats have nothing to do with abortion.

AGI (The Alan Guttmacher Institute) is an arm of Planned Parenthood.  There is absolutely nothing Pro-life about AGI or PP.

About the Guttmacher Institute



> About the Guttmacher Institute
> 
> Four decades after its creation, the Guttmacher Institute continues to advance sexual and reproductive health in the United States and worldwide through an interrelated program of social science research, policy analysis and public education designed to generate new ideas, encourage enlightened public debate and promote sound policy and program development.
> 
> The Institute produces a wide range of resources on topics pertaining to sexual and reproductive health, including International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (formerly International Family Planning Perspectives), the Guttmacher Policy Review and Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. In 2009, Guttmacher was designated an official Collaborating Center for Reproductive Health by the World Health Organization and its regional office, the Pan American Health Organization.



Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it hasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of margaret sanger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another lie of yours easily disproven. Abortion was around long before your hero Sanger.
> 
> History of abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I think but can't swear to it that what he meant was that abortion has always been part of the eugenics movement.  And, I suspect that he is probably right on that.

So, be my guest and sue him if he didn't word his post quite right.

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

ABikerSailor said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more.  A fertilized egg is not a person.  Aborting it is not murdering a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans conceive humans.  From the beginning it is human. They're not human because '"that's what we've named them", they're human because HUMANS BEGET HUMANS.  How utterly stupid are you that you can't just admit this?  It's not a dog or a cat or an acorn . . _it is a human_.  It is a life that is in one of the very earliest stages of development and abortion is the killing/ending/destruction of a human life.  It isn't considered murder because it has been made legal.  That doesn't change the fact of what abortion does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right.  Humans do create other humans via breeding.  However, there is one distinct thing in all societies as well as theologies that define what it is specifically to be "human".
> 
> It's called free will, and your soul.  Animals must act by instinct, and, many theologies that say the thing that separates us from the animals is that small piece of God called our soul.
> 
> Scientifically speaking, it's also the point where we finally develop a nervous sytem and a brain that is programmed to act with free will.
> 
> So no.........it's not "human" until it's developed a nervous sytem, sometime after the 40 day mark.
> 
> Unless, you're a staunch supporter of the GOP and think that being soul less is "human".
Click to expand...


I believe the soul enters the body at the moment of conception. The soul is the spirit of the human ... what makes them who they are and that it is there from the moment they are conceived.  I also believe that 'free will' and your 'soul' are two different things.  A 45 day old fetus has no more 'free will' than an infant as both are dependent upon others and can't not do for themselves in any way.  Did you ever see a new baby at the moment they discover that that thing waving in front of their eyes (their hand) is part of them?  It's the most amazing thing.  You can nearly see the synapses forming in their brains!  That's when they start to become truly self-aware, imo.

While we will likely never see eye to eye on this it's refreshing to be able to converse and share our thoughts on it without the naming calling and flaming that usually happens in these types of threads.  Thanks for that, Rob!


----------



## Grace

I got fed up with his thread hippity hoppity prancings, always stating the same thing about it being the womans fault. Takes two to tango. Dont see him bitching out the guys to keep their dicks in their drawers, do ya? He isnt indignant about abortions. Hes just on a fucking witch hunt. So I lost my temper, then slapped his sorry ass on ignore. NOW Ill be able to read and digest more informative information instead of him asking if I wanna be raped and he will be right over, or for me to keep my legs closed, or how about if he shoots me in the face. Idiot mumble jumble that is now hidden.

So do carry on with the discussion. At least it might be semi readable now for me.


----------



## Vanquish

IMEURU, your reply, while heartfelt, is looking for blame somewhere.  I can't speak for the OP, but for me being pro-life isn't about blaming the woman. You are *absolutely right* that it takes two to tango. It's both parents' fault if they don't think through the consequences. But the focus need not be on fault.

The focus should be on the biology. Some excellent things were said early on in this thread.

1. A baby is a human life
2. A baby, while inside the mother is *separate from the mother*
3. If left untouched, the child will grow to be viable. (the vast majority of the time)

I'm not religious at all - and my pro-life beliefs have nothing to do with religion especially. It's simply logical that abortion is murder once you realize the 3 facts above.

Are there special cases when the doctor thinks that the only medically safe course is to have an abortion? Yes. And that should be taken into account. A mother's immediate medical health is important too.

The problem is when abortion used like contraceptive - in the sense of fixing a "mistake" (not that any child should ever be seen as a mistake).  Once fertilization occurs...there's no fixing the mistake except with murder.

IMEURU, please don't take my words as an attack on you. I'm speaking in the abstract. No woman should be hounded about abortion and treated evilly. I must, however, agree with those who say that if the child were 1 or 2 and it was killed...everyone would be up in arms.

I really wish humans had evolved so that the pregnancy stomach was clear...if that were the case, we wouldnt think of the baby as this "thing" that we can put out of our brains...but instead a living, breathing child that deserves protection.


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> I got fed up with his thread hippity hoppity prancings, always stating the same thing about it being the womans fault. Takes two to tango. Dont see him bitching out the guys to keep their dicks in their drawers, do ya? He isnt indignant about abortions. Hes just on a fucking witch hunt. So I lost my temper, then slapped his sorry ass on ignore. NOW Ill be able to read and digest more informative information instead of him asking if I wanna be raped and he will be right over, or for me to keep my legs closed, or how about if he shoots me in the face. Idiot mumble jumble that is now hidden.
> 
> So do carry on with the discussion. At least it might be semi readable now for me.



He is actually on your side of the fence on this from what I understand.  However, he enjoys pushing everyone's buttons.  That is just the way he is.  When he starts pushing my buttons, I tend to quit reading his posts as well.  

As long as people continue to respond to him, I expect him to keep this going.

Immie


----------



## Ravi

IMEURU said:


> I got fed up with his thread hippity hoppity prancings, always stating the same thing about it being the womans fault. Takes two to tango. Dont see him bitching out the guys to keep their dicks in their drawers, do ya? He isnt indignant about abortions. Hes just on a fucking witch hunt. So I lost my temper, then slapped his sorry ass on ignore. NOW Ill be able to read and digest more informative information instead of him asking if I wanna be raped and he will be right over, or for me to keep my legs closed, or how about if he shoots me in the face. Idiot mumble jumble that is now hidden.
> 
> So do carry on with the discussion. At least it might be semi readable now for me.


I think he has a fetish for rape and murder and this is the easiest way for him to keep bringing up those topics.

Kind of like a pedo hanging around a park.


----------



## Grace

Vanquish said:


> IMEURU, your reply, while heartfelt, is looking for blame somewhere.  I can't speak for the OP, but for me being pro-life isn't about blaming the woman. You are *absolutely right* that it takes two to tango. It's both parents' fault if they don't think through the consequences. But the focus need not be on fault.
> 
> The focus should be on the biology. Some excellent things were said early on in this thread.
> 
> 1. A baby is a human life
> 2. A baby, while inside the mother is *separate from the mother*
> 3. If left untouched, the child will grow to be viable. (the vast majority of the time)
> 
> I'm not religious at all - and my pro-life beliefs have nothing to do with religion especially. It's simply logical that abortion is murder once you realize the 3 facts above.
> 
> Are there special cases when the doctor thinks that the only medically safe course is to have an abortion? Yes. And that should be taken into account. A mother's immediate medical health is important too.
> 
> The problem is when abortion used like contraceptive - in the sense of fixing a "mistake" (not that any child should ever be seen as a mistake).  Once fertilization occurs...there's no fixing the mistake except with murder.
> 
> IMEURU, please don't take my words as an attack on you. I'm speaking in the abstract. No woman should be hounded about abortion and treated evilly. I must, however, agree with those who say that if the child were 1 or 2 and it was killed...everyone would be up in arms.
> 
> I really wish humans had evolved so that the pregnancy stomach was clear...if that were the case, we wouldnt think of the baby as this "thing" that we can put out of our brains...but instead a living, breathing child that deserves protection.



No, Im not taking it as an attack. You are speaking to me in terms that make me human, had an abortion because I was the "one percent" due to rape. The other guy  then asked if I wanted to be raped (again using it as a weapon on something I prefer to forget), and in general reliving what I already survived. All I said initially is, "having an abortion is NOT an easy choice". And choice it is. And no, its not easy. 

Conerning the percentages of who gets an abortion and why is no longer being discussed anyway. Whats being discussed is when a fetus is considered a human being with rights. The net and the world at large ALL have differing views about that. Nobody is sure. They all go with their own gut instincts on how they feel about it themselves. Personal opinions. Personal choices of when the egg becomes human. For me...its prior to the heart being formed and beginning to pump....and the first brain waves forming circuits. I had my abortion as soon as I found out the results of the "invasion" (which was thrown in my face as an "inconvenience" to carry it because its "human" and I am a baby killer and can he shoot me in the face). All these words brought it all back. I got reamed by a few posters, accused of this and that, and made to feel all over again what I felt so many years ago. At first it hurt. Then I got pissed. Then I calmed down. Then I got pissed off more. Right now..Im at ease because for the first time, I have someone on ignore. NOW I can read what others think but that wont change what I did, why I did it or what my opinion is concerning when a seed planted becomes one with an egg which then becomes a human being.


----------



## Grace

And furthermore...it matters not to me when it becomes human to my thinking._ I didnt want it growing in my body_. Period. And Id do it again.


----------



## Shadow

IMEURU said:


> And furthermore...it matters not to me when it becomes human to my thinking._ I didnt want it growing in my body_. Period. And Id do it again.



Sooo...now that you have decided that his discussion is going to be *all about you*,is everyone just supposed to stop talking about it now or something since it uspets you??


----------



## Grace

Shadow said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> And furthermore...it matters not to me when it becomes human to my thinking._ I didnt want it growing in my body_. Period. And Id do it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo...now that you have decided that his discussion is going to be *all about you*,is everyone just supposed to stop talking about it now or something since it uspets you??
Click to expand...



Nope. Continue bickering amongst yourselves on when a seed entering an egg becomes human. Or start another Palin thread so the whole front of the board is thread after thread of the same subject. Whatever floats yer boat.


----------



## AllieBaba

Shadow said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> And furthermore...it matters not to me when it becomes human to my thinking._ I didnt want it growing in my body_. Period. And Id do it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think you have the right to eliminate people who get in your way?
> 
> Of course, that's what all people who support abortion think.
Click to expand...


----------



## Vanquish

IMEURU said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> And furthermore...it matters not to me when it becomes human to my thinking._ I didnt want it growing in my body_. Period. And Id do it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo...now that you have decided that his discussion is going to be *all about you*,is everyone just supposed to stop talking about it now or something since it uspets you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Continue bickering amongst yourselves on when a seed entering an egg becomes human. Or start another Palin thread so the whole front of the board is thread after thread of the same subject. Whatever floats yer boat.
Click to expand...


IMEURE, Come on now. That was a good attempt at deflection...and to rationalizing your choice by making the science trivial...but you're failing, hon.  That's like saying "continue bickering about whether the star that's 93 million miles away is in the center of the galaxy or the spheroid mass we live on is." You made it sound boring and inconsequential - but the truth is...it's neither.   

If left alone, will the seed entering the egg become human? *Yes.* The moment they fertilize it's human. You seem to want to avoid that little truth.

I dont want to demonize you for your choice when you can't take it back. I'm sure it's a really sad thing to think about...and you followed your conscience at the time. But this thread is what it is...and I still havent seen anyone who can refute the logic of the facts that abortion is the murder of a human being.

Your aggressive (I could have used a different adjective, mind you) comment that basically you've got the power to stop something you don't like doesn't help your arguments.  I don't like Glenn Beck and with my 30-06 or my .45 I could stop him from growing/living too. Just because you can, doesn't make it right.


----------



## Anguille

frazzledgear said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please -no more of the "no one but a woman can understand it" BULLSHIT!  Are you SERIOUSLY saying that only another WOMAN could possibly understand whatever rationale you told yourself before getting an abortion?  That must mean you think the people who cannot possibly understand are MEN, just ignorant men who have no idea what its like to find themselves pregnant at an inconvenient time of life whether that issue of convenience has to do with location, job, personal relationship, finances, waking up on the wrong side of the bed or any possible combination etc. etc.  Only a WOMAN could possibly understand being saddled with a kid they would rather see dead, right?  Only a WOMAN would understand your belief that the value of another human life is determined by someone other than the owner of that life?  Does that also mean you value the opinion of women over that of men when it comes to the issue of abortion itself?
> 
> I don't care what your personal situation was and I don't care what kind of justifications you had to tell yourself to get an abortion -it is IRRELEVANT to this discussion.  So you had an abortion and* disposed of your own child like the trash it was to you*. * Does the fact that was your own personal value judgment on the life of your own child place any obligation on everyone else to agree with those justifications or try to convince themselves as well that the youngest of human lives just don't count as a human life?*   Does that mean because YOU had an abortion and then smugly claim "unless you are a woman..." THAT somehow MEANS something in this discussion?  Why would the fact you chose to have an abortion have a damn thing to do with this discussion about the fact it is a human life being killed?  Do you SERIOUSLY expect others to agree with you that the true value of another human life is properly determined by someone who doesn't even own it and if someone who doesn't own that life decides it is trash everyone else must agree with that as well  -just because that is what you did?  _Oh and then lay that piece of crap bullshit that no one could possibly understand why that is ok except another WOMAN?_  Are you for real?
> 
> What I as a WOMAN really DO understand is your defensiveness about what you did and why you feel the need to continue defending it in your own mind instead of coming to grips with the horror and immorality of what you did and realize you never did have a "right" to take the life of your child just because its existence was inconvenient for you at the moment.  Its easier to tell yourself it was a good, humane, decent and moral decision and then brush it off as "unless you are a woman..." bullshit.  As a woman I really do understand why you are doing that but not because I am a woman  -rationalizing the bad decisions we make in life is NOT restricted to just one gender!
> 
> Apparently you are under the impression it is women who would most understand (and approve) your decision to have an abortion, that it is WOMEN who would most agree with you that if you decide the life of your own child is trash it is ok to dispose of it like trash.   Guess again.  It isn't WOMEN who are most likely to agree and support your decision to kill your own child.  The majority of all women oppose abortion on demand and the overwhelming majority of women who have had a baby oppose it -probably because it is impossible to deny that the person inside them really is a human and not a theoretical guppy after all.  It is SINGLE MEN who support abortion on demand!  Gee, I wonder why that is.   By the way, that is also strongly correlated to why the number one cause of death for a pregnant woman changed from "accidents" and "complications of pregnancy" prior to Roe v. Wade to HOMICIDE in less than a decade following that ruling.  Homicide that is almost without exception at the hands of their baby's father when he gets really, really pissed off when the woman refuses to have an abortion at HIS demand and he really, really wants his kid dead and out of his way!   Being pregnant when the daddy wants his kid dead is a dangerous time for a woman.
> 
> 67% of all women who have abortions say they were pressured into getting one against their will by the father.  Women who oppose a man exercising his "right" to an abortion on HIS demand increase their own risk of death.   Abortion on demand protects MEN -and the life of your child doesn't even enter into the equation.  Just because you chose to end the life of your child for reasons you think only another woman could possibly understand in NO way obligates ANYONE to support your decision to do it.  And it is WOMEN themselves who are the LEAST likely to do so.
Click to expand...


I couldn't bring myself to finish reading this hateful post.
 Add Frazz to the list of monstrous harpies in this thread.


----------



## Grace

AllieBaba said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> And furthermore...it matters not to me when it becomes human to my thinking._ I didnt want it growing in my body_. Period. And Id do it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think you have the right to eliminate people who get in your way?
> 
> Of course, that's what all people who support abortion think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youre damn fucking right I have the right to eliminate people I was forced to host in MY BODY.
Click to expand...


----------



## Qball

IMEURU said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think you have the right to eliminate people who get in your way?
> 
> Of course, that's what all people who support abortion think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre damn fucking right I have the right to eliminate people I was forced to host in MY BODY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You act like fetuses willingly crawl into the uterus and set up camp for nine months. You have every right to not host another human in your body, but that means not getting pregnant in the first place. The situation necessarily changes after the fact. Saying "it's MY BODY" is beside the point. Nobody's confused about whose body it is. But if you get pregnant with a child you don't want, whose fault is that?
Click to expand...


----------



## Grace

frazzledgear=


----------



## Grace

Qball said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre damn fucking right I have the right to eliminate people I was forced to host in MY BODY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You act like fetuses willingly crawl into the uterus and set up camp for nine months. You have every right to not host another human in your body, but that means not getting pregnant in the first place. The situation necessarily changes after the fact. Saying "it's MY BODY" is beside the point. Nobody's confused about whose body it is. But if you get pregnant with a child you don't want, whose fault is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading the thread before opening your yapper. I was raped, asshole.
Click to expand...


----------



## Immanuel

Qball said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre damn fucking right I have the right to eliminate people I was forced to host in MY BODY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You act like fetuses willingly crawl into the uterus and set up camp for nine months. You have every right to not host another human in your body, but that means not getting pregnant in the first place. The situation necessarily changes after the fact. Saying "it's MY BODY" is beside the point. Nobody's confused about whose body it is. But if you get pregnant with a child you don't want, whose fault is that?
Click to expand...


Just a "head's up":

In 99% of the cases of abortion you are right, however, maybe you have not followed the threads over the last week or so, the person to whom you speak said she was raped and was not given that opportunity.


----------



## Vanquish

But the innocent life inside you didn't rape you. It was an innocent...just like you were.

You dont get to abort just because you were raped.  I know it had to be painful emotionally and physically. I recently represented a woman who was raped by a police officer. She'll never be the same.

But the child didn't deserve to die.


----------



## Anguille

Vanquish said:


> IMEURU, your reply, while heartfelt, is looking for blame somewhere.  I can't speak for the OP, but for me being pro-life isn't about blaming the woman. You are *absolutely right* that it takes two to tango. It's both parents' fault if they don't think through the consequences. But the focus need not be on fault.
> 
> The focus should be on the biology. Some excellent things were said early on in this thread.
> 
> 1. A baby is a human life
> 2. A baby, while inside the mother is *separate from the mother*
> 3. If left untouched, the child will grow to be viable. (the vast majority of the time)
> 
> I'm not religious at all - and my pro-life beliefs have nothing to do with religion especially. It's simply logical that abortion is murder once you realize the 3 facts above.
> 
> Are there special cases when the doctor thinks that the only medically safe course is to have an abortion? Yes. And that should be taken into account. A mother's immediate medical health is important too.
> 
> The problem is when abortion used like contraceptive - in the sense of fixing a "mistake" (not that any child should ever be seen as a mistake).  Once fertilization occurs...there's no fixing the mistake except with murder.
> 
> IMEURU, please don't take my words as an attack on you. I'm speaking in the abstract. No woman should be hounded about abortion and treated evilly. I must, however, agree with those who say that if the child were 1 or 2 and it was killed...everyone would be up in arms.
> 
> I really wish humans had evolved so that the pregnancy stomach was clear...if that were the case, we wouldnt think of the baby as this "thing" that we can put out of our brains...but instead a living, breathing child that deserves protection.


Thank you for your pro life post that shows some compassion. 

Though I disagree with you that abortion is murder, it's a well defined legal term, I share your sentiments on the unfortunate facts of how humans give birth. It would be so much easier if we laid eggs instead.


----------



## Grace

Im becoming very agitated and mean with this subject and I dont like being mean. Im off to find other news stories to discuss.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> So you think you have the right to eliminate people who get in your way?
> 
> Of course, that's what all people who support abortion think.



Poor Bubblehead, she hasn't the sense to know when she's been smacked down. 

BWGD?


----------



## Ravi

Vanquish said:


> You dont get to abort just because you were raped.


Yes, you do, actually. And for any other reason...it's none of your business. If you are against abortion, don't have one.


----------



## syrenn

Vanquish said:


> IMEURU, your reply, while heartfelt, is looking for blame somewhere.  I can't speak for the OP, but for me being pro-life isn't about blaming the woman. You are *absolutely right* that it takes two to tango. It's both parents' fault if they don't think through the consequences. But the focus need not be on fault.
> 
> The focus should be on the biology. Some excellent things were said early on in this thread.
> 
> 1. A baby is a human life
> 2. A baby, while inside the mother is *separate from the mother*
> 3. If left untouched, the child will grow to be viable. (the vast majority of the time)
> 
> I'm not religious at all - and my pro-life beliefs have nothing to do with religion especially. It's simply logical that abortion is murder once you realize the 3 facts above.
> 
> Are there special cases when the doctor thinks that the only medically safe course is to have an abortion? Yes. And that should be taken into account. A mother's immediate medical health is important too.
> 
> The problem is when abortion used like contraceptive - in the sense of fixing a "mistake" (not that any child should ever be seen as a mistake).  Once fertilization occurs...there's no fixing the mistake except with murder.
> 
> IMEURU, please don't take my words as an attack on you. I'm speaking in the abstract. No woman should be hounded about abortion and treated evilly. I must, however, agree with those who say that if the child were 1 or 2 and it was killed...everyone would be up in arms.
> 
> I really wish humans had evolved so that the pregnancy stomach was clear...if that were the case, we wouldnt think of the baby as this "thing" that we can put out of our brains...but instead a living, breathing child that deserves protection.



2- Then if it is a separate entity there should be no problem taking it out and letting it BE a separate entity all on its own at any point from the moment of fertlization. 

3- So you agree that it is not a viable until it grows up. Is 4 weeks viable?


----------



## syrenn

IMEURU said:


> And furthermore...it matters not to me when it becomes human to my thinking._ I didnt want it growing in my body_. Period. And Id do it again.



I agree. A woman has the absolute right to control HER body. If that means not gestating something that is working on her body like a parasite...that is HER choice. 

If that means using abortion as birth control...again HER choice HER body.


----------



## syrenn

IMEURU said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> And furthermore...it matters not to me when it becomes human to my thinking._ I didnt want it growing in my body_. Period. And Id do it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo...now that you have decided that his discussion is going to be *all about you*,is everyone just supposed to stop talking about it now or something since it uspets you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Continue bickering amongst yourselves on when a seed entering an egg becomes human. Or start another Palin thread so the whole front of the board is thread after thread of the same subject. Whatever floats yer boat.
Click to expand...



The cells are all human from the start. Cells and  tissue are not babies yet. 

It is all a matter of opinion just where that tissue becomes a baby.


----------



## dilloduck

syrenn said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo...now that you have decided that his discussion is going to be *all about you*,is everyone just supposed to stop talking about it now or something since it uspets you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Continue bickering amongst yourselves on when a seed entering an egg becomes human. Or start another Palin thread so the whole front of the board is thread after thread of the same subject. Whatever floats yer boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The cells are all human from the start. Cells and  tissue are not babies yet.
> 
> It is all a matter of opinion just where that tissue becomes a baby.
Click to expand...


No. It's a matter of when those human cells are offered the same rights and respect that the mother has.


----------



## JBeukema

IMEURU said:


> Dont see him bitching out the guys to keep their dicks in their drawers, do ya?



Who?



JBeukema said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe men should keep their dick in their pants.
> 
> 
> 
> If they're not prepared to provide and care for any child that might  result, yes they should. It's called personal responsibility.
> 
> You're making progress.
Click to expand...


Why do you people have to lie at every turn?

Too bad you can't hide from your conscience so easily.


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got fed up with his thread hippity hoppity prancings, always stating the same thing about it being the womans fault. Takes two to tango. Dont see him bitching out the guys to keep their dicks in their drawers, do ya? He isnt indignant about abortions. Hes just on a fucking witch hunt. So I lost my temper, then slapped his sorry ass on ignore. NOW Ill be able to read and digest more informative information instead of him asking if I wanna be raped and he will be right over, or for me to keep my legs closed, or how about if he shoots me in the face. Idiot mumble jumble that is now hidden.
> 
> So do carry on with the discussion. At least it might be semi readable now for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is actually on your side of the fence on this from what I understand.  However, he enjoys pushing everyone's buttons.
Click to expand...

No, I just don't like liars.

Also, I can't stand mindless parrots who can't be bothered to think about what they believe and why.

The truth is that Grace believes herself to be a murderer. That is why she can't discuss this matter honestly- she cannot confront what she has done, forgive herself, and move on.

Three times in this very thread, I've outlined why _I_ don't think what she did is murder. However, her own conscience tells her otherwise and her emotions prevent her from being able to approach the matter in a remotely intellectual matter.

If she really didn't believe she is a murderer and a baby killer, she would be able to state _why_ what she did is okay. Not only is she unable to do that, she cannot even be bothered to consider arguments that would support her desire to believe she isn't a baby-killer because she operates solely on emotions.

It is a simple question: at what point did what change that made killing you in cold blood go from an okay thing to a not-okay thing?

The reason she can't answer that? Because her heart tells her it never was okay to kill her baby. Until she can forgive herself for what she'd done and move on, it's going to continue to eat her up inside.


----------



## ABikerSailor

If the embryo doesn't have a nervous system, it doesn't have a brain or a soul, which are 2 things that make us uniquely human.

Science has proven this doesn't happen until after the 40 day point.  If it doesn't have a nervous system, it's just a mass of cells.


----------



## JBeukema

IMEURU said:


> "having an abortion is NOT an easy choice". And choice it is. And no, its not easy.




1/3 are repeat business.

Apparently plenty of women disagree with you





> Conerning the percentages of who gets an abortion and why is no longer being discussed anyway.



You keep using your rape as the excuse to justify your actions, yet the fact that 93 percent of abortions are done for convenience isn't an issue? If the reason has nothing to do with it, why keep going on about being raped?





> Whats being discussed is when a fetus is considered a human being with rights.



A question you've refused to answer in multiple threads spanning hundreds of posts.


> For me...its prior to the heart being formed and beginning to pump



So ~ six weeks.

Now...  Dick Cheney no longer a human being with rights? After all, he has no heartbeat.





> I got reamed by a few posters, accused of this and that



The only accusations came from your own conscience


----------



## JBeukema

IMEURU said:


> And furthermore...it matters not to me when it becomes human to my thinking._ I didnt want it growing in my body_. Period. And Id do it again.


So you're a liar; when it 'becomes a human being with rights' has nothing to do with it at all. You just want to be allowed to kill a baby if it's inconvenient at any point in its life.


----------



## Anguille

dilloduck said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Continue bickering amongst yourselves on when a seed entering an egg becomes human. Or start another Palin thread so the whole front of the board is thread after thread of the same subject. Whatever floats yer boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cells are all human from the start. Cells and  tissue are not babies yet.
> 
> It is all a matter of opinion just where that tissue becomes a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It's a matter of when those human cells are offered the same rights and respect that the mother has.
Click to expand...

Mothers have no right to inhabit other people's bodies against those people's wishes, either.


----------



## JBeukema

IMEURU said:


> Im becoming very agitated and mean with this subject and I dont like being mean. Im off to find other news stories to discuss.




You have to forgive yourself, grace


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont get to abort just because you were raped.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do, actually. And for any other reason...it's none of your business. If you are against abortion, don't have one.
Click to expand...

If you're against shooting Ravi in the face, don't shoot Ravi in the face- and leave me alone if I do?


----------



## NYcarbineer

So who in this thread thinks all abortion should be illegal?

So who in this thread thinks all abortion should be illegal, with exceptions (name your exceptions)?


----------



## Anguille

JBeukema said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got fed up with his thread hippity hoppity prancings, always stating the same thing about it being the womans fault. Takes two to tango. Dont see him bitching out the guys to keep their dicks in their drawers, do ya? He isnt indignant about abortions. Hes just on a fucking witch hunt. So I lost my temper, then slapped his sorry ass on ignore. NOW Ill be able to read and digest more informative information instead of him asking if I wanna be raped and he will be right over, or for me to keep my legs closed, or how about if he shoots me in the face. Idiot mumble jumble that is now hidden.
> 
> So do carry on with the discussion. At least it might be semi readable now for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is actually on your side of the fence on this from what I understand.  However, he enjoys pushing everyone's buttons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I just don't like liars.
> 
> Also, I can't stand mindless parrots who can't be bothered to think about what they believe and why.
> 
> The truth is that Grace believes herself to be a murderer. That is why she can't discuss this matter honestly- she cannot confront what she has done, forgive herself, and move on.
> 
> Three times in this very thread, I've outlined why _I_ don't think what she did is murder. However, her own conscience tells her otherwise and her emotions prevent her from being able to approach the matter in a remotely intellectual matter.
> 
> If she really didn't believe she is a murderer and a baby killer, she would be able to state _why_ what she did is okay. Not only is she unable to do that, she cannot even be bothered to consider arguments that would support her desire to believe she isn't a baby-killer because she operates solely on emotions.
> 
> It is a simple question: at what point did what change that made killing you in cold blood go from an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> 
> The reason she can't answer that? Because her heart tells her it never was okay to kill her baby. Until she can forgive herself for what she'd done and move on, it's going to continue to eat her up inside.
Click to expand...

The only one cold blooded in your dispute with IMEURU is you.

Add yourself to the list of rapacious harpies.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> HER choice HER body.


The baby's not your body

your catchphrase is bullshit


----------



## Anguille

JBeukema said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im becoming very agitated and mean with this subject and I dont like being mean. Im off to find other news stories to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to forgive yourself, grace
Click to expand...


Puke-enema heading for meltdown.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> It is all a matter of opinion just where that tissue becomes a baby.


No, it's not. Earth is spherical no mater how badly you want it to be flat.


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> If the embryo doesn't have a nervous system, it doesn't have a brain or a soul, which are 2 things that make us uniquely human.
> 
> Science has proven this doesn't happen until after the 40 day point.  If it doesn't have a nervous system, it's just a mass of cells.



Science can prove when you have a soul? 

Source?


----------



## Anguille

I wonder what sort of gas Puke-enema is getting high on in that mask?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> Rape victims account for 1% of abortions
> 
> Parading them around to justify the 93% of abortions that are done out of simple convenience is bullshit. It is nothing short of the exploitation of their suffering to serve the political and economic interests of the abortion industry.



Should all abortions be illegal?

Should the fertilized egg be constitutionally protected as a person, the way born Americans are?


----------



## Anguille

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape victims account for 1% of abortions
> 
> Parading them around to justify the 93% of abortions that are done out of simple convenience is bullshit. It is nothing short of the exploitation of their suffering to serve the political and economic interests of the abortion industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should all abortions be illegal?
> 
> Should the fertilized egg be constitutionally protected as a person, the way born Americans are?
Click to expand...


They will never answer that one.


----------



## ABikerSailor

JBeukema said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the embryo doesn't have a nervous system, it doesn't have a brain or a soul, which are 2 things that make us uniquely human.
> 
> Science has proven this doesn't happen until after the 40 day point.  If it doesn't have a nervous system, it's just a mass of cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science can prove when you have a soul?
> 
> Source?
Click to expand...


First off, you need to know a bit about Judaic theology, as well as science.

In Judaic theology, it states that ElOhim (God of Many Powers) created the world.  Says so in Genesis as a matter of fact.  And, in their teachings, they state that God carves off a small piece of His energy which He then places into the embryo created by your parents at around the 40 day point of pregnancy.

Next, realize that what runs your body is the electricity that courses through your nervous system.

Take the Judaic concept and you would understand that your "soul" is actually the electricity that runs your nervous system.


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the embryo doesn't have a nervous system, it doesn't have a brain or a soul, which are 2 things that make us uniquely human.
> 
> Science has proven this doesn't happen until after the 40 day point.  If it doesn't have a nervous system, it's just a mass of cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science can prove when you have a soul?
> 
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, you need to know a bit about Judaic theology
Click to expand...

No, I don't. All religious arguments will be dismissed out of hand until you prove your religion is correct.




> Take the Judaic concept and you would understand that your "soul" is actually the electricity that runs your nervous system.



Sop now we're not talking about a soul at all?

Make up your mind.


Now, if electricity is so important, why is it so important? What fundamental aspect of your nature changes when the first electrical signal passes through your body that makes killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing? Why not the first heartbeat? Or the first breath?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Anguille said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape victims account for 1% of abortions
> 
> Parading them around to justify the 93% of abortions that are done out of simple convenience is bullshit. It is nothing short of the exploitation of their suffering to serve the political and economic interests of the abortion industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should all abortions be illegal?
> 
> Should the fertilized egg be constitutionally protected as a person, the way born Americans are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will never answer that one.
Click to expand...


They like the rhetoric, they like the 'abortion is murder', and 'baby killer', and 'holocaust' sloganeering, 

but they can't make a rational argument against allowing a pregnant woman a reasonable opportunity early on in a pregnancy the right to choose to terminate it,

so we get the exploiting of fallacious emotionalism instead.

Outside of a few mental cases, these people no more believe that a fertilized egg is a person than I do.


----------



## Vanquish

ABikerSailor said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the embryo doesn't have a nervous system, it doesn't have a brain or a soul, which are 2 things that make us uniquely human.
> 
> Science has proven this doesn't happen until after the 40 day point.  If it doesn't have a nervous system, it's just a mass of cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science can prove when you have a soul?
> 
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, you need to know a bit about Judaic theology, as well as science.
> 
> In Judaic theology, it states that ElOhim (God of Many Powers) created the world.  Says so in Genesis as a matter of fact.  And, in their teachings, they state that God carves off a small piece of His energy which He then places into the embryo created by your parents at around the 40 day point of pregnancy.
> 
> Next, realize that what runs your body is the electricity that courses through your nervous system.
> 
> Take the Judaic concept and you would understand that your "soul" is actually the electricity that runs your nervous system.
Click to expand...


1. Religious myths = science
2. You are interpreting the word "energy. Who says energy means electricity? do you DARE assume you know everything G*d knows? Be humble and just answer that with a polite "no."

3. Most importantly, the lack of a nervous system does NOT mean lack of humanity. All the parts are HUMAN and developing. The fact that the child isn't finished developing doesnt mean it's not going to become a human.

That's like saying...hey this apple just dropped from a tree...and it's half-way down at this point. Do you know for sure it'll hit the ground? Assuming there's nothing that bothers it...yep. It'll hit the ground. Has it done so yet? No. Can I be pretty damn certain? Yes.

There's your little thought experiment.

Anti-lifers want to use technicalities to get out of reasonable, rational thought.  You know it's a kid...you just don't find it convenient. Admit it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

I've stipulated that the zygote/embryo/fetus is human.

I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me that relevant in the context of deciding the right or wrong, the legality or illegality,

of a 1st trimester abortion, 

the use of RU486,

the use of the morning after pill,

the discarding of fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic.

Anyone?  No one?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> I've stipulated that the zygote/embryo/fetus is human.
> 
> I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me that relevant in the context of deciding the right or wrong, the legality or illegality



Why is killing an ant okay but kill you isn't?

You're a human.

What age were you when killing you in cold blood went from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing and why was it suddenly wrong to kill you in cold blood?


----------



## syrenn

dilloduck said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Continue bickering amongst yourselves on when a seed entering an egg becomes human. Or start another Palin thread so the whole front of the board is thread after thread of the same subject. Whatever floats yer boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cells are all human from the start. Cells and  tissue are not babies yet.
> 
> It is all a matter of opinion just where that tissue becomes a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It's a matter of when those human cells are offered the same rights and respect that the mother has.
Click to expand...


C-sections the cells out, just as you would a full grown baby,  and give them all the respect you want.


----------



## Vanquish

NYcarbineer said:


> I've stipulated that the zygote/embryo/fetus is human.
> 
> I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me that relevant in the context of deciding the right or wrong, the legality or illegality,
> 
> of a 1st trimester abortion,
> 
> the use of RU486,
> 
> the use of the morning after pill,
> 
> the discarding of fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic.
> 
> Anyone?  No one?



Of course it's relevant because we protect human life with our laws. Try killing a human that's OUTSIDE the womb...you'll very soon (unless you're Dexter) see the relevance.

We protect human life in this country. The Founding Fathers made it a right. The Right to Life.

And as to when cells become a baby...they become a baby at conception. De-humanizing them into "cells" is a deflection of the highest order. They are HUMAN cells...that if left alone...will most certainly become a child.

Anti-Lifers dehumanize the baby into cells because it suits their rationalization of killing because the child inconveniences one or both of the parents.


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> HER choice HER body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The baby's not your body
> 
> your catchphrase is bullshit
Click to expand...


First you say it is now you say it is not. Can you please make up your mind? It either is a stand along thing or it is not. It is either part of a womans body in terms of she is the one living and breathing for it to keep it alive, or she is not. If she is not, then it should have no problems being taken out and put on a table at ANY stage of its gestation.

If it was in *my* body, it either is part of me, of which i have _complete control,_ or it is not. If it is*not *part of* my *body it should have no problem being* outside *of *my *body. 

How hard is that for you to understand?


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> *I've stipulated that the zygote/embryo/fetus is human.*
> 
> I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me that relevant in the context of* deciding the right or wrong*, the legality or illegality,
> 
> *of a 1st trimester abortion,
> 
> the use of RU486,
> 
> the use of the morning after pill,
> 
> the discarding of fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic.*
> 
> Anyone?  No one?



So you concur that from conception it is a human being.  Good.

Now you want to know the 'right and wrong' of destroying that human being via:

abortion
RU486
discarding fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic
(I believe the morning after pill prevents conception)



It's been answered throughout this thread.  So sad that you can't see the answer for yourself.  

Try answering JB's question that's been asked of you ad nauseum.


----------



## syrenn

Vanquish said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science can prove when you have a soul?
> 
> Source?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, you need to know a bit about Judaic theology, as well as science.
> 
> In Judaic theology, it states that ElOhim (God of Many Powers) created the world.  Says so in Genesis as a matter of fact.  And, in their teachings, they state that God carves off a small piece of His energy which He then places into the embryo created by your parents at around the 40 day point of pregnancy.
> 
> Next, realize that what runs your body is the electricity that courses through your nervous system.
> 
> Take the Judaic concept and you would understand that your "soul" is actually the electricity that runs your nervous system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Religious myths = science
> 2. You are interpreting the word "energy. Who says energy means electricity? do you DARE assume you know everything G*d knows? Be humble and just answer that with a polite "no."
> 
> 3. Most importantly, the lack of a nervous system does NOT mean lack of humanity. All the parts are HUMAN and developing. The fact that the child isn't finished developing doesnt mean it's not *going to become a human*.
> 
> That's like saying...hey this apple just dropped from a tree...and it's half-way down at this point. Do you know for sure it'll hit the ground? Assuming there's nothing that bothers it...yep. It'll hit the ground. Has it done so yet? No. Can I be pretty damn certain? Yes.
> 
> There's your little thought experiment.
> 
> Anti-lifers want to use technicalities to get out of reasonable, rational thought.  You know it's a kid...you just don't find it convenient. Admit it.
Click to expand...



Funny, even you say it yourself in may posts

BECOME. 

Which also implies that it is* not *a baby YET.


----------



## JBeukema

Why do you people have to lie? The baby never was your body and I never bought your bullshit line.

If I put you underwater and keep you there, you die. Same if I put you into a fire. Any human, at any stage of development, dies outside of the environment for which it is meant.

If you're not part of Earth's body, why can't you survive outside her atmosphere?


----------



## Zoom-boing

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> HER choice HER body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The baby's not your body
> 
> your catchphrase is bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you say it is now you say it is not. Can you please make up your mind? It either is a stand along thing or it is not. It is either part of a womans body in terms of she is the one living and breathing for it to keep it alive, or she is not. If she is not, then it should have no problems being taken out and put on a table at ANY stage of its gestation.
> 
> If it was in *my* body, it either is part of me, of which i have _complete control,_ or it is not. If it is*not *part of* my *body it should have no problem being* outside *of *my *body.
> 
> How hard is that for you to understand?
Click to expand...


Just as you should have no problem surviving just fine in Siberia, regardless of being unprepared and unequipped to do so.  Right?


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> Why do you people have to lie? The baby never was your body and I never bought your bullshit line.
> 
> If I put you underwater and keep you there, you die. Same if I put you into a fire. Any human, at any stage of development, dies outside of the environment for which it is meant.
> 
> If you're not part of Earth's body, why can't you survive outside her atmosphere?




So you agree that it is a parasite, a parasite that requites the environment of a host. If it is not part of a womans body then it is something alien to herself inhabiting her womb.

Good to know you see it at last.


----------



## JBeukema

Yes, Sy, we've always known you were a parasite


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My threshold for removing a fetus is about 9 weeks my end point. In that time a person has had enough time to make up their minds. Anything longer then that the pregnancy has gone to far in my opinion, and the and it is viable...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define: viable
> 
> We can save preemies today we couldn't have decades ago. It's a moving target.
> 
> Does grandma become free game when she's on a respirator?
> 
> Why does 'viability' mean anything at all?
> 
> 
> Had enough time? What about all the time you had to decide to not engage in unprotected sex or to keep your clothes on if you're not ready to provide and care for a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about this variable? It was time enough for the guy to keep his dick in his pants and since he didnt, had a woody and thought hed show some "power" and "control" and his banty rooster mentality needed to force himself on someone weaker to step up and own what he did, but didnt, and therefore got his sorry ass thrown in jail because what he did was ILLEGAL and called RAPE.
> 
> Howzat for variables, insinuations, finger pointing and overall GUESSING scenarios of which nobody knows jack shit about while arguing a point over and over and over and over again?
Click to expand...


Seriously, Grace, how about you get some counseling and stop projecting your own emotional issues all over the rest of us?  This is not a group-therapy session, and emotional reactions substituting for logical thought is one of the worst sorts of dishonesty around.

The fact that something bad happened to you does not make anything you say on the subject automatically right, nor does it entitle you to shut down any discussion on the topic that you don't like or want to hear.  Victimhood does not convey infallibility.

I swear to God, I am not trying to be mean or callous here, but it honestly sounds to me like you've spent a lot of time since the attack with people tiptoeing around you, patting you on the back and saying, "Poor baby, whatever makes you feel better about it", to the point where you've gotten the idea that you have a right to expect that from everyone.  You don't, nor do I think it's been helpful, judging by the amount of hatred and bitterness you're spewing all around you.

The truth is, I think the attitudes and perspectives you were taught about pregnancy, abortion, and perhaps femaleness in general, left you badly-equipped to deal with what happened.  They don't seem to have offered you any point from which you can gain peace or a positive outlook and move on.  If I didn't object to the stridently negative battle cry of "My body, my choice!" for any other reason, I would object to it because of that.

Lastly, you should really get past this whole "No one else can POSSIBLY know how I feel, no one else has suffered like I have!" idea.  You don't know any of us in real life, and you have no way of knowing what we've been through, but you should at least be mature enough to know that your experience is, sadly, far from unique.


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> Yes, Sy, we've always known you were a parasite



no more then you it would seem.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Rape victims account for 1% of abortions
> 
> Parading them around to justify the 93% of abortions that are done out of simple convenience is bullshit. It is nothing short of the exploitation of their suffering to serve the political and economic interests of the abortion industry.



In this case, it's Grace being wholly unable to deal with what happened to her, and feeling that she needs to defend ALL abortion in order to defend her own decision.


----------



## jillian

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've stipulated that the zygote/embryo/fetus is human.*
> 
> I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me that relevant in the context of* deciding the right or wrong*, the legality or illegality,
> 
> *of a 1st trimester abortion,
> 
> the use of RU486,
> 
> the use of the morning after pill,
> 
> the discarding of fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic.*
> 
> Anyone?  No one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you concur that from conception it is a human being.  Good.
> 
> Now you want to know the 'right and wrong' of destroying that human being via:
> 
> abortion
> RU486
> discarding fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic
> (I believe the morning after pill prevents conception)
> 
> 
> 
> It's been answered throughout this thread.  So sad that you can't see the answer for yourself.
> 
> Try answering JB's question that's been asked of you ad nauseum.
Click to expand...


no one is asking you the right and wrong of destroying a fetus. the question is when does government have the right to insert itself into a woman's body? and when do you get the right to make decisions for others?

if someone feels strongly about this issue, that's fine. but they need to keep those feelings away from anyone who isn't asking for their input.... same as with religion. everyone's entitled to their own. no one has the right to, uninvited, impose their religion on others.

and, ultimately, isn't that what we're talking about?


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> I dont give one iota what the percentages are. YOU DONT KNOW SQUAT and Im sick of reading your drivel.



Then leave the thread.  You don't have the right to silence people just because you're a victim.  And you're never going to STOP being a victim until you stop playing the "poor little me, everyone has to coddle me" card.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Rape victims account for 1% of abortions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REPORTED rape victims. REPORTED. Obviously you DO believe everything you read on the net. I thought so.
Click to expand...


You want to argue with the Guttmacher Institute over what the women themselves said?  Go ahead.  Meanwhile, the WOMEN were the ones who said they were getting an abortion because of rape, so if you think your victimhood gives you the right to call OTHER women who've gotten abortion liars, then go take it up with them.  DON'T come storming in here, spewing emotional disorders all over everyone else and thinking it entitles you to sweep away all parameters of discussion and set up your own injuries in their place.

Once again, this isn't group therapy, and we're not your counselors.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Want to read whats on the net? FINE. Here ya go! Got LOTS to cut and paste for ya. Ill take my time, though. Wouldnt wanna overwhelm ya, ya know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One reported forcible rape or attempted rape takes place approximately every six minutes in the United States. This statistic does not included unreported rapes or other sexual assaults, including assaults against men or many children (boys, or girls sexually assaulted but not raped).
> A history of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect can be found in the background of many adolescent sex offenders.
> 75% percent of women raped are between the ages of 15 and 21. The average age is 18.
> Only 16 percent of rapes are ever reported to the police.
> In the United States, every 2-3 minutes a woman is sexually assaulted.
> 87% of all sexual assault victims are female.
> The single most effective strategy used to stop an assault is an immediate physical and verbal response.
> 97% of all sexual assault offenders are male.
> 85% of all sexual assaults are committed by a family member, friend, or acquaintance of the victim.
> In over one-third of all sexual assaults, the assailant attacks the victim in the victim's own home.
> Rape is the most under-reported crime in the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics
> 
> In a study conducted by the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers interviewed 8,000 women and 8,000 men. Using a definition of rape that includes forced vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse, the survey found that 1 in 6 women had experienced an attempted rape or a completed rape.
> 
> At the time they were raped:
> 
> 22% were under the age of twelve
> 54% were under the age of eighteen
> 83% were under the age of twenty-five
> 
> In the same study, 1 in 33 men had experienced a sexual assault.
> 
> Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice, 1998
> 
> 
> 
> In the Rape in America study, 60% of the women who reported being raped were under 18 years old:
> 
> 29.3% were less than 11 years old
> 32.3% were between 11 and 17
> 22.2% were between 18 and 24
> 7.1% were between 25 and 29
> 6.1% were older than 29
> 3.0% age was not available
> 
> Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, National Victim Center, 1992
> 
> 
> 
> Youths 12-17 are two to three times more likely to be sexually assaulted than adults.
> 
> National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck it. Do your own huntin'
> 
> Google
Click to expand...


And this has WHAT to do with how many abortions are the result of rape?  Perhaps it somehow makes you feel better to vomit rape statistics all over the place, and you CLEARLY think you're entitled to shoehorn your personal trauma into any discussion you wish on the basis of "poor little victim me", but the topic here is ABORTION, not "Grace was raped, everyone shut up and genuflect to her suffering".

At this point, I don't care if I'm being mean or not.  Your self-pity is on my last nerve, and you are WELL overdue for a swift kick in the ass to get over yourself.


----------



## syrenn

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The baby's not your body
> 
> your catchphrase is bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you say it is now you say it is not. Can you please make up your mind? It either is a stand along thing or it is not. It is either part of a womans body in terms of she is the one living and breathing for it to keep it alive, or she is not. If she is not, then it should have no problems being taken out and put on a table at ANY stage of its gestation.
> 
> If it was in *my* body, it either is part of me, of which i have _complete control,_ or it is not. If it is*not *part of* my *body it should have no problem being* outside *of *my *body.
> 
> How hard is that for you to understand?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as you should have no problem surviving just fine in Siberia, regardless of being unprepared and unequipped to do so.  Right?
Click to expand...


Do i say not to assist the 4 week old cells once it is outside of its host environment? Do i say new born babies do not require assistance to survive? Do i say children do not need assistance to survive? No, i do not. Just as a baby needs assistance to survive in a new environment I would need assistance to survive in Siberia. 

Again, feel free to give _all the assistance _to 4 week old tissue on a table you want. See if it survives. 

If i was given _all the assistance_ i wanted in Siberia...i would survive just fine.


----------



## JBeukema

jillian said:


> if someone feels strongly about this issue, that's fine. but they need to keep those feelings away from anyone who isn't asking for their input....



Wrong. Society agreed long ago that just because Charles Manson and Ricardo Ramirez didn't think what they did was wrong didn't mean it was their choice to make.

Homicide has always been a social matter. 

By your reasoning, the man who raped Grace shouldn't have been put in prison- after all, he never asked whether you think what he did was okay or not.

When your actions harm another person, it's no longer just your business. As soon as your acts cause harm to another, it becomes all our business.

I can tattoo, paint, burn, touch, and pierce my body all I want. I may not strap a bomb to it and harm other people when I set it off in Time Square.




> no one has the right to, uninvited, impose their religion on others.
> 
> and, ultimately, isn't that what we're talking about?



No, we're talking about whether we are a civilized society or not. We're talking about whether raping Grace, killing children, burning a man's house down, or flying a plane into a building full of people is acceptable or not.




JBeukema said:


> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your  fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from  being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?







JBeukema said:


> Does my right to do as I will with or to my own  body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it  not?







JBeukema said:


> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a   not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU, your reply, while heartfelt, is looking for blame somewhere.  I can't speak for the OP, but for me being pro-life isn't about blaming the woman. You are *absolutely right* that it takes two to tango. It's both parents' fault if they don't think through the consequences. But the focus need not be on fault.
> 
> The focus should be on the biology. Some excellent things were said early on in this thread.
> 
> 1. A baby is a human life
> 2. A baby, while inside the mother is *separate from the mother*
> 3. If left untouched, the child will grow to be viable. (the vast majority of the time)
> 
> I'm not religious at all - and my pro-life beliefs have nothing to do with religion especially. It's simply logical that abortion is murder once you realize the 3 facts above.
> 
> Are there special cases when the doctor thinks that the only medically safe course is to have an abortion? Yes. And that should be taken into account. A mother's immediate medical health is important too.
> 
> The problem is when abortion used like contraceptive - in the sense of fixing a "mistake" (not that any child should ever be seen as a mistake).  Once fertilization occurs...there's no fixing the mistake except with murder.
> 
> IMEURU, please don't take my words as an attack on you. I'm speaking in the abstract. No woman should be hounded about abortion and treated evilly. I must, however, agree with those who say that if the child were 1 or 2 and it was killed...everyone would be up in arms.
> 
> I really wish humans had evolved so that the pregnancy stomach was clear...if that were the case, we wouldnt think of the baby as this "thing" that we can put out of our brains...but instead a living, breathing child that deserves protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Im not taking it as an attack. You are speaking to me in terms that make me human, had an abortion because I was the "one percent" due to rape. The other guy  then asked if I wanted to be raped (again using it as a weapon on something I prefer to forget), and in general reliving what I already survived. All I said initially is, "having an abortion is NOT an easy choice". And choice it is. And no, its not easy.
> 
> Conerning the percentages of who gets an abortion and why is no longer being discussed anyway. Whats being discussed is when a fetus is considered a human being with rights. The net and the world at large ALL have differing views about that. Nobody is sure. They all go with their own gut instincts on how they feel about it themselves. Personal opinions. Personal choices of when the egg becomes human. For me...its prior to the heart being formed and beginning to pump....and the first brain waves forming circuits. I had my abortion as soon as I found out the results of the "invasion" (which was thrown in my face as an "inconvenience" to carry it because its "human" and I am a baby killer and can he shoot me in the face). All these words brought it all back. I got reamed by a few posters, accused of this and that, and made to feel all over again what I felt so many years ago. At first it hurt. Then I got pissed. Then I calmed down. Then I got pissed off more. Right now..Im at ease because for the first time, I have someone on ignore. NOW I can read what others think but that wont change what I did, why I did it or what my opinion is concerning when a seed planted becomes one with an egg which then becomes a human being.
Click to expand...


Your desperate defensiveness and need to see ANYTHING anyone says that you don't like as a personal attack amounts to nothing more than you raping yourself all over again every single time.

I pity you, but that doesn't mean I'm going to surrender my right to have an opinion and state it freely to your obsessive victimhood.

You were raped.  You aren't the only woman in the world who was.  If you can't deal, don't expect the world to adjust itself to your self-pity.  The alternative to you hearing things you don't like isn't for everyone else to "shut your fucking mouth" as you so charmingly told JB, but for YOU to remove your fucking self from the conversation.

Get help or get gone.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> And furthermore...it matters not to me when it becomes human to my thinking._ I didnt want it growing in my body_. Period. And Id do it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo...now that you have decided that his discussion is going to be *all about you*,is everyone just supposed to stop talking about it now or something since it uspets you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Continue bickering amongst yourselves on when a seed entering an egg becomes human. Or start another Palin thread so the whole front of the board is thread after thread of the same subject. Whatever floats yer boat.
Click to expand...


At least until the NEXT time you want to turn into a screeching virago telling everyone to "shut their fucking mouths", right?


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think you have the right to eliminate people who get in your way?
> 
> Of course, that's what all people who support abortion think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre damn fucking right I have the right to eliminate people I was forced to host in MY BODY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and we can all tell how firmly you truly believe that by your foot-stomping, incoherent tantrums in here.
Click to expand...


----------



## JBeukema

IMEURU said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> And furthermore...it matters not to me when it becomes human to my thinking._ I didnt want it growing in my body_. Period. And Id do it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo...now that you have decided that his discussion is going to be *all about you*,is everyone just supposed to stop talking about it now or something since it uspets you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Continue bickering amongst yourselves on when a seed entering an egg becomes human. Or start another Palin thread so the whole front of the board is thread after thread of the same subject. Whatever floats yer boat.
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161891-pro-life-vs-pro-choice.html

I wonder who started that thread


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Im becoming very agitated and mean with this subject and I dont like being mean. Im off to find other news stories to discuss.



At least until the next time you decide to come back and start wailing, "I was raped!  I'm a victim, so everyone has to SHUT UP!  Stop saying things I don't want to hear!  Abortion debates are ALL ABOUT ME!  Bow before my towering suffering!"

At least we'll all be able to get back to some semblance of rational discussion for a little while.


----------



## jillian

Cecilie1200 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo...now that you have decided that his discussion is going to be *all about you*,is everyone just supposed to stop talking about it now or something since it uspets you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Continue bickering amongst yourselves on when a seed entering an egg becomes human. Or start another Palin thread so the whole front of the board is thread after thread of the same subject. Whatever floats yer boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least until the NEXT time you want to turn into a screeching virago telling everyone to "shut their fucking mouths", right?
Click to expand...


is that your new debating tactic? lose an argument so call someone a screeching virago?

does that work?

eh... maybe it works on some people.


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you people have to lie? The baby never was your body and I never bought your bullshit line.
> 
> If I put you underwater and keep you there, you die. Same if I put you into a fire. Any human, at any stage of development, dies outside of the environment for which it is meant.
> 
> If you're not part of Earth's body, why can't you survive outside her atmosphere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that it is a parasite, a parasite that requites the environment of a host. If it is not part of a womans body then it is something alien to herself inhabiting her womb.
> 
> Good to know you see it at last.
Click to expand...


First of all, a fetus is more of a symbiote than a parasite.  Second of all, it's just another example of your extreme dishonesty - the point of this thread - that you think YOU have the right to tell someone ELSE that it's good that they see that the baby isn't the mother's body, when YOU are the one who keeps trumpeting, "A woman has a right to do what she wants with her body".

Thanks for demonstrating yet again how your position is based on nothing but self-serving lies with all your flip-flopping and topic-hopping.  "It's a woman's body; no, wait, it's a parasite and separate".

Pathetic.


----------



## Cecilie1200

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Continue bickering amongst yourselves on when a seed entering an egg becomes human. Or start another Palin thread so the whole front of the board is thread after thread of the same subject. Whatever floats yer boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least until the NEXT time you want to turn into a screeching virago telling everyone to "shut their fucking mouths", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is that your new debating tactic? lose an argument so call someone a screeching virago?
> 
> does that work?
> 
> eh... maybe it works on some people.
Click to expand...


Only when that person is BEING a screeching virago.  I realize the debating tactic of telling the truth is foreign to you, but that doesn't oblige me to justify it to you.  Basically, it's the same procedure as when I tell you you're an ignorant liar:  telling the truth personalized to the poster I'm addressing.


----------



## Zoom-boing

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've stipulated that the zygote/embryo/fetus is human.*
> 
> I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me that relevant in the context of* deciding the right or wrong*, the legality or illegality,
> 
> *of a 1st trimester abortion,
> 
> the use of RU486,
> 
> the use of the morning after pill,
> 
> the discarding of fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic.*
> 
> Anyone?  No one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you concur that from conception it is a human being.  Good.
> 
> Now you want to know the 'right and wrong' of destroying that human being via:
> 
> abortion
> RU486
> discarding fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic
> (I believe the morning after pill prevents conception)
> 
> 
> 
> It's been answered throughout this thread.  So sad that you can't see the answer for yourself.
> 
> Try answering JB's question that's been asked of you ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one is asking you the right and wrong of destroying a fetus. the question is when does government have the right to insert itself into a woman's body? and when do you get the right to make decisions for others?
> 
> if someone feels strongly about this issue, that's fine. but they need to keep those feelings away from anyone who isn't asking for their input.... same as with religion. everyone's entitled to their own. no one has the right to, uninvited, impose their religion on others.
> 
> and, ultimately, isn't that what we're talking about?
Click to expand...


No, that's not what he's asking.  Abortion IS legal and he knows it.  His 'legal or illegal' question has been answered several times in this thread he just can't fathom that 'pro-lifers', for the most part, aren't interested in punishing the woman and he equates THAT to us not really believing that what grows inside the womb really is a person.

He is asking about the 'right or wrong' of removing said human being via those methods.  The topic may have started with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' but has turned, as it always does, into what actually grows inside of the womb.  And, if he_ is _asking about government intervention?  Why would anyone bother answering him when he flat out refuses to answer questions?


----------



## Gadawg73

I have still not seen any evidence of anyone being "pro abortion" and a definitive defintion of what "pro abortion" is.


----------



## AllieBaba

The virago thing is just an observation; I don't see that it is used to justify any argument except perhaps that Grace is over the top emotional on this topic.


----------



## jillian

Zoom-boing said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you concur that from conception it is a human being.  Good.
> 
> Now you want to know the 'right and wrong' of destroying that human being via:
> 
> abortion
> RU486
> discarding fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic
> (I believe the morning after pill prevents conception)
> 
> 
> 
> It's been answered throughout this thread.  So sad that you can't see the answer for yourself.
> 
> Try answering JB's question that's been asked of you ad nauseum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one is asking you the right and wrong of destroying a fetus. the question is when does government have the right to insert itself into a woman's body? and when do you get the right to make decisions for others?
> 
> if someone feels strongly about this issue, that's fine. but they need to keep those feelings away from anyone who isn't asking for their input.... same as with religion. everyone's entitled to their own. no one has the right to, uninvited, impose their religion on others.
> 
> and, ultimately, isn't that what we're talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what he's asking.  Abortion IS legal and he knows it.  His 'legal or illegal' question has been answered several times in this thread he just can't fathom that 'pro-lifers', for the most part, aren't interested in punishing the woman and he equates THAT to us not really believing that what grows inside the womb really is a person.
> 
> He is asking about the 'right or wrong' of removing said human being via those methods.  The topic may have started with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' but has turned, as it always does, into what actually grows inside of the womb.  And, if he_ is _asking about government intervention?  Why would anyone bother answering him when he flat out refuses to answer questions?
Click to expand...


you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.

and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one. 

but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.

I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.

Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.

Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.

I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.


----------



## syrenn

Cecilie1200 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you people have to lie? The baby never was your body and I never bought your bullshit line.
> 
> If I put you underwater and keep you there, you die. Same if I put you into a fire. Any human, at any stage of development, dies outside of the environment for which it is meant.
> 
> If you're not part of Earth's body, why can't you survive outside her atmosphere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that it is a parasite, a parasite that requites the environment of a host. If it is not part of a womans body then it is something alien to herself inhabiting her womb.
> 
> Good to know you see it at last.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First of all, a fetus is more of a symbiote *than a parasite.  Second of all, it's just another example of your extreme dishonesty - the point of this thread - that you think YOU have the right to tell someone ELSE that it's good that they see that the baby isn't the mother's body, when YOU are the one who keeps trumpeting, "A woman has a right to do what she wants with her body".
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating yet again how your position is based on nothing but self-serving lies with all your flip-flopping and topic-hopping.  "It's a woman's body; no, wait, it's a parasite and separate".
> 
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...



It is not a symoiote if one half of the equation wants out of the deal its not a symbiotic relationship. A symbiotic relationship requires two willing participants where EACH gets something out of the deal.

LOL, i am not the one trying to tell anyone they are wrong or even change anyones opinion. I AM giving my opinion. Though there are many here who are trying to tell people they are wrong or right. JB's last round of flipping is all about it NOT being part of the womans body..do read the thread. 

A woman *does *have the right to do what she wants to HER body..and if she wants something out of her body..that is HER choice. Good to know you dont think you have rights over your body.

Where have i flipped on any of the topics being discussed in this tread? 

If it is a life, c- section it out, give it birth at any time in its gestation, and let it have its life to itself. 
If it NOT part of a womans body it is a parasite and a woman has the right to take it out of her body. 
If it IS part of  womans body then she has the right to do what she wants to with HER body.


----------



## Vanquish

syrenn said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, you need to know a bit about Judaic theology, as well as science.
> 
> In Judaic theology, it states that ElOhim (God of Many Powers) created the world.  Says so in Genesis as a matter of fact.  And, in their teachings, they state that God carves off a small piece of His energy which He then places into the embryo created by your parents at around the 40 day point of pregnancy.
> 
> Next, realize that what runs your body is the electricity that courses through your nervous system.
> 
> Take the Judaic concept and you would understand that your "soul" is actually the electricity that runs your nervous system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Religious myths = science
> 2. You are interpreting the word "energy. Who says energy means electricity? do you DARE assume you know everything G*d knows? Be humble and just answer that with a polite "no."
> 
> 3. Most importantly, the lack of a nervous system does NOT mean lack of humanity. All the parts are HUMAN and developing. The fact that the child isn't finished developing doesnt mean it's not *going to become a human*.
> 
> That's like saying...hey this apple just dropped from a tree...and it's half-way down at this point. Do you know for sure it'll hit the ground? Assuming there's nothing that bothers it...yep. It'll hit the ground. Has it done so yet? No. Can I be pretty damn certain? Yes.
> 
> There's your little thought experiment.
> 
> Anti-lifers want to use technicalities to get out of reasonable, rational thought.  You know it's a kid...you just don't find it convenient. Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, even you say it yourself in may posts
> 
> BECOME.
> 
> Which also implies that it is* not *a baby YET.
Click to expand...


Good job not reading anything and just posting your own drivel.

That's NOT what I said.

First of all, the bullshit about energy and some Elohim is just someone's opinion. The energy being electricity and corresponding to a nervous system is entirely unprovable wogwash.

What is true is that from the moment of conception the baby is a human. To say that it's potentially human but not yet is false.  It's human. You're killing a human life.

And you defend it because it's inconvenient....which is sad.


----------



## Immanuel

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one is asking you the right and wrong of destroying a fetus. the question is when does government have the right to insert itself into a woman's body? and when do you get the right to make decisions for others?
> 
> if someone feels strongly about this issue, that's fine. but they need to keep those feelings away from anyone who isn't asking for their input.... same as with religion. everyone's entitled to their own. no one has the right to, uninvited, impose their religion on others.
> 
> and, ultimately, isn't that what we're talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what he's asking.  Abortion IS legal and he knows it.  His 'legal or illegal' question has been answered several times in this thread he just can't fathom that 'pro-lifers', for the most part, aren't interested in punishing the woman and he equates THAT to us not really believing that what grows inside the womb really is a person.
> 
> He is asking about the 'right or wrong' of removing said human being via those methods.  The topic may have started with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' but has turned, as it always does, into what actually grows inside of the womb.  And, if he_ is _asking about government intervention?  Why would anyone bother answering him when he flat out refuses to answer questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.
> 
> and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.
> 
> but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.
> 
> I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.
> 
> Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.
> 
> Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.
> 
> I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.
Click to expand...


Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU."  Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying.  That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed.  And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you say it is now you say it is not. Can you please make up your mind? It either is a stand along thing or it is not. It is either part of a womans body in terms of she is the one living and breathing for it to keep it alive, or she is not. If she is not, then it should have no problems being taken out and put on a table at ANY stage of its gestation.
> 
> If it was in *my* body, it either is part of me, of which i have _complete control,_ or it is not. If it is*not *part of* my *body it should have no problem being* outside *of *my *body.
> 
> How hard is that for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you should have no problem surviving just fine in Siberia, regardless of being unprepared and unequipped to do so.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do i say not to assist the 4 week old cells once it is outside of its host environment? Do i say new born babies do not require assistance to survive? Do i say children do not need assistance to survive? No, i do not. Just as a baby needs assistance to survive in a new environment I would need assistance to survive in Siberia.
> 
> Again, feel free to give _all the assistance _to 4 week old tissue on a table you want. See if it survives.
> 
> If i was given _all the assistance_ i wanted in Siberia...i would survive just fine.
Click to expand...


I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.


----------



## Vanquish

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one is asking you the right and wrong of destroying a fetus. the question is when does government have the right to insert itself into a woman's body? and when do you get the right to make decisions for others?
> 
> if someone feels strongly about this issue, that's fine. but they need to keep those feelings away from anyone who isn't asking for their input.... same as with religion. everyone's entitled to their own. no one has the right to, uninvited, impose their religion on others.
> 
> and, ultimately, isn't that what we're talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what he's asking.  Abortion IS legal and he knows it.  His 'legal or illegal' question has been answered several times in this thread he just can't fathom that 'pro-lifers', for the most part, aren't interested in punishing the woman and he equates THAT to us not really believing that what grows inside the womb really is a person.
> 
> He is asking about the 'right or wrong' of removing said human being via those methods.  The topic may have started with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' but has turned, as it always does, into what actually grows inside of the womb.  And, if he_ is _asking about government intervention?  Why would anyone bother answering him when he flat out refuses to answer questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.
> 
> and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.
> 
> but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.
> 
> I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.
> 
> Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.
> 
> Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.
> 
> I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.
Click to expand...


See that's a perfect hypothetical. I'm highly pro-life and I'd agree that for the mother's health (in the facts you've given us) that the selective termination is necessary to save the life of the mother.  Honestly I'd like nature to work itself out by itself...but if the mother goes into distress, I agree that something has to be done.


----------



## JFK_USA

I don't really care to continue the useless argument but 8 more posts till 1,000!!!


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what he's asking.  Abortion IS legal and he knows it.  His 'legal or illegal' question has been answered several times in this thread he just can't fathom that 'pro-lifers', for the most part, aren't interested in punishing the woman and he equates THAT to us not really believing that what grows inside the womb really is a person.
> 
> He is asking about the 'right or wrong' of removing said human being via those methods.  The topic may have started with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' but has turned, as it always does, into what actually grows inside of the womb.  And, if he_ is _asking about government intervention?  Why would anyone bother answering him when he flat out refuses to answer questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.
> 
> and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.
> 
> but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.
> 
> I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.
> 
> Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.
> 
> Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.
> 
> I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU."  Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying.  That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed.  And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? Obviously the founding fathers didn't care about the subject of abortion as they never addressed it nor did they count the unborn as persons.


----------



## jillian

Vanquish said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what he's asking.  Abortion IS legal and he knows it.  His 'legal or illegal' question has been answered several times in this thread he just can't fathom that 'pro-lifers', for the most part, aren't interested in punishing the woman and he equates THAT to us not really believing that what grows inside the womb really is a person.
> 
> He is asking about the 'right or wrong' of removing said human being via those methods.  The topic may have started with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' but has turned, as it always does, into what actually grows inside of the womb.  And, if he_ is _asking about government intervention?  Why would anyone bother answering him when he flat out refuses to answer questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.
> 
> and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.
> 
> but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.
> 
> I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.
> 
> Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.
> 
> Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.
> 
> I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See that's a perfect hypothetical. I'm highly pro-life and I'd agree that for the mother's health (in the facts you've given us) that the selective termination is necessary to save the life of the mother.  Honestly I'd like nature to work itself out by itself...but if the mother goes into distress, I agree that something has to be done.
Click to expand...


Thank you. Now the problem is that if one can get a termination for the reasons above, but not for other reasons during the same time period, then you are asking that someone make the decision as to when such decisions can be made. Because person A is entitled, and perhaps person B, you might think should not, who makes that decision? A judge? A politician? Or the woman and her doctor?

According to the House of Representatives, a hospital should be able to let that woman die rather than give her a life saving abortion.

The only way to address the issue is the way it was addressed... meaning within a certain time period after conception, it's the woman's call (in cooperation with her dr.). Later in the pregnancy raises other issues, but it seems that given the above, things are better left as they are.


----------



## jillian

Zoom-boing said:


> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.



is an egg a chicken? is there no distinction?

or is it just because you have a particular religious view, you think you can impose that view on everyone else?


----------



## JBeukema

jillian said:


> and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.



Should everyone stay out of eachother's face when it comes to detonating a bomb inside an abortion clinic full of people?

As far as your hypo goes, answer it yourself.

At  what age, and for what reason, does killing a child in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?

Why is it wrong to kill you now if if was okay when you were younger?


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> A woman *does *have the right to do what she wants to HER body



Agree. Causing direct harm to another is a different matter. Or should raping grace and bombing a police station be legal, too?


----------



## jillian

Immanuel said:


> Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU."  Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying.  That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed.  And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.
> 
> Immie



that's what you got from my post?

i have never met anyone i felt better able to make decisions for me than myself. my mind does not change about that depending on who has power.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.
> 
> and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.
> 
> but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.
> 
> I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.
> 
> Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.
> 
> Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.
> 
> I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU."  Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying.  That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed.  And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you say that? Obviously the founding fathers didn't care about the subject of abortion as they never addressed it nor did they count the unborn as persons.
Click to expand...


That is right and it was illegal in almost all cases all the way up until 1973, go figure.

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not my favorite source, but the map of where it was legal vs illegal is helpful.

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one is asking you the right and wrong of destroying a fetus. the question is when does government have the right to insert itself into a woman's body? and when do you get the right to make decisions for others?
> 
> if someone feels strongly about this issue, that's fine. but they need to keep those feelings away from anyone who isn't asking for their input.... same as with religion. everyone's entitled to their own. no one has the right to, uninvited, impose their religion on others.
> 
> and, ultimately, isn't that what we're talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what he's asking.  Abortion IS legal and he knows it.  His 'legal or illegal' question has been answered several times in this thread he just can't fathom that 'pro-lifers', for the most part, aren't interested in punishing the woman and he equates THAT to us not really believing that what grows inside the womb really is a person.
> 
> He is asking about the 'right or wrong' of removing said human being via those methods.  The topic may have started with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' but has turned, as it always does, into what actually grows inside of the womb.  And, if he_ is _asking about government intervention?  Why would anyone bother answering him when he flat out refuses to answer questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.
> 
> and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.
> 
> but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.
> 
> I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.
> 
> Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.
> 
> Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.
> 
> I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.
Click to expand...


But she DOES have that choice, because abortion IS legal, which is why that question is ridiculous! Discussing the legality of abortion is fruitless because it already IS legal.  If she wants to abort (selective termination . . oh give me a break) she already has that choice and no one is saying she doesn't nor is anyone taking that away from her.  That's exactly the point, nyc WANTS that to be the pro-life's pov, the pro-life's discussion.  It isn't, at least not in this thread.

Discussing the human life growing inside of that woman?  THAT is where the discussion is and where the discussion ALWAYS ends up, in any thread like this.  Because ultimately abortion is about life and death.  Roe v Wade already decided the choice part and I don't see it going anywhere.


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU."  Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying.  That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed.  And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that? Obviously the founding fathers didn't care about the subject of abortion as they never addressed it nor did they count the unborn as persons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is right and it was illegal in almost all cases all the way up until 1973, go figure.
> 
> Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Not my favorite source, but the map of where it was legal vs illegal is helpful.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Your link proves my point:

There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the English common law adopted into United States law by Acts of Reception, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:
    With consistency, beautiful  and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is  protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins  when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is  protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of  actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[2]    Various anti-abortion statutes began to appear in the 1820s.


----------



## JBeukema

Spousal rape was legal until 1993...


----------



## jillian

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU."  Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying.  That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed.  And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that? Obviously the founding fathers didn't care about the subject of abortion as they never addressed it nor did they count the unborn as persons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is right and it was illegal in almost all cases all the way up until 1973, go figure.
> 
> Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Not my favorite source, but the map of where it was legal vs illegal is helpful.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


where did you get that?

this is from your link:



> There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the English common law adopted into United States law by Acts of Reception, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:
> 
>  With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[2]



it was not until 1820 that states started trying to interfere.


----------



## Zoom-boing

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is an egg a chicken? is there no distinction?
> 
> or is it just because you have a particular religious view, you think you can impose that view on everyone else?
Click to expand...


Oh knock it off, jillian.  Go find ANYWHERE in ANY abortion thread where I've EVER ONCE brought religion (mine or any other) into it.  Go ahead, FIND IT, find where I'm imposing my religious view on anyone.  That's really bullshit you know?  I thought you above that kind of shit. 

A fertilized chicken egg is a chicken in the earliest stages of life.


----------



## Immanuel

jillian said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU."  Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying.  That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed.  And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's what you got from my post?
> 
> i have never met anyone i felt better able to make decisions for me than myself. my mind does not change about that depending on who has power.
Click to expand...


That is exactly what I get from your post.  You state:



> I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.



Which says to me you don't care to allow this debate to go on.  Convenient now that the tide has turned since 1973, isn't it?  Did you feel the same way in 1970?  Or were you right there with the rest of the crowd fighting for Norma's right to kill her offspring?

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

jillian said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that? Obviously the founding fathers didn't care about the subject of abortion as they never addressed it nor did they count the unborn as persons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is right and it was illegal in almost all cases all the way up until 1973, go figure.
> 
> Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Not my favorite source, but the map of where it was legal vs illegal is helpful.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where did you get that?
> 
> this is from your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the English common law adopted into United States law by Acts of Reception, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:
> 
>  With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it was not until 1820 that states started trying to interfere.
Click to expand...


It wasn't 'til the 1970s that states started trying to interfere when a man raped his wife or children

You really want to stick to your argument knowing it means child molestation and spousal rape should be decriminalized, too?

Or perhaps you'd like to reconsider your line of argument?


----------



## jillian

Zoom-boing said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is an egg a chicken? is there no distinction?
> 
> or is it just because you have a particular religious view, you think you can impose that view on everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh knock it off, jillian.  Go find ANYWHERE in ANY abortion thread where I've EVER ONCE brought religion (mine or any other) into it.  Go ahead, FIND IT.  That's really bullshit you know?  I thought you above that kind of shit.
> 
> A fertilized chicken egg is a chicken in the earliest stages of life.
Click to expand...


whether or not life should be PROTECTED from conception is a religious concept. I do not share that concept.

and for the record, i thought you were above the rightwing picture posting. we all know what a fetus looks like. having pictures shoved in one's face does nothing to change anyone's minds.


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is right and it was illegal in almost all cases all the way up until 1973, go figure.
> 
> Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Not my favorite source, but the map of where it was legal vs illegal is helpful.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where did you get that?
> 
> this is from your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the English common law adopted into United States law by Acts of Reception, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:
> 
>  With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it was not until 1820 that states started trying to interfere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't 'til the 1970s that states started trying to interfere when a man raped his wife or children
> 
> You really want to stick to your argument knowing it means child molestation and spousal rape should be decriminalized, too?
> 
> Or perhaps you'd like to reconsider your line of argument?
Click to expand...

 Allowing someone to rape someone is also not allowing a woman to do what she wants to do with her body.

Are you really this stupid or was I correct about your rape/murder fetish?


----------



## jillian

JBeukema said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is right and it was illegal in almost all cases all the way up until 1973, go figure.
> 
> Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Not my favorite source, but the map of where it was legal vs illegal is helpful.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where did you get that?
> 
> this is from your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the English common law adopted into United States law by Acts of Reception, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:
> 
> &#8220; With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it was not until 1820 that states started trying to interfere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't 'til the 1970s that states started trying to interfere when a man raped his wife or children
> 
> You really want to stick to your argument knowing it means child molestation and spousal rape should be decriminalized, too?
> 
> Or perhaps you'd like to reconsider your line of argument?
Click to expand...


i posted what i did in response to YOUR assertion. You don't get to move the goal posts. The issue isn't spousal rape or child molestation. I know all about the three-stitch rule for spousal abuse, too. But that isn't teh subject matter and you stated something that was untrue... to wit, that the founders wouldn't have considered abortion because abortion was largely ILLEGAL then. The opposite is true and the founders probably would have found abortion as political issue inconceivable since it had always been legal.... at least up to a point.

Hint: that's because it is a MEDICAL issue... not a political one.


----------



## Zoom-boing

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> is an egg a chicken? is there no distinction?
> 
> or is it just because you have a particular religious view, you think you can impose that view on everyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh knock it off, jillian.  Go find ANYWHERE in ANY abortion thread where I've EVER ONCE brought religion (mine or any other) into it.  Go ahead, FIND IT.  That's really bullshit you know?  I thought you above that kind of shit.
> 
> A fertilized chicken egg is a chicken in the earliest stages of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whether or not life should be PROTECTED from conception is a religious concept. I do not share that concept.
> 
> and for the record, i thought you were above the rightwing picture posting. we all know what a fetus looks like. having pictures shoved in one's face does nothing to change anyone's minds.
Click to expand...


The only one I see mentioning religion is YOU.  From conception is not _just _a religious concept.   

Too bad, a picture is worth a thousand words.  Want me to post the aborted baby pics?  Might that change some minds?  Or will you all just close your eyes and say 'no, no just a blob of cells'.  

Aside which you don't know me very well.  I post pics quite often.  Ask anyone.


----------



## Immanuel

jillian said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that? Obviously the founding fathers didn't care about the subject of abortion as they never addressed it nor did they count the unborn as persons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is right and it was illegal in almost all cases all the way up until 1973, go figure.
> 
> Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Not my favorite source, but the map of where it was legal vs illegal is helpful.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where did you get that?
> 
> this is from your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the English common law adopted into United States law by Acts of Reception, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:
> 
> &#8220; With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was not until 1820 that states started trying to interfere.
Click to expand...


That is fine and I may have been wrong regardless during your lifetime prior to 1973, abortion was and had been illegal for 150 years in most cases.  So, in 1970, if you were marching with Norma, you were fighting for something you believe in which is and was your right to do.  Yet, now that you have the government on your side, you want to tell people that don't agree with you that they should just shut their mouths because the issue is decided.

Neither one of us have the right to snuff out someone else's right to free speech simply because the government has decided a matter in our favor.  The debate goes on as it should.

Edit: acknowledgments given to Ravi for her post on this matter as well.  Please accept this answer as an attempt at a respectful answer to both of your posts. 

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> Allowing someone to rape someone is also not allowing a woman to do what she wants to do with her body.



Sure, it is. She can resist or go along with is as she wills, just as he does as he will with  his body in attempting to overpower her.

I wonder whether the foetus would choose to tear its won body apart with a pair of forceps...


----------



## JBeukema

jillian said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> where did you get that?
> 
> this is from your link:
> 
> it was not until 1820 that states started trying to interfere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't 'til the 1970s that states started trying to interfere when a man raped his wife or children
> 
> You really want to stick to your argument knowing it means child molestation and spousal rape should be decriminalized, too?
> 
> Or perhaps you'd like to reconsider your line of argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i posted what i did in response to YOUR assertion.
Click to expand...


And what assertion might that be?





> You don't get to move the goal posts.



I've done no such thing. I've simply asked time and again at what age killing you in cold blood went from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing.





> The issue isn't spousal rape or child molestation.



Yes, it it. You thought saying abortion was once legal made some sort of point. Spousal rape and slavery were legal, too.



> you stated something that was untrue... to wit, that the founders wouldn't have considered abortion because abortion was largely ILLEGAL then



Do cite where I said that.

Why do you people always have to lie? Why can't the pro-abortion crowd ever be honest?





> . The opposite is true and the founders probably would have found abortion as political issue inconceivable since it had always been legal.... at least up to a point.



So was slavery. What's your point?


> Hint: that's because it is a MEDICAL issue... not a political one.



less than 5% of abortions have anything at all to do with medical issues


----------



## Vanquish

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> is an egg a chicken? is there no distinction?
> 
> or is it just because you have a particular religious view, you think you can impose that view on everyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh knock it off, jillian.  Go find ANYWHERE in ANY abortion thread where I've EVER ONCE brought religion (mine or any other) into it.  Go ahead, FIND IT.  That's really bullshit you know?  I thought you above that kind of shit.
> 
> A fertilized chicken egg is a chicken in the earliest stages of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whether or not life should be PROTECTED from conception is a religious concept. I do not share that concept.
> 
> and for the record, i thought you were above the rightwing picture posting. we all know what a fetus looks like. having pictures shoved in one's face does nothing to change anyone's minds.
Click to expand...


It's not just religious. I am pro-life for entirely NON-religious reasons. From the moment of conception it's life. All that's ever going to be there is there. Nothing else needed or added.


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is right and it was illegal in almost all cases all the way up until 1973, go figure.
> 
> Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Not my favorite source, but the map of where it was legal vs illegal is helpful.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where did you get that?
> 
> this is from your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the English common law adopted into United States law by Acts of Reception, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:
> 
>  With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it was not until 1820 that states started trying to interfere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is fine and I may have been wrong regardless during your lifetime prior to 1973, abortion was and had been illegal for 150 years in most cases.  So, in 1970, if you were marching with Norma, you were fighting for something you believe in which is and was your right to do.  Yet, now that you have the government on your side, you want to tell people that don't agree with you that they should just shut their mouths because the issue is decided.
> 
> Neither one of us have the right to snuff out someone else's right to free speech simply because the government has decided a matter in our favor.  The debate goes on as it should.
> 
> Edit: acknowledgments given to Ravi for her post on this matter as well.  Please accept this answer as an attempt at a respectful answer to both of your posts.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

The point being: the founding fathers weren't concerned about abortion, perhaps because as Jillian pointed out, it was a medical matter. Abortion was legal from the beginning of this country until, according to wikipedia, it started to be outlawed in 1820 in various places.


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing someone to rape someone is also not allowing a woman to do what she wants to do with her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it is. She can resist or go along with is as she wills, just as he does as he will with  his body in attempting to overpower her.
> 
> I wonder whether the foetus would choose to tear its won body apart with a pair of forceps...
Click to expand...

Wrong, both issues are about a person being allowed to do what they wish with their body.

Another idiotic point of yours destroyed.

But interesting that you think rape should be legal.


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing someone to rape someone is also not allowing a woman to do what she wants to do with her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it is. She can resist or go along with is as she wills, just as he does as he will with  his body in attempting to overpower her.
> 
> I wonder whether the foetus would choose to tear its won body apart with a pair of forceps...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, both issues are about a person being allowed to do what they wish with their body.
Click to expand...


So unborn girls shouldn't have someone else decide what happens to their bodies? I'm pretty sure none of them have ever torn _themselves_ limb from limb with a pair of forceps.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> where did you get that?
> 
> this is from your link:
> 
> it was not until 1820 that states started trying to interfere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is fine and I may have been wrong regardless during your lifetime prior to 1973, abortion was and had been illegal for 150 years in most cases.  So, in 1970, if you were marching with Norma, you were fighting for something you believe in which is and was your right to do.  Yet, now that you have the government on your side, you want to tell people that don't agree with you that they should just shut their mouths because the issue is decided.
> 
> Neither one of us have the right to snuff out someone else's right to free speech simply because the government has decided a matter in our favor.  The debate goes on as it should.
> 
> Edit: acknowledgments given to Ravi for her post on this matter as well.  Please accept this answer as an attempt at a respectful answer to both of your posts.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point being: the founding fathers weren't concerned about abortion, perhaps because as Jillian pointed out, it was a medical matter. Abortion was legal from the beginning of this country until, according to wikipedia, it started to be outlawed in 1820 in various places.
Click to expand...


Yet, it seems that in 2011, some people (although I find it hard to believe that Jillian is one of those as she has always seemed fair minded to me) think that now that the government is on their side, the discussion should be squashed.  I highly doubt that in relationship to this particular issue if Roe v. Wade had not existed and the laws were as they had been in 1972, that those same people would approve of others saying that the issue is settled and has been for nearly 200 years so it is time to end the discussion.

Immie


----------



## jillian

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is fine and I may have been wrong regardless during your lifetime prior to 1973, abortion was and had been illegal for 150 years in most cases.  So, in 1970, if you were marching with Norma, you were fighting for something you believe in which is and was your right to do.  Yet, now that you have the government on your side, you want to tell people that don't agree with you that they should just shut their mouths because the issue is decided.
> 
> Neither one of us have the right to snuff out someone else's right to free speech simply because the government has decided a matter in our favor.  The debate goes on as it should.
> 
> Edit: acknowledgments given to Ravi for her post on this matter as well.  Please accept this answer as an attempt at a respectful answer to both of your posts.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> The point being: the founding fathers weren't concerned about abortion, perhaps because as Jillian pointed out, it was a medical matter. Abortion was legal from the beginning of this country until, according to wikipedia, it started to be outlawed in 1820 in various places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, it seems that in 2011, some people (although I find it hard to believe that Jillian is one of those as she has always seemed fair minded to me) think that now that the government is on their side, the discussion should be squashed.  I highly doubt that in relationship to this particular issue if Roe v. Wade had not existed and the laws were as they had been in 1972, that those same people would approve of others saying that the issue is settled and has been for nearly 200 years so it is time to end the discussion.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


it's not that i think the discussion should be quashed.

it's that nothing changes with the discussion. 

and, frankly, getting called murderer doesn't rock me all that much.


----------



## JBeukema

Let me see if I got this straight

Ejaculating into someone's body without their okay is bad

Ripping their limbs off, crushing their skull, poisoning them or otherwise killing them without consulting them is okay?

How does that make sense, exactly?


----------



## JBeukema

How old were you, ravi, when killing you in cold blood went form being an okay thing to a not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become not-okay?


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is fine and I may have been wrong regardless during your lifetime prior to 1973, abortion was and had been illegal for 150 years in most cases.  So, in 1970, if you were marching with Norma, you were fighting for something you believe in which is and was your right to do.  Yet, now that you have the government on your side, you want to tell people that don't agree with you that they should just shut their mouths because the issue is decided.
> 
> Neither one of us have the right to snuff out someone else's right to free speech simply because the government has decided a matter in our favor.  The debate goes on as it should.
> 
> Edit: acknowledgments given to Ravi for her post on this matter as well.  Please accept this answer as an attempt at a respectful answer to both of your posts.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> The point being: the founding fathers weren't concerned about abortion, perhaps because as Jillian pointed out, it was a medical matter. Abortion was legal from the beginning of this country until, according to wikipedia, it started to be outlawed in 1820 in various places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, it seems that in 2011, some people (although I find it hard to believe that Jillian is one of those as she has always seemed fair minded to me) think that now that the government is on their side, the discussion should be squashed.  I highly doubt that in relationship to this particular issue if Roe v. Wade had not existed and the laws were as they had been in 1972, that those same people would approve of others saying that the issue is settled and has been for nearly 200 years so it is time to end the discussion.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

I think since it was not an issue with the founders, since it was legal, since the unborn weren't considered persons then the years between 1820 and 1973 were the years when the laws were wrong. That the law in 1973 went back to the original intent of the founders is IMO, why people should get over themselves. 

If you don't want an abortion simply don't have one.


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> How old were you, ravi, when killing you in cold blood went form being an okay thing to a not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become not-okay?


When I was born.


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> That the law in 1973 went back to the original intent of the founders is IMO, why people should get over themselves.
> 
> If you don't want an abortion simply don't have one.


So if you don't want a negroe, don't buy one?

If you don't want to rape grace, don't?

If you don't want to set off a car bomb in Time square, don't?

Have a problem with killing or hurting people? Don't do it yourself and let those who enjoy it have their fun!


----------



## Ravi

JBeukema said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the law in 1973 went back to the original intent of the founders is IMO, why people should get over themselves.
> 
> If you don't want an abortion simply don't have one.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you don't want a negroe, don't buy one?
> 
> If you don't want to rape grace, don't?
> 
> If you don't want to set off a car bomb in Time square, don't?
> 
> Have a problem with killing or hurting people? Don't do it yourself and let those who enjoy it have their fun!
Click to expand...

I think you should be banned for your unremitting nastiness toward Grace. And quite frankly, it is a shame you weren't aborted.


----------



## Immanuel

jillian said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point being: the founding fathers weren't concerned about abortion, perhaps because as Jillian pointed out, it was a medical matter. Abortion was legal from the beginning of this country until, according to wikipedia, it started to be outlawed in 1820 in various places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, it seems that in 2011, some people (although I find it hard to believe that Jillian is one of those as she has always seemed fair minded to me) think that now that the government is on their side, the discussion should be squashed.  I highly doubt that in relationship to this particular issue if Roe v. Wade had not existed and the laws were as they had been in 1972, that those same people would approve of others saying that the issue is settled and has been for nearly 200 years so it is time to end the discussion.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's not that i think the discussion should be quashed.
> 
> it's that nothing changes with the discussion.
> 
> and, frankly, getting called murderer doesn't rock me all that much.
Click to expand...


For the record, I have never once called you a murderer.  

In fact, I think the tendency of the pro-life forces to use that word or similar words is a detriment to the actual cause.  It serves no purpose at all.

Nothing changes because people on both sides refuse to listen to the other side.  We call each other murderers or clinic bombers or religious fanatics or what have you, but no one wants to sit down with a hated "choicer" on the other side of the table and say, "how can we reduce the number of abortions in this great country of ours?"  Nor does that choicer want to sit down with someone on the pro-life side and say, "I realize that it is a human being within the mother and that it is sad to take that life, but we have these issues and the woman's life is more important and this is why... now what do we do to solve this problem and reduce the number of abortions?"

Your just a woman who thinks she's god and has the right to decide who lives and who dies!   See what I mean?  

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you, ravi, when killing you in cold blood went form being an okay thing to a not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become not-okay?
> 
> 
> 
> When I was born.
Click to expand...

What mystical change took place when you came out your mama's coochie that made killing you not okay?

What if she'd had a c-section?

What about sucking your brains out of your head when you were crowning? 

When you were halfway out? When you had one foot in?

When you had one toe in?

Can I kill you before the afterbirth comes out?

What about if I haven't cut the umbilical cord yet?


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point being: the founding fathers weren't concerned about abortion, perhaps because as Jillian pointed out, it was a medical matter. Abortion was legal from the beginning of this country until, according to wikipedia, it started to be outlawed in 1820 in various places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, it seems that in 2011, some people (although I find it hard to believe that Jillian is one of those as she has always seemed fair minded to me) think that now that the government is on their side, the discussion should be squashed.  I highly doubt that in relationship to this particular issue if Roe v. Wade had not existed and the laws were as they had been in 1972, that those same people would approve of others saying that the issue is settled and has been for nearly 200 years so it is time to end the discussion.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think since it was not an issue with the founders, since it was legal, since the unborn weren't considered persons then the years between 1820 and 1973 were the years when the laws were wrong. That the law in 1973 went back to the original intent of the founders is IMO, why people should get over themselves.
> 
> If you don't want an abortion simply don't have one.
Click to expand...


And I think you have every right to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the law in 1973 went back to the original intent of the founders is IMO, why people should get over themselves.
> 
> If you don't want an abortion simply don't have one.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you don't want a negroe, don't buy one?
> 
> If you don't want to rape grace, don't?
> 
> If you don't want to set off a car bomb in Time square, don't?
> 
> Have a problem with killing or hurting people? Don't do it yourself and let those who enjoy it have their fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should be banned for your unremitting nastiness toward Grace. And quite frankly, it is a shame you weren't aborted.
Click to expand...


You two keep arguing that I have the right to do anything I want with my body. I asked repeatedly whether that excludes act that harms another person and you both refuse to say it does.

Ergo, you both believe what happened to her was okay because he was only doing what he chose with and to his own body, just as she did at the same moment when deciding whether to kick, bite, punch, or ride it like a champ.

It's your argument, not mine.

Or are you changing your mind now and saying that you right to do as you wish with and to your body excludes acts which cause direct harm to another?


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, it seems that in 2011, some people (although I find it hard to believe that Jillian is one of those as she has always seemed fair minded to me) think that now that the government is on their side, the discussion should be squashed.  I highly doubt that in relationship to this particular issue if Roe v. Wade had not existed and the laws were as they had been in 1972, that those same people would approve of others saying that the issue is settled and has been for nearly 200 years so it is time to end the discussion.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's not that i think the discussion should be quashed.
> 
> it's that nothing changes with the discussion.
> 
> and, frankly, getting called murderer doesn't rock me all that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the record, I have never once called you a murderer.
Click to expand...


Nobody has except her own conscience.


----------



## Vanquish

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing someone to rape someone is also not allowing a woman to do what she wants to do with her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it is. She can resist or go along with is as she wills, just as he does as he will with  his body in attempting to overpower her.
> 
> I wonder whether the foetus would choose to tear its won body apart with a pair of forceps...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, both issues are about a person being allowed to do what they wish with their body.
> 
> Another idiotic point of yours destroyed.
> 
> But interesting that you think rape should be legal.
Click to expand...


What the fuck?

You don't get to do what you want with your body in our society.

Can you ingest drugs? No.
Can you hit someone that isn't attacking you? No.
Can you scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater and not expect to reap the consequences? No.

I can't believe your argument is so narrow and pathetic as to boil down to "I can do whatever I want because it's MY body"

Your point was destroyed several pages back. The baby is ANOTHER body. Not your body. How it got there doesnt matter. A living creature is there from the moment of  conception. There are cells growing. That's motherfucking life right there. You lose. Again.


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should everyone stay out of eachother's face when it comes to detonating a bomb inside an abortion clinic full of people?
> 
> As far as your hypo goes, answer it yourself.
> 
> At  what age, and for what reason, does killing a* child *in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> Why is it wrong to kill you now if if was okay when you were younger?
Click to expand...


Your term "child" is subjective. It is a matter of opinion at what point cells become a "child" and at what point cells have a stand alone life of their own. 


The standard LEGAL time now is 14 weeks.


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A woman *does *have the right to do what she wants to HER body
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. Causing direct harm to another is a different matter. Or should raping grace and bombing a police station be legal, too?
Click to expand...



Again, C-sections it out. Give it birth. That is not causing harm to anything that has a stand alone life.

Do try and stick with one subject. Are you talking about the unborn or something else?


----------



## Vanquish

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should everyone stay out of eachother's face when it comes to detonating a bomb inside an abortion clinic full of people?
> 
> As far as your hypo goes, answer it yourself.
> 
> At  what age, and for what reason, does killing a* child *in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> Why is it wrong to kill you now if if was okay when you were younger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your term "child" is subjective. It is a matter of opinion at what point cells become a "child" and at what point cells have a stand alone life of their own.
> 
> 
> The standard LEGAL time now is 14 weeks.
Click to expand...


You've just disproven yourself. You said it's subjective, yet you've given an objective definition (14 weeks).

Whatever the state of the law is, that fact that it's not cuddly or even visible doesnt change the fact that it's human life. Growing from the moment it gets all chromosomes. 

Seriously. Humans need clear pregnancy bellies.


----------



## syrenn

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you should have no problem surviving just fine in Siberia, regardless of being unprepared and unequipped to do so.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do i say not to assist the 4 week old cells once it is outside of its host environment? Do i say new born babies do not require assistance to survive? Do i say children do not need assistance to survive? No, i do not. Just as a baby needs assistance to survive in a new environment I would need assistance to survive in Siberia.
> 
> Again, feel free to give _all the assistance _to 4 week old tissue on a table you want. See if it survives.
> 
> If i was given _all the assistance_ i wanted in Siberia...i would survive just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
Click to expand...




And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.


----------



## Vanquish

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i say not to assist the 4 week old cells once it is outside of its host environment? Do i say new born babies do not require assistance to survive? Do i say children do not need assistance to survive? No, i do not. Just as a baby needs assistance to survive in a new environment I would need assistance to survive in Siberia.
> 
> Again, feel free to give _all the assistance _to 4 week old tissue on a table you want. See if it survives.
> 
> If i was given _all the assistance_ i wanted in Siberia...i would survive just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.
Click to expand...


That's it? The fact that it's indistinguishable makes it ok to murder? Wow. You really need to stop rationalizing so hard there.

You're admitting that it's life. It is alive. You're stopping that life. End of story.


----------



## Grace

> And I think you have every right to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.



There it is. The perfect phrase for this subject and any other subject. Might even use it as a sigline later on, its so good. 

JB is on ignore, but quotes show he still has this fascination of rape.
Went thru it once before physically. Now I get to go thru it again verbally. Ill ask for him to cease. But I wont hold my breath.


----------



## syrenn

Vanquish said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh knock it off, jillian.  Go find ANYWHERE in ANY abortion thread where I've EVER ONCE brought religion (mine or any other) into it.  Go ahead, FIND IT.  That's really bullshit you know?  I thought you above that kind of shit.
> 
> A fertilized chicken egg is a chicken in the earliest stages of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whether or not life should be PROTECTED from conception is a religious concept. I do not share that concept.
> 
> and for the record, i thought you were above the rightwing picture posting. we all know what a fetus looks like. having pictures shoved in one's face does nothing to change anyone's minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just religious. I am pro-life for entirely NON-religious reasons. From the moment of conception it's life. All that's ever going to be there is there. Nothing else needed or added.
Click to expand...


Is it a life of its own or just living tissue? 

If it is a stand alone life, there should be no reason it cannot be removed from an unwilling host. 

If it needs a host then it is not a life of its own, and requires the cooperation of the host. The host has the final say about providing that service.


----------



## syrenn

Vanquish said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it is. She can resist or go along with is as she wills, just as he does as he will with  his body in attempting to overpower her.
> 
> I wonder whether the foetus would choose to tear its won body apart with a pair of forceps...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, both issues are about a person being allowed to do what they wish with their body.
> 
> Another idiotic point of yours destroyed.
> 
> But interesting that you think rape should be legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck?
> 
> You don't get to do what you want with your body in our society.
> 
> *Can you ingest drugs? No.
> Can you hit someone that isn't attacking you? No.
> Can you scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater and not expect to reap the consequences? No.*
> 
> I can't believe your argument is so narrow and pathetic as to boil down to "I can do whatever I want because it's MY body"
> 
> Your point was destroyed several pages back. *The baby is ANOTHER body*. Not your body. How it got there doesnt matter. A living creature is there from the moment of  conception. There are cells growing. That's motherfucking life right there. You lose. Again.
Click to expand...


Yes you can do what you want with your own body. 

Yes you can ingest as many drugs as you want, just don't get caught with illegal drugs. 
Yes you can hit anyone you want in the face, but know you will be prosecute for assault.


If that baby is another foreign body residing WITHIN someones else's body, that person has the right to expel it for THEIR body.  

If it is ANOTHER body then c-sections it out at any point after conception *and let it live its own life *outside of a host.


----------



## Vanquish

syrenn said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> whether or not life should be PROTECTED from conception is a religious concept. I do not share that concept.
> 
> and for the record, i thought you were above the rightwing picture posting. we all know what a fetus looks like. having pictures shoved in one's face does nothing to change anyone's minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just religious. I am pro-life for entirely NON-religious reasons. From the moment of conception it's life. All that's ever going to be there is there. Nothing else needed or added.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it a life of its own or just living tissue?
> 
> If it is a stand alone life, there should be no reason it cannot be removed from an unwilling host.
> 
> If it needs a host then it is not a life of its own, and requires the cooperation of the host. The host has the final say about providing that service.
Click to expand...


Nice logical fallacy. It's called a false dichotomy, if you weren't already aware.

The host doesn't have final say about providing "that service." No matter how it got there, the baby is growing life.

Puke out that dichotomy to the side and ask yourself a simpler question - "are the cells alive?" One simple question. Much easier to answer. If the answer is yes, then BOOM you're terminating LIFE. You're murdering - terminating life without a justification like self-defense or war.

BTW, you prove an excellent point with your wording at how absolutely terrible it is when people use language like "service" to devalue life. The anti-life movement absolutely de-values life in its rhetoric.  Over and over you have to unpersonalize children and life tp rationalize your "choice" which amounts to murder for hire.

Stop making life easier on yourself at the expense of a living (as you've admitted it is) being.


----------



## syrenn

Vanquish said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should everyone stay out of eachother's face when it comes to detonating a bomb inside an abortion clinic full of people?
> 
> As far as your hypo goes, answer it yourself.
> 
> At  what age, and for what reason, does killing a* child *in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> Why is it wrong to kill you now if if was okay when you were younger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your term "child" is subjective. It is a matter of opinion at what point cells become a "child" and at what point cells have a stand alone life of their own.
> 
> 
> The standard LEGAL time now is 14 weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've just disproven yourself. You said it's subjective, yet you've given an objective definition (14 weeks).
> 
> Whatever the state of the law is, that fact that it's not cuddly or even visible doesnt change the fact that it's human life. Growing from the moment it gets all chromosomes.
> 
> Seriously. Humans need clear pregnancy bellies.
Click to expand...


Right..subjective. In MY opinion 4 week old cells are a nothing more then that....tissue. 14 week old cells are to far gone. I do not believe anyone here is advocating late term abortion.


----------



## Grace

Cecilie1200 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im becoming very agitated and mean with this subject and I dont like being mean. Im off to find other news stories to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least until the next time you decide to come back and start wailing, "I was raped!  I'm a victim, so everyone has to SHUT UP!  Stop saying things I don't want to hear!  Abortion debates are ALL ABOUT ME!  Bow before my towering suffering!"
> 
> At least we'll all be able to get back to some semblance of rational discussion for a little while.
Click to expand...



The only one I said to stfu was to JB. 
*Link please, where I screamed for everyone to* shut the fuck up....otherwise youre a liar and it didnt happen. Go for it. Ill wait.


----------



## syrenn

Vanquish said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it? The fact that it's indistinguishable makes it ok to murder? Wow. You really need to stop rationalizing so hard there.
> 
> You're admitting that it's life. It is alive. You're stopping that life. End of story.
Click to expand...


C-section it out and let have its life of its own. That is not murder. If it dies it dies. End of story.

I have never said it that it is not living human tissue. I do say it does not have a life of its own. Do try and keep up.


----------



## syrenn

Vanquish said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just religious. I am pro-life for entirely NON-religious reasons. From the moment of conception it's life. All that's ever going to be there is there. Nothing else needed or added.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it a life of its own or just living tissue?
> 
> If it is a stand alone life, there should be no reason it cannot be removed from an unwilling host.
> 
> If it needs a host then it is not a life of its own, and requires the cooperation of the host. The host has the final say about providing that service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice logical fallacy. It's called a false dichotomy, if you weren't already aware.
> 
> The host doesn't have final say about providing "that service." No matter how it got there, the baby is growing life.
> 
> Puke out that dichotomy to the side and ask yourself a simpler question - "are the cells alive?" One simple question. Much easier to answer. If the answer is yes, then BOOM you're terminating LIFE. You're murdering - terminating life without a justification like self-defense or war.
> 
> BTW, you prove an excellent point with your wording at how absolutely terrible it is when people use language like "service" to devalue life. The anti-life movement absolutely de-values life in its rhetoric.  Over and over you have to unpersonalize children and life tp rationalize your "choice" which amounts to murder for hire.
> 
> Stop making life easier on yourself at the expense of a living (as you've admitted it is) being.
Click to expand...



Again, keep up with the thread. I have never said that the cells are not human or alive. There is a difference from having a life of your own and having cells that are alive. 

My wording has nothing to do with de valuing life. Again, where it becomes a life of its own is subjective. 

And just an aside since you are pro life, how many adopted children do you have?


----------



## Vanquish

I'm keeping up. It's you who seems to be lagging. Do try harder.



> There is a difference from having a life of your own and having cells that are alive.



The child is put into motion at conception. Done. Period. Game, set, match. You keep rationalizing the ability to stop life. Just admit it. Murder of something tiny that you can't see is something you are able to justify to yourself. The viability of the child has nothing to do with whether it's worthy of protection or not.

As for my parental status, if you're inferring that my position as pro-life is less than fully valid because I haven't adopted...well you're failing there too.


----------



## syrenn

Vanquish said:


> I'm keeping up. It's you who seems to be lagging. Do try harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference from having a life of your own and having cells that are alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The child is put into motion at conception. Done. Period. Game, set, match. You keep rationalizing the ability to stop life. Just admit it. Murder of something tiny that you can't see is something you are able to justify to yourself. The viability of the child has nothing to do with whether it's worthy of protection or not.
> 
> As for my parental status, if you're inferring that my position as pro-life is less than fully valid because I haven't adopted...well you're failing there too.
Click to expand...




It is a life once those cells are viable. That is my opinion, you have a different one.

Again, c- section it out at 4 weeks. Give it a life of its own.


----------



## Anguille

Cecilie1200 said:


> I swear to God, I am not trying to be mean or callous here,


----------



## Anguille

Cecilie1200 said:


> At this point, I don't care if I'm being mean or not.  .



Getting closer to the truth here.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Vanquish said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should everyone stay out of eachother's face when it comes to detonating a bomb inside an abortion clinic full of people?
> 
> As far as your hypo goes, answer it yourself.
> 
> At  what age, and for what reason, does killing a* child *in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> Why is it wrong to kill you now if if was okay when you were younger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your term "child" is subjective. It is a matter of opinion at what point cells become a "child" and at what point cells have a stand alone life of their own.
> 
> 
> The standard LEGAL time now is 14 weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've just disproven yourself. You said it's subjective, yet you've given an objective definition (14 weeks).
> 
> Whatever the state of the law is, that fact that it's not cuddly or even visible doesnt change the fact that it's human life. Growing from the moment it gets all chromosomes.
> 
> Seriously. Humans need clear pregnancy bellies.
Click to expand...


Being 'human' based on counting the chromosomes is an irrelevant measure.  There is absolutely no meaningful relevant similarity between a born person and a fertilized human egg.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> Let me see if I got this straight
> 
> Ejaculating into someone's body without their okay is bad
> 
> Ripping their limbs off, crushing their skull, poisoning them or otherwise killing them without consulting them is okay?
> 
> How does that make sense, exactly?



What happens when someone uses RU 486?

Who's forcing you to have abortions, if you don't want to?


----------



## Anguille

Cecilie1200 said:


> Get help or get gone.



The one who could use some help here is you. Though I don't think there is much that can be done for someone with such a taste for sadism as you.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> How old were you, ravi, when killing you in cold blood went form being an okay thing to a not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become not-okay?



It was definitely ok in the first 9 weeks, which is when RU486 can be used.  What's your problem with that?


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you should have no problem surviving just fine in Siberia, regardless of being unprepared and unequipped to do so.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do i say not to assist the 4 week old cells once it is outside of its host environment? Do i say new born babies do not require assistance to survive? Do i say children do not need assistance to survive? No, i do not. Just as a baby needs assistance to survive in a new environment I would need assistance to survive in Siberia.
> 
> Again, feel free to give _all the assistance _to 4 week old tissue on a table you want. See if it survives.
> 
> If i was given _all the assistance_ i wanted in Siberia...i would survive just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
Click to expand...

I notice, by eliminating her from the photos,  you've already symbolically disposed of the "thing" with whose bodies those fetuses reside.

Hypocrite.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Constitutional scholarship rivals your biological and medical learning.
> 
> The Constitution never said anyone was" 3/5 human".  The Enumeration Clause, dealing with how Representatives are apportioned, says this:
> 
> ". . . which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
> 
> Doesn't say a damned thing about anyone being a fraction of a human, or even a fraction of a person.
> 
> Property, on the other hand, they definitely WERE.  That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not they were "real human beings".  So again, if they weren't humans until the Civil Rights Act magically conveyed humanity upon them, what sort of animal were they?  Or perhaps they were insects?  Plants?
> 
> 
> 
> You've answered your own question but you're too stupid to see that. They were included in the phrase "all other persons." And you know who wasn't included in that phrase? The unborn. The founders didn't count the unborn as persons and neither do rational people.
> 
> Because they're not and the constitution backs that up.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know who else wasn't counted?
> 
> Women.
> 
> We needed a constitutional amendment to make it clear that females are people, too.
> 
> (Clearly, you're not familiar with the suffragettes.)
> 
> So let's go ahead and run with your argument and see where that takes us, eh?
Click to expand...


Which proves that you need a constitutional amendment to give fetuses personhood.


----------



## Grace

Cecilie1200 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define: viable
> 
> We can save preemies today we couldn't have decades ago. It's a moving target.
> 
> Does grandma become free game when she's on a respirator?
> 
> Why does 'viability' mean anything at all?
> 
> 
> Had enough time? What about all the time you had to decide to not engage in unprotected sex or to keep your clothes on if you're not ready to provide and care for a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this variable? It was time enough for the guy to keep his dick in his pants and since he didnt, had a woody and thought hed show some "power" and "control" and his banty rooster mentality needed to force himself on someone weaker to step up and own what he did, but didnt, and therefore got his sorry ass thrown in jail because what he did was ILLEGAL and called RAPE.
> 
> Howzat for variables, insinuations, finger pointing and overall GUESSING scenarios of which nobody knows jack shit about while arguing a point over and over and over and over again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, Grace, how about you get some counseling and stop projecting your own emotional issues all over the rest of us?  This is not a group-therapy session, and emotional reactions substituting for logical thought is one of the worst sorts of dishonesty around.
> 
> The fact that something bad happened to you does not make anything you say on the subject automatically right, nor does it entitle you to shut down any discussion on the topic that you don't like or want to hear.  Victimhood does not convey infallibility.
> 
> I swear to God, I am not trying to be mean or callous here, but it honestly sounds to me like you've spent a lot of time since the attack with people tiptoeing around you, patting you on the back and saying, "Poor baby, whatever makes you feel better about it", to the point where you've gotten the idea that you have a right to expect that from everyone.  You don't, nor do I think it's been helpful, judging by the amount of hatred and bitterness you're spewing all around you.
> 
> The truth is, I think the attitudes and perspectives you were taught about pregnancy, abortion, and perhaps femaleness in general, left you badly-equipped to deal with what happened.  They don't seem to have offered you any point from which you can gain peace or a positive outlook and move on.  If I didn't object to the stridently negative battle cry of "My body, my choice!" for any other reason, I would object to it because of that.
> 
> Lastly, you should really get past this whole "No one else can POSSIBLY know how I feel, no one else has suffered like I have!" idea.  You don't know any of us in real life, and you have no way of knowing what we've been through, but you should at least be mature enough to know that your experience is, sadly, far from unique.
Click to expand...


Actually, I havent thought about it for many years. Did it affect how I am today? In certain ways, yes. But not even my friends know so how can I be asking for pats on the back?

As much as you and other pro lifers want to hear it, it IS my choice what I choose to allow to grow IN my body. Just as its your choice to think its wrong.

Others that did what I did, for the same reasons I did it, WOULD understand the battle of "how do I handle this?". At least, i would hope so. 
For the record, since nobody bothered to ask and instead chose to call me a baby killer, I got rid of it because it was an "inconvenience", blah blah blah...I aborted at 4 weeks. Maybe a day later, maybe a day sooner. My doctor and I kept on it until tests could be confirmed because he and I both planned to remove it. As soon as possible. And I did. 
IF it were me wishy washing and it had a heart beat (that comes 5 weeks, I believe), I dont know what I would have done. Thats not the point anyway. Yall have your views and opinions just as I have mine. You say I have no right to what grows inside my body that I didnt ask to be put there. I say I do. The problem began when I was attacked by people for not doing what THEY wanted me to do. 

Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've stipulated that the zygote/embryo/fetus is human.*
> 
> I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me that relevant in the context of* deciding the right or wrong*, the legality or illegality,
> 
> *of a 1st trimester abortion,
> 
> the use of RU486,
> 
> the use of the morning after pill,
> 
> the discarding of fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic.*
> 
> Anyone?  No one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you concur that from conception it is a human being.  Good.
> 
> Now you want to know the 'right and wrong' of destroying that human being via:
> 
> abortion
> RU486
> discarding fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic
> (I believe the morning after pill prevents conception)
> 
> 
> 
> It's been answered throughout this thread.  So sad that you can't see the answer for yourself.
> 
> Try answering JB's question that's been asked of you ad nauseum.
Click to expand...


It is human only because the term is used so broadly that a fertilized egg qualifies for being termed a 'human' despite the fact that its only resemblance to a human is its number of chromosomes.

In other words, whether or not it's 'human' by name is totally irrelevant to the argument.

Sadly, a bunch of pro-choicers here have fallen for the false premise that it is relevant.


----------



## Anguille

Ravi said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the law in 1973 went back to the original intent of the founders is IMO, why people should get over themselves.
> 
> If you don't want an abortion simply don't have one.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you don't want a negroe, don't buy one?
> 
> If you don't want to rape grace, don't?
> 
> If you don't want to set off a car bomb in Time square, don't?
> 
> Have a problem with killing or hurting people? Don't do it yourself and let those who enjoy it have their fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should be banned for your unremitting nastiness toward Grace. And quite frankly, it is a shame you weren't aborted.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading the Puke's posts a while back. I think they do serve a purpose, however grim. To demonstrate just how ingrained misogyny is in some of these so called pro-lifers.


----------



## Anguille

Vanquish said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just religious. I am pro-life for entirely NON-religious reasons. From the moment of conception it's life. All that's ever going to be there is there. Nothing else needed or added.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it a life of its own or just living tissue?
> 
> If it is a stand alone life, there should be no reason it cannot be removed from an unwilling host.
> 
> If it needs a* host *then it is not a life of its own, and requires the cooperation of the host. The host has the final say about providing that service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice logical fallacy. It's called a false dichotomy, if you weren't already aware.
> 
> The host doesn't have final say about providing "that service." No matter how it got there, the baby is growing life.
> 
> Puke out that dichotomy to the side and ask yourself a simpler question - "are the cells alive?" One simple question. Much easier to answer. If the answer is yes, then BOOM you're terminating LIFE. You're murdering - terminating life without a justification like self-defense or war.
> 
> *BTW, you prove an excellent point with your wording at how absolutely terrible it is when people use language like "service" to devalue life*. The anti-life movement absolutely de-values life in its rhetoric.  Over and over you have to unpersonalize children and life tp rationalize your "choice" which amounts to murder for hire.
> 
> Stop making life easier on yourself at the expense of a living (as you've admitted it is) being.
Click to expand...

Aren't you devaluing the life of a pregnant woman when you refer to her as a host?


----------



## Anguille

NYcarbineer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should all abortions be illegal?
> 
> Should the fertilized egg be constitutionally protected as a person, the way born Americans are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will never answer that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They like the rhetoric, they like the 'abortion is murder', and 'baby killer', and 'holocaust' sloganeering,
> 
> but they can't make a rational argument against allowing a pregnant woman a reasonable opportunity early on in a pregnancy the right to choose to terminate it,
> 
> so we get the exploiting of fallacious emotionalism instead.
> 
> Outside of a few mental cases, these people no more believe that a fertilized egg is a person than I do.
Click to expand...


I agree.

And I'm still trying to figure out how some of them can insist abortion is murder and then turn around and insist murder should not be punished.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Vanquish said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it? The fact that it's indistinguishable makes it ok to murder? Wow. You really need to stop rationalizing so hard there.
> 
> You're admitting that it's life. It is alive. You're stopping that life. End of story.
Click to expand...


Then we can assume you would support making any abortion, including the earliest form such as using RU 486

a crime of murder, with the appropriate consequences for those women convicted of same?

If I am wrong, tell us your actual position, specifically.

I assume you believe murderers should be treated AS murderers...


----------



## NYcarbineer

Anguille said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will never answer that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They like the rhetoric, they like the 'abortion is murder', and 'baby killer', and 'holocaust' sloganeering,
> 
> but they can't make a rational argument against allowing a pregnant woman a reasonable opportunity early on in a pregnancy the right to choose to terminate it,
> 
> so we get the exploiting of fallacious emotionalism instead.
> 
> Outside of a few mental cases, these people no more believe that a fertilized egg is a person than I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> And I'm still trying to figure out how some of them can insist abortion is murder and then turn around and insist murder should not be punished.
Click to expand...


I think it was Zoomboing who howled that I was trying to paint him as an extremist by suggesting that should be his position.

Imagine, thinking someone who commits a murder is a murderer!!!


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh knock it off, jillian.  Go find ANYWHERE in ANY abortion thread where I've EVER ONCE brought religion (mine or any other) into it.  Go ahead, FIND IT.  That's really bullshit you know?  I thought you above that kind of shit.
> 
> A fertilized chicken egg is a chicken in the earliest stages of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whether or not life should be PROTECTED from conception is a religious concept. I do not share that concept.
> 
> and for the record, i thought you were above the rightwing picture posting. we all know what a fetus looks like. having pictures shoved in one's face does nothing to change anyone's minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only one I see mentioning religion is YOU.  From conception is not _just _a religious concept.
> 
> Too bad, a picture is worth a thousand words.  Want me to post the aborted baby pics?  Might that change some minds?  Or will you all just close your eyes and say 'no, no just a blob of cells'.
> 
> Aside which you don't know me very well.  I post pics quite often.  Ask anyone.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and post your gruesome pics. We all know you drool over them. 

For the record. I've seen them many times. Often they are doctored but it makes no difference to me if they are or not. I'm not squeamish. Nor do I allow cheap tricks to overcome my ability to reason.


----------



## Anguille

NYcarbineer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They like the rhetoric, they like the 'abortion is murder', and 'baby killer', and 'holocaust' sloganeering,
> 
> but they can't make a rational argument against allowing a pregnant woman a reasonable opportunity early on in a pregnancy the right to choose to terminate it,
> 
> so we get the exploiting of fallacious emotionalism instead.
> 
> Outside of a few mental cases, these people no more believe that a fertilized egg is a person than I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> And I'm still trying to figure out how some of them can insist abortion is murder and then turn around and insist murder should not be punished.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it was Zoomboing who howled that I was trying to paint him as an extremist by suggesting that should be his position.
> 
> Imagine, thinking someone who commits a murder is a murderer!!!
Click to expand...

Zoom Boink just hates it when you use logic. It really gets her backhairs up.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Founders did not put fetal protections into the Constitution despite the fact that abortion up until the time of quickening was generally legal in the colonies.

A constitutional amendment is necessary to change that, if anyone cares about the legal business of all this.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Anguille said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> And I'm still trying to figure out how some of them can insist abortion is murder and then turn around and insist murder should not be punished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was Zoomboing who howled that I was trying to paint him as an extremist by suggesting that should be his position.
> 
> Imagine, thinking someone who commits a murder is a murderer!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zoom Boink just hates it when you use logic. It really gets her backhairs up.
Click to expand...


Well I've never had much rapport with women who sport back hair.  Even when I drank


----------



## Grace

> Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?



The silence is deafening.


----------



## Zoom-boing

syrenn said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's it? The fact that it's indistinguishable makes it ok to murder? Wow. You really need to stop rationalizing so hard there.
> 
> You're admitting that it's life. It is alive. You're stopping that life. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C-section it out and let have its life of its own. That is not murder. If it dies it dies. End of story.
> 
> I have never said it that it is not living human tissue. I do say it does not have a life of its own. Do try and keep up.
Click to expand...


It does have a life of it's own and by removing it from it's proper environment before it is able to survive kills that life.


----------



## Zoom-boing

syrenn said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> whether or not life should be PROTECTED from conception is a religious concept. I do not share that concept.
> 
> and for the record, i thought you were above the rightwing picture posting. we all know what a fetus looks like. having pictures shoved in one's face does nothing to change anyone's minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just religious. I am pro-life for entirely NON-religious reasons. From the moment of conception it's life. All that's ever going to be there is there. Nothing else needed or added.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it a life of its own or just living tissue?
> 
> If it is a stand alone life, there should be no reason it cannot be removed from an unwilling host.
> 
> If it needs a host then it is not a life of its own, and requires the cooperation of the host. *The host has the final say about providing that service.  *
Click to expand...


Your're right, the mother has the final say. And if her choice is to abort then her choice is to kill another human being.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i say not to assist the 4 week old cells once it is outside of its host environment? Do i say new born babies do not require assistance to survive? Do i say children do not need assistance to survive? No, i do not. Just as a baby needs assistance to survive in a new environment I would need assistance to survive in Siberia.
> 
> Again, feel free to give _all the assistance _to 4 week old tissue on a table you want. See if it survives.
> 
> If i was given _all the assistance_ i wanted in Siberia...i would survive just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice, by eliminating her from the photos,  you've already symbolically disposed of the "thing" with whose bodies those fetuses reside.
> 
> Hypocrite.
Click to expand...


You really can't possibly, _possibly_ be this stupid . . can you?  Wait let me go back and read your post again.  I was wrong you are this stupid.  

  Thanks for the laugh though.


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've stipulated that the zygote/embryo/fetus is human.*
> 
> I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me that relevant in the context of* deciding the right or wrong*, the legality or illegality,
> 
> *of a 1st trimester abortion,
> 
> the use of RU486,
> 
> the use of the morning after pill,
> 
> the discarding of fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic.*
> 
> Anyone?  No one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you concur that from conception it is a human being.  Good.
> 
> Now you want to know the 'right and wrong' of destroying that human being via:
> 
> abortion
> RU486
> discarding fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic
> (I believe the morning after pill prevents conception)
> 
> 
> 
> It's been answered throughout this thread.  So sad that you can't see the answer for yourself.
> 
> Try answering JB's question that's been asked of you ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is human only because the term is used so broadly that a fertilized egg qualifies for being termed a 'human' despite the fact that its only resemblance to a human is its number of chromosomes.
> 
> In other words, whether or not it's 'human' by name is totally irrelevant to the argument.
> 
> Sadly, a bunch of pro-choicers here have fallen for the false premise that it is relevant.
Click to expand...


I see you pick and choose what you answer.  Still can't answer JB's question, eh?  Coward.

One LAST time.  Humans CAN ONLY reproduce HUMANS.  They are human from the moment of conception till the day they die.  ALL developmental phases are those of what?  Say it with me:  _a human being_.  Now you can dance around it all you want and call it a blob or living tissue or some other bullshit term.  But the fact is that what grows inside of a woman's womb is a human being from the get go because it can't possibly be anything else.  Being human being isn't relevant to the argument?  The fact that it is a human being IS the argument.


----------



## Grace

> Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?



Anyone? Hello?


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice, by eliminating her from the photos,  you've already symbolically disposed of the "thing" with whose bodies those fetuses reside.
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really can't possibly, _possibly_ be this stupid . . can you?  Wait let me go back and read your post again.  I was wrong you are this stupid.
> 
> Thanks for the laugh though.
Click to expand...

I should have typed "within" but I think you know what I meant. Maybe not. You're quite the ditz sometimes. 

As for your hysterical, panicked laughter. Calm down. there's nothing wrong in admitting defeat. In fact it quite the honorable thing to do.


----------



## Anguille

IMEURU said:


> Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone? Hello?
Click to expand...


I think they have you on ignore. Like ostriches with their heads in the sand.


----------



## Grace

Hard to answer, isnt it? Especially when it comes to your own personal ife.


----------



## Grace

Anguille said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone? Hello?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they have you on ignore. Like ostriches with their heads in the sand.
Click to expand...


No they dont. They want to see if they can continue to ream me and if Ill fold. Aint gonna happen. But they sure are quiet now, arent they? Makes them squirm a bit in their shrieking harpy mode about bodies, rights, cells, fetuses, right to life, yadda yadda.

Makes me wonder why they never responded to syrenn's question either about how many have adopted unwanted children that were forced to be hosted. Maybe it would be an "inconvenience" for their own families to take yet another child in when they have to support their own. Oh. Wait.....wasnt that subject also brought forth? Why yes, it was. Something about "if you cant take care of them, why have children". Gosh. Makes ya wonder just how large the H should be in hypocrite.


----------



## jillian

NYcarbineer said:


> The Founders did not put fetal protections into the Constitution despite the fact that abortion up until the time of quickening was generally legal in the colonies.
> 
> A constitutional amendment is necessary to change that, if anyone cares about the legal business of all this.



The "founders' left very broad swaths which were to be filled in as time went on. There isn't any amendment necessary because it is already constitutionally protected ... if anyone cares about the legal business of all this.

As for why the "founders" didn't include the protection of women's rights... WOMEN HAD NO RIGHTS THEN. Women were chattel.

Ah... the good old days.


----------



## Grace

Maybe they left, Jillian. Or are waiting reinforcements to their cause. Or..are confering in private on how to proceed.


----------



## Anguille

IMEURU said:


> Hard to answer, isnt it? Especially when it comes to your own personal ife.



I can't imagine anyone being so cruel as to force their own child to take a pregnancy to term. But I'm sure there are some that would. 

I'm just waiting for Allie Bubblehead to burst in to tell us about the many, many 13 year old  rape victims she's met who all were overjoyed to have been impregnated and who found that giving birth gave them meaning in life.


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They like the rhetoric, they like the 'abortion is murder', and 'baby killer', and 'holocaust' sloganeering,
> 
> but they can't make a rational argument against allowing a pregnant woman a reasonable opportunity early on in a pregnancy the right to choose to terminate it,
> 
> so we get the exploiting of fallacious emotionalism instead.
> 
> Outside of a few mental cases, these people no more believe that a fertilized egg is a person than I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> And I'm still trying to figure out how some of them can insist abortion is murder and then turn around and insist murder should not be punished.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it was Zoomboing who howled that I was trying to paint him as an extremist by suggesting that should be his position.
> 
> Imagine, thinking someone who commits a murder is a murderer!!!
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/3494511-post744.html


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> whether or not life should be PROTECTED from conception is a religious concept. I do not share that concept.
> 
> and for the record, i thought you were above the rightwing picture posting. we all know what a fetus looks like. having pictures shoved in one's face does nothing to change anyone's minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I see mentioning religion is YOU.  From conception is not _just _a religious concept.
> 
> Too bad, a picture is worth a thousand words.  Want me to post the aborted baby pics?  Might that change some minds?  Or will you all just close your eyes and say 'no, no just a blob of cells'.
> 
> Aside which you don't know me very well.  I post pics quite often.  Ask anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go ahead and post your gruesome pics. We all know you drool over them.
> 
> For the record. I've seen them many times. Often they are doctored but it makes no difference to me if they are or not. I'm not squeamish. Nor do I allow cheap tricks to overcome my ability to reason.
Click to expand...


You ran away from the thread that I posted one in, claiming I was going for some 'shock' thing.  When I explained my position you realized your mistake and told me you'd get back to me so we could discuss it further.  You never bothered getting back to me.


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> And I think you have every right to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is. The perfect phrase for this subject and any other subject. Might even use it as a sigline later on, its so good.
> 
> JB is on ignore, but quotes show he still has this fascination of rape.
> Went thru it once before physically. Now I get to go thru it again verbally. Ill ask for him to cease. But I wont hold my breath.
Click to expand...


Well, at least I am freely admitting that she has a right to an opinion as opposed to having my opinion squashed because we have a bunch of immoral people running this government.

Immie


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I see mentioning religion is YOU.  From conception is not _just _a religious concept.
> 
> Too bad, a picture is worth a thousand words.  Want me to post the aborted baby pics?  Might that change some minds?  Or will you all just close your eyes and say 'no, no just a blob of cells'.
> 
> Aside which you don't know me very well.  I post pics quite often.  Ask anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead and post your gruesome pics. We all know you drool over them.
> 
> For the record. I've seen them many times. Often they are doctored but it makes no difference to me if they are or not. I'm not squeamish. Nor do I allow cheap tricks to overcome my ability to reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ran away from the thread that I posted one in, claiming I was going for some 'shock' thing.  When I explained my position you realized your mistake and told me you'd get back to me so we could discuss it further.  You never bothered getting back to me.
Click to expand...


So you claim. However I've been posting to you in this thread so what are you whining about?


----------



## Zoom-boing

IMEURU said:


> Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The silence is deafening.
Click to expand...


You know what?  I don't know what I'd do and I hope to never find out.  But IF I agreed for my daughter to get an abortion it would be with the full knowledge that she would be killing an innocent human being and we'd all have to live with that FACT for the rest of our lives.  Best answer I can honestly give you, Grace.


----------



## Shadow

IMEURU said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think you have the right to eliminate people who get in your way?
> 
> Of course, that's what all people who support abortion think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre damn fucking right I have the right to eliminate people I was forced to host in MY BODY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMEURU...
> 
> 
> Not my quote...learn to use the quote function correctly and stop attributing words to me that I did not say.
Click to expand...


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead and post your gruesome pics. We all know you drool over them.
> 
> For the record. I've seen them many times. Often they are doctored but it makes no difference to me if they are or not. I'm not squeamish. Nor do I allow cheap tricks to overcome my ability to reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ran away from the thread that I posted one in, claiming I was going for some 'shock' thing.  When I explained my position you realized your mistake and told me you'd get back to me so we could discuss it further.  You never bothered getting back to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So you claim*. However I've been posting to you in this thread so what are you whining about?
Click to expand...


Whining?  Merely pointing out how brown your shit is, Ang.  Your dishonesty about the conversation we had and were going to continue.  It's no 'claim', it happened.  But go ahead and lie . . . you do it well.


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I think you have every right to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is. The perfect phrase for this subject and any other subject. Might even use it as a sigline later on, its so good.
> 
> JB is on ignore, but quotes show he still has this fascination of rape.
> Went thru it once before physically. Now I get to go thru it again verbally. Ill ask for him to cease. But I wont hold my breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, at least I am freely admitting that she has a right to an opinion as opposed to having my opinion squashed because we have a bunch of immoral people running this government.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

You're opinion has not been squashed. What are you talking about?


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The silence is deafening.
Click to expand...


FYI

It helps if you use the quote button on the post itself.  That provides a link back to the quote and actually identifies the person who posted it in the first place.  I am just trying to help, believe it or not, not everyone has even noticed that button.

Immie


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ran away from the thread that I posted one in, claiming I was going for some 'shock' thing.  When I explained my position you realized your mistake and told me you'd get back to me so we could discuss it further.  You never bothered getting back to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So you claim*. However I've been posting to you in this thread so what are you whining about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whining?  Merely pointing out how brown your shit is, Ang.  Your dishonesty about the conversation we had and we going to continue.  It's no 'claim', it happened.  But go ahead and lie . . . you do it well.
Click to expand...


Whatever you say, Zoombie. If I stopped posting to you in some thread you were hung up on it must have been because you had become tiresome with all your contradictions, obfuscations and dishonesty.  I walk away from pointless rant fests all the time. Don't take it personal. I'm here for geniune honest debate. Your hysteria tends to disrupt those.


----------



## Grace

Zoom-boing said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The silence is deafening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what?  I don't know what I'd do and I hope to never find out.  But IF I agreed for my daughter to get an abortion it would be with the full knowledge that she would be killing an innocent human being and we'd all have to live with that FACT for the rest of our lives.  Best answer I can honestly give you, Grace.
Click to expand...



Thanks for responding. Yet, you and others have not even considered or heard _me_ when I tried to say I felt exactly the same way. I was accused of wanting back patting and "woe is me" and its not "all about you, Grace" and it was an "inconvenience" and I should have "kept my legs closed". 

If you would be so kind as to go back to the very first thread of MANY on this subject this past week, you will see my first utterance of "it NOT an easy decision to make". And from there on out, I didnt make it about me at all. You and others did. And I defended myself.
Which means....its bad if I did it. But its ok if its done to your kid as long as she is aware of how it will affect her forever if she aborts it. Thats what I got out of it anyway.


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> There it is. The perfect phrase for this subject and any other subject. Might even use it as a sigline later on, its so good.
> 
> JB is on ignore, but quotes show he still has this fascination of rape.
> Went thru it once before physically. Now I get to go thru it again verbally. Ill ask for him to cease. But I wont hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least I am freely admitting that she has a right to an opinion as opposed to having my opinion squashed because we have a bunch of immoral people running this government.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're opinion has not been squashed. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...


Try reading the thread.  This discussion has been going on intermittently for the last hundred posts or so between Jillian, Ravi and myself and we have done so politely.  I welcome you to join us because I trust you can do so politely as well.

Immie


----------



## Grace

Immanuel said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The silence is deafening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI
> 
> It helps if you use the quote button on the post itself.  That provides a link back to the quote and actually identifies the person who posted it in the first place.  I am just trying to help, believe it or not, not everyone has even noticed that button.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I do use the quote. But I didnt see a reason why its so important on WHO asked. Is there some special reason that it depends on the one asking? Its just a hypothetical question. Just like most of the other questions in this thread and the others that are spinoffs of it.


----------



## Shadow

Cecilie1200 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im becoming very agitated and mean with this subject and I dont like being mean. Im off to find other news stories to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least until the next time you decide to come back and start wailing, "I was raped!  I'm a victim, so everyone has to SHUT UP!  Stop saying things I don't want to hear!  Abortion debates are ALL ABOUT ME!  Bow before my towering suffering!"
> 
> At least we'll all be able to get back to some semblance of rational discussion for a little while.
Click to expand...


She didn't like the discussion about freedom of speech either.  Threw a real charming name calling tantrum then too when she couldn't get everyone to stop talking... and left in a snit...oh excuse me...flounced away in a snit. 

This seems to be a habit with her.


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least I am freely admitting that she has a right to an opinion as opposed to having my opinion squashed because we have a bunch of immoral people running this government.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> You're opinion has not been squashed. What are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading the thread.  This discussion has been going on intermittently for the last hundred posts or so between Jillian, Ravi and myself and we have done so politely.  I welcome you to join us because I trust you can do so politely as well.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


You have no right to invite me into your discussion!!!

Only Ravi or Jillian can do that!!! 

Perhaps I missed what you are alluding to but I'm not sure I have the fortitude to go back through this whole thread. Not tonight anyhow.


----------



## Grace

Shadow said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre damn fucking right I have the right to eliminate people I was forced to host in MY BODY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU...
> 
> 
> Not my quote...learn to use the quote function correctly and stop attributing words to me that I did not say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not. I noticed that when I was using the quote it was showing someone else but didnt know how to fix it. Glitch?
Click to expand...


----------



## Grace

See?? It just did it again. Do you see it or do I need to take a screen shot?


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The silence is deafening.
Click to expand...


Let me tell you why I will not answer this question as it is.

NY has not answered any of the questions presented to him and yet he has asked his questions in several different posts throughout this thread.  As far as I know, this question came from him and I am not going to give him the satisfaction of answering his question again just to be ignored or called irrational. I typically like NY, but he's being almost as much of a jerk in this thread as JB.

Now, if I knew who asked that question, without having to search through this thread, I might actually answer it.

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So you claim*. However I've been posting to you in this thread so what are you whining about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whining?  Merely pointing out how brown your shit is, Ang.  Your dishonesty about the conversation we had and we going to continue.  It's no 'claim', it happened.  But go ahead and lie . . . you do it well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever you say, Zoombie. If I stopped posting to you in some thread you were hung up on it must have been because you had become tiresome with all your contradictions, obfuscations and dishonesty.  I walk away from pointless rant fests all the time. Don't take it personal. I'm here for geniune honest debate. Your hysteria tends to disrupt those.
Click to expand...


Dork, our conversation was to continue via pm.  Your memory truly sucks. 

You stopped posting in that thread because you couldn't handle the information being presented.  No contradictions, obfuscation or dishonesty on my part, that's just you lying again.  Well, have fun with that.

You're not here for debate you haven't debated anything.  You just follow nyc around and say 'yeah, me too!'.  Whatever . . . .


----------



## Grace

Screenshot:


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silence is deafening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI
> 
> It helps if you use the quote button on the post itself.  That provides a link back to the quote and actually identifies the person who posted it in the first place.  I am just trying to help, believe it or not, not everyone has even noticed that button.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do use the quote. But I didnt see a reason why its so important on WHO asked. Is there some special reason that it depends on the one asking? Its just a hypothetical question. Just like most of the other questions in this thread and the others that are spinoffs of it.
Click to expand...


See post number 1098.

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

Immanuel said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The silence is deafening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you why I will not answer this question as it is.
> 
> NY has not answered any of the questions presented to him and yet he has asked his questions in several different posts throughout this thread.  As far as I know, this question came from him and I am not going to give him the satisfaction of answering his question again just to be ignored or called irrational. I typically like NY, but he's being almost as much of a jerk in this thread as JB.
> 
> Now, if I knew who asked that question, without having to search through this thread, I might actually answer it.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Well damnit, if I had known _he_ asked it I wouldn't have answered either.  He hasn't answered anything asked of him and continually pushes what_ he_ thinks a pro-lifers pov should be onto us then asks questions based on that pov, which isn't ours!  I'm done reading his posts in here.


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whining?  Merely pointing out how brown your shit is, Ang.  Your dishonesty about the conversation we had and we going to continue.  It's no 'claim', it happened.  But go ahead and lie . . . you do it well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you say, Zoombie. If I stopped posting to you in some thread you were hung up on it must have been because you had become tiresome with all your contradictions, obfuscations and dishonesty.  I walk away from pointless rant fests all the time. Don't take it personal. I'm here for geniune honest debate. Your hysteria tends to disrupt those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dork, our conversation was to continue via pm.  Your memory truly sucks.
> 
> You stopped posting in that thread because you couldn't handle the information being presented.  No contradictions, obfuscation or dishonesty on my part, that's just you lying again.  Well, have fun with that.
> 
> You're not here for debate you haven't debated anything.  You just follow nyc around and say 'yeah, me too!'.  Whatever . . . .
Click to expand...

You really must be thinking of someone else because I don't do PM. At least not about issues already being discussed in the forum. I see no reason to leave others out of a debate.


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're opinion has not been squashed. What are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading the thread.  This discussion has been going on intermittently for the last hundred posts or so between Jillian, Ravi and myself and we have done so politely.  I welcome you to join us because I trust you can do so politely as well.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no right to invite me into your discussion!!!
> 
> Only Ravi or Jillian can do that!!!
> 
> Perhaps I missed what you are alluding to but I'm not sure I have the fortitude to go back through this whole thread. Not tonight anyhow.
Click to expand...


I understand, I don't have a right to invite you to our discussion because I am a man... sexist!

Immie


----------



## Grace

See Post #1100

I used the quote button and thats what appears and its still doing it. So, until its figured out, I will address each person individually instead of quoting with the button. I dont know if its on my end or the boards. Maybe I should reboot and try again.


----------



## AllieBaba

IMEURU said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silence is deafening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what? I don't know what I'd do and I hope to never find out. But IF I agreed for my daughter to get an abortion it would be with the full knowledge that she would be killing an innocent human being and we'd all have to live with that FACT for the rest of our lives. Best answer I can honestly give you, Grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for responding. Yet, you and others have not even considered or heard _me_ when I tried to say I felt exactly the same way. I was accused of wanting back patting and "woe is me" and its not "all about you, Grace" and it was an "inconvenience" and I should have "kept my legs closed".
> 
> If you would be so kind as to go back to the very first thread of MANY on this subject this past week, you will see my first utterance of "it NOT an easy decision to make". And from there on out, I didnt make it about me at all. You and others did. And I defended myself.
> Which means....its bad if I did it. But its ok if its done to your kid as long as she is aware of how it will affect her forever if she aborts it. Thats what I got out of it anyway.
Click to expand...

 
That's ridiculous.

Just because it was a hard decision for you, personally, does not mean that abortion should be legal. The two have have nothing to do with each other. You took advantage of the legality as many have and continue to do.

Just because people do it doesn't make it right, just as it isn't right based upon the legality of it. 

It's unfortunate you were raped. but that has nothing to do with the fact that the murder of innocents is unjustifiable, when it's done knowingly and deliberately.

I would argue that most women who get abortions today, PARTICULARLY young ones, don't have full understanding of what they're doing, since they are programmed from infancy to accept and even aspire to abortion. It's symbolic of a woman's freedom! Women can't be taken seriously unless they can have abortions! They must have the *right* to kill their own children, or they're nothing!

Well that's utter nonsense, of course, but it doesn't mean that isn't what's being preached to them. And since it is, I feel for women who believe it, get their abortions, and then later come to regret it.

I've never heard of a woman "regretting" having a child.

But I've met a lot who regret getting abortions.


----------



## Zoom-boing

IMEURU said:


> Screenshot:



Grace, if you go and to edit and look there's probably an extra [ quote ] box somewhere or possibly not a [ /quote ].  If you play around with it a bit you and preview the post you'll be able to figure out where the problem is.


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The silence is deafening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you why I will not answer this question as it is.
> 
> NY has not answered any of the questions presented to him and yet he has asked his questions in several different posts throughout this thread.  As far as I know, this question came from him and I am not going to give him the satisfaction of answering his question again just to be ignored or called irrational. I typically like NY, but he's being almost as much of a jerk in this thread as JB.
> 
> Now, if I knew who asked that question, without having to search through this thread, I might actually answer it.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Lame. Tit for tat.

You're coming off as passive-aggressive. 

Don't squash your own opinions.


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> See?? It just did it again. Do you see it or do I need to take a screen shot?



It happens when someone removes or corrupts the end quote commands that look like this {/quote} with the "[" and "]" symbols replacing "{" and "}".  You just need to figure out which ones are corrupted and fix them.

Immie


----------



## Shadow

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A woman *does *have the right to do what she wants to HER body
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. Causing direct harm to another is a different matter. Or should raping grace and bombing a police station be legal, too?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Again, C-sections it out*. Give it birth. That is not causing harm to anything that has a stand alone life.
> 
> Do try and stick with one subject. Are you talking about the unborn or something else?
Click to expand...


Babies dont usually live when they are aborted.  So what is your point? 

*How to Understand the Hysterectomy or Cesarean Section Abortion Procedure*

How to Understand the Hysterectomy or Cesarean Section Abortion Procedure | eHow.com


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you say, Zoombie. If I stopped posting to you in some thread you were hung up on it must have been because you had become tiresome with all your contradictions, obfuscations and dishonesty.  I walk away from pointless rant fests all the time. Don't take it personal. I'm here for geniune honest debate. Your hysteria tends to disrupt those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dork, our conversation was to continue via pm.  Your memory truly sucks.
> 
> You stopped posting in that thread because you couldn't handle the information being presented.  No contradictions, obfuscation or dishonesty on my part, that's just you lying again.  Well, have fun with that.
> 
> You're not here for debate you haven't debated anything.  You just follow nyc around and say 'yeah, me too!'.  Whatever . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really must be thinking of someone else because I don't do PM. At least not about issues already being discussed in the forum. I see no reason to leave others out of a debate.
Click to expand...


Another lie.  It was you and it was specifically because of the aborted fetus picture I posted.  You'll never admit it even if you do 'remember'.  Whatever, Ang.  You're not worth my time anymore.


----------



## Grace

Addressed to* Immie*:
How do I fix them? Im using the quote button. Wouldnt that be from inside the board controls to which I have no access?

But thats neither here nor there right now. I NOW know that my quotes arent working properly and I do NOT want anyone to be quoted as saying soemthing they didnt (as the screenshot shows is what is happening). So..Ill go this route until I can reboot and at least rule that part out.


----------



## Immanuel

Zoom-boing said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silence is deafening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you why I will not answer this question as it is.
> 
> NY has not answered any of the questions presented to him and yet he has asked his questions in several different posts throughout this thread.  As far as I know, this question came from him and I am not going to give him the satisfaction of answering his question again just to be ignored or called irrational. I typically like NY, but he's being almost as much of a jerk in this thread as JB.
> 
> Now, if I knew who asked that question, without having to search through this thread, I might actually answer it.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well damnit, if I had known _he_ asked it I wouldn't have answered either.  He hasn't answered anything asked of him and continually pushes what_ he_ thinks a pro-lifers pov should be onto us then asks questions based on that pov, which isn't ours!  I'm done reading his posts in here.
Click to expand...


I don't know that he asked it.  But, until I know, I am not answering it.  Much like Anguille, I am not searching back through this thread just to find out... although, I know it would not be that difficult to do.

Immie


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dork, our conversation was to continue via pm.  Your memory truly sucks.
> 
> You stopped posting in that thread because you couldn't handle the information being presented.  No contradictions, obfuscation or dishonesty on my part, that's just you lying again.  Well, have fun with that.
> 
> You're not here for debate you haven't debated anything.  You just follow nyc around and say 'yeah, me too!'.  Whatever . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> You really must be thinking of someone else because I don't do PM. At least not about issues already being discussed in the forum. I see no reason to leave others out of a debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie.  It was you and it was specifically because of the aborted fetus picture I posted.  You'll never admit it even if you do 'remember'.  Whatever, Ang.  You're not worth my time anymore.
Click to expand...


Bu bye!


----------



## Zoom-boing

IMEURU said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silence is deafening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  I don't know what I'd do and I hope to never find out.  But IF I agreed for my daughter to get an abortion it would be with the full knowledge that she would be killing an innocent human being and we'd all have to live with that FACT for the rest of our lives.  Best answer I can honestly give you, Grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for responding. Yet, you and others have not even considered or heard _me_ when I tried to say I felt exactly the same way. I was accused of wanting back patting and "woe is me" and its not "all about you, Grace" and it was an "inconvenience" and I should have "kept my legs closed".
> 
> If you would be so kind as to go back to the very first thread of MANY on this subject this past week, you will see my first utterance of "it NOT an easy decision to make". And from there on out, I didnt make it about me at all. *You *and others* did*. And I defended myself.
> Which means....its bad if I did it. But its ok if its done to your kid as long as she is aware of how it will affect her forever if she aborts it. Thats what I got out of it anyway.
Click to expand...


No, I did not.  I didn't comment about what happened to you (other than in a pm).  I've been mainly discussing/arguing the 'fetus is a human being' aspect.  If you thought my posts were directed at you, they weren't.  Well not directly but I guess indirectly based on what you went through.  That wasn't my intention.


----------



## Grace

Zoom..I tried to pm anguille earlier to thank her but her pm box is full and has been for days.
Just sayin'.

Unless that is another glitch as well.


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> See Post #1100
> 
> I used the quote button and thats what appears and its still doing it. So, until its figured out, I will address each person individually instead of quoting with the button. I dont know if its on my end or the boards. Maybe I should reboot and try again.



See post #1109.  

You realize we can go through this all night long don't you?

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

IMEURU said:


> *Zoom..I tried to pm anguille earlier to thank her but her pm box is full and has been for days.
> Just sayin'.*
> 
> Unless that is another glitch as well.



Um, okay.  And I care about this why?

Ok, never mind.  I get it.  The pm between Ang and me happened ages ago, not recently.  Thanks though!


----------



## Grace

Response to #1115



> No, I did not. I didn't comment about what happened to you (other than in a pm). I've been mainly discussing/arguing the 'fetus is a human being' aspect. If you thought my posts were directed at you, they weren't. Well not directly but I guess indirectly based on what you went through. That wasn't my intention.



*Immie*, Thank you for clarification . You may be right and if you are, I apologize. I dont intend to go back and look. It will just rile me up again. Still...this thread hasnt been fun...nor has it been easy to leave it because I do have a say and feel beholden to state my opinions..which is why Im still here.


----------



## Zoom-boing

IMEURU said:


> Response to #1115
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did not. I didn't comment about what happened to you (other than in a pm). I've been mainly discussing/arguing the 'fetus is a human being' aspect. If you thought my posts were directed at you, they weren't. Well not directly but I guess indirectly based on what you went through. That wasn't my intention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immie*, Thank you for clarification . You may be right and if you are, I apologize. I dont intend to go back and look. It will just rile me up again. Still...this thread hasnt been fun...nor has it been easy to leave it because I do have a say and feel beholden to state my opinions..which is why Im still here.
Click to expand...


I posted what you quoted, above, not Immie.


----------



## Immanuel

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dork, our conversation was to continue via pm.  Your memory truly sucks.
> 
> You stopped posting in that thread because you couldn't handle the information being presented.  No contradictions, obfuscation or dishonesty on my part, that's just you lying again.  Well, have fun with that.
> 
> You're not here for debate you haven't debated anything.  You just follow nyc around and say 'yeah, me too!'.  Whatever . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> You really must be thinking of someone else because I don't do PM. At least not about issues already being discussed in the forum. I see no reason to leave others out of a debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie.  It was you and it was specifically because of the aborted fetus picture I posted.  You'll never admit it even if you do 'remember'.  Whatever, Ang.  You're not worth my time anymore.
Click to expand...


I don't know if this was a recent conversation or not, but I know that as of the other day, her inbox was full and I could not even thank her for a rep that she sent my way.

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

Immanuel said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really must be thinking of someone else because I don't do PM. At least not about issues already being discussed in the forum. I see no reason to leave others out of a debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie.  It was you and it was specifically because of the aborted fetus picture I posted.  You'll never admit it even if you do 'remember'.  Whatever, Ang.  You're not worth my time anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this was a recent conversation or not, but I know that as of the other day, her inbox was full and I could not even thank her for a rep that she sent my way.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Oh, now I get what IMEURU was talking about. 

The pm between me and Ang happened ages ago, not recently.  Thanks Immie.


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> Addressed to* Immie*:
> How do I fix them? Im using the quote button. Wouldnt that be from inside the board controls to which I have no access?
> 
> But thats neither here nor there right now. I NOW know that my quotes arent working properly and I do NOT want anyone to be quoted as saying soemthing they didnt (as the screenshot shows is what is happening). So..Ill go this route until I can reboot and at least rule that part out.



The only way I know how to fix them is to "edit" your post and then look at all the quote commands and all the end quote commands.  Each post you make has from one to three quotes (unless you add others) depending on the post you are quoting.  Count the quote commands and the end quote commands and make sure you have an equal number.  Also make sure they are in the right place.  For instance, if I quoted Anguille when she says that I am a jackass (she'd be right BTW) and I told her that I think she is the hottest woman on the board, make sure that the end quotes are in the right place between our two quotes.

Also, you may not have messed up the quotes, someone else may have done it in the quote you are quoting.  It takes practice editing your quotes try it out on short posts and use your "preview post" button to see how it works.

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

Also multi-quoting can get mind boggling.  Quoting one person at a time is easier to respond to and easier to fix when the quote thingies get messed up.


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie.  It was you and it was specifically because of the aborted fetus picture I posted.  You'll never admit it even if you do 'remember'.  Whatever, Ang.  You're not worth my time anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this was a recent conversation or not, but I know that as of the other day, her inbox was full and I could not even thank her for a rep that she sent my way.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now I get what IMEURU was talking about.
> 
> The pm between me and Ang happened ages ago, not recently.  Thanks Immie.
Click to expand...

I have no memory of ever exchanging PMs with you Boink. And if I had and you had PMed me about wanting to discuss further in PM something we had been discussing publically in a thread I would have told you to keep it on the thread. It has always been my policy to discuss the issues openly. I rarely PM. I keep my box full because I find pm pop-ups annoying and most are just some generic thank you for rep. Anyone who has anything to say to me can write on my wall.


----------



## Grace

Response to 1117 to Immie...yeah. Thats why Im doing it this way. 

Response to 1118 to Zoom...ang said you and she are not corresponding in pm and obviously she is correct since her pms are not allowing correspondence.


----------



## Grace

This is getting confusing. But at least its off the OP for the moment. Maybe we all need a breather.


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> Response to #1115
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did not. I didn't comment about what happened to you (other than in a pm). I've been mainly discussing/arguing the 'fetus is a human being' aspect. If you thought my posts were directed at you, they weren't. Well not directly but I guess indirectly based on what you went through. That wasn't my intention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immie*, Thank you for clarification . You may be right and if you are, I apologize. I dont intend to go back and look. It will just rile me up again. Still...this thread hasnt been fun...nor has it been easy to leave it because I do have a say and feel beholden to state my opinions..which is why Im still here.
Click to expand...


I understand it has been tough, and I have tried to moderate my statements because I realize that you have gone through a tough ordeal that I will never be able to understand.  I have also attempted to inform others who do not appear to have seen your statement about what had happened to you.  

Your input is invaluable to this thread but I feel that you are not right in all of your beliefs.  Basically what I mean by that is that what happened to you unfortunately happens too often but for a very small percentage of all abortions.  I cannot justify 93% of abortions simply because of the 1% of abortions due to rape or the other 6% due to fetal abnormalities or health of the mother.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Lol..learn to use the quote function and do one at a time.

Incidentally, I'm terrible about quoting too.


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this was a recent conversation or not, but I know that as of the other day, her inbox was full and I could not even thank her for a rep that she sent my way.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, now I get what IMEURU was talking about.
> 
> The pm between me and Ang happened ages ago, not recently.  Thanks Immie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no memory of ever exchanging PMs with you Boink. And if I had and you had PMed me about wanting to discuss further in PM something we had been discussing publically in a thread I would have told you to keep it on the thread. It has always been my policy to discuss the issues openly. I rarely PM. I keep my box full because I find pm pop-ups annoying and most are just some generic thank you for rep. Anyone who has anything to say to me can write on my wall.
Click to expand...


I typically will thank someone for a rep.  The only person I don't thank is Strollingbones because I know she doesn't want it.  I also read you did not either.  There are a few that have their pm boxes closed and you can't thank them even if you wanted to i.e. Pale Rider and California Girl.  If I know you don't want it, I won't deliberately reply although, I think occasionally, I screw up with bones.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

IMEURU said:


> This is getting confusing. But at least its off the OP for the moment. Maybe we all need a breather.



Amen to that.

Immie


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, now I get what IMEURU was talking about.
> 
> The pm between me and Ang happened ages ago, not recently.  Thanks Immie.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no memory of ever exchanging PMs with you Boink. And if I had and you had PMed me about wanting to discuss further in PM something we had been discussing publically in a thread I would have told you to keep it on the thread. It has always been my policy to discuss the issues openly. I rarely PM. I keep my box full because I find pm pop-ups annoying and most are just some generic thank you for rep. Anyone who has anything to say to me can write on my wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I typically will thank someone for a rep.  The only person I don't thank is Strollingbones because I know she doesn't want it.  I also read you did not either.  There are a few that have their pm boxes closed and you can't thank them even if you wanted to i.e. Pale Rider and California Girl.  If I know you don't want it, I won't deliberately reply although, I think occasionally, I screw up with bones.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I don't mind thank yous if they come with a witty comment. It's the perfunctory ones that are a waste of time. I don't think my pos repping someone deserves thanks anyway. I ought to be thanking the poster for posting something worthwhile. My rep is a way of showing my thanks. 

Being thanked for being thankful - too Emily Post for me. 

Thanks for hearing me out.


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no memory of ever exchanging PMs with you Boink. And if I had and you had PMed me about wanting to discuss further in PM something we had been discussing publically in a thread I would have told you to keep it on the thread. It has always been my policy to discuss the issues openly. I rarely PM. I keep my box full because I find pm pop-ups annoying and most are just some generic thank you for rep. Anyone who has anything to say to me can write on my wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I typically will thank someone for a rep.  The only person I don't thank is Strollingbones because I know she doesn't want it.  I also read you did not either.  There are a few that have their pm boxes closed and you can't thank them even if you wanted to i.e. Pale Rider and California Girl.  If I know you don't want it, I won't deliberately reply although, I think occasionally, I screw up with bones.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't mind thank yous if they come with a witty comment. It's the perfunctory ones that are a waste of time. I don't think my pos repping someone deserves thanks anyway. I ought to be thanking the poster for posting something worthwhile. My rep is a way of showing my thanks.
> 
> Being thanked for being thankful - too Emily Post for me.
> 
> Thanks for hearing me out.
Click to expand...


I agree with you.  Yet, I feel some will think me rude for not replying.

If the rep comes with a comment that I can think of a good reply, I add my reply otherwise, I do try to remember to thank them.  Yet, I am never offended nor do I realize it if someone does not thank me... in fact, it is nice because it means I have a longer time before I have to empty my inbox again.  

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Thank you for saying you're thankful.


----------



## AllieBaba

I don't think it's rude not to thank pos reps.


----------



## NYcarbineer

jillian said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders did not put fetal protections into the Constitution despite the fact that abortion up until the time of quickening was generally legal in the colonies.
> 
> A constitutional amendment is necessary to change that, if anyone cares about the legal business of all this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "founders' left very broad swaths which were to be filled in as time went on. There isn't any amendment necessary because it is already constitutionally protected ... if anyone cares about the legal business of all this.
> 
> As for why the "founders" didn't include the protection of women's rights... WOMEN HAD NO RIGHTS THEN. Women were chattel.
> 
> Ah... the good old days.
Click to expand...


There are no fetal protections in the Constitution.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> And I'm still trying to figure out how some of them can insist abortion is murder and then turn around and insist murder should not be punished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was Zoomboing who howled that I was trying to paint him as an extremist by suggesting that should be his position.
> 
> Imagine, thinking someone who commits a murder is a murderer!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3494511-post744.html
Click to expand...


thanks for proving me right.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should everyone stay out of eachother's face when it comes to detonating a bomb inside an abortion clinic full of people?
> 
> As far as your hypo goes, answer it yourself.
> 
> At  what age, and for what reason, does killing a* child *in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> Why is it wrong to kill you now if if was okay when you were younger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your term "child" is subjective.
Click to expand...


A child is a young human; one's child is one's offspring

It's not that complicated





> It is a matter of opinion at what point cells become a "child"



No, it's not. 





> and at what point cells have a stand alone life of their own.



No, it's not. That is a simple matter of biology. The child is a young living human- a human life- from the moment two gametes from a zygote.

No matter how badly you wish for Earth to be flat, the science is settled


----------



## Anguille

This thread has gotten too civilized.


----------



## Anguille

I spoke too soon. Puke is back.


----------



## AllieBaba

I'm sure it will come around again.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i say not to assist the 4 week old cells once it is outside of its host environment? Do i say new born babies do not require assistance to survive? Do i say children do not need assistance to survive? No, i do not. Just as a baby needs assistance to survive in a new environment I would need assistance to survive in Siberia.
> 
> Again, feel free to give _all the assistance _to 4 week old tissue on a table you want. See if it survives.
> 
> If i was given _all the assistance_ i wanted in Siberia...i would survive just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.
Click to expand...

DNA?

Blacks don't look like us. Does that mean they're not human either?


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> whether or not life should be PROTECTED from conception is a religious concept. I do not share that concept.
> 
> and for the record, i thought you were above the rightwing picture posting. we all know what a fetus looks like. having pictures shoved in one's face does nothing to change anyone's minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just religious. I am pro-life for entirely NON-religious reasons. From the moment of conception it's life. All that's ever going to be there is there. Nothing else needed or added.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it a life of its own or just living tissue?
> 
> If it is a stand alone life, there should be no reason it cannot be removed from an unwilling host.
> 
> If it needs a host then it is not a life of its own
Click to expand...


Every biologist on Earth disagrees.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your term "child" is subjective. It is a matter of opinion at what point cells become a "child" and at what point cells have a stand alone life of their own.
> 
> 
> The standard LEGAL time now is 14 weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've just disproven yourself. You said it's subjective, yet you've given an objective definition (14 weeks).
> 
> Whatever the state of the law is, that fact that it's not cuddly or even visible doesnt change the fact that it's human life. Growing from the moment it gets all chromosomes.
> 
> Seriously. Humans need clear pregnancy bellies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being 'human' based on counting the chromosomes is an irrelevant measure.  There is absolutely no meaningful relevant similarity between a born person and a fertilized human egg.
Click to expand...

Negroes don't look like us

Clearly, they're not human 


You never told us what the difference is or at what point what magical change makes killing a child in cold blood go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you, ravi, when killing you in cold blood went form being an okay thing to a not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become not-okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was definitely ok in the first 9 weeks, which is when RU486 can be used.  What's your problem with that?
Click to expand...

Is it okay to kill you in cold blood now? If not, why not?

What changed?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've answered your own question but you're too stupid to see that. They were included in the phrase "all other persons." And you know who wasn't included in that phrase? The unborn. The founders didn't count the unborn as persons and neither do rational people.
> 
> Because they're not and the constitution backs that up.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know who else wasn't counted?
> 
> Women.
> 
> We needed a constitutional amendment to make it clear that females are people, too.
> 
> (Clearly, you're not familiar with the suffragettes.)
> 
> So let's go ahead and run with your argument and see where that takes us, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which proves that you need a constitutional amendment to give fetuses personhood.
Click to expand...


So the Law determines who's a person and who's not?

So if i declare the Jews to be subhuman and pass a law to that effect...?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> It is human only because the term is used so broadly



The definition of the species is too broad?

Who shouldn't be covered? Jews? Negroes? Gypsies?


----------



## JBeukema

JBeukema said:


> Grace,
> 
> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your  fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from  being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?







JBeukema said:


> Does my right to do as I will with or to my own  body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it  not?







JBeukema said:


> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a   not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​



.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders did not put fetal protections into the Constitution despite the fact that abortion up until the time of quickening was generally legal in the colonies.
> 
> A constitutional amendment is necessary to change that, if anyone cares about the legal business of all this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "founders' left very broad swaths which were to be filled in as time went on. There isn't any amendment necessary because it is already constitutionally protected ... if anyone cares about the legal business of all this.
> 
> As for why the "founders" didn't include the protection of women's rights... WOMEN HAD NO RIGHTS THEN. Women were chattel.
> 
> Ah... the good old days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no fetal protections in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

COTUS doesn't mention spousal rape, either

Nor were blacks and women covered


What's your point?


----------



## JBeukema

JBeukema said:


> Grace,
> 
> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your  fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from  being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?







JBeukema said:


> Does my right to do as I will with or to my own  body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it  not?







JBeukema said:


> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a   not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​




Why can't any of you answer a few simple questions?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grace,
> 
> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your  fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from  being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does my right to do as I will with or to my own  body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it  not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a   not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't any of you answer a few simple questions?
Click to expand...


Why don't you answer your own question, clearly, and show us that you're not trying to hold everyone else to a standard you won't hold yourself to.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "founders' left very broad swaths which were to be filled in as time went on. There isn't any amendment necessary because it is already constitutionally protected ... if anyone cares about the legal business of all this.
> 
> As for why the "founders" didn't include the protection of women's rights... WOMEN HAD NO RIGHTS THEN. Women were chattel.
> 
> Ah... the good old days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no fetal protections in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> COTUS doesn't mention spousal rape, either
> 
> Nor were blacks and women covered
> 
> 
> What's your point?
Click to expand...


My point is that you need a constitutional amendment to give fetuses protection, which, I assume

is why the Republican party platform of late always contains a plank in it to do exactly that...

...supported and pushed for by the pro-life/anti-choice faction.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is human only because the term is used so broadly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of the species is too broad?
> 
> Who shouldn't be covered? Jews? Negroes? Gypsies?
Click to expand...


Can you discern a difference between a fertilized human egg, at the point of conception, 

and yourself, now?

Or, are the similarities YOU personally see, beyond the sharing of the term 'human', so extensive that you cannot justify any difference in the treatment of either the fertilized egg, or you,

especially on the subject of ending either's life?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grace,
> 
> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your  fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from  being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a   not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't any of you answer a few simple questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you answer your own question, clearly, and show us that you're not trying to hold everyone else to a standard you won't hold yourself to.
Click to expand...


I have several times in this very thread.

Now, you claim there's a difference between killing you today and killing you when you were little.

What's the difference? What made it no longer okay?


----------



## Anguille

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is human only because the term is used so broadly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of the species is too broad?
> 
> Who shouldn't be covered? Jews? Negroes? Gypsies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you discern a difference between a fertilized human egg, at the point of conception,
> 
> *and yourself*, now?
> 
> Or, are the similarities YOU personally see, beyond the sharing of the term 'human', so extensive that you cannot justify any difference in the treatment of either the fertilized egg, or you,
> 
> especially on the subject of ending either's life?
Click to expand...

That JPuke is human is yet to be determined.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is human only because the term is used so broadly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of the species is too broad?
> 
> Who shouldn't be covered? Jews? Negroes? Gypsies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you discern a difference between a fertilized human egg, at the point of conception,
> 
> and yourself, now?
> 
> Or, are the similarities YOU personally see, beyond the sharing of the term 'human', so extensive that you cannot justify any difference in the treatment of either the fertilized egg, or you,
> 
> especially on the subject of ending either's life?
Click to expand...

You claim there's a difference.

What is it? At what age did it come a out?

How can we measure or detect it?

Does it not look enough like you to be a 'real' human? Do Jews? Do Negroes?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know who else wasn't counted?
> 
> Women.
> 
> We needed a constitutional amendment to make it clear that females are people, too.
> 
> (Clearly, you're not familiar with the suffragettes.)
> 
> So let's go ahead and run with your argument and see where that takes us, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which proves that you need a constitutional amendment to give fetuses personhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Law determines who's a person and who's not?
> 
> Need I have said 'personhood under the law'?
Click to expand...


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of the species is too broad?
> 
> Who shouldn't be covered? Jews? Negroes? Gypsies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you discern a difference between a fertilized human egg, at the point of conception,
> 
> and yourself, now?
> 
> Or, are the similarities YOU personally see, beyond the sharing of the term 'human', so extensive that you cannot justify any difference in the treatment of either the fertilized egg, or you,
> 
> especially on the subject of ending either's life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim there's a difference.
> 
> What is it? At what age did it come a out?
> 
> How can we measure or detect it?
> 
> Does it not look enough like you to be a 'real' human? Do Jews? Do Negroes?
Click to expand...


You didn't answer the question.  Stop trolling.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Anguille said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of the species is too broad?
> 
> Who shouldn't be covered? Jews? Negroes? Gypsies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you discern a difference between a fertilized human egg, at the point of conception,
> 
> *and yourself*, now?
> 
> Or, are the similarities YOU personally see, beyond the sharing of the term 'human', so extensive that you cannot justify any difference in the treatment of either the fertilized egg, or you,
> 
> especially on the subject of ending either's life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That JPuke is human is yet to be determined.
Click to expand...


Beukema is so losing this debate on the merits that if it were a boxing match the ref would have stepped in and stopped it.


----------



## JBeukema

Anguille said:


> That JPuke is human is yet to be determined.


You're right. I'm actually a Pleiadean.

Now, answer the questions.



JBeukema said:


> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your   fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from   being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?







JBeukema said:


> Does my right to do as I will with or to my own   body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it   not?







JBeukema said:


> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a    not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you discern a difference between a fertilized human egg, at the point of conception,
> 
> and yourself, now?
> 
> Or, are the similarities YOU personally see, beyond the sharing of the term 'human', so extensive that you cannot justify any difference in the treatment of either the fertilized egg, or you,
> 
> especially on the subject of ending either's life?
> 
> 
> 
> You claim there's a difference.
> 
> What is it? At what age did it come a out?
> 
> How can we measure or detect it?
> 
> Does it not look enough like you to be a 'real' human? Do Jews? Do Negroes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [evasion]
Click to expand...



Why can't you answer a few simple questions?

At what age and for what reason did killing you become not okay?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't any of you answer a few simple questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you answer your own question, clearly, and show us that you're not trying to hold everyone else to a standard you won't hold yourself to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have several times in this very thread.
> 
> Now, you claim there's a difference between killing you today and killing you when you were little.
> 
> What's the difference? What made it no longer okay?
Click to expand...


I want you to answer it now, in the conversation with ME, as a courtesy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> The virago thing is just an observation; I don't see that it is used to justify any argument except perhaps that Grace is over the top emotional on this topic.



You got it.  Grace isn't saying anything that REQUIRES debate or argument, because it's all just hysterical screaming about her own personal trauma.  It says nothing and means nothing about the issue of abortion, so it needs nothing in return except to tell her she needs to back off, calm down, and get some industrial-strength therapy.

Like Jillian, Grace is making no substantial points that need rebutting.  Unlike Jillian, Grace is at least marginally deserving of sympathy.


----------



## JBeukema

1160 posts and not a single one of the pro-abortionists can answer a few simple questions:




JBeukema said:


> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your    fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from    being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?







JBeukema said:


> Does my right to do as I will with or to my own    body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does  it   not?







JBeukema said:


> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a     not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim there's a difference.
> 
> What is it? At what age did it come a out?
> 
> How can we measure or detect it?
> 
> Does it not look enough like you to be a 'real' human? Do Jews? Do Negroes?
> 
> 
> 
> [evasion]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer a few simple questions?
> 
> At what age and for what reason did killing you become not okay?
Click to expand...


I think altering someone's quotes is against the rules here.


----------



## Anguille

NYcarbineer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you discern a difference between a fertilized human egg, at the point of conception,
> 
> *and yourself*, now?
> 
> Or, are the similarities YOU personally see, beyond the sharing of the term 'human', so extensive that you cannot justify any difference in the treatment of either the fertilized egg, or you,
> 
> especially on the subject of ending either's life?
> 
> 
> 
> That JPuke is human is yet to be determined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beukema is so losing this debate on the merits that if it were a boxing match the ref would have stepped in and stopped it.
Click to expand...

He's punch drunk.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> 1160 posts and not a single one of the pro-abortionists can answer a few simple questions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your    fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from    being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does my right to do as I will with or to my own    body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does  it   not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a     not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I answered it about 900 posts ago when I said I support Roe v Wade in principle.  The Roe decision explains it quite elaborately.  

Have you ever read Roe v Wade?


----------



## JBeukema

Why do you keep evading?

Why can't you answer a few simple questions?


JBeukema said:


> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your    fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from    being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?







JBeukema said:


> Does my right to do as I will with or to my own    body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does  it   not?







JBeukema said:


> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a     not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​


----------



## NYcarbineer

Anguille said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> That JPuke is human is yet to be determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beukema is so losing this debate on the merits that if it were a boxing match the ref would have stepped in and stopped it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's punch drunk.
Click to expand...


The amazing thing about this is I have had this exact same debate in the past with people who made exactly the same sorts of 'arguments' with exactly the same sorts of song and dance and obfuscation and evasion that JB is using - EXACTLY -

and yet I am quite certain the other people the other times were not Beukema.  

It's fascinating.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1160 posts and not a single one of the pro-abortionists can answer a few simple questions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your    fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from    being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a     not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered it about 900 posts ago when I said I support Roe v Wade in principle.  The Roe decision explains it quite elaborately.
> 
> Have you ever read Roe v Wade?
Click to expand...


What principles? Perjury?

The Law should be what it is because it is what it is?

Tell me, in you own words, at what point what changes that makes killing you in cold blood not-okay.


Remember that the Supreme Court also gave us the Dred Scott decision. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's right or has any weight here.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> Why do you keep evading?
> 
> Why can't you answer a few simple questions?
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your    fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from    being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does my right to do as I will with or to my own    body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does  it   not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a     not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I just answered.  Go read Roe v. Wade.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1160 posts and not a single one of the pro-abortionists can answer a few simple questions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered it about 900 posts ago when I said I support Roe v Wade in principle.  The Roe decision explains it quite elaborately.
> 
> Have you ever read Roe v Wade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What principles? Perjury?
> 
> The Law should be what it is because it is what it is?
> 
> Tell me, in you own words, at what point what changes that makes killing you in cold blood not-okay.
> 
> 
> Remember that the Supreme Court also gave us the Dred Scott decision. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's right or has any weight here.
Click to expand...


Just because YOU say something doesn't make it right nor does it have any weight here.


----------



## JBeukema

So your only reason is that Der Staat says so?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered it about 900 posts ago when I said I support Roe v Wade in principle.  The Roe decision explains it quite elaborately.
> 
> Have you ever read Roe v Wade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What principles? Perjury?
> 
> The Law should be what it is because it is what it is?
> 
> Tell me, in you own words, at what point what changes that makes killing you in cold blood not-okay.
> 
> 
> Remember that the Supreme Court also gave us the Dred Scott decision. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's right or has any weight here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because YOU say something doesn't make it right nor does it have any weight here.
Click to expand...


So you're saying Dred Scott was right?


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that it is a parasite, a parasite that requites the environment of a host. If it is not part of a womans body then it is something alien to herself inhabiting her womb.
> 
> Good to know you see it at last.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *First of all, a fetus is more of a symbiote *than a parasite.  Second of all, it's just another example of your extreme dishonesty - the point of this thread - that you think YOU have the right to tell someone ELSE that it's good that they see that the baby isn't the mother's body, when YOU are the one who keeps trumpeting, "A woman has a right to do what she wants with her body".
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating yet again how your position is based on nothing but self-serving lies with all your flip-flopping and topic-hopping.  "It's a woman's body; no, wait, it's a parasite and separate".
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a symoiote if one half of the equation wants out of the deal its not a symbiotic relationship. A symbiotic relationship requires two willing participants where EACH gets something out of the deal.
Click to expand...



Just as the word "life" is not defined by your own personal whims and preference, so the words "symbiote" and "parasite" are not.  You REALLY need to get over the idea that the universe shapes itself to your desires, because God complexes are REALLY unattractive.



syrenn said:


> LOL, i am not the one trying to tell anyone they are wrong or even change anyones opinion. I AM giving my opinion. Though there are many here who are trying to tell people they are wrong or right. JB's last round of flipping is all about it NOT being part of the womans body..do read the thread.



Of course you're not telling anyone they're wrong.  That's because the people you disagree with AREN'T wrong, and you have no hard facts on which to accuse them of being wrong.  I'm glad to know you realize that everything you've said is your opinion, containing no fact whatsoever, but it would be even nicer if you recognized how little your opinion actually means in the face of fact.

For the record, JB hasn't flipped once.  YOU, on the other hand, have made a habit of taking whatever position serves your agenda at the moment, and then airily abandoning it for the opposite if you think THAT will work better.

Hence the thread title "Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Be Honest?"  The answer, of course, is because the truth contradicts their agenda.



syrenn said:


> A woman *does *have the right to do what she wants to HER body..and if she wants something out of her body..that is HER choice. Good to know you dont think you have rights over your body.



When in doubt, just fall back on "Abortion should be legal because abortion is legal!"  It makes no fucking sense, and makes you sound like a drooling moron, but hey, that's never bothered you before in service to your agenda, so why should it now?



syrenn said:


> Where have i flipped on any of the topics being discussed in this tread?



Oh, please.  You've been stridently screaming about "a woman's body" all along, as just above, and THEN you flip over to "invader alien to her body".  Which is it, Ms. Honesty and Logic?  Is it okay to abort because it's part of her body, or is it okay to abort because you're having "Aliens" flashbacks?



syrenn said:


> If it is a life, c- section it out, give it birth at any time in its gestation, and let it have its life to itself.
> If it NOT part of a womans body it is a parasite and a woman has the right to take it out of her body.
> If it IS part of  womans body then she has the right to do what she wants to with HER body.



So basically, you don't HAVE to care about facts, because goddamn it, you're going to do what you want no matter what.  Any way you look at it, the ONLY operative point here is that you want to fuck around without consequences.

And then you wonder why your position isn't respected for its honesty and logic.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Again:

I believe it is in society's best interest to allow a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy FOR ANY REASON.  I believe that opportunity should be constitutionally protected as a right.   

 I believe that the first trimester time period of a pregnancy fairly represents that 'window'.

I believe that after the first trimester, it is reasonable to allow the people of the individual states to regulate abortion in any manner they see fit.

Whoever thinks I'm wrong in any of that  can step up and say so, and please, tell me what EXACTLY is wrong with my specific views and what your opposing view is specifically.

Otherwise I'll assume no one finds fault in my position.


----------



## Cecilie1200

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is an egg a chicken? is there no distinction?
> 
> or is it just because you have a particular religious view, you think you can impose that view on everyone else?
Click to expand...


Excuse me, but are chickens humans?  Are they even _mammals_?  Do they have the same reproductive systems and cycles?  I don't think so.  This is marginally more sensible than the inane comparison of humans and trees, but not by much.

Learn the words "species", "genus", "family", "order", "class", and "phylum", because THAT'S how fucking far back you have to go before humans and chickens are in the same group, imbecile.


----------



## JBeukema

Still haven't seen anyone answer these



JBeukema said:


> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your    fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from    being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?







JBeukema said:


> Does my right to do as I will with or to my own    body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does  it   not?







JBeukema said:


> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a     not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> Again:
> 
> I believe it is in society's best interest to allow a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy FOR ANY REASON.



Why is it best for society to allow homicide for any reason when the victim is very young?





> I believe that opportunity should be constitutionally protected as a right.



Why?





> I believe that the first trimester time period of a pregnancy fairly represents that 'window'.



Why? What, exactly, changes at the end of the first trimester that makes killing the child in cold blood no longer okay?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Spousal rape was legal until 1993...



Hell, we get the phrase "rule of thumb" from the fact that it was legal to BEAT your wife, as long as you used a stick no bigger around than your thumb.


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should everyone stay out of eachother's face when it comes to detonating a bomb inside an abortion clinic full of people?
> 
> As far as your hypo goes, answer it yourself.
> 
> At  what age, and for what reason, does killing a* child *in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> Why is it wrong to kill you now if if was okay when you were younger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your term "child" is subjective. It is a matter of opinion at what point cells become a "child" and at what point cells have a stand alone life of their own.
> 
> 
> The standard LEGAL time now is 14 weeks.
Click to expand...


It's only a matter of opinion if you deny all facts in favor of your opinions and what you want to believe.

To anyone HONEST, the word "child" has a set definition, which a fetus meets.

But hey, you've already shown how much facts have to do with your agenda - eg. nothing - so why should one more make a difference?


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spousal rape was legal until 1993...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, we get the phrase "rule of thumb" from the fact that it was legal to BEAT your wife, as long as you used a stick no bigger around than your thumb.
Click to expand...

It would seem the Law can be wrong.

That would seem to make appealing to the law a pretty stupid argument, especially when the question isn't what it is but what it _should be_.


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i say not to assist the 4 week old cells once it is outside of its host environment? Do i say new born babies do not require assistance to survive? Do i say children do not need assistance to survive? No, i do not. Just as a baby needs assistance to survive in a new environment I would need assistance to survive in Siberia.
> 
> Again, feel free to give _all the assistance _to 4 week old tissue on a table you want. See if it survives.
> 
> If i was given _all the assistance_ i wanted in Siberia...i would survive just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't.  Just because YOU are uneducated in embryology (and basic biology) and have no idea what to look for doesn't mean the differences aren't clear.  I couldn't tell poison ivy from poison oak from any other plant in the forest, but that doesn't mean they're indistinguishable.  It just means I don't know shit about botany.

I'll never understand why people think their personal ignorance is some sort of conclusive debating point.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> And I think you have every right to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is. The perfect phrase for this subject and any other subject. Might even use it as a sigline later on, its so good.
> 
> JB is on ignore, but quotes show he still has this fascination of rape.
> Went thru it once before physically. Now I get to go thru it again verbally. Ill ask for him to cease. But I wont hold my breath.
Click to expand...


Oh, spare me.  You come into a public forum, vomit your personal life details all over the place, and then you're horrified that people actually comment on it, and play the victim AGAIN over it?

If anyone's "raping you verbally", you're doing it to yourself by waving your trauma around like a goddamned bloody shirt that's supposed to silence everyone you disagree with.  You have no one to blame but yourself.


----------



## Anguille

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'll never understand why people think their personal ignorance is some sort of conclusive debating point.



The clue as to why you will never understand your own personal ignorance should be obvious - even to you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im becoming very agitated and mean with this subject and I dont like being mean. Im off to find other news stories to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least until the next time you decide to come back and start wailing, "I was raped!  I'm a victim, so everyone has to SHUT UP!  Stop saying things I don't want to hear!  Abortion debates are ALL ABOUT ME!  Bow before my towering suffering!"
> 
> At least we'll all be able to get back to some semblance of rational discussion for a little while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I said to stfu was to JB.
> *Link please, where I screamed for everyone to* shut the fuck up....otherwise youre a liar and it didnt happen. Go for it. Ill wait.
Click to expand...


I have no intention of trying to link multiple pages of you whining about how victimized you are, poor little rape victim, and now anything that's said about abortion is a personal attack on you.

Why would you wait?  You said you were leaving.  So leave . . . hopefully for a therapy session.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this variable? It was time enough for the guy to keep his dick in his pants and since he didnt, had a woody and thought hed show some "power" and "control" and his banty rooster mentality needed to force himself on someone weaker to step up and own what he did, but didnt, and therefore got his sorry ass thrown in jail because what he did was ILLEGAL and called RAPE.
> 
> Howzat for variables, insinuations, finger pointing and overall GUESSING scenarios of which nobody knows jack shit about while arguing a point over and over and over and over again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, Grace, how about you get some counseling and stop projecting your own emotional issues all over the rest of us?  This is not a group-therapy session, and emotional reactions substituting for logical thought is one of the worst sorts of dishonesty around.
> 
> The fact that something bad happened to you does not make anything you say on the subject automatically right, nor does it entitle you to shut down any discussion on the topic that you don't like or want to hear.  Victimhood does not convey infallibility.
> 
> I swear to God, I am not trying to be mean or callous here, but it honestly sounds to me like you've spent a lot of time since the attack with people tiptoeing around you, patting you on the back and saying, "Poor baby, whatever makes you feel better about it", to the point where you've gotten the idea that you have a right to expect that from everyone.  You don't, nor do I think it's been helpful, judging by the amount of hatred and bitterness you're spewing all around you.
> 
> The truth is, I think the attitudes and perspectives you were taught about pregnancy, abortion, and perhaps femaleness in general, left you badly-equipped to deal with what happened.  They don't seem to have offered you any point from which you can gain peace or a positive outlook and move on.  If I didn't object to the stridently negative battle cry of "My body, my choice!" for any other reason, I would object to it because of that.
> 
> Lastly, you should really get past this whole "No one else can POSSIBLY know how I feel, no one else has suffered like I have!" idea.  You don't know any of us in real life, and you have no way of knowing what we've been through, but you should at least be mature enough to know that your experience is, sadly, far from unique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I havent thought about it for many years. Did it affect how I am today? In certain ways, yes. But not even my friends know so how can I be asking for pats on the back?
> 
> As much as you and other pro lifers want to hear it, it IS my choice what I choose to allow to grow IN my body. Just as its your choice to think its wrong.
> 
> Others that did what I did, for the same reasons I did it, WOULD understand the battle of "how do I handle this?". At least, i would hope so.
> For the record, since nobody bothered to ask and instead chose to call me a baby killer, I got rid of it because it was an "inconvenience", blah blah blah...I aborted at 4 weeks. Maybe a day later, maybe a day sooner. My doctor and I kept on it until tests could be confirmed because he and I both planned to remove it. As soon as possible. And I did.
> IF it were me wishy washing and it had a heart beat (that comes 5 weeks, I believe), I dont know what I would have done. Thats not the point anyway. Yall have your views and opinions just as I have mine. You say I have no right to what grows inside my body that I didnt ask to be put there. I say I do. The problem began when I was attacked by people for not doing what THEY wanted me to do.
> 
> Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?
Click to expand...


Horseshit, Grace.  First of all, the way you come barreling into this thread over and over, hollering and moaning tells me you're not even vaguely near the point of "hardly thinking about it", nor do I believe for a second that you've kept it a secret from everyone in your life, given the way you feel compelled to blurt it out to total strangers.

Furthermore, no one called you a baby-killer, because until you forced your issues onto us - speaking of psychic rapes, by the way - no one KNEW to call you one.  You and your fucking issues just insisted on making everything personal.  Get the fuck over it, and over yourself.

I'm very sure that anyone who made your choices - particularly if they're carrying the same load of unresolved guilt over it - would be using the same rationalization tactics you are.  However, you need to understand that not everyone in your position DOES make the same choices, because not everyone thinks those are good and healthy choices.  Don't project and assume the whole world shares your perspective.

Let me ask YOU some questions:  are ALL of your beliefs subjective?  Do they change with circumstance and convenience?  Why do you assume that other people can't POSSIBLY truly believe what they say, that yours is the only POSSIBLE reaction under those circumstances?

That's frankly all that needs to be said about your fuzzy emotional logic.  Call me when you start thinking with your brain instead of your glands.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Now let me ask this. Those who think its so wrong to abort.....WHAT IF your daughter was 13. Her grandpa raped her and she got pregnant. Would you REALLY insist that your child carry the child made from an incestuous rape because the fetus is alive and a baby and has the right to live even though your daughter screams at the very thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The silence is deafening.
Click to expand...


I hate people who think they get to set a time limit on when people are and aren't around to respond ALMOST as much as I hate people who play at being a victim and try to use it as a bludgeon.  You'll get a fucking answer when I decide you're fucking important enough for me to get around to sitting at the computer to answer you, which will be as soon as I'm done with all the OTHER things in my life that matter more than you do, like picking lint out of my belly button.  Got it?


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Hard to answer, isnt it? Especially when it comes to your own personal ife.



No, you ignorant troll, it's hard to answer when YOU'RE NOT AT THE FUCKING COMPUTER BECAUSE YOU'RE OUT HAVING A FUCKING LIFE.

Shut the fuck up and wait until I get around to you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silence is deafening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  I don't know what I'd do and I hope to never find out.  But IF I agreed for my daughter to get an abortion it would be with the full knowledge that she would be killing an innocent human being and we'd all have to live with that FACT for the rest of our lives.  Best answer I can honestly give you, Grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for responding. Yet, you and others have not even considered or heard _me_ when I tried to say I felt exactly the same way. I was accused of wanting back patting and "woe is me" and its not "all about you, Grace" and it was an "inconvenience" and I should have "kept my legs closed".
> 
> If you would be so kind as to go back to the very first thread of MANY on this subject this past week, you will see my first utterance of "it NOT an easy decision to make". And from there on out, I didnt make it about me at all. You and others did. And I defended myself.
> Which means....its bad if I did it. But its ok if its done to your kid as long as she is aware of how it will affect her forever if she aborts it. Thats what I got out of it anyway.
Click to expand...


Maybe that's because it WASN'T personal until you decided to make it that way.  No one on this thread ever said ANYTHING about abortion related to rape . . . until you did.  You decided to take a conversation about abortion in general, nearly all of which is NOT due to rape, and to make it all about YOUR trauma.  So yeah, you got your ass reamed for whining and playing the victim.  And you deserved it.

Apparently, it IS an easy decision to make for many women, but you can't seem to understand that YOU AREN'T ALL WOMEN.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Okay, just for the record, I'm going out with my friends now.  In case anyone decides to post any more retarded, inane hypotheticals and then crow about their "victory" because I'm not answering, it's because I'm not here.

Just wanted to clear that up right now.


----------



## syrenn

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's it? The fact that it's indistinguishable makes it ok to murder? Wow. You really need to stop rationalizing so hard there.
> 
> You're admitting that it's life. It is alive. You're stopping that life. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C-section it out and let have its life of its own. That is not murder. If it dies it dies. End of story.
> 
> I have never said it that it is not living human tissue. I do say it does not have a life of its own. Do try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does have a life of it's own and by removing it from it's proper environment before it is able to survive kills that life.
Click to expand...


It is not a life on its own at 4 weeks.. It requires another _willing _subject to be its host.


----------



## syrenn

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just religious. I am pro-life for entirely NON-religious reasons. From the moment of conception it's life. All that's ever going to be there is there. Nothing else needed or added.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it a life of its own or just living tissue?
> 
> If it is a stand alone life, there should be no reason it cannot be removed from an unwilling host.
> 
> If it needs a host then it is not a life of its own, and requires the cooperation of the host. *The host has the final say about providing that service.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your're right, the mother has the final say. And if her choice is to abort then her choice is to kill another human being.
Click to expand...



Her body, her choice.  You see it as killing another human being, the pregnant woman having that abortion may see it differently. Again...it is a matter of opinion.


----------



## Charles_Main

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> C-section it out and let have its life of its own. That is not murder. If it dies it dies. End of story.
> 
> I have never said it that it is not living human tissue. I do say it does not have a life of its own. Do try and keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does have a life of it's own and by removing it from it's proper environment before it is able to survive kills that life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a life on its own at 4 weeks.. It requires another _willing _subject to be its host.
Click to expand...


syrenn I really like you, but that is just pure BS. Speaking scientifically it is life. It is Cells that are dividing and growing into a Human Being. I support the right to an abortion in some cases, but come on stop playing semantics. 

Why is it Liberals will go out of their way to save a single celled amoeba in some lake, but want to try and tell us that a fetus is not life. 

I believe in freedom of choice just like you, I just think, unless there are some extenuating circumstances that a woman should have the baby, BECAUSE SHE MADE the choice to have sex, and choices have consequences. 

It makes it harder to like you when you try and argue a fetus is not a life. As long as the woman does not mistreat her body, or have it removed that fetus has a very HIGH % of being born, that is undeniable. To argue it is not life is simply disgusting if you ask me.

My conservative/Libertarian Views on the Power of Government. Would not allow me to support banning Abortion, but I sure wish less happened. Definitely less of the ones that make up the vast majority of Abortions. Which are carried out not because there is some birth defect, or threat to the mothers kufe, or the Mother was rapped, but simply because the woman does not want to have a baby. How can that not trouble your conscience when that happens?

2 Million potential Human Beings, wiped out every year in the country. The Richest nation in the history of the world killing 2 million babies a year, then important more then that in immigrants each year. Where is the sanity.


----------



## syrenn

Shadow said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. Causing direct harm to another is a different matter. Or should raping grace and bombing a police station be legal, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Again, C-sections it out*. Give it birth. That is not causing harm to anything that has a stand alone life.
> 
> Do try and stick with one subject. Are you talking about the unborn or something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Babies dont usually live when they are aborted.  So what is your point?
> 
> *How to Understand the Hysterectomy or Cesarean Section Abortion Procedure*
> 
> How to Understand the Hysterectomy or Cesarean Section Abortion Procedure | eHow.com
Click to expand...



Do i say c-section abortions?..no, i sure don't. 

I say c-section to give it birth. Same as they do with babies. Carefully.


----------



## sinister59

Cecilie1200 said:


> Okay, just for the record, I'm going out with my friends now.  In case anyone decides to post any more retarded, inane hypotheticals and then crow about their "victory" because I'm not answering, it's because I'm not here.
> 
> Just wanted to clear that up right now.



wow . 
 you really think this way ? or are you just screwing with people ? 
you know kids use to be not a viable human till 5 years old , I know thats just Roman , but you believe as soon as the egg divides you got one ? 
you rant , you rave , but your body is yours , no one else's body is , 
you want to whine call them names ? cool but you have no rights above theirs , so really unless its your ass swelling up shut the fuck up . 
the idea of a three day waiting period if bull shit and you know it . 
I hope they give away the morning after pill , you sure as hell want take responsibility fore them . 
and if you are the orphanages are full .


----------



## syrenn

Cecilie1200 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *First of all, a fetus is more of a symbiote *than a parasite.  Second of all, it's just another example of your extreme dishonesty - the point of this thread - that you think YOU have the right to tell someone ELSE that it's good that they see that the baby isn't the mother's body, when YOU are the one who keeps trumpeting, "A woman has a right to do what she wants with her body".
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating yet again how your position is based on nothing but self-serving lies with all your flip-flopping and topic-hopping.  "It's a woman's body; no, wait, it's a parasite and separate".
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a symoiote if one half of the equation wants out of the deal its not a symbiotic relationship. A symbiotic relationship requires two willing participants where EACH gets something out of the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the word "life" is not defined by your own personal whims and preference, so the words "symbiote" and "parasite" are not.  You REALLY need to get over the idea that the universe shapes itself to your desires, because God complexes are REALLY unattractive.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you're not telling anyone they're wrong.  That's because the people you disagree with AREN'T wrong, and you have no hard facts on which to accuse them of being wrong.  I'm glad to know you realize that everything you've said is your opinion, containing no fact whatsoever, but it would be even nicer if you recognized how little your opinion actually means in the face of fact.
> 
> For the record, JB hasn't flipped once.  YOU, on the other hand, have made a habit of taking whatever position serves your agenda at the moment, and then airily abandoning it for the opposite if you think THAT will work better.
> 
> Hence the thread title "Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Be Honest?"  The answer, of course, is because the truth contradicts their agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> When in doubt, just fall back on "Abortion should be legal because abortion is legal!"  It makes no fucking sense, and makes you sound like a drooling moron, but hey, that's never bothered you before in service to your agenda, so why should it now?
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have i flipped on any of the topics being discussed in this tread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  You've been stridently screaming about "a woman's body" all along, as just above, and THEN you flip over to "invader alien to her body".  Which is it, Ms. Honesty and Logic?  Is it okay to abort because it's part of her body, or is it okay to abort because you're having "Aliens" flashbacks?
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is a life, c- section it out, give it birth at any time in its gestation, and let it have its life to itself.
> If it NOT part of a womans body it is a parasite and a woman has the right to take it out of her body.
> If it IS part of  womans body then she has the right to do what she wants to with HER body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, you don't HAVE to care about facts, because goddamn it, you're going to do what you want no matter what.  Any way you look at it, the ONLY operative point here is that you want to fuck around without consequences.
> 
> And then you wonder why your position isn't respected for its honesty and logic.
Click to expand...


I don't fuck around.  You may, but i sure don't. I understand the consequences very well. I also understand the finer points of a consensual relationship of which i would think you would understand too. Carrying a baby to term requires the consent of the woman doing the carrying. If you dont like that to bad. If you don't understand the difference between something that is living and something that has a life of ITS OWN  thats your problem If you don't get the finer points of my arguments that says more about you then me.


----------



## syrenn

Cecilie1200 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Just because YOU are uneducated in embryology (and basic biology) and have no idea what to look for doesn't mean the differences aren't clear.  I couldn't tell poison ivy from poison oak from any other plant in the forest, but that doesn't mean they're indistinguishable.  It just means I don't know shit about botany.
> 
> I'll never understand why people think their personal ignorance is some sort of conclusive debating point.
Click to expand...



And now you area an embryologist along with a biologist? Amazing. 

I seem to understand it better then you do. The only difference in the first few weeks is the chromosomes.


----------



## Shadow

syrenn said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Again, C-sections it out*. Give it birth. That is not causing harm to anything that has a stand alone life.
> 
> Do try and stick with one subject. Are you talking about the unborn or something else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Babies dont usually live when they are aborted.  So what is your point?
> 
> *How to Understand the Hysterectomy or Cesarean Section Abortion Procedure*
> 
> How to Understand the Hysterectomy or Cesarean Section Abortion Procedure | eHow.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do i say c-section abortions?..no, i sure don't.
> 
> I say c-section to give it birth. Same as they do with babies. Carefully.
Click to expand...


Another stupid statement from you.  Good job.

So you think performing a c section before the baby is fully developed is not an abortion then? Because the medical community disagrees with you.


----------



## syrenn

Charles_Main said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does have a life of it's own and by removing it from it's proper environment before it is able to survive kills that life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a life on its own at 4 weeks.. It requires another _willing _subject to be its host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> syrenn I really like you, but that is just pure BS. Speaking scientifically it is life. It is Cells that are dividing and growing into a Human Being. I support the right to an abortion in some cases, but come on stop playing semantics.
> 
> Why is it Liberals will go out of their way to save a single celled amoeba in some lake, but want to try and tell us that a fetus is not life.
> 
> I believe in freedom of choice just like you, I just think, unless there are some extenuating circumstances that a woman should have the baby, BECAUSE SHE MADE the choice to have sex, and choices have consequences.
> 
> It makes it harder to like you when you try and argue a fetus is not a life. As long as the woman does not mistreat her body, or have it removed that fetus has a very HIGH % of being born, that is undeniable. To argue it is not life is simply disgusting if you ask me.
> 
> My conservative/Libertarian Views on the Power of Government. Would not allow me to support banning Abortion, but I sure wish less happened. Definitely less of the ones that make up the vast majority of Abortions. Which are carried out not because there is some birth defect, or threat to the mothers kufe, or the Mother was rapped, but simply because the woman does not want to have a baby. How can that not trouble your conscience when that happens?
> 
> 2 Million potential Human Beings, wiped out every year in the country. The Richest nation in the history of the world killing 2 million babies a year, then important more then that in immigrants each year. Where is the sanity.
Click to expand...



I do not say it is not living. I say it does not have a life of its own at 4 weeks. It is not a viable stand alone "life".

I agree, if it stays in the womb until fully developed it has a high chance of being born normally. However that requires the willing participation of the woman with the womb. 

I also do not approve of the amount of abortions that are happening, nor do i approve of the amount of unwanted children that ARE being born.


----------



## Zoom-boing

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> C-section it out and let have its life of its own. That is not murder. If it dies it dies. End of story.
> 
> I have never said it that it is not living human tissue. I do say it does not have a life of its own. Do try and keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does have a life of it's own and by removing it from it's proper environment before it is able to survive kills that life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a life on its own at 4 weeks.. It requires another _willing _subject to be its host.
Click to expand...


Using 'host' further dehumanizes a fetus.  Good job.



syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it a life of its own or just living tissue?
> 
> If it is a stand alone life, there should be no reason it cannot be removed from an unwilling host.
> 
> If it needs a host then it is not a life of its own, and requires the cooperation of the host. *The host has the final say about providing that service.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your're right, the mother has the final say. And if her choice is to abort then her choice is to kill another human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Her body, her choice.  You see it as killing another human being,* the pregnant woman having that abortion may see it differently*. Again...it is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...


Of course they do.  If they admitted that what they were doing by getting an abortion was ending an individual human being's life they'd likely be too much of a coward to go through with it.  Well, hopefully anyway . . .

You said that at 9 weeks is where you draw the line on abortion.  Why?  What changes?  A 9 week old fetus can't live outside the womb any better than a 4 week old fetus can.



syrenn said:


> My threshold for removing a fetus is about 9 weeks, that is my end point. In that time a person has had enough time to make up their minds. Anything longer then that the pregnancy has gone to far in my opinion, and it is viable...


----------



## Zoom-boing

syrenn said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a life on its own at 4 weeks.. It requires another _willing _subject to be its host.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn I really like you, but that is just pure BS. Speaking scientifically it is life. It is Cells that are dividing and growing into a Human Being. I support the right to an abortion in some cases, but come on stop playing semantics.
> 
> Why is it Liberals will go out of their way to save a single celled amoeba in some lake, but want to try and tell us that a fetus is not life.
> 
> I believe in freedom of choice just like you, I just think, unless there are some extenuating circumstances that a woman should have the baby, BECAUSE SHE MADE the choice to have sex, and choices have consequences.
> 
> It makes it harder to like you when you try and argue a fetus is not a life. As long as the woman does not mistreat her body, or have it removed that fetus has a very HIGH % of being born, that is undeniable. To argue it is not life is simply disgusting if you ask me.
> 
> My conservative/Libertarian Views on the Power of Government. Would not allow me to support banning Abortion, but I sure wish less happened. Definitely less of the ones that make up the vast majority of Abortions. Which are carried out not because there is some birth defect, or threat to the mothers kufe, or the Mother was rapped, but simply because the woman does not want to have a baby. How can that not trouble your conscience when that happens?
> 
> 2 Million potential Human Beings, wiped out every year in the country. The Richest nation in the history of the world killing 2 million babies a year, then important more then that in immigrants each year. Where is the sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *I do not say it is not living. I say it does not have a life of its own at 4 weeks. It is not a viable stand alone "life"*.
> 
> I agree, if it stays in the womb until fully developed it has a high chance of being born normally. However that requires the willing participation of the woman with the womb.
> 
> I also do not approve of the amount of abortions that are happening, nor do i approve of the amount of unwanted children that ARE being born.
Click to expand...


What it IS is an individual human being in early stages of development.  Surviving on its own outside of the womb -- 'stand alone life' -- doesn't negate this fact.


----------



## Zoom-boing

IMEURU said:


> Response to 1117 to Immie...yeah. Thats why Im doing it this way.
> 
> *Response to 1118 to Zoom...ang said you and she are not corresponding in pm and obviously she is correct since her pms are not allowing correspondence.*



She is incorrect . . .it wasn't recent it was more like a year and a half ago or something and at _that_ time she could receive pms.



Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, now I get what IMEURU was talking about.
> 
> The pm between me and Ang happened ages ago, not recently.  Thanks Immie.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no memory of ever exchanging PMs with you Boink. And if I had and you had PMed me about wanting to discuss further in PM something we had been discussing publically in a thread I would have told you to keep it on the thread. It has always been my policy to discuss the issues openly. I rarely PM. I keep my box full because I find pm pop-ups annoying and most are just some generic thank you for rep. Anyone who has anything to say to me can write on my wall.
Click to expand...



Really wasn't going to respond to you about this any further but since you can't stop bringing it up . . .

We were in an abortion thread you were making claims about the fetus not being a human.  I posted the following picture to show you exactly what it is that gets aborted; that it IS in fact a human being.  I'm posting the link to the pic here but in that thread I posted the actual pic.

http://akagaga.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/aborted_7_month_fetus1.jpg

You ranted on about me using that pic as some kind of 'shock' thing, rambled a bit about photo shop and said you were going to leave the thread.  My response to your 'shock' statement was:  No I didn't use it as shock.  Why in the world would I do that?  I posted it to show you what an abortion does, what is actually removed from the uterus.  

In an + rep comment to you I again stated that I didn't mean to post that pic as shock and even said that I should have thought a bit and just posted the link (not sure if that last part was in the rep comment on in the actual thread).

Because revealing pm conversations aren't allowed I can't say what your reply to me was, but generally speaking it was along the lines of 'ok, I thought it was for shock.  I'll think over what you said about that picture and get back to you'.  Which you never did, either in pm or in that thread.  You disappeared from the boards for quite awhile, if memory serves.  You have a habit of doing that. 

You can spin this anyway you want.  Anyone who knows me knows I'm not lying or making this up.  Why in the world would I do that?  I'm not a button pusher, instigator or attention whore.


----------



## Vanquish

You don't have to defend posting the pictures, Z-B.  You know why you posted them and that's good enough for all us.  The fact that the pictures were "shocking" to someone proves our point even further - the fact that the baby is out of everyone's minds and they don't confront themselves with the living nature of what they're killing...THAT SHOWS that they don't want to confront the issue honestly and directly.

(It's also the reason why I made my "clear pregnancy belly" comment  )

Syrenn has admitted that the cells are alive and growing. That's all we need to win. That she has some arbitrary, unprovable milestone set up for when it's ok to kill proves nothing. We win. She loses. End of story.


----------



## Immanuel

Vanquish said:


> You don't have to defend posting the pictures, Z-B.  You know why you posted them and that's good enough for all us.  The fact that the pictures were "shocking" to someone proves our point even further - the fact that the baby is out of everyone's minds and they don't confront themselves with the living nature of what they're killing...THAT SHOWS that they don't want to confront the issue honestly and directly.
> 
> (It's also the reason why I made my "clear pregnancy belly" comment  )
> 
> Syrenn has admitted that the cells are alive and growing. That's all we need to win. That she has some arbitrary, unprovable milestone set up for when it's ok to kill proves nothing. We win. She loses. End of story.



It is strange, but I don't even find the pictures posted in this thread as being shocking.  I'm amazed that anyone would.  I do find pictures of aborted fetus' to be shocking, but a picture of a live child in the womb is shocking?

There is only one reason I think someone would object to the pictures presented in this thread during an abortion debate and that has to do with the fact that someone doesn't want to confront the idea that there is an actual human being within the womb and/or they don't want others to know it either.

Immie


----------



## Ravi

Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.


----------



## Vanquish

Ravi said:


> Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.



Bullshit. If it evokes an emotion in YOU that's one thing. But alternative uses of illustration of the growth of the fetus aren't emotion-laden.

There's more than one use for the pictures, just admit that.


----------



## Ravi

Vanquish said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If it evokes an emotion in YOU that's one thing. But alternative uses of illustration of the growth of the fetus aren't emotion-laden.
> 
> There's more than one use for the pictures, just admit that.
Click to expand...

Uh, no...it is an appeal to emotion. At least be honest with yourself.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.



Now why on earth would you say that first part... unless maybe, it did cause an emotional reaction on your part... and here I thought you were a stone cold Bit... er, I think I hear the coffee pot calling me again!  

Laws are refuted using emotional arguments all the time.  In fact, I would say that is why we are having these discussions today.  In many ways, Roe was argued for using appeals to emotion to begin with.

Immie

j/k on the stone cold Bit... part, Ravi.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again:
> 
> I believe it is in society's best interest to allow a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it best for society to allow homicide for any reason when the victim is very young?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that opportunity should be constitutionally protected as a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the first trimester time period of a pregnancy fairly represents that 'window'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? What, exactly, changes at the end of the first trimester that makes killing the child in cold blood no longer okay?
Click to expand...


You didn't tell me why I'm wrong.  You didn't state your own position and tell us why it's better.  In other words, you have absolutely no argument against my position.  That means my position must be logically unassailable.


----------



## Immanuel

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again:
> 
> I believe it is in society's best interest to allow a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it best for society to allow homicide for any reason when the victim is very young?
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the first trimester time period of a pregnancy fairly represents that 'window'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? What, exactly, changes at the end of the first trimester that makes killing the child in cold blood no longer okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't tell me why I'm wrong.  You didn't state your own position and tell us why it's better.  In other words, you have absolutely no argument against my position.  That means my position must be logically unassailable.
Click to expand...


He's not going to for at least a little while.  

For some reason, the ban hammer fell.  Not sure why, but just thought I would let you know as you don't seem to have noticed yet.

Immie


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> Still haven't seen anyone answer these
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your    fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from    being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does my right to do as I will with or to my own    body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does  it   not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a     not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Why haven't you answered your own question?  Or is it fair to say that you believe an abortion is homicide from conception on?

Is that your position?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cecilie1200 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Just because YOU are uneducated in embryology (and basic biology) and have no idea what to look for doesn't mean the differences aren't clear.  I couldn't tell poison ivy from poison oak from any other plant in the forest, but that doesn't mean they're indistinguishable.  It just means I don't know shit about botany.
> 
> I'll never understand why people think their personal ignorance is some sort of conclusive debating point.
Click to expand...


What are the real life tangible biological/physical similarities between a 4 week old embryo and a born person, other than their DNA and other than their being both classified as human?


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it best for society to allow homicide for any reason when the victim is very young?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Why? What, exactly, changes at the end of the first trimester that makes killing the child in cold blood no longer okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't tell me why I'm wrong.  You didn't state your own position and tell us why it's better.  In other words, you have absolutely no argument against my position.  That means my position must be logically unassailable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not going to for at least a little while.
> 
> For some reason, the ban hammer fell.  Not sure why, but just thought I would let you know as you don't seem to have noticed yet.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Good. I hope it was for his repeated claims that he had the right to rape another poster.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't tell me why I'm wrong.  You didn't state your own position and tell us why it's better.  In other words, you have absolutely no argument against my position.  That means my position must be logically unassailable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not going to for at least a little while.
> 
> For some reason, the ban hammer fell.  Not sure why, but just thought I would let you know as you don't seem to have noticed yet.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good. I hope it was for his repeated claims that he had the right to rape another poster.
Click to expand...


I said I wasn't "sure" what the reasons were for it. But if I were going to bet on it, that might have something to do with it.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Ravi said:


> Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.


 
That's right. FUCK THE TRUTH! FUCK EDUCATION!

BTW, exactly how do you justify abortion? I bet it's an appeal to emotion as all pro-abortion arguments are. Because the science and the  facts don't bear out a single one of the pro abortion arguments.

The argument that women will be forced to deliver monster children at huge risk to their own life...a lie, and appeal to emotion.

The argument that huge numbers of rape victims will be branded as sluts and forced to raise unwanted children...a lie and appeal to emotion.

The argument that abortion reduces the numbers of abortions, the numbers of dead women, the incidence of child abuse...all lies and appeals to emotion.


----------



## AllieBaba

And Ravi, you never look so foolish as when you offer up your thoughts and ignorance on the LAW and science. Which is why you're so entertaining in any discussion about abortion. You are given the opportunity to make an ass of yourself in spades!


----------



## Ravi

AllieBaba said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. FUCK THE TRUTH! FUCK EDUCATION!
> 
> BTW, exactly how do you justify abortion? I bet it's an appeal to emotion as all pro-abortion arguments are. Because the science and the  facts don't bear out a single one of the pro abortion arguments.
> 
> The argument that women will be forced to deliver monster children at huge risk to their own life...a lie, and appeal to emotion.
> 
> The argument that huge numbers of rape victims will be branded as sluts and forced to raise unwanted children...a lie and appeal to emotion.
> 
> The argument that abortion reduces the numbers of abortions, the numbers of dead women, the incidence of child abuse...all lies and appeals to emotion.
Click to expand...

I've never made any of those arguments.


----------



## Anguille

Cecilie1200 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to answer, isnt it? Especially when it comes to your own personal ife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you ignorant troll, it's hard to answer when YOU'RE NOT AT THE FUCKING COMPUTER BECAUSE YOU'RE OUT HAVING A FUCKING LIFE.
> 
> Shut the fuck up and wait until I get around to you.
Click to expand...


Hmmmn ... looks like Cecil's plot to intimidate IMEURU has backfired. She's got herself into such a frenzy she's frothing at the mouth. Looks like Imeuru is not as easy to bully as was that nice woman Gina what was her name that Cecilie chased away.


----------



## Vanquish

Ravi said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. FUCK THE TRUTH! FUCK EDUCATION!
> 
> BTW, exactly how do you justify abortion? I bet it's an appeal to emotion as all pro-abortion arguments are. Because the science and the  facts don't bear out a single one of the pro abortion arguments.
> 
> The argument that women will be forced to deliver monster children at huge risk to their own life...a lie, and appeal to emotion.
> 
> The argument that huge numbers of rape victims will be branded as sluts and forced to raise unwanted children...a lie and appeal to emotion.
> 
> The argument that abortion reduces the numbers of abortions, the numbers of dead women, the incidence of child abuse...all lies and appeals to emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never made any of those arguments.
Click to expand...


So?  You've never denounced people on your side (at least not in this thread) for using emotion. Only your opponent. That makes you far from objective.


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Response to 1117 to Immie...yeah. Thats why Im doing it this way.
> 
> *Response to 1118 to Zoom...ang said you and she are not corresponding in pm and obviously she is correct since her pms are not allowing correspondence.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is incorrect . . .it wasn't recent it was more like a year and a half ago or something and at _that_ time she could receive pms.
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, now I get what IMEURU was talking about.
> 
> The pm between me and Ang happened ages ago, not recently.  Thanks Immie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no memory of ever exchanging PMs with you Boink. And if I had and you had PMed me about wanting to discuss further in PM something we had been discussing publically in a thread I would have told you to keep it on the thread. It has always been my policy to discuss the issues openly. I rarely PM. I keep my box full because I find pm pop-ups annoying and most are just some generic thank you for rep. Anyone who has anything to say to me can write on my wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really wasn't going to respond to you about this any further but since you can't stop bringing it up . . .
> 
> We were in an abortion thread you were making claims about the fetus not being a human.  I posted the following picture to show you exactly what it is that gets aborted; that it IS in fact a human being.  I'm posting the link to the pic here but in that thread I posted the actual pic.
> 
> http://akagaga.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/aborted_7_month_fetus1.jpg
> 
> You ranted on about me using that pic as some kind of 'shock' thing, rambled a bit about photo shop and said you were going to leave the thread.  My response to your 'shock' statement was:  No I didn't use it as shock.  Why in the world would I do that?  I posted it to show you what an abortion does, what is actually removed from the uterus.
> 
> In an + rep comment to you I again stated that I didn't mean to post that pic as shock and even said that I should have thought a bit and just posted the link (not sure if that last part was in the rep comment on in the actual thread).
> 
> Because revealing pm conversations aren't allowed I can't say what your reply to me was, but generally speaking it was along the lines of 'ok, I thought it was for shock.  I'll think over what you said about that picture and get back to you'.  Which you never did, either in pm or in that thread.  You disappeared from the boards for quite awhile, if memory serves.  You have a habit of doing that.
> 
> You can spin this anyway you want.  Anyone who knows me knows I'm not lying or making this up.  Why in the world would I do that?  I'm not a button pusher, instigator or attention whore.
Click to expand...


Zoombie, you are the one who can't let go of this. I don't know why you are so obsessed. I'm here now debating with you (though not for long if you keep up the hysteria) so what exactly is your beef about me supposedly not getting back to you about something "a year and a half ago or something"?  Your endless rant over this and your ridiculous complaint that I disappear from the boards from time to time says more about you than about me. Ever consider that I might have more important things to do than hang out at USMB? Sorry if you yourself do not. 


Zoom-boing said:


> I'm not a button pusher, instigator or attention whore.


----------



## Anguille

Vanquish said:


> You don't have to defend posting the pictures, Z-B.  You know why you posted them and that's good enough for all us.  The fact that the pictures were "shocking" to someone proves our point even further - the fact that the baby is out of everyone's minds and they don't confront themselves with the living nature of what they're killing...THAT SHOWS that they don't want to confront the issue honestly and directly.
> 
> (It's also the reason why I made my "clear pregnancy belly" comment  )
> 
> Syrenn has admitted that the cells are alive and growing. That's all we need to win. That she has some arbitrary, unprovable milestone set up for when it's ok to kill proves nothing. We win. She loses. End of story.



I don't recall anyone being shocked by photos in this thread. Certainly not me here or elsewhere. I've already stated that I seen photos like the ones described and do not find them disturbing. I'm not squeamish. I've assisted in surgery and find the insides of bodies to be interesting to look at.

I didn't get your clear belly comment a while back. I don't think it would achieve the effect you would be hoping for.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AllieBaba said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. FUCK THE TRUTH! FUCK EDUCATION!
> 
> BTW, exactly how do you justify abortion? I bet it's an appeal to emotion as all pro-abortion arguments are. Because the science and the  facts don't bear out a single one of the pro abortion arguments.
> 
> The argument that women will be forced to deliver monster children at huge risk to their own life...a lie, and appeal to emotion.
> 
> The argument that huge numbers of rape victims will be branded as sluts and forced to raise unwanted children...a lie and appeal to emotion.
> 
> The argument that abortion reduces the numbers of abortions, the numbers of dead women, the incidence of child abuse...all lies and appeals to emotion.
Click to expand...


I made my case for choice as a right explicitly in a post below.  Free of any emotion or other fallacious arguments.  I assume you disagree with it.  Why don't you don't us what you disagree with and why.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does have a life of it's own and by removing it from it's proper environment before it is able to survive kills that life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a life on its own at 4 weeks.. It requires another _willing _subject to be its host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using 'host' further dehumanizes a fetus.  Good job.
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her body, her choice.  You see it as killing another human being,* the pregnant woman having that abortion may see it differently*. Again...it is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  If they admitted that what they were doing by getting an abortion was ending an individual human being's life they'd likely be too much of a coward to go through with it.  Well, hopefully anyway . . .
> 
> You said that at 9 weeks is where you draw the line on abortion.  Why?  What changes?  A 9 week old fetus can't live outside the womb any better than a 4 week old fetus can.
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My threshold for removing a fetus is about 9 weeks, that is my end point. In that time a person has had enough time to make up their minds. Anything longer then that the pregnancy has gone to far in my opinion, and it is viable...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Nine weeks is the range for the use of RU 486.  Should RU 486 be legal?  If not why not?

Specifically RU 486 or the equivalent, used in its effective time span of about 9 weeks.

*Setting aside all other arguments.*


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not going to for at least a little while.
> 
> For some reason, the ban hammer fell.  Not sure why, but just thought I would let you know as you don't seem to have noticed yet.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Good. I hope it was for his repeated claims that he had the right to rape another poster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said I wasn't "sure" what the reasons were for it. But if I were going to bet on it, that might have something to do with it.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I generally oppose bannings but I must admit I'm glad to see him STFUed for a bit. His rape obsession was scary. I hope it's just something that comes out in cyberspace and not elsewhwere


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. I hope it was for his repeated claims that he had the right to rape another poster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said I wasn't "sure" what the reasons were for it. But if I were going to bet on it, that might have something to do with it.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I generally oppose bannings but I must admit I'm glad to see him STFUed for a bit. His rape obsession was scary. I hope it's just something that comes out in cyberspace and not elsewhwere
Click to expand...


I have no problems with banning.  Sometime children need to be given a time out.  

It all depends on the reasoning behind it.  If it is discipline, I am okay with it.  If it is to shut someone up because the mod doesn't like their point of view, (I don't think that was the reason for this) then I do have a problem with it.

I suspect that JB was given plenty of warnings regarding whatever the infraction(s) was or were and that for whatever reason the mods chose to put him in a time out.

Immie


----------



## NYcarbineer

NYcarbineer said:


> Again:
> 
> I believe it is in society's best interest to allow a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy FOR ANY REASON.  I believe that opportunity should be constitutionally protected as a right.
> 
> I believe that the first trimester time period of a pregnancy fairly represents that 'window'.
> 
> I believe that after the first trimester, it is reasonable to allow the people of the individual states to regulate abortion in any manner they see fit.
> 
> Whoever thinks I'm wrong in any of that  can step up and say so, and please, tell me what EXACTLY is wrong with my specific views and what your opposing view is specifically.
> 
> Otherwise I'll assume no one finds fault in my position.



Well half a day later an no one wants to make a reasoned substantive argument as to why my positions are wrong?  and what should replace them?

We're all suddenly pro-choice here?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Until the embryo has developed a nervous system (which also means a brain), it's just a mass of cells.


----------



## Vanquish

No, NY.

I think no one wanted to do the work of going back and finding your specific arguments. Asking someone to scroll back and do that...if they're not readily accessible...is asking a bit.

Why don't you repost your stance...THEN ask people to rebut it?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Vanquish said:


> No, NY.
> 
> I think no one wanted to do the work of going back and finding your specific arguments. Asking someone to scroll back and do that...if they're not readily accessible...is asking a bit.
> 
> Why don't you repost your stance...THEN ask people to rebut it?



I bumped it 1227.


----------



## Vanquish

Ahh sorry. Guess I missed it. 


> Again:
> 
> I believe it is in society's best interest to allow a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy FOR ANY REASON. I believe that opportunity should be constitutionally protected as a right.
> 
> I don't concede this in the least. It's not in society's best interest to say - "here's a grace period for your responsibilities, here's a grace period where you can kill a life.
> 
> I believe that the first trimester time period of a pregnancy fairly represents that 'window'.
> 
> Why the first trimester? What qualities does the first trimester have that you think should allow this?
> 
> Is it development? If so, the cells had everything they needed to start at conception to start growing. Stopping it even during the first trimester is stopping a life.
> 
> From a religious point of view, what if the soul enters the body at the moment of conception? You can't prove it doesn't - so why take the chance at all?  Simply to make someone's life more convenient? Killing is worse than rape, so saying that it's to protect a raped woman doesn't really pass muster.
> 
> I'm not religious, but that argument works for those who are.
> 
> I believe that after the first trimester, it is reasonable to allow the people of the individual states to regulate abortion in any manner they see fit.
> 
> Now you're changing the issue to federalism vs statism - without any supporting argument.  What mystically happens after the first 3 months that mean there shouldnt be a uniform law across the land?
> 
> Either let states make the decision from the beginning or don't. But there's nothing inherent in the level of development after 3 months that should change the legal framework.
> 
> Whoever thinks I'm wrong in any of that can step up and say so, and please, tell me what EXACTLY is wrong with my specific views and what your opposing view is specifically.
> 
> Well basically you've stated a bunch of preferences but with nothing to support them in law, logic/argument, or life experience. If your argument basically rests on the idea that the fetus isn't developed enough...expose that assumption so we can discuss it, please.
> 
> 
> A baby begins at conception. If you end the cells growing, you're ending life. That's irrefutable. Either you are or you aren't ending life - and you are with an abortion. With as little as we know about the human body and/or the soul...abortion is so wrong on so many levels.
> 
> Otherwise I'll assume no one finds fault in my position.


----------



## AllieBaba

Ravi said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. FUCK THE TRUTH! FUCK EDUCATION!
> 
> BTW, exactly how do you justify abortion? I bet it's an appeal to emotion as all pro-abortion arguments are. Because the science and the facts don't bear out a single one of the pro abortion arguments.
> 
> The argument that women will be forced to deliver monster children at huge risk to their own life...a lie, and appeal to emotion.
> 
> The argument that huge numbers of rape victims will be branded as sluts and forced to raise unwanted children...a lie and appeal to emotion.
> 
> The argument that abortion reduces the numbers of abortions, the numbers of dead women, the incidence of child abuse...all lies and appeals to emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never made any of those arguments.
Click to expand...

 
Pfffft....


----------



## Qball

IMEURU said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like fetuses willingly crawl into the uterus and set up camp for nine months. You have every right to not host another human in your body, but that means not getting pregnant in the first place. The situation necessarily changes after the fact. Saying "it's MY BODY" is beside the point. Nobody's confused about whose body it is. But if you get pregnant with a child you don't want, whose fault is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading the thread before opening your yapper. I was raped, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm sorry to hear that, but what I said wasn't wrong (generally speaking). Plenty of women act like it's a matter of self-defense because they're pregnant and don't want it to be.
> 
> Even if you were raped, the violation of your body came from your rapist, not the child you were impregnated with.
Click to expand...


----------



## AllieBaba

When people kill people for alleged crimes committed against them, it's called vigilantism. It's a crime. 

Lots of people are perfectly justified in wanting other people dead. But they don't get to kill them, and if they do, they have committed murder. The only difference here is that the babies can't speak for themselves and have done absolutely nothing to anyone.


----------



## Vast LWC

JBeukema said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are cells which merge to create us. Neither is itself an organism. Prior to the union of the two, we do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a completely arbitrary and subjective interpretation, and does not jibe with scientific definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. An organism can't exist before it comes into existence. Nothing can be that wish is non-existent.
> 
> A gamete is a cell belonging to a parent.
> 
> When merged with its counterpart, it forms a new organism.
> 
> That organism is alive and, if the gametes are form human parents, human.
> 
> This creation of a new living human being, by the very meaning of the words the moment a human life begins.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you people keep repeating them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as those are all examples of fully formed humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As opposed to someone born missing a leg? Or someone who hasn't undergone puberty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that are simply missing one attribute due to circumstance.
> 
> There is a large difference between that and a collection of cells that never formed into a human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to play word games because you can't face what you advocate. No biology textbook and no biologist or geneticist- nor anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge of the subject- is buying it.
Click to expand...


I just quoted you the direct biological definition of a human being, and you're acusing me of playing "word games".

OK dude, whatever.  Apparently, even when presented with direct evidence the contradicts your argument, you still insist you are right.

We'll have to agree to disagree, because you've obviously made up your mind that you're right no matter what.


----------



## Vast LWC

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, at least YOU are willing to admit that they're morally equivalent.
> 
> However, I believe JB is well aware that the word "murder" is a legal term, not a medical or moral one, and that abortion is - at the moment - legal.  And I believe that is why he very specifically did NOT use it.  Which means that your accusation of him is false in letter AND in spirit:  what he said was technically, factually accurate, reasoned and unemotional, and completely honest.
> 
> Just because you don't LIKE having it pointed out that abortion is bringing about the death of a child doesn't make it a lie.



Oh, give it a rest.

Obviously, JB feels that abortion* should* be illegal, and therefore the statement that he made equates an abortion with a murder that has gone unpunished.

You can parse words all you like, the meaning is clear.


----------



## Vast LWC

Cecilie1200 said:


> Zygote - : a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell
> 
> Fetus - : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
> 
> Child - a : an unborn or recently born person
> 
> Ultra-partisan - Vast LWC
> 
> Hyperbole - Accusing someone of making statements they never made because you don't like their point.
> 
> What was there about these definitions that you thought was going to HELP your position?



Yep, because I feel that a compromise on Abortion is the right way to go, instead of attempting to label all women who have abortions murderers, I am the ultra-partisan.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

You know what?  You win.  Go on insisting you're right in the face of whatever evidence someone else might present.  I'm done.

I can tell you this:  That kind of attitude won't win you any friends at your next social gathering, that is, if you're ever invited to any.


----------



## Vast LWC

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> One never becomes human. Humans have human children. The new organism is human from creation. This is a biological fact.
> 
> There is no more room for debate or opinion on that than there is over whether Earth is flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are fingernail clippings.  That is a "biological fact".
> 
> But really, nothing I say is going to affect your hyperbolic statements, so there's no point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a biological fact that fingernail clippings are what?  Organisms?  Where did YOU go to school?
Click to expand...


Oh, and one more thing, learn to fucking read the statement before making stupid assed posts like this.

"The new *organism* is human."

"So are *fingernail clippings*."

Obviously, this indicates that the fingernail clippings are "human" not "an organism".

Grammar 101.

...Out....


----------



## AllieBaba

Vast LWC said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zygote - : a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell
> 
> Fetus - : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
> 
> Child - a : an unborn or recently born person
> 
> Ultra-partisan - Vast LWC
> 
> Hyperbole - Accusing someone of making statements they never made because you don't like their point.
> 
> What was there about these definitions that you thought was going to HELP your position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, because I feel that a compromise on Abortion is the right way to go, instead of attempting to label all women who have abortions murderers, I am the ultra-partisan.
> 
> Yeah, that's the ticket.
> 
> You know what? You win. Go on insisting you're right in the face of whatever evidence someone else might present. I'm done.
> 
> I can tell you this: That kind of attitude won't win you any friends at your next social gathering, that is, if you're ever invited to any.
Click to expand...

 
That's right, when all else fails, use the "Nobody likes you anyway" argument.


----------



## Vast LWC

AllieBaba said:


> That's right, when all else fails, use the "Nobody likes you anyway" argument.



Yeah, that's it.  You're so right.  I've definitely been out-debated.  LOL.


----------



## Vanquish

It grows. Abortion stops it growing.
It is a human from beginning to end. It hasnt harmed anyone.
Abortion stops a human from living. A human that is innocent of all crimes.
Therefore...abortion stops an innocent human from living without justifiable cause.
Therefore...abortion is murder.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Vanquish said:


> Ahh sorry. Guess I missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> Again:
> 
> I believe it is in society's best interest to allow a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy FOR ANY REASON. I believe that opportunity should be constitutionally protected as a right.
> 
> I don't concede this in the least. It's not in society's best interest to say - "here's a grace period for your responsibilities, here's a grace period where you can kill a life.
> 
> I believe that the first trimester time period of a pregnancy fairly represents that 'window'.
> 
> Why the first trimester? What qualities does the first trimester have that you think should allow this?
> 
> Is it development? If so, the cells had everything they needed to start at conception to start growing. Stopping it even during the first trimester is stopping a life.
> 
> From a religious point of view, what if the soul enters the body at the moment of conception? You can't prove it doesn't - so why take the chance at all?  Simply to make someone's life more convenient? Killing is worse than rape, so saying that it's to protect a raped woman doesn't really pass muster.
> 
> I'm not religious, but that argument works for those who are.
> 
> I believe that after the first trimester, it is reasonable to allow the people of the individual states to regulate abortion in any manner they see fit.
> 
> Now you're changing the issue to federalism vs statism - without any supporting argument.  What mystically happens after the first 3 months that mean there shouldnt be a uniform law across the land?
> 
> Either let states make the decision from the beginning or don't. But there's nothing inherent in the level of development after 3 months that should change the legal framework.
> 
> Whoever thinks I'm wrong in any of that can step up and say so, and please, tell me what EXACTLY is wrong with my specific views and what your opposing view is specifically.
> 
> Well basically you've stated a bunch of preferences but with nothing to support them in law, logic/argument, or life experience. If your argument basically rests on the idea that the fetus isn't developed enough...expose that assumption so we can discuss it, please.
> 
> 
> A baby begins at conception. If you end the cells growing, you're ending life. That's irrefutable. Either you are or you aren't ending life - and you are with an abortion. With as little as we know about the human body and/or the soul...abortion is so wrong on so many levels.
> 
> Otherwise I'll assume no one finds fault in my position.
Click to expand...


Nothing to support them in law?  You mean other than current constitutional law and generally the law of the land around the country?  lol

Oh,  you didn't say what the law should be instead of what I want it to be.

Describe your laws for the nation.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AllieBaba said:


> When people kill people for alleged crimes committed against them, it's called vigilantism. It's a crime.
> 
> Lots of people are perfectly justified in wanting other people dead. But they don't get to kill them, and if they do, they have committed murder. The only difference here is that the babies can't speak for themselves and have done absolutely nothing to anyone.



Tell us what the law should be then.  Tell us what abortion law in this country SHOULD look like.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Vanquish said:


> Ahh sorry. Guess I missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> Again:
> 
> I believe it is in society's best interest to allow a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy FOR ANY REASON. I believe that opportunity should be constitutionally protected as a right.
> 
> I don't concede this in the least. It's not in society's best interest to say - "here's a grace period for your responsibilities, here's a grace period where you can kill a life.
> 
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking you to concede anything.  Why does outlawing the abortion of  an embryo make things better, as opposed to giving a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to do so.
> 
> You want to use the law to force women who get pregnant to have the child or else?  What good does that do society?
Click to expand...


----------



## NYcarbineer

Not one anti-abortionist in this thread can tell us what the law should be?


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Just because YOU are uneducated in embryology (and basic biology) and have no idea what to look for doesn't mean the differences aren't clear.  I couldn't tell poison ivy from poison oak from any other plant in the forest, but that doesn't mean they're indistinguishable.  It just means I don't know shit about botany.
> 
> I'll never understand why people think their personal ignorance is some sort of conclusive debating point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And now you area an embryologist along with a biologist? Amazing.
> 
> I seem to understand it better then you do. The only difference in the first few weeks is the chromosomes.
Click to expand...


No, you obtuse troll.  The point isn't that I'M an embryologist, but that YOU aren't, either.  Only someone who is religiously committed to never, EVER getting the point of ANY argument, no matter how painfully obvious, could fail to understand that.  But then, you seem actually PROUD of the fact that you never understand anything or possess any sort of hard knowledge or evidence on any subject.  

Case in point:  "The only difference in the first few weeks is the chromosomes."  Is that right?  This took me about five minutes to find on the Internet, so what's YOUR problem?

Truth In Science - Embryology

Note Figure 2, which shows pictures of what the various embryos ACTUALLY look like.  Even a religious-grade dunce like you should be able to spot the differences.  I do so love people who consider real knowledge a waste of time, and prefer to continue disseminated long-debunked frauds.  Good job, Einstein.  

And before you decide to waste my time trying to attack the source, please note that Michael Richardson's work was published in BOTH _Anatomy and Embryology _and _Science_.  So by all means, go tell THOSE journals that they don't know what they're talking about.


----------



## Anguille

Vanquish said:


> It grows. Abortion stops it growing.
> It is a human from beginning to end. *It hasnt harmed anyone.*
> Abortion stops a human from living. A human that is innocent of all crimes.
> Therefore...abortion stops an innocent human from living without justifiable cause.
> Therefore...abortion is murder.



Poppycock!!
A fetus inhabiting the womb of a body that does not want it there is violating her body. Same as the penis of a rapist.
It makes no difference how the fetus got there, it has no right to be there without her permission.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vanquish said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If it evokes an emotion in YOU that's one thing. But alternative uses of illustration of the growth of the fetus aren't emotion-laden.
> 
> There's more than one use for the pictures, just admit that.
Click to expand...


Who gets emotional over purely scientific medical pictures?  Hell, photographic evidence is routinely admissible in court, even.  I guess the professional idiots around here get very emotional over evidence that they're morons, but that's not anyone else's problem.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vast LWC said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are fingernail clippings.  That is a "biological fact".
> 
> But really, nothing I say is going to affect your hyperbolic statements, so there's no point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a biological fact that fingernail clippings are what?  Organisms?  Where did YOU go to school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and one more thing, learn to fucking read the statement before making stupid assed posts like this.
> 
> "The new *organism* is human."
> 
> "So are *fingernail clippings*."
> 
> Obviously, this indicates that the fingernail clippings are "human" not "an organism".
> 
> Grammar 101.
> 
> ...Out....
Click to expand...


So instead of making the ignorant remark that fingernail clippings are organisms, you instead made the ignorantly INANE remark that fingernail clippings are human in origin, which is utterly irrelevant to the topic of organisms.

And the difference here makes you feel justified in calling someone ELSE "stupid ass" because why?

Reading 101:  Recognizing the Topic.

At least your last word was an accurate description of you.


----------



## Ravi

Cecilie1200 said:


> Who gets emotional over purely scientific medical pictures?


You.


----------



## Anguille

Vanquish said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If it evokes an emotion in YOU that's one thing. But alternative uses of illustration of the growth of the fetus aren't emotion-laden.
> 
> There's more than one use for the pictures, just admit that.
Click to expand...


Of course there is more than one reason that someone might use a photo like those posted in this thread. Or even use photos of aborted fetus. But don't try to pretend that they aren't used in this thread as a last ditch lame appeal to emotion. To do so would be dishonest.

Wnen forced birthers or anti abortionists use those kinds of photos they show just how pathetic and desperate they've become in trying to convince others they are right.

It doesn't accomplish what they think it will. It just makes people look down on them with disgust. Those kinds of obvious appeals to emotion are recognized as attempted manipulation by anyone with half a brain. 

No one with any class would pimp photos of fetuses.


----------



## taichiliberal

JBeukema said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> *Instead, you get a bunch of hysterical, idealogical clowns with mantras like "sex educaton promotes promiscuity and STD's" and the like over the decades.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you expect us to believe that the majority of schools are teaching abstinence-only?
> 
> No stupid, I stated EXACTLY what was being bullhorned by various individuals over the years.  If I had wanted to make specific statements about schools and abstinence-only courses in public schools, I would have said so.  Get your act together and stop lying, JB.
> 
> And all you little Democrats who teach your kids where to get abortions don't teach them to not sleep around without protection _why_?
> If they can find their way to PP for an abortion, there's no reason they can't find their way there to get some condoms
> 
> WTF are you babbling about, JB?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line: you don't like what your neighbor is doing in their bedroom or with their doctor, THEN MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody cares what you and your partner do behind closed doors with your own bodies.
> 
> Good to know, because the in the last 25 years you've had Catholic Pope's stating that ANY contraception is a sin along with abortion.
> An unborn child's not your body.
> 
> Oh really?  And pray tell us all JB, who has "SUPERCEDING CLAIM" to what is growing inside a woman's body aside from the pregnant woman herself?  Her husband?  The State?  The Church? A bunch of self righteous, pious assholes who claim absolute communion with the Word of God? And where's the legal precedent for this fantastic claim or yours?
> Try a new spiel.
> 
> You should take your own advice, JB.....as this exchange so painfully demonstrates.
> If you want to know the numbers and where they come from, learn to use Google.
> 
> Translation: JB is like every other BS artist who is long on slogans and short on facts, so he tries to bluff.
> Even Planned Parenthood states that 93% of abortions are done for simple convenience.
Click to expand...


Prove it, JB....YOU make a statement in a debate/discussion, the burden of proof is on YOU.  That's how it works in the real world, just ask any high school english teacher.  I'll accept facts, NOT JB supposition and conjecture.


----------



## AllieBaba

Anguille said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> It grows. Abortion stops it growing.
> It is a human from beginning to end. *It hasnt harmed anyone.*
> Abortion stops a human from living. A human that is innocent of all crimes.
> Therefore...abortion stops an innocent human from living without justifiable cause.
> Therefore...abortion is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poppycock!!
> A fetus inhabiting the womb of a body that does not want it there is violating her body. Same as the penis of a rapist.
> It makes no difference how the fetus got there, it has no right to be there without her permission.
Click to expand...

 
Anguille, you have lost your mind.


----------



## AllieBaba

taichiliberal said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Instead, you get a bunch of hysterical, idealogical clowns with mantras like "sex educaton promotes promiscuity and STD's" and the like over the decades.*_
> 
> 
> 
> So now you expect us to believe that the majority of schools are teaching abstinence-only?
> 
> No stupid, I stated EXACTLY what was being bullhorned by various individuals over the years. If I had wanted to make specific statements about schools and abstinence-only courses in public schools, I would have said so. Get your act together and stop lying, JB.
> 
> And all you little Democrats who teach your kids where to get abortions don't teach them to not sleep around without protection _why_?
> If they can find their way to PP for an abortion, there's no reason they can't find their way there to get some condoms
> 
> WTF are you babbling about, JB?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line: you don't like what your neighbor is doing in their bedroom or with their doctor, THEN MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody cares what you and your partner do behind closed doors with your own bodies.
> 
> Good to know, because the in the last 25 years you've had Catholic Pope's stating that ANY contraception is a sin along with abortion.
> An unborn child's not your body.
> 
> Oh really? And pray tell us all JB, who has "SUPERCEDING CLAIM" to what is growing inside a woman's body aside from the pregnant woman herself? Her husband? The State? The Church? A bunch of self righteous, pious assholes who claim absolute communion with the Word of God? And where's the legal precedent for this fantastic claim or yours?
> Try a new spiel.
> 
> You should take your own advice, JB.....as this exchange so painfully demonstrates.
> If you want to know the numbers and where they come from, learn to use Google.
> 
> Translation: JB is like every other BS artist who is long on slogans and short on facts, so he tries to bluff.
> Even Planned Parenthood states that 93% of abortions are done for simple convenience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it, JB....YOU make a statement in a debate/discussion, the burden of proof is on YOU. That's how it works in the real world, just ask any high school english teacher. I'll accept facts, NOT JB supposition and conjecture.
Click to expand...

 
Fucktard, it's already been proven. In this thread. The links are here.


----------



## Ravi

Anguille said:


> No one with any class would pimp photos of fetuses.


Yep. Fetuses are nothing but tools to the loons. Sad when you realize that living humans are also their tools.


----------



## taichiliberal

JBeukema said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  One of the recent Catholic Popes described using ANY type of birth control device as a sin.  So I hope you're not religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no point dragging your religion into this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my religion, JB...and said Pope's made their statements public for their followers with no urging from me.  And since the vast majority of the anti-abortion folks that wail on the media are either touting their religion or using spiritual references, I just thought I covered the bases.
> 2) Abortion is NOT "birth control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is used as such in 93% of cases
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that, but you have yet to produce the Planned Parenthood(similar state/federal organization) stat/quote to verify this.  So until you do, you're just blowing smoke.
> 3) Your analogy of taking drugs has to do with folk who have decided to have the baby and bring it to full term....that is NOT the case with abortion cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His analogy has to do with acts that harm the unborn. Most people would consider killing someone to be causing harm.
> 
> Most people aren't stupid enough to confuse some idiot who boozes or drugs while WANTING to have a baby with someone who decides to go to a doctor to have an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Abortion foes railed against use of the "morning after" pill.  What's your stance on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How 'bout focusing on what he's said and not on what you want him to have said?
Click to expand...


I responded accordingly....if you're too dim to understand JB, then get an adult to explain it to you.  If you don't like the responses because your little anti-abortion slogans and mantras don't hack it, that's not my problem.


----------



## taichiliberal

AllieBaba said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> By that reasoning, big cities full of free condoms should have no abortions
> 
> That's not the reality
> 
> 1/3 of abortions are repeat business
> 
> Your premise is bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that YOU edited out what you didn't want to hear. For those interested in an HONEST discussion:
> 
> _If the anti-abortion folk would work to mandate sex education and birth control availabilty in our society the way we do sports trivia and automobile ownership, then abortion would indeed be a rarity that would STILL be a private choice by the individual._
> 
> _*Instead, you get a bunch of hysterical, idealogical clowns with mantras like "sex educaton promotes promiscuity and STD's" and the like over the decades.*_
> _Bottom line: you don't like what your neighbor is doing in their bedroom or with their doctor, THEN MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS....because all the racial, class, religious and social prejudices will be waiting for all those new borns who no one wanted or want to know about as they grow up. _
> 
> Just because "big cities" are "full of condoms" that doesn't mean that they are being sold to minors, does it genius?
> 
> Where did you get this "1/3 of abortions are repeat business" from? Did they tell you the percentage of abortions that are done by adult women? Married women? Teenagers?
> 
> The "reality" JB, is that your long on half assed propaganda, and short on logic based in reality....similar to what I previously described.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> pos
> 
> This is supposed to be the *honest* discussion?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> BTW, FALSE PREMISE, AD HOMINEM
Click to expand...


And there you have a prime example of the intellectually bankrupt anti-abortion wonks.  Thanks, AB.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> It grows. Abortion stops it growing.
> It is a human from beginning to end. *It hasnt harmed anyone.*
> Abortion stops a human from living. A human that is innocent of all crimes.
> Therefore...abortion stops an innocent human from living without justifiable cause.
> Therefore...abortion is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poppycock!!
> A fetus inhabiting the womb of a body that does not want it there is violating her body. Same as the penis of a rapist.
> It makes no difference how the fetus got there, it has no right to be there without her permission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anguille, you have lost your mind.
Click to expand...


Are you making an emotional appeal, Bubblehead?


----------



## Anguille

Ravi said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one with any class would pimp photos of fetuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Fetuses are nothing but tools to the loons. Sad when you realize that living humans are also their tools.
Click to expand...


The more I read some of their posts, the more I am convinced they just plain hate people.


----------



## Anguille

taichiliberal said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that YOU edited out what you didn't want to hear. For those interested in an HONEST discussion:
> 
> _If the anti-abortion folk would work to mandate sex education and birth control availabilty in our society the way we do sports trivia and automobile ownership, then abortion would indeed be a rarity that would STILL be a private choice by the individual._
> 
> _*Instead, you get a bunch of hysterical, idealogical clowns with mantras like "sex educaton promotes promiscuity and STD's" and the like over the decades.*_
> _Bottom line: you don't like what your neighbor is doing in their bedroom or with their doctor, THEN MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS....because all the racial, class, religious and social prejudices will be waiting for all those new borns who no one wanted or want to know about as they grow up. _
> 
> Just because "big cities" are "full of condoms" that doesn't mean that they are being sold to minors, does it genius?
> 
> Where did you get this "1/3 of abortions are repeat business" from? Did they tell you the percentage of abortions that are done by adult women? Married women? Teenagers?
> 
> The "reality" JB, is that your long on half assed propaganda, and short on logic based in reality....similar to what I previously described.
> 
> 
> 
> pos
> 
> This is supposed to be the *honest* discussion?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> BTW, FALSE PREMISE, AD HOMINEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you have a prime example of the intellectually bankrupt anti-abortion wonks.  Thanks, AB.
Click to expand...


Please!  Bubbles is quite proud of all the buzzwords she picked up from her University of Phoenix online logic course.


----------



## Valerie

Anguille said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> pos
> 
> This is supposed to be the *honest* discussion?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> BTW, FALSE PREMISE, AD HOMINEM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have a prime example of the intellectually bankrupt anti-abortion wonks.  Thanks, AB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please!  Bubbles is quite proud of all the buzzwords she picked up from her University of Phoenix online logic course.
Click to expand...




Speaking of hating people...    I suppose "Bubblehead" is a term of endearment...?





Anguille said:


> The more I read some of their posts, the more I am convinced they just plain hate people.


----------



## Anguille

Valerie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have a prime example of the intellectually bankrupt anti-abortion wonks.  Thanks, AB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please!  Bubbles is quite proud of all the buzzwords she picked up from her University of Phoenix online logic course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of hating people...    I suppose "Bubblehead" is a term of endearment...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more I read some of their posts, the more I am convinced they just plain hate people.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I do love Bubbles. She is my favorite USMB clown.

I'd even let her wear my clown shoes.


----------



## taichiliberal

frazzledgear said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always promoted sexual education and support pregnancy prevention.  I don't think you should be able to use abortion as birth control.  That is what their doing.  Is it right to take drugs while pregnant? No, Because it can harm the baby. If it is morally wrong to harm the baby at any point during development, then it is wrong to kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  One of the recent Catholic Popes described using ANY type of birth control device as a sin.  So I hope you're not religious.
> 
> 2) Abortion is NOT "birth control", as birth control has been to prevent conception.  An abortion is a medical procedure of a different nature as to say, the implanting of an IUD.
> 
> 3) Your analogy of taking drugs has to do with folk who have decided to have the baby and bring it to full term....that is NOT the case with abortion cases.
> 
> 4) Abortion foes railed against use of the "morning after" pill.  What's your stance on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument that an even more detailed sex education and handing out contraceptives to more public school children who are not yet mature enough to deal with the consequences of sex will somehow improve both their decision making skills and our abortion rate is LUDICROUS on its face and a totally specious argument.  But it IS the typical fallback position of pro-abortion extremists who insist on re-writing all known information to suit themselves instead.  You think it plays better to PRETEND that the people getting abortions are all those pathetic, scared and ignorant teenagers who just haven't been given enough information about how to "properly" have sex while avoiding getting pregnant.  Or an STD apparently since that rate is sky high too.  Yeah, its all because our public schools aren't acting like a birth control clinic instead of an institution of education!  Of course!
> 
> You blather on based on your erroneous interpretation.  I'll dumb it down for you......children are taught at levels they can understand, right?  You don't read RBI stats to your 1st grader or have them strip down a car engine, do you?  No, you take them through pre-school, grammer, etc.  So you adjust sex education accordingly.  As for your supposition and conjecture ridden rant....spare us all, will ya?
> The only problem for you is REALITY.  Something liberals don't deal with very well anyway.  There are roughly 1.2 million abortions every year and half of those getting them are 25 years or older.  Teenagers aren't even the second most common age group and represent only 17% of all abortions.  In case you can't figure that one out it means 83% of all abortions are NOT teenage girls.  Another poster said 1/3 were repeaters but actually 45% of all abortions were repeats in 1995 and it is still rising - the majority of all abortions are expected to be repeat abortions by 2015.  Incredibly more than a quarter of all repeaters have had more than two.  Clearly not people with any compunction about paying someone to destroy their own offspring and clearly not encouraged to have any respect for the very existence of a human life at all.  So maybe you can argue women in general are just too stupid to figure out how to avoid unwanted pregnancy.  A disproportionate percent of all women who have an abortion are black or Hispanic.    Are you going to suggest that even a woman in her 20s still can't be expected to figure out how to avoid unwanted pregnancy?  Or is it just black and Hispanic women or what?  Because the face people like you like to pretend represents those most likely to get an abortion is NOT the teen face you like to stick on it -but an older, more mature, certainly more knowledgeable and worldly woman who not only knows how to avoid pregnancy -but a shocking percentage of whom obviously choose NOT to avoid it, continue on until they get pregnant AGAIN and then simply hire someone to kill their child AGAIN instead of acting responsibly and avoiding creating another human life in the first place.  Obviously led to believe that having another one of their children killed is of no more importance than the bowel movement they had that morning.
> 
> More supposition and conjecture laced with STATS that have NO source documentation.  Your propaganda impresses no one.
> 
> So in light of your comment about all the people you claim don't care and never would care about any of the aborted children if they lived -are you suggesting that it really is primarily black children who need to die and get off our planet because in your mind it is somehow more "humane" to just kill them than have to deal with them alive?  What is your explanation about why there is such a disproportionate percent of black babies being aborted and how do you REALLY defend that given the fact the biggest supporters and defenders of abortion are white men?  The ONLY people whose opinion counts about whether they are better off dead or not are the very people you want to make sure will never express that opinion in the first place!  NOT YOUR CALL to make for ANYONE else.
> 
> Amazing how you put words into my keyboard and then ramble on as if it were true.  Stop braying like an as, Frazzled.  You're not responding to what I actually stated, you're just parroting the SOS that fits into your mantra.
> 
> The majority of all women oppose abortion on demand and the overwhelming majority of women who have had a baby oppose it.  Hard for them to keep pretending it might be a guppy in there when its a person who comes out, huh.  In reality it is people like YOU who are in the minority and the EXTREMISTS.   Sorry if you convinced yourself that finding it acceptable to kill the youngest of humans for the "crime" of making mommy unhappy about their very existence makes you the reasonable one here.  Guess again.
> 
> Again, more blathering supposition and conjecture without any valid documentation.  You're a pitiful propagandist, Frazz.
> 
> Given the we are NOT dealing with adolescents getting abortions after all that just PERHAPS instead of teaching kids how to have sex that if we taught them the harsh realities of single parenthood for teens;  the number of doors that slam shut and possibly forever;  the true expense of raising a child;  explicit information about the true nature of STDs and the impact the incurable ones will have on them for the rest of their lives and possibly that of any child they may have;  the responsibilities a parent has and the legal consequences they may face for failing to live up to them; the value of human life and the importance of respecting human life;  who has the real right to decide the value of a human life - whether it is the owner of that life or someone who finds the existence of that life objectionable for any reason;  what a fetus looks like, its stage of development and what happens to it during an abortion both early in pregnancy and in a late term abortion.  If you really feel like teens lack INFORMATION then just MAYBE its THAT kind of explicit information which is typically handled in a single hour IF AT ALL in most sex ed classes but may well have a bigger impact on reducing the irresponsible sexual activity of teens and on our abortion rates overall, huh?  And give them that important information BEFORE they find themselves dealing with the unwanted consequences of early sexual activity.  Because teaching them how to have sex, where to get contraceptives and how to use them has NOT worked at all.  Oh NO, people like you ridicule and scoff at that idea and believe an approach entirely devoid of any value judgment regardless of how serious the possible consequences can be for more than just one person, a method that is now provably nothing but giving implicit permission and even encouragement to kids to engage in adult behavior before they are actually adults is preferable and gets "better" results!  You have got to be kidding given the fact statistics are screaming YOU ARE WRONG!  Given the REALITY of the skyrocket increase in the out-of-wedlock pregnancy from 15.5% in 1973 to  36% now and the same kind of sharp rise in STD transmission rates it is blatantly obvious that the already incredibly explicit sex instructions hasn't been working out so good after all, has it?   _*There is nothing in REALITY to back up your delusion that teenagers with their adolescent brains will actually start making mature, adult decisions if they just have more INFORMATION about how to have sex like an adult but without the brain of one!*_  In fact, it has PROVABLY turned out to be the exact opposite!  We have MORE teens engaged in sex and the more who engage in it, the more UNWANTED CONSEQUENCES result from that!  Which means we have even MORE kids who lack the emotional maturity to handle the consequences being faced with them anyway!  THAT is what happens when teens are not actively discouraged to postpone sexual behavior until a time they have developed the mental and emotional skills to deal with the potential consequences which can be life altering and life threatening!  Giving them more explicit instructions and a free condom will still never impart the MATURITY to deal with those consequences.   I have NO problem educating children about how their bodies work and reproduction-THAT is the proper function of sex ed.  Even if people like you want to keep blinders on about what your FAILED policies you keep pushing have done -and now insist the "solution" is to double down on them!  What do you really need to see before it will cause you to re-evaluate your own position and realize that maybe, just MAYBE you were WRONG?   How like a typical liberal you are to just refuse to even consider that you might be wrong given the fact that rates of unwanted pregnancy and disease have more than DOUBLED since undergoing the radical change in the way we educate our kids about how sex and reproduction!  Wow, talk about being totally OBTUSE!
> 
> Wow, you sure spew a lot of bullshit, Frazz.  As anyone who can read will see in the chronology of the posts, I haven't stated a third of what you're babbling about.  Like all anti-abortion wonks, you seem to think that your pre-scripted mantras and propaganda just supplants any rational question or observation.  Sadly, it doesn't.
> 
> It should be pretty plain to people with even a rudimentary level of intelligence that the extremists like YOU got it wrong because everything got worse when we all pretended we can't possibly expect children to refrain from engaging in an adult activity before they are emotionally mature enough to deal with the consequences.   Saying we need abortion on demand AND even MORE explicit sex ed while handing out contraceptives is in reality encouraging and rewarding even more promiscuous, irresponsible and IMMATURE decisions from teenagers in the provably wrong and stupid belief that it will help protect them from the unwanted consequences of their own poor decisions.  Poor decisions we are actually encouraging and giving our approval and permission to make instead of discouraging it and has provably resulted in MORE of them making that poor decision and the more who are engaged in it, the higher the rate of unwanted consequences!  All the while people like you insist we must still pursue a provably failed policy and agenda that will continue to keep encouraging and rewarding children for making poor decisions in the first place and insisting we aren't doing it enough yet -this is the circular argument of a liberal.  And we all know liberals are short on critical thinking skills and rational thinking in the first place.  You couldn't have highlighted that any better for us, thank you.
> 
> Frazzle sure describes how your brain works....because you're still operating on what YOU think, and NOT what I said.
> 
> BTW -I don't give a shit what kind of sex acts two consenting adults may do in the privacy of their bedroom. But like millions and millions of others in this country I absolutely draw the line at pretending killing their unwanted child is part of someone's sex life.  That you think of it as part of someone's sex life is weird, extremist and utterly revolting frankly.
Click to expand...


More bullshit from an idealogue who hasn't a clue as to how the real world works.  Newsflash, Frazz....in a free society, YOU don't decide who has what medical procedure, unless YOU are going to take of that child, pay that woman's FULL medical bills for 9 months and delivery, etc., etc. 

You need to stop LYING about what I and others who differ from your ideology write, Frazz...the chronology of the post will always show how foolish you are.


----------



## Grace

She and cecille are the *screeching virago* twins.

ricochet [&#712;r&#618;k&#601;&#716;&#643;e&#618; &#712;r&#618;k&#601;&#716;&#643;&#603;t]
vb -chets, -cheting [-&#716;&#643;e&#618;&#618;&#331;] -cheted [-&#716;&#643;e&#618;d], -chets -chetting [-&#716;&#643;&#603;t&#618;&#331;] -chetted [-&#716;&#643;&#603;t&#618;d]
(Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) (intr) (esp of a bullet) *to rebound from a surface or surfaces, usually with a characteristic whining or zipping sound*


----------



## Zoom-boing

Vanquish said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If it evokes an emotion in YOU that's one thing. But alternative uses of illustration of the growth of the fetus aren't emotion-laden.
> 
> *There's more than one use for the pictures*, just admit that.
Click to expand...


Of course there are but the inane types aren't capable of realizing this and run around screaming 'emotion!' whenever a pic is posted as a reference.  I wonder if they're born that stupid or if it develops over time?


----------



## AllieBaba

Anguille said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please! Bubbles is quite proud of all the buzzwords she picked up from her University of Phoenix online logic course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of hating people...  I suppose "Bubblehead" is a term of endearment...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more I read some of their posts, the more I am convinced they just plain hate people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do love Bubbles. She is my favorite USMB clown.
> 
> I'd even let her wear my clown shoes.
Click to expand...

 

I've never been compelled to purchase them for myself; I knew I could count on you!

And stop dissing da alma mater! That's just wrong!

I'm thinking seriously about picking up a UoP sweatshirt to go with the clown shoes...


----------



## AllieBaba




----------



## AllieBaba

I think it's time to change the avie...


----------



## Valerie

AllieBaba said:


> I think it's time to change the avie...


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> I think it's time to change the avie...



LOL, you know, I didn't get the UoP remark.  For some reason, when I read UoP, I was thinking University of the Pacific which is a well respected school if I am not mistaken.

University of the Pacific - Stockton, San Francisco, Sacramento

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Okay, anyone want to start a pool on how long Pepsi lasts?

Midnight Eastern time.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Anguille was trying to hurt my feelings, lol. I'm in a UoP online program; I live in the middle of nowhere and want my flipping degree. For my purposes so long as it's accredited, it doesn't matter where it comes from

Tho I have to say  I've been pleasantly surprised by the experience. One year so far, a little more than a year left, sigh.


----------



## AllieBaba

Immanuel said:


> Okay, anyone want to start a pool on how long Pepsi lasts?
> 
> Midnight Eastern time.
> 
> Immie


 
It's spam and probably ought to be reported.


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> Okay, anyone want to start a pool on how long Pepsi lasts?
> 
> Midnight Eastern time.
> 
> Immie



Maybe that's Beuk?


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> *Anguille was trying to hurt my feelings,* lol. I'm in a UoP online program; I live in the middle of nowhere and want my flipping degree. For my purposes so long as it's accredited, it doesn't matter where it comes from
> 
> Tho I have to say  I've been pleasantly surprised by the experience. One year so far, a little more than a year left, sigh.



LOGICAL FALLACY!!

If ever I saw one!!!


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, anyone want to start a pool on how long Pepsi lasts?
> 
> Midnight Eastern time.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that's Beuk?
Click to expand...


No, JB can actually type and despite JB's failures, I don't recall any racist terms out of him.  "blackie"?

This is much closer to TDM's style.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, anyone want to start a pool on how long Pepsi lasts?
> 
> Midnight Eastern time.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's spam and probably ought to be reported.
Click to expand...


It looks like I was an hour off.  Seems like he is gone already.

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> It grows. Abortion stops it growing.
> It is a human from beginning to end. *It hasnt harmed anyone.*
> Abortion stops a human from living. A human that is innocent of all crimes.
> Therefore...abortion stops an innocent human from living without justifiable cause.
> Therefore...abortion is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poppycock!!
> A fetus inhabiting the womb of a body that does not want it there is violating her body. Same as the penis of a rapist.
> It makes no difference how the fetus got there, it has no right to be there without her permission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anguille, you have lost your mind.
Click to expand...


His what?!


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> She and cecille are the *screeching virago* twins.
> 
> ricochet [&#712;r&#618;k&#601;&#716;&#643;e&#618; &#712;r&#618;k&#601;&#716;&#643;&#603;t]
> vb -chets, -cheting [-&#716;&#643;e&#618;&#618;&#331;] -cheted [-&#716;&#643;e&#618;d], -chets -chetting [-&#716;&#643;&#603;t&#618;&#331;] -chetted [-&#716;&#643;&#603;t&#618;d]
> (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) (intr) (esp of a bullet) *to rebound from a surface or surfaces, usually with a characteristic whining or zipping sound*



Wow.  Coming from little Miss "I'm a victim and the world is my therapy group", that really means . . . even less than it would coming from any of these other twits.

Call me when you can come up with an insult that actually MEANS something, Mensa Girl, instead of mindlessly parroting what's said about you and thinking you're clever.  I think you've spent so long whining and moaning about your personal trauma that you've forgotten how to talk about anything else.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Zoom-boing said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If it evokes an emotion in YOU that's one thing. But alternative uses of illustration of the growth of the fetus aren't emotion-laden.
> 
> *There's more than one use for the pictures*, just admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are but the inane types aren't capable of realizing this and run around screaming 'emotion!' whenever a pic is posted as a reference.  I wonder if they're born that stupid or if it develops over time?
Click to expand...


Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!"  It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals _per se_, since God knows, they have nothing else.  Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up?  No, of course not.  Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion:  "I feel" and "my belief is".


----------



## Grace

Cecilie1200 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> She and cecille are the *screeching virago* twins.
> 
> ricochet [&#712;r&#618;k&#601;&#716;&#643;e&#618; &#712;r&#618;k&#601;&#716;&#643;&#603;t]
> vb -chets, -cheting [-&#716;&#643;e&#618;&#618;&#331;] -cheted [-&#716;&#643;e&#618;d], -chets -chetting [-&#716;&#643;&#603;t&#618;&#331;] -chetted [-&#716;&#643;&#603;t&#618;d]
> (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) (intr) (esp of a bullet) *to rebound from a surface or surfaces, usually with a characteristic whining or zipping sound*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Coming from little Miss "I'm a victim and the world is my therapy group", that really means . . . even less than it would coming from any of these other twits.
> 
> Call me when you can come up with an insult that actually MEANS something, Mensa Girl, instead of mindlessly parroting what's said about you and thinking you're clever.  I think you've spent so long whining and moaning about your personal trauma that you've forgotten how to talk about anything else.
Click to expand...


----------



## Grace

Cecilie and her description:









> Furious Typer&#8217;s combat strategy is to drown her adversary in a tsunami of angry verbiage. She is absolutely immune to subtlty and ignores all but the barest essentials of any argument. After breifly appraising the gist of her opponent&#8217;s counter attack she puts her head down and rapidly fires off long rambling messages replete with grammitical and factual errors. The typical Furious Typer lacks endurance, however, and if the other combatants can weather the initial assault she will quickly exhaust herself and retire from the field.


----------



## Grace

Or..this one:








> Issues has an issue and she won't rest until it becomes your issue, too. Even when she's not talking about her issue it's clear she would rather be talking about her issue. Something of a secular evangelist, he religion, her raison d'etre, her abiding passion is....well, her issue. Not exclusive to any ideological orientation, her issue could be the environment, abortion rights, raw foods, breast feeding, whatever. Her obsession, however, provides the key to defeating her in battle; she can't tolerate indifference, so if her thrusts are simply ignored she will rage, accuse, condemn, plead and finally, go away.


----------



## Ravi

Zoom-boing said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If it evokes an emotion in YOU that's one thing. But alternative uses of illustration of the growth of the fetus aren't emotion-laden.
> 
> *There's more than one use for the pictures*, just admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are but the inane types aren't capable of realizing this and run around screaming 'emotion!' whenever a pic is posted as a reference.  I wonder if they're born that stupid or if it develops over time?
Click to expand...

 Pointing out the use of appeals to emotion is not running around and screaming emotion, silly.


----------



## Ravi

Cecilie1200 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If it evokes an emotion in YOU that's one thing. But alternative uses of illustration of the growth of the fetus aren't emotion-laden.
> 
> *There's more than one use for the pictures*, just admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are but the inane types aren't capable of realizing this and run around screaming 'emotion!' whenever a pic is posted as a reference.  I wonder if they're born that stupid or if it develops over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!"  It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals _per se_, since God knows, they have nothing else.  Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up?  No, of course not.  Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion:  "I feel" and "my belief is".
Click to expand...

Why would one need science to back up the fact that a woman's body is hers to do with what she pleases?


----------



## Zoom-boing

Ravi said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If it evokes an emotion in YOU that's one thing. But alternative uses of illustration of the growth of the fetus aren't emotion-laden.
> 
> *There's more than one use for the pictures*, just admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are but *the inane types aren't capable of realizing this and run around screaming 'emotion!' whenever a pic is posted as a reference*.  I wonder if they're born that stupid or if it develops over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing out the use of appeals to emotion is not running around and screaming emotion, silly.
Click to expand...

 

Just a guess . . . born that way?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cecilie1200 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If it evokes an emotion in YOU that's one thing. But alternative uses of illustration of the growth of the fetus aren't emotion-laden.
> 
> *There's more than one use for the pictures*, just admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are but the inane types aren't capable of realizing this and run around screaming 'emotion!' whenever a pic is posted as a reference.  I wonder if they're born that stupid or if it develops over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!"  It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals _per se_, since God knows, they have nothing else.  Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up?  No, of course not.  Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion:  "I feel" and "my belief is".
Click to expand...



Have you presented any scientific evidence that a fertilized human egg has any resemblance to a born human being whatsoever, other than its DNA content?

You want to justify making it illegal to abort a human zygote/embryo/fetus from the moment of conception,  

on the grounds that it's a 'human being', and yet you can present no evidence whatsoever that it is a human being, a person, other than its 46 chromosomes which are nothing more than the plans for a human being.

You can no more claim a fertilized egg is a human than you can claim the blueprint for a house is a house.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cecilie1200 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If it evokes an emotion in YOU that's one thing. But alternative uses of illustration of the growth of the fetus aren't emotion-laden.
> 
> *There's more than one use for the pictures*, just admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are but the inane types aren't capable of realizing this and run around screaming 'emotion!' whenever a pic is posted as a reference.  I wonder if they're born that stupid or if it develops over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!"  It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals _per se_, since God knows, they have nothing else.  Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up?  No, of course not.  Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion:  "I feel" and "my belief is".
Click to expand...


Your rejection of religion as a valid basis for opposing abortion won't be looked at too favorably by most anti-abortionists, I suspect.

But while we're on the subject, the decision in Roe v. Wade is partially based on the colonial American Protestant belief that abortion was in fact permissible up until the time of quickening;

that would be folks like the Puritans and the Separatists (Pilgrims)  who were, you may recall,

VERY religious.  VERY Christian.

So, pretty much, either way you lose the argument.


----------



## Cecilie1200

NYcarbineer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are but the inane types aren't capable of realizing this and run around screaming 'emotion!' whenever a pic is posted as a reference.  I wonder if they're born that stupid or if it develops over time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!"  It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals _per se_, since God knows, they have nothing else.  Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up?  No, of course not.  Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion:  "I feel" and "my belief is".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you presented any scientific evidence that a fertilized human egg has any resemblance to a born human being whatsoever, other than its DNA content?
Click to expand...


Why would I need to, and why would HE need to?  It is unnecessary, ridiculous, and irrelevant to demand that an embryo look like anything other than an embryo.  A newborn infant doesn't look like an adult, and no one demands that he do so, much less that I "present scientific evidence" that he does.

At every stage in the human life span, from conception to death, the human organism looks exactly as he is supposed to look _at that point in his life _(barring severe, catastrophic defects, obviously).  That's all that's required.



NYcarbineer said:


> You want to justify making it illegal to abort a human zygote/embryo/fetus from the moment of conception,



Actually, for the purposes of this particular thread, I just want to make the abortionistas be honest about the facts of the argument.  That's enough of an uphill battle to take on all by itself.



NYcarbineer said:


> on the grounds that it's a 'human being', and yet you can present no evidence whatsoever that it is a human being, a person, other than its 46 chromosomes which are nothing more than the plans for a human being.



When did I ever say that chromosomes were my only evidence?  When in this thread have I said ANYTHING about chromosomes, as a matter of fact?  How's about you argue with me based on MY ACTUAL ARGUMENTS, rather than the arguments you'd LIKE me to have made?

I'm not going to restate those arguments and rehash the evidence just because YOU can't be bothered to read and pay attention.  Go back and look, or we can just consider this one more bit of evidence that you and your comrades are incapable of even the smallest iota of honesty on this subject.  Your choice.



NYcarbineer said:


> You can no more claim a fertilized egg is a human than you can claim the blueprint for a house is a house.



Of course I can, and I have.  The fact that you just blew right past all the arguments in favor of "I want to believe she's claiming the DNA as evidence, so THAT'S what I'm going to argue against, never mind what she actually said" means nothing whatsoever.

Once again, go back and find my ACTUAL arguments, or continue on arguing with the voices in your head, thus proving that you bring nothing to the table.  Whichever.


----------



## Cecilie1200

NYcarbineer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are but the inane types aren't capable of realizing this and run around screaming 'emotion!' whenever a pic is posted as a reference.  I wonder if they're born that stupid or if it develops over time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!"  It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals _per se_, since God knows, they have nothing else.  Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up?  No, of course not.  Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion:  "I feel" and "my belief is".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your rejection of religion as a valid basis for opposing abortion won't be looked at too favorably by most anti-abortionists, I suspect.
Click to expand...


Not only do I not give a damn if other pro-lifers do or don't like my disinterest in religion as an arguing point, I don't even give a fraction of a damn what YOU think they'll think.  You are pretty much all alone in the delusion that you are some sort of oracle regarding the thoughts and beliefs of pro-lifers, or conservative people in general.



NYcarbineer said:


> But while we're on the subject, the decision in Roe v. Wade is partially based on the colonial American Protestant belief that abortion was in fact permissible up until the time of quickening;



Oh, well, let's run right out and base ALL our decisions and laws on a 17th century understanding of science and medicine.  Quick, got any leeches handy?



NYcarbineer said:


> that would be folks like the Puritans and the Separatists (Pilgrims)  who were, you may recall,
> 
> VERY religious.  VERY Christian.



I'll pencil giving a fuck into my calendar somewhere right after Hell freezes over.  Promise.



NYcarbineer said:


> So, pretty much, either way you lose the argument.



The only argument I've lost is the one you were apparently having with an imaginary Cecilie in your own head, since you didn't say a single thing that meant jack shit to any of the words coming from the real-life Cecilie.

I reiterate:  abortionistas frame none of their arguments in terms of actual, proven scientific fact.  They instead phrase them the way one does when speaking of articles of religious faith.

Babbling about the limited medical understanding of a group of religious people who lived centuries ago not only doesn't change that fact, it borders on the most inane, surreally irrelevant thing I've read on the Internet this week.  Congratulations.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cecilie1200 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!"  It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals _per se_, since God knows, they have nothing else.  Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up?  No, of course not.  Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion:  "I feel" and "my belief is".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you presented any scientific evidence that a fertilized human egg has any resemblance to a born human being whatsoever, other than its DNA content?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I need to, and why would HE need to?  It is unnecessary, ridiculous, and irrelevant to demand that an embryo look like anything other than an embryo.  A newborn infant doesn't look like an adult, and no one demands that he do so, much less that I "present scientific evidence" that he does.
> 
> At every stage in the human life span, from conception to death, the human organism looks exactly as he is supposed to look _at that point in his life _(barring severe, catastrophic defects, obviously).  That's all that's required.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, for the purposes of this particular thread, I just want to make the abortionistas be honest about the facts of the argument.  That's enough of an uphill battle to take on all by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> on the grounds that it's a 'human being', and yet you can present no evidence whatsoever that it is a human being, a person, other than its 46 chromosomes which are nothing more than the plans for a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I ever say that chromosomes were my only evidence?  When in this thread have I said ANYTHING about chromosomes, as a matter of fact?  How's about you argue with me based on MY ACTUAL ARGUMENTS, rather than the arguments you'd LIKE me to have made?
> 
> I'm not going to restate those arguments and rehash the evidence just because YOU can't be bothered to read and pay attention.  Go back and look, or we can just consider this one more bit of evidence that you and your comrades are incapable of even the smallest iota of honesty on this subject.  Your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can no more claim a fertilized egg is a human than you can claim the blueprint for a house is a house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I can, and I have.  The fact that you just blew right past all the arguments in favor of "I want to believe she's claiming the DNA as evidence, so THAT'S what I'm going to argue against, never mind what she actually said" means nothing whatsoever.
> 
> Once again, go back and find my ACTUAL arguments, or continue on arguing with the voices in your head, thus proving that you bring nothing to the table.  Whichever.
Click to expand...


There is no scientific argument that magically turns a human zygote into a human person,  therefore there is no logical argument that science supports treating human zygotes AS persons.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cecilie1200 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!"  It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals _per se_, since God knows, they have nothing else.  Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up?  No, of course not.  Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion:  "I feel" and "my belief is".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your rejection of religion as a valid basis for opposing abortion won't be looked at too favorably by most anti-abortionists, I suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only do I not give a damn if other pro-lifers do or don't like my disinterest in religion as an arguing point, I don't even give a fraction of a damn what YOU think they'll think.  You are pretty much all alone in the delusion that you are some sort of oracle regarding the thoughts and beliefs of pro-lifers, or conservative people in general.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, well, let's run right out and base ALL our decisions and laws on a 17th century understanding of science and medicine.  Quick, got any leeches handy?
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> that would be folks like the Puritans and the Separatists (Pilgrims)  who were, you may recall,
> 
> VERY religious.  VERY Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll pencil giving a fuck into my calendar somewhere right after Hell freezes over.  Promise.
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, pretty much, either way you lose the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only argument I've lost is the one you were apparently having with an imaginary Cecilie in your own head, since you didn't say a single thing that meant jack shit to any of the words coming from the real-life Cecilie.
> 
> I reiterate:  abortionistas frame none of their arguments in terms of actual, proven scientific fact.  They instead phrase them the way one does when speaking of articles of religious faith.
> 
> Babbling about the limited medical understanding of a group of religious people who lived centuries ago not only doesn't change that fact, it borders on the most inane, surreally irrelevant thing I've read on the Internet this week.  Congratulations.
Click to expand...


Logically then, the scientific community, especially those scientists in the area of biology, human physiology, genetics, etc.,

must believe overwhelmingly that first trimester abortion is the equivalent of infanticide.

Do you suspect that's true?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cecilie1200 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!"  It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals _per se_, since God knows, they have nothing else.  Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up?  No, of course not.  Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion:  "I feel" and "my belief is".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your rejection of religion as a valid basis for opposing abortion won't be looked at too favorably by most anti-abortionists, I suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only do I not give a damn if other pro-lifers do or don't like my disinterest in religion as an arguing point, I don't even give a fraction of a damn what YOU think they'll think.  You are pretty much all alone in the delusion that you are some sort of oracle regarding the thoughts and beliefs of pro-lifers, or conservative people in general.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, well, let's run right out and base ALL our decisions and laws on a 17th century understanding of science and medicine.  Quick, got any leeches handy?
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> that would be folks like the Puritans and the Separatists (Pilgrims)  who were, you may recall,
> 
> VERY religious.  VERY Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll pencil giving a fuck into my calendar somewhere right after Hell freezes over.  Promise.
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, pretty much, either way you lose the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only argument I've lost is the one you were apparently having with an imaginary Cecilie in your own head, since you didn't say a single thing that meant jack shit to any of the words coming from the real-life Cecilie.
> 
> I reiterate:  abortionistas frame none of their arguments in terms of actual, proven scientific fact.  They instead phrase them the way one does when speaking of articles of religious faith.
> 
> Babbling about the limited medical understanding of a group of religious people who lived centuries ago not only doesn't change that fact, it borders on the most inane, surreally irrelevant thing I've read on the Internet this week.  Congratulations.
Click to expand...


Why don't you be the first anti-abortionist in this thread to tell us specifically what the law SHOULD be regarding abortion.

So far none have.  It's very telling.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cecilie1200 said:


> [Not only do I not give a damn if other pro-lifers do or don't like my disinterest in religion as an arguing point, I don't even give a fraction of a damn what YOU think they'll think.  You are pretty much all alone in the delusion that you are some sort of oracle regarding the thoughts and beliefs of pro-lifers, or conservative people in general.



It's a delusion that RELIGION is a major component in the motivation for the anti-abortion position?

A delusion?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide-* homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.*If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



1200 posts over semantics.



And somewhere in the middle of it, when I happily stipulated to the fetus being human, and wanted to debate from there, 

Beukema went mental and every other anti-abortionist in the thread clammed up.

too funny.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body.
> 
> 
> 
> The child is not your body. Biology 101. Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. *You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).*
Click to expand...


Aha.  Right there JB defined the unborn from conception forward as a PERSON.

Something he later denied doing.  He later denied equating a fertilized egg with a born person.

Such a shame he got banned.


----------



## AllieBaba

Crap, flood the thread with your nonsensical ranting why dontcha?


----------



## NYcarbineer

AllieBaba said:


> Crap, flood the thread with your nonsensical ranting why dontcha?



Is that the best you can do?

I'm still waiting for you and the others to state your position on what abortion law should be.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Is discarding unneeded fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic MURDER?

I don't recall getting that one answered.

If you think a fertilized egg is a person, then of course it's murder.  We should make it against the law and if anyone breaks that law we should put them in prison for life.

That's the rational sensible thing to do, right?  All you science experts out there?


----------



## Vanquish

The continual typing until you get a response is a bit annoying...but if you must...

Yes. An egg, fertilized with sperm should be considered life. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with an additional stipulation that it either happened naturally or it was inside a woman growing, but I see you're attempting to take an idea to its logical conclusion. And I'm happy to go there.


----------



## Barb

Vanquish said:


> The continual typing until you get a response is a bit annoying...but if you must...
> 
> Yes. An egg, fertilized with sperm should be considered life. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with an additional stipulation that it either happened naturally or it was inside a woman growing, but I see you're attempting to take an idea to its logical conclusion. And I'm happy to go there.



Well, go then. The fact remains that until it can survive outside of the host(ess), it IS a parasite UPON the HOST(ess).


----------



## Vanquish

This parasite bullshit is ridiculous.


----------



## Anguille

NYcarbineer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crap, flood the thread with your nonsensical ranting why dontcha?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you and the others to state your position on what abortion law should be.
Click to expand...


I'd like to see that too. Seems they keep banging into that wall and then running away.


----------



## Vanquish

Abortion law should be no abortions during any period of pregnacy, unless medically necessary to save the life of the mother. In such a situation, an option should be given to the mother to place her baby's life above her own.

There's your law.


----------



## Barb

Vanquish said:


> This parasite bullshit is ridiculous.



Its not bullshit, it is a biological fact.


----------



## Anguille

Vanquish said:


> Abortion law should be no abortions during any period of pregnacy, unless medically necessary to save the life of the mother. In such a situation, an option should be given to the mother to place her baby's life above her own.
> 
> There's your law.



Now could you us what would be the appropriate punishment for a woman who has an abortion and for anyone who has assisted her in the crime?


----------



## Barb

Vanquish said:


> Abortion law should be no abortions during any period of pregnacy, unless medically necessary to save the life of the mother. In such a situation, an option should be given to the mother to place her baby's life above her own.
> 
> There's your law.



Got MILK?

If YOU can't, WON'T, are UNWILLING to sustain it? YOU have absolutely NO say in the matter, and that is how it should be.


----------



## beowolfe

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



You're bing disingenious.  I know of no one who is 'pro-abortion'.  If that were the case, abortion would be the only outcome that would satisfy them.  They would be lobbying for mandatory aboritions.  What you're calling pro-abortion is actually a name drummed up by those who don't want to have an honest conversation.  

Pro-choice, which is a term, anti-abortionists will never use, is a simple position that says:

A woman has the right to determine if she will carry a baby to term.  This is not a determination for the government to make.  It is her choice.  It worked for Bristol Palin.  She could have aborted her son while he was a fetus, but she 'CHOSE" to carry to term.  It's all about the woman's decision.


----------



## syrenn

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does have a life of it's own and by removing it from it's proper environment before it is able to survive kills that life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a life on its own at 4 weeks.. It requires another _willing _subject to be its host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using 'host' further dehumanizes a fetus.  Good job.
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her body, her choice.  You see it as killing another human being,* the pregnant woman having that abortion may see it differently*. Again...it is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  If they admitted that what they were doing by getting an abortion was ending an individual human being's life they'd likely be too much of a coward to go through with it.  Well, hopefully anyway . . .
> 
> You said that at 9 weeks is where you draw the line on abortion.  Why?  What changes?  A 9 week old fetus can't live outside the womb any better than a 4 week old fetus can.
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My threshold for removing a fetus is about 9 weeks, that is my end point. In that time a person has had enough time to make up their minds. Anything longer then that the pregnancy has gone to far in my opinion, and it is viable...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


A cracked mother board later....

No, calling the woman carrying the embryo a "host" is dehumanizes HER, not the embryo. I say host as it seems that the pro life people only want woman to be incubators...and if that is against her will that is being a "host" for something you want out of your body.


----------



## Grace

Barb said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> The continual typing until you get a response is a bit annoying...but if you must...
> 
> Yes. An egg, fertilized with sperm should be considered life. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with an additional stipulation that it either happened naturally or it was inside a woman growing, but I see you're attempting to take an idea to its logical conclusion. And I'm happy to go there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, go then. The fact remains that until it can survive outside of the host(ess), it IS a parasite UPON the HOST(ess).
Click to expand...


Now now Barb. One mustnt meltdown due to disagreeing. 
Youre supposed to goosestep and grovel.


----------



## syrenn

Vanquish said:


> You don't have to defend posting the pictures, Z-B.  You know why you posted them and that's good enough for all us.  The fact that the pictures were "shocking" to someone proves our point even further - the fact that the baby is out of everyone's minds and they don't confront themselves with the living nature of what they're killing...THAT SHOWS that they don't want to confront the issue honestly and directly.
> 
> (It's also the reason why I made my "clear pregnancy belly" comment  )
> 
> Syrenn has admitted that the cells are alive and growing. That's all we need to win. That she has some arbitrary, unprovable milestone set up for when it's ok to kill proves nothing. We win. She loses. End of story.




LOL, ya think? No, that is not even half enough to "win" Life is not arbitrary, you have one or you don't. Again, remove it and see it if lives. 

I think just about every woman who has an abortion knows she is ending living cells, that are living inside HER body.


----------



## Grace

Heres something to muse over:

IF it were illegal to have an abortion according to the wants and desires of people who are not forced to carry a fetus/cell/parasite/whatever you wanna callit......and the child is forced to be with the mother that didnt want it and the mother OR father abused that child...then what? Whats the statistics of children/babies being put in microwaves, beat, starved, locked in basements, tortured, abused, molested, abandoned? Anyone know? Because if youre going to force a woman to host a child in her body, then she must also be forced to raise that child, yes? Even though she may hate or never wanted it in the first place so there is no bonding there and never has been.

Any suggestions?


----------



## syrenn

Vanquish said:


> The continual typing until you get a response is a bit annoying...but if you must...
> 
> Yes. An egg, fertilized with sperm should be considered life. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with an additional stipulation that it either happened naturally or it was inside a woman growing, but I see you're attempting to take an idea to its logical conclusion. And I'm happy to go there.



Is it a* viable *life? Siting there in its dish will it grow up into a baby? 

Or does it NEED and REQUIRE someone elses participation to do that? 

It is living human tissue...but it does not have a "life" of its own. If it has a "life" of its own then there would be on need for implantation into a womb.


----------



## Vast LWC

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a biological fact that fingernail clippings are what?  Organisms?  Where did YOU go to school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and one more thing, learn to fucking read the statement before making stupid assed posts like this.
> 
> "The new *organism* is human."
> 
> "So are *fingernail clippings*."
> 
> Obviously, this indicates that the fingernail clippings are "human" not "an organism".
> 
> Grammar 101.
> 
> ...Out....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So instead of making the ignorant remark that fingernail clippings are organisms, you instead made the ignorantly INANE remark that fingernail clippings are human in origin, which is utterly irrelevant to the topic of organisms.
> 
> And the difference here makes you feel justified in calling someone ELSE "stupid ass" because why?
> 
> Reading 101:  Recognizing the Topic.
> 
> At least your last word was an accurate description of you.
Click to expand...


The TOPIC at hand, between another poster and I, in case you missed it, was a definition of what constitutes a human, not what constitutes an organism.  

And I didn't call you a "stupid ass", I called your comment "Stupid Assed".  Again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

But again, I no longer care to debate this point with people who have already made up their mind that people who have abortions are murderers, and will not be dissuaded from that point.

My only reason for making this post is to correct your error.

Oh, and....



Cecilie1200 said:


> Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!" It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals per se, since God knows, they have nothing else. Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up? No, of course not. Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion: "I feel" and "my belief is".



ROFL.

Isn't that calling the kettle black. But don't take my word for it, just show us some definitive proof of the existence of God, as defined in the Bible, Koran, or any other religion.

Or is being religious now a "leftist" trait?


----------



## Cecilie1200

NYcarbineer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Not only do I not give a damn if other pro-lifers do or don't like my disinterest in religion as an arguing point, I don't even give a fraction of a damn what YOU think they'll think.  You are pretty much all alone in the delusion that you are some sort of oracle regarding the thoughts and beliefs of pro-lifers, or conservative people in general.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a delusion that RELIGION is a major component in the motivation for the anti-abortion position?
> 
> A delusion?
Click to expand...


No, you illiterate dumbfuck.  It's a delusion that YOU are any sort of expert on what pro-lifers think, feel, and believe.

Christ, learn to read.


----------



## Grace

Cant the same be said about you Cecilie? You know, the part about delusions on what an expert are on you thinking you know what pro choices think, feel and believe?

Just sayin'. And I didnt even call you a name! Gimme a hug, sweetums.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Crap, flood the thread with your nonsensical ranting why dontcha?



Doesn't he always?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Barb said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> The continual typing until you get a response is a bit annoying...but if you must...
> 
> Yes. An egg, fertilized with sperm should be considered life. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with an additional stipulation that it either happened naturally or it was inside a woman growing, but I see you're attempting to take an idea to its logical conclusion. And I'm happy to go there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, go then. The fact remains that until it can survive outside of the host(ess), it IS a parasite UPON the HOST(ess).
Click to expand...


Even if that were true - which it's not - it's irrelevant.

I'm very sorry that you're so hostile to the human reproductive system and the place in it that nature has assigned to women.  It must suck to resent one's own biology.


----------



## Gadawg73

You people are brain dead. You want the standard to be "what is medically necessary for the safety of the mother to keep her alive" or some other generic code which will be the law.
Anyone that has worked criminal cases for 6 months knows that doctors will eat that one up night and day and there WILL NEVER BE ANY LAW that bans abortion. Prosecutors will never prosecute ANY doctor that uses that as how does a prosecutor decide what is necessary and what isn't? 
They are not doctors you fools.
With another doctor? LOL!! You folks are bat shit crazy and have no clue.
EVER.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IMEURU said:


> Cant the same be said about you Cecilie? You know, the part about delusions on what an expert are on you thinking you know what pro choices think, feel and believe?
> 
> Just sayin'. And I didnt even call you a name! Gimme a hug, sweetums.



Actually, I have yet to say anything about what abortionistas think, feel, and believe, because I consider it to be irrelevant to the topic.  THEY talk about their thoughts and beliefs constantly, but I frankly couldn't care less.  I HAVE commented on the fact that they talk incessantly about their emotions as though they have some bearing on fact, but that is itself a simple, observable fact.


----------



## Grace

> but I frankly couldn't care less. I HAVE commented on the fact that they talk incessantly about their emotions as though they have some bearing on fact, but that is itself a simple, observable fact.



I rest my case.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cecilie1200 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Not only do I not give a damn if other pro-lifers do or don't like my disinterest in religion as an arguing point, I don't even give a fraction of a damn what YOU think they'll think.  You are pretty much all alone in the delusion that you are some sort of oracle regarding the thoughts and beliefs of pro-lifers, or conservative people in general.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a delusion that RELIGION is a major component in the motivation for the anti-abortion position?
> 
> A delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you illiterate dumbfuck.  It's a delusion that YOU are any sort of expert on what pro-lifers think, feel, and believe.
> 
> Christ, learn to read.
Click to expand...


where did i claim to be?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Vanquish said:


> Abortion law should be no abortions during any period of pregnacy, unless medically necessary to save the life of the mother. In such a situation, an option should be given to the mother to place her baby's life above her own.
> 
> There's your law.



And what is the penalty for breaking the law?  What do you charge the pregnant woman with?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Anguille said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crap, flood the thread with your nonsensical ranting why dontcha?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you and the others to state your position on what abortion law should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like to see that too. Seems they keep banging into that wall and then running away.
Click to expand...


I think they realize that if they logically apply the principles of our law to their own view of what a fetus is, from conception on,

they have to take the stand that abortion should in fact logically be the crime of murder (what else could it possibly be?)

and the anti-abortion crowd is well aware that the idea of convicting women of murder because they had an illegal abortion is viewed as crackpot extremism by normal America.


----------



## Vast LWC

One last thing:

To have any kind of discussion with partisans on either side of this issue is useless, because one side will insist that anyone who has an abortion, from conception on, is a murderer; and the other side will insist that you can abort a fetus up to 8.99 months, if the mother is even slightly inconvenienced by pregnancy.

There is no discussion that can be had on this issue, because, generally, the people who involve themselves in the banter are extremists of the first order.

Personally I would strongly prefer some sort of compromise, like a firm date on whether a fetus is considered a viable, thinking human being, say 'round 2-3 months or so.  Perhaps a determination can be made with brain-wave measurements, etc...

But that's never going to happen as long as extremists control the conversation.


----------



## NYcarbineer

1942.

That's the last year anyone in France was executed for having an abortion.

Apparently after that, they lost track of what a human fetus really is.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Vast LWC said:


> One last thing:
> 
> To have any kind of discussion with partisans on either side of this issue is useless, because one side will insist that anyone who has an abortion, from conception on, is a murderer, and the other side will insist that you can abort a fetus up to 8.99 months, if the mother is even slightly inconvenienced by pregnancy.
> 
> There is no discussion that can be had on this issue, because the people who involve themselves in the banter are extremists of the first order.
> 
> Personally I would strongly prefer some sort of compromise, like a firm date on whether a fetus is considered a viable, thinking human being, say 'round 2-3 months or so.  Perhaps a determination can be made with brain-wave measurements, etc...
> 
> But that's never going to happen as long as extremists control the conversation.



You are lying about my position.


----------



## Vast LWC

NYcarbineer said:


> 1942.
> 
> That's the last year anyone in France was executed for having an abortion.
> 
> Apparently after that, they lost track of what a human fetus really is.



France was occupied by the Nazis for the entirety of 1942.


----------



## Gadawg73

Vast LWC said:


> One last thing:
> 
> To have any kind of discussion with partisans on either side of this issue is useless, because one side will insist that anyone who has an abortion, from conception on, is a murderer; and the other side will insist that you can abort a fetus up to 8.99 months, if the mother is even slightly inconvenienced by pregnancy.
> 
> There is no discussion that can be had on this issue, because, generally, the people who involve themselves in the banter are extremists of the first order.
> 
> Personally I would strongly prefer some sort of compromise, like a firm date on whether a fetus is considered a viable, thinking human being, say 'round 2-3 months or so.  Perhaps a determination can be made with brain-wave measurements, etc...
> 
> But that's never going to happen as long as extremists control the conversation.



So someone that adamantly opposes abortion but opposes the power of government to pick and choose who to prosecute and who not to prosecute on cases with the same set of circumstances is an "extremist of the first order"?

That would be LIBERTARIAN and we are the furthest political party from extrmism there is. 
You do not compromise in favor of relinquishing reproductive rights TO THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.


----------



## Immanuel

Vast LWC said:


> One last thing:
> 
> To have any kind of discussion with partisans on either side of this issue is useless, because one side will insist that anyone who has an abortion, from conception on, is a murderer; and the other side will insist that you can abort a fetus up to 8.99 months, if the mother is even slightly inconvenienced by pregnancy.
> 
> There is no discussion that can be had on this issue, because, generally, the people who involve themselves in the banter are extremists of the first order.
> 
> Personally I would strongly prefer some sort of compromise, like a firm date on whether a fetus is considered a viable, thinking human being, say 'round 2-3 months or so.  Perhaps a determination can be made with brain-wave measurements, etc...
> 
> But that's never going to happen as long as extremists control the conversation.



Far out!  Some one on the left who is actually willing to set a starting point and attempt to work to a compromise.  I like that.

Let's begin... you say 2-3 months.  Let me throw out date of conception for a beginning point.  Hopefully we can work towards an agreement.

Another issue we need to look at is what reasons are acceptable.  Any reason whatsoever in the first 2-3 months?  Are we going to then discuss what reasons after the first trimester?  I mean, even though I am pro-life, I am concerned about if there is a verifiable danger to the health of the mother? Again any reason?  Fetal Abnormality?  Life of the Mother? Rape? Incest?  Mother has hemorrhoids?

When there is a case of the health of the mother, I think such a thing needs to be verified by at least one other doctor rather than to just take the word of the abortionist.

How about in the case of a minor mother?  Do we just let the clinic snip away or do we require them to notify the courts of a potential case of molestation?

There are many things that need to be discussed, but doggone it at least we can start discussing the issues.

Immie


----------



## Grace

Shadow, aka Me-Too









> Big Dog is a bully who doesn't hesitate to use his superior strength to intimidate other combatants. Big Dog may be smart, articulate or just plain mean, but in any case he is a remorseless fighter, brutally ripping into even the weakest of combatants. *Once Big Dog securely fastens his powerful jaws on a hapless victim, Me-Too will join the attack. Me-Too is far too weak and insecure to engage in single combat, and must ally himself with Big Dog or a pack of other Warriors to bring down his quarry*.


----------



## Zoom-boing

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a life on its own at 4 weeks.. It requires another _willing _subject to be its host.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using 'host' further dehumanizes a fetus.  Good job.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  If they admitted that what they were doing by getting an abortion was ending an individual human being's life they'd likely be too much of a coward to go through with it.  Well, hopefully anyway . . .
> 
> You said that at 9 weeks is where you draw the line on abortion.  Why?  What changes?  A 9 week old fetus can't live outside the womb any better than a 4 week old fetus can.
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My threshold for removing a fetus is about 9 weeks, that is my end point. In that time a person has had enough time to make up their minds. Anything longer then that the pregnancy has gone to far in my opinion, and it is viable...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A cracked mother board later....
> 
> No, calling the woman carrying the embryo a "host" is dehumanizes HER, not the embryo. I say host as it seems that the pro life people only want woman to be incubators...and if that is against her will that is being a "host" for something you want out of your body.
Click to expand...


Yes it does.  'Host' and 'parasite' dehumanizes both, which I suspect is the point of using those terms.  I usually refer to them as 'the woman' and 'the unborn' or 'the unborn human being'.  

What about my second question?


----------



## Zoom-boing

beowolfe said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're bing disingenious.  I know of no one who is 'pro-abortion'.  If that were the case, abortion would be the only outcome that would satisfy them.  They would be lobbying for mandatory aboritions.  What you're calling pro-abortion is actually a name drummed up by those who don't want to have an honest conversation.
> 
> Pro-choice, which is a term, anti-abortionists will never use, is a simple position that says:
> 
> A woman has the right to determine if she will carry a baby to term.  This is not a determination for the government to make.  It is her choice.  It worked for Bristol Palin.  She could have aborted her son while he was a fetus, but she 'CHOSE" to carry to term.  *It's all about the woman's decision*.
Click to expand...


Well on this we agree.  My first post in this thread said the very same thing.

For people on the "pro-choice" side of things, a woman's 'right to choose' trumps the unborns 'right to life'.

For people on the "pro-life" side of things, the unborns 'right to life' trumps a woman's 'right to choose'.


----------



## Ravi

Vast LWC said:


> One last thing:
> 
> To have any kind of discussion with partisans on either side of this issue is useless, because one side will insist that anyone who has an abortion, from conception on, is a murderer; and the other side will insist that you can abort a fetus up to 8.99 months, if the mother is even slightly inconvenienced by pregnancy.
> 
> There is no discussion that can be had on this issue, because, generally, the people who involve themselves in the banter are extremists of the first order.
> 
> Personally I would strongly prefer some sort of compromise, like a firm date on whether a fetus is considered a viable, thinking human being, say 'round 2-3 months or so.  Perhaps a determination can be made with brain-wave measurements, etc...
> 
> *But that's never going to happen as long as extremists control the conversation*.


Prolly. But there can never be a compromise as long as people think women can't be the masters of their own bodies....seriously, it goes against nature to think anything else. Thems just the facts.


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you and the others to state your position on what abortion law should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see that too. Seems they keep banging into that wall and then running away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they realize that if they logically apply the principles of our law to their own view of what a fetus is, from conception on,
> 
> they have to take the stand that abortion should in fact logically be the crime of murder (*what else could it possibly be*?)
> 
> *and the anti-abortion crowd is well aware that the idea of convicting women of murder because they had an illegal abortion is viewed as crackpot extremism by normal America*.
Click to expand...


Abortion does end the life of another individual human being.  Abortion was made legal with Roe v. Wade.  What abortion is, is legalized murder.  

Second bolded -- Other than Vanquish I haven't seen anyone on the pro-life side saying that abortion should be made illegal.  What I have seen is _you _making this false claim then going around posing questions as if it were fact and actually expecting answers.

What I and many others _have_ stated is that reducing the number of abortions should be the goal of both sides. Do you disagree that this should be a common goal?  I have also stated that if making abortion illegal achieved this then make it illegal; if keeping it legal achieves this then keep it legal.


----------



## AllieBaba

NYcarbineer said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion law should be no abortions during any period of pregnacy, unless medically necessary to save the life of the mother. In such a situation, an option should be given to the mother to place her baby's life above her own.
> 
> There's your law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is the penalty for breaking the law? What do you charge the pregnant woman with?
Click to expand...

 
Well she's not pregnant, one assumes...so she would be charged with murder.

I don't see that happening any more often than it happened before Roe v. Wade.


----------



## syrenn

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using 'host' further dehumanizes a fetus.  Good job.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  If they admitted that what they were doing by getting an abortion was ending an individual human being's life they'd likely be too much of a coward to go through with it.  Well, hopefully anyway . . .
> 
> You said that at 9 weeks is where you draw the line on abortion.  Why?  What changes?  A 9 week old fetus can't live outside the womb any better than a 4 week old fetus can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A cracked mother board later....
> 
> No, calling the woman carrying the embryo a "host" is dehumanizes HER, not the embryo. I say host as it seems that the pro life people only want woman to be incubators...and if that is against her will that is being a "host" for something you want out of your body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  'Host' and 'parasite' dehumanizes both, which I suspect is the point of using those terms.  I usually refer to them as 'the woman' and 'the unborn' or 'the unborn human being'.
> 
> What about my second question?
Click to expand...



As i said before, In 9 weeks, a bit more then two months, you should know what you want to do in terms of carrying a baby or not. 

For clarity....i am VERY opposed to late term abortion. At some point in the fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own without the assistance of its mother. It is at THAT point i consider it moving from human cells that are alive..to a human baby that has a life of its own. Anything before that point in my opinion is_ only _living tissue.


----------



## AllieBaba

Unfortunately, the abortion clinics have carte blanche when it comes to late term abortions. THAT'S WHY THEY WON'T PROVIDE STATS.


----------



## syrenn

AllieBaba said:


> Unfortunately, the abortion clinics have carte blanche when it comes to late term abortions. THAT'S WHY THEY WON'T PROVIDE STATS.



 And that is the choice of the mother and her doctor. And not a choice i would be willing to take away. I really don't care about any stats.


----------



## Zoom-boing

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cracked mother board later....
> 
> No, calling the woman carrying the embryo a "host" is dehumanizes HER, not the embryo. I say host as it seems that the pro life people only want woman to be incubators...and if that is against her will that is being a "host" for something you want out of your body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  'Host' and 'parasite' dehumanizes both, which I suspect is the point of using those terms.  I usually refer to them as 'the woman' and 'the unborn' or 'the unborn human being'.
> 
> What about my second question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As i said before, In 9 weeks, a bit more then two months, you should know what you want to do in terms of carrying a baby or not.
> 
> For clarity....i am VERY opposed to late term abortion. At some point in the fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own without the assistance of its mother. It is at THAT point i consider it moving from human cells that are alive..to a human baby that has a life of its own. Anything before that point in my opinion is_ only _living tissue.
Click to expand...


Your two statements above seem conflicting to me.  Granted I only got 4 hours of sleep last night so maybe it's that . . . .

A 9 week old fetus can not live outside the womb and yet that's what is your stated cutoff for abortion.  You then say that 'at the point in fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own with the assistance of is mother.  It is at THAT point I consider it moving from human cells that are alive to a human baby that has a life of its own'.  That wouldn't be 9 weeks, that would be (at the earliest) 20 weeks, possibly a few weeks later.  So you're ok with abortion up to the 20th week?  Again, I'm just asking not trying to harp on you or anything.


----------



## syrenn

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  'Host' and 'parasite' dehumanizes both, which I suspect is the point of using those terms.  I usually refer to them as 'the woman' and 'the unborn' or 'the unborn human being'.
> 
> What about my second question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As i said before, In 9 weeks, a bit more then two months, you should know what you want to do in terms of carrying a baby or not.
> 
> For clarity....i am VERY opposed to late term abortion. At some point in the fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own without the assistance of its mother. It is at THAT point i consider it moving from human cells that are alive..to a human baby that has a life of its own. Anything before that point in my opinion is_ only _living tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your two statements above seem conflicting to me.  Granted I only got 4 hours of sleep last night so maybe it's that . . . .
> 
> A 9 week old fetus can not live outside the womb and yet that's what is your stated cutoff for abortion.  You then say that 'at the point in fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own with the assistance of is mother.  It is at THAT point I consider it moving from human cells that are alive to a human baby that has a life of its own'.  That wouldn't be 9 weeks, that would be (at the earliest) 20 weeks, possibly a few weeks later.  So you're ok with abortion up to the 20th week?  Again, I'm just asking not trying to harp on you or anything.
Click to expand...



That's about right. For me... if you don't know what you want in 9 weeks you are rather nuts. Also in that 9 weeks as far as i am concerned it is nothing more then cells. I do not consider it a complete baby at that point. As it stands now a legal abortion is 12 weeks, still well within the only cells time frame for me. 

Don't i clearly say i am against late term abortions? 

Why do you think i keep saying to c-section it out?  If it can not live on its own it does not have a "life"  OF its own. At 20 weeks being c-sections out...yes, it would _possibly _have a "life" of its own. Having an abortion at 20 weeks is not  something i would be suggesting a woman to have without considerable thought and reasons for having an abortion so late. 

BUT it would still be her choice...its her body....and yes i am very ok with that.


----------



## AllieBaba

syrenn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the abortion clinics have carte blanche when it comes to late term abortions. THAT'S WHY THEY WON'T PROVIDE STATS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the choice of the mother and her doctor. And not a choice i would be willing to take away. I really don't care about any stats.
Click to expand...

 
Naturally, you wouldn't. Because to you and everybody who supports abortion, babies are nothing, and it's not about actually helping people. Because what the stats show is that abortion accomplishes none of the things the pro-abortion crowd claim it does. Which is why stats are avoided like the plague.


----------



## AllieBaba

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i said before, In 9 weeks, a bit more then two months, you should know what you want to do in terms of carrying a baby or not.
> 
> For clarity....i am VERY opposed to late term abortion. At some point in the fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own without the assistance of its mother. It is at THAT point i consider it moving from human cells that are alive..to a human baby that has a life of its own. Anything before that point in my opinion is_ only _living tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your two statements above seem conflicting to me. Granted I only got 4 hours of sleep last night so maybe it's that . . . .
> 
> A 9 week old fetus can not live outside the womb and yet that's what is your stated cutoff for abortion. You then say that 'at the point in fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own with the assistance of is mother. It is at THAT point I consider it moving from human cells that are alive to a human baby that has a life of its own'. That wouldn't be 9 weeks, that would be (at the earliest) 20 weeks, possibly a few weeks later. So you're ok with abortion up to the 20th week? Again, I'm just asking not trying to harp on you or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's about right. For me... if you don't know what you want in 9 weeks you are rather nuts. Also in that 9 weeks as far as i am concerned it is nothing more then cells. I do not consider it a complete baby at that point. As it stands now a legal abortion is 12 weeks, still well within the only cells time frame for me.
> 
> Don't i clearly say i am against late term abortions?
> 
> Why do you think i keep saying to c-section it out? If it can not live on its own it does not have a "life" OF its own. At 20 weeks being c-sections out...yes, it would _possibly _have a "life" of its own. Having an abortion at 20 weeks is not something i would be suggesting a woman to have without considerable thought and reasons for having an abortion so late.
> 
> BUT it would still be her choice...its her body....and yes i am very ok with that.
Click to expand...

 
Here's those cells at 8 weeks:


----------



## AllieBaba

doesn't look like a clump of cells to me.

The 9-Week Fetus in Motion


----------



## Immanuel

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i said before, In 9 weeks, a bit more then two months, you should know what you want to do in terms of carrying a baby or not.
> 
> For clarity....i am VERY opposed to late term abortion. At some point in the fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own without the assistance of its mother. It is at THAT point i consider it moving from human cells that are alive..to a human baby that has a life of its own. Anything before that point in my opinion is_ only _living tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your two statements above seem conflicting to me.  Granted I only got 4 hours of sleep last night so maybe it's that . . . .
> 
> A 9 week old fetus can not live outside the womb and yet that's what is your stated cutoff for abortion.  You then say that 'at the point in fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own with the assistance of is mother.  It is at THAT point I consider it moving from human cells that are alive to a human baby that has a life of its own'.  That wouldn't be 9 weeks, that would be (at the earliest) 20 weeks, possibly a few weeks later.  So you're ok with abortion up to the 20th week?  Again, I'm just asking not trying to harp on you or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's about right. For me... if you don't know what you want in 9 weeks you are rather nuts. Also in that 9 weeks as far as i am concerned it is nothing more then cells. I do not consider it a complete baby at that point. As it stands now a legal abortion is 12 weeks, still well within the only cells time frame for me.
> 
> Don't i clearly say i am against late term abortions?
> 
> Why do you think i keep saying to c-section it out?  If it can not live on its own it does not have a "life"  OF its own. At 20 weeks being c-sections out...yes, it would _possibly _have a "life" of its own. Having an abortion at 20 weeks is not  something i would be suggesting a woman to have without considerable thought and reasons for having an abortion so late.
> 
> BUT it would still be her choice...its her body....and yes i am very ok with that.
Click to expand...


It is my understanding that many women are just finding out that they are pregnant at nine weeks.  In many cases it takes much longer, especially if it is the first pregnancy.  Really, they've only really missed one period at seven weeks.  So, they have two weeks to make their decision?  By the time many women discover they have a human being in their womb, we're passed ABS's 40 day point and just seven days from your cut off period but by this time the human within has a beating heart, fingers and toes, nose and mouth.  

Immie


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see that too. Seems they keep banging into that wall and then running away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they realize that if they logically apply the principles of our law to their own view of what a fetus is, from conception on,
> 
> they have to take the stand that abortion should in fact logically be the crime of murder (*what else could it possibly be*?)
> 
> *and the anti-abortion crowd is well aware that the idea of convicting women of murder because they had an illegal abortion is viewed as crackpot extremism by normal America*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion does end the life of another individual human being.  Abortion was made legal with Roe v. Wade.  What abortion is, is *legalized murder*.
> 
> Second bolded -- Other than Vanquish I haven't seen anyone on the pro-life side saying that abortion should be made illegal.  What I have seen is _you _making this false claim then going around posing questions as if it were fact and actually expecting answers.
> 
> What I and many others _have_ stated is that reducing the number of abortions should be the goal of both sides. Do you disagree that this should be a common goal?  I have also stated that if making abortion illegal achieved this then make it illegal; if keeping it legal achieves this then keep it legal.
Click to expand...

*legalized murder* = oxymoron

Do I need to point it out to you? 

That fact that all you have is pathetic word twisting just further indicates that your arguments are insubstantial. 
Murder - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1mur·der noun \&#712;m&#601;r-d&#601;r\
Definition of MURDER

1
: the crime of *unlawfully* killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2
a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder>
b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> doesn't look like a clump of cells to me.
> 
> The 9-Week Fetus in Motion



It doesn't look like a human being either. It looks like a alien from some other planet.
Not sure what you kooks are trying to achieve with those kinds of stunts.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they realize that if they logically apply the principles of our law to their own view of what a fetus is, from conception on,
> 
> they have to take the stand that abortion should in fact logically be the crime of murder (*what else could it possibly be*?)
> 
> *and the anti-abortion crowd is well aware that the idea of convicting women of murder because they had an illegal abortion is viewed as crackpot extremism by normal America*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion does end the life of another individual human being.  Abortion was made legal with Roe v. Wade.  What abortion is, is *legalized murder*.
> 
> Second bolded -- Other than Vanquish I haven't seen anyone on the pro-life side saying that abortion should be made illegal.  What I have seen is _you _making this false claim then going around posing questions as if it were fact and actually expecting answers.
> 
> What I and many others _have_ stated is that reducing the number of abortions should be the goal of both sides. Do you disagree that this should be a common goal?  I have also stated that if making abortion illegal achieved this then make it illegal; if keeping it legal achieves this then keep it legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *legalized murder* = oxymoron
> 
> Do I need to point it out to you?
> 
> That fact that all you have is pathetic word twisting just further indicates that your arguments are insubstantial.
> Murder - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 1mur·der noun \&#712;m&#601;r-d&#601;r\
> Definition of MURDER
> 
> 1
> : the crime of *unlawfully* killing a person especially with malice aforethought
> 2
> a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder>
> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>
Click to expand...


You might want to tell nyc this, as he is the one who originally said it was murder.  And yes, it is an oxymoron.  So is jumbo shrimp.

You can call it whatever you want but at the end of the day, abortion is the ending/killing/destruction of another human being.


----------



## Vanquish

For the record, I think the penalty ought to be life in prison.  I'm against the death penalty in any way shape or form.

I, do, carry a gun (concealed carry permit) and will defend my family in self-defense. Killing during times of war can be justified and necessary.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Immanuel said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your two statements above seem conflicting to me.  Granted I only got 4 hours of sleep last night so maybe it's that . . . .
> 
> A 9 week old fetus can not live outside the womb and yet that's what is your stated cutoff for abortion.  You then say that 'at the point in fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own with the assistance of is mother.  It is at THAT point I consider it moving from human cells that are alive to a human baby that has a life of its own'.  That wouldn't be 9 weeks, that would be (at the earliest) 20 weeks, possibly a few weeks later.  So you're ok with abortion up to the 20th week?  Again, I'm just asking not trying to harp on you or anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's about right. For me... if you don't know what you want in 9 weeks you are rather nuts. Also in that 9 weeks as far as i am concerned it is nothing more then cells. I do not consider it a complete baby at that point. As it stands now a legal abortion is 12 weeks, still well within the only cells time frame for me.
> 
> Don't i clearly say i am against late term abortions?
> 
> Why do you think i keep saying to c-section it out?  If it can not live on its own it does not have a "life"  OF its own. At 20 weeks being c-sections out...yes, it would _possibly _have a "life" of its own. Having an abortion at 20 weeks is not  something i would be suggesting a woman to have without considerable thought and reasons for having an abortion so late.
> 
> BUT it would still be her choice...its her body....and yes i am very ok with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that many women are just finding out that they are pregnant at nine weeks.  In many cases it takes much longer, especially if it is the first pregnancy.  Really, they've only really missed one period at seven weeks.  So, they have two weeks to make their decision?  By the time many women discover they have a human being in their womb, we're passed ABS's 40 day point and just seven days from your cut off period but by this time the human within has a beating heart, fingers and toes, nose and mouth.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I got pregnant with my last child on the first day of my period (rare, but it happens) and actually didn't even notice when I missed the first period after that.  It wasn't until the time for the next one came and went that I realized I might be pregnant, so I was WELL past nine weeks along.

Fortunately for the current title holder of Cutest Baby in the World, I would never consider an abortion, anyway.


----------



## R.D.

Anguille said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't look like a clump of cells to me.
> 
> The 9-Week Fetus in Motion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like a human being either. It looks like a alien from some other planet.
> Not sure what you kooks are trying to achieve with those kinds of stunts.
Click to expand...


The title of the thread in a nutshell


----------



## Vast LWC

Gadawg73 said:


> So someone that adamantly opposes abortion but opposes the power of government to pick and choose who to prosecute and who not to prosecute on cases with the same set of circumstances is an "extremist of the first order"?
> 
> That would be LIBERTARIAN and we are the furthest political party from extrmism there is.
> You do not compromise in favor of relinquishing reproductive rights TO THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.



OK, first of all, it's VERY possible to be an extremist Libertarian, they're called ANARCHISTS.

Every philosophy has extremists, unless that philosophy is centrism, which, by definition, is anti-extremist.

In fact, the fact that you feel that it's impossible to be an extremist in your favored philosophy is quite telling.

And, no-one said ANYTHING about what punishment should be involved, at least in the conversation I've been involved in.

Finally, I have never heard an actual Libertarian (rather than people who call themselves Libertarians, but are not) get involved in any public discussion about abortion.  I have no idea what the Libertarian Party's platform on abortion is (except in the theoretical), because they never talk about it.


----------



## Vast LWC

Immanuel said:


> Far out!  Some one on the left who is actually willing to set a starting point and attempt to work to a compromise.  I like that.
> 
> Let's begin... you say 2-3 months.  Let me throw out date of conception for a beginning point.  Hopefully we can work towards an agreement.
> 
> Another issue we need to look at is what reasons are acceptable.  Any reason whatsoever in the first 2-3 months?  Are we going to then discuss what reasons after the first trimester?  I mean, even though I am pro-life, I am concerned about if there is a verifiable danger to the health of the mother? Again any reason?  Fetal Abnormality?  Life of the Mother? Rape? Incest?  Mother has hemorrhoids?
> 
> When there is a case of the health of the mother, I think such a thing needs to be verified by at least one other doctor rather than to just take the word of the abortionist.
> 
> How about in the case of a minor mother?  Do we just let the clinic snip away or do we require them to notify the courts of a potential case of molestation?
> 
> There are many things that need to be discussed, but doggone it at least we can start discussing the issues.
> 
> Immie



WHAT?  Someone who's not a crazy partisan getting involved in an abortion conversation?  Fantastic!

In the first 2-3 months, before the fetus reaches the point of self-awareness, I would say that a reason for the abortion is not necessary.  After all, if we are to define a point in time, then the fetus would not be considered a person beforehand, but would definitely be considered a person afterwards.

Rape or incest would not be taken into account in this compromise, as the definition of the fetus being human would be answered, and therefore, logically, the reason for killing a human could not be rationalized away.  If rape or incest occurred, then there would have to be an abortion before the cut-off date, or not at all.

Fetal abnormality is a puzzle though.  I guess it would have to depend on the question of quality-of-life.  If the child is going to be born a vegetable, then abortion would be the sensible answer, but there are many other degrees of abnormality.

However, if the life of the mother is in imminent medical danger unless an abortion is performed; then however unfortunate it may be, an abortion will need to be performed.  An existing life is, in many cases, simply more valuable than a potential life, as the potential life has less chance of survival.  

Now, others may disagree, and a mother and doctor may decide to go in the other direction, but the choice must be available.  

You can't say to a person "you have to die now so that we can possibly save the life of someone else".  While many people may actually choose this route, you cannot force a person to.

And yes, I agree that any abortion of this type needs to be carefully documented by a doctor, but in what case would an "abortionist" not be an MD?


----------



## Immanuel

Vast LWC said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far out!  Some one on the left who is actually willing to set a starting point and attempt to work to a compromise.  I like that.
> 
> Let's begin... you say 2-3 months.  Let me throw out date of conception for a beginning point.  Hopefully we can work towards an agreement.
> 
> Another issue we need to look at is what reasons are acceptable.  Any reason whatsoever in the first 2-3 months?  Are we going to then discuss what reasons after the first trimester?  I mean, even though I am pro-life, I am concerned about if there is a verifiable danger to the health of the mother? Again any reason?  Fetal Abnormality?  Life of the Mother? Rape? Incest?  Mother has hemorrhoids?
> 
> When there is a case of the health of the mother, I think such a thing needs to be verified by at least one other doctor rather than to just take the word of the abortionist.
> 
> How about in the case of a minor mother?  Do we just let the clinic snip away or do we require them to notify the courts of a potential case of molestation?
> 
> There are many things that need to be discussed, but doggone it at least we can start discussing the issues.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT?  Someone who's not a crazy partisan getting involved in an abortion conversation?  Fantastic!
> 
> In the first 2-3 months, before the fetus reaches the point of self-awareness, I would say that a reason for the abortion is not necessary.  After all, if we are to define a point in time, then the fetus would not be considered a person beforehand, but would definitely be considered a person afterwards.
> 
> Rape or incest would not be taken into account in this compromise, as the definition of the fetus being human would be answered, and therefore, logically, the reason for killing a human could not be rationalized away.  If rape or incest occurred, then there would have to be an abortion before the cut-off date, or not at all.
> 
> Fetal abnormality is a puzzle though.  I guess it would have to depend on the question of quality-of-life.  If the child is going to be born a vegetable, then abortion would be the sensible answer, but there are many other degrees of abnormality.
> 
> However, if the life of the mother is in imminent medical danger unless an abortion is performed; then however unfortunate it may be, an abortion will need to be performed.  An existing life is, in many cases, simply more valuable than a potential life, as the potential life has less chance of survival.
> 
> Now, others may disagree, and a mother and doctor may decide to go in the other direction, but the choice must be available.
> 
> You can't say to a person "you have to die now so that we can possibly save the life of someone else".  While many people may actually choose this route, you cannot force a person to.
> 
> And yes, I agree that any abortion of this type needs to be carefully documented by a doctor, but in what case would an "abortionist" not be an MD?
Click to expand...




> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Vast LWC again.



I *have* to leave in about 10 minutes and can't do this post justice so I am not even going to bother to attempt to reply except to say that I think there are many on both sides of this issue that are a lot smarter than I am who are willing to work these issues out and I have no problem continuing to discuss them later.  Now, if we could just push both parties out of the way, we might actually get somewhere.

Immie


----------



## Vast LWC

Immanuel said:


> I *have* to leave in about 10 minutes and can't do this post justice so I am not even going to bother to attempt to reply except to say that I think there are many on both sides of this issue that are a lot smarter than I am who are willing to work these issues out and I have no problem continuing to discuss them later.  Now, if we could just push both parties out of the way, we might actually get somewhere.
> 
> Immie





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Immanuel again.



Exactly!


----------



## AllieBaba

R.D. said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't look like a clump of cells to me.
> 
> The 9-Week Fetus in Motion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like a human being either. It looks like a alien from some other planet.
> Not sure what you kooks are trying to achieve with those kinds of stunts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of the thread in a nutshell
Click to expand...

 
When the pro-abortionists say things like "a 9-week old fetus is just a clump of cells" they open the door for pics of what a 9-week old fetus really is.

So the stunt is in response to the "stunt" of referring to a 9-week old baby as a clump of cells.

This is a clump of cells:


----------



## Vast LWC

AllieBaba said:


> When the pro-abortionists say things like "a 9-week old fetus is just a clump of cells" they open the door for pics of what a 9-week old fetus really is.
> 
> So the stunt is in response to the "stunt" of referring to a 9-week old baby as a clump of cells.
> 
> This is a clump of cells:



Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise.    And just go on like it never happened.


----------



## Gadawg73

Vast LWC said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So someone that adamantly opposes abortion but opposes the power of government to pick and choose who to prosecute and who not to prosecute on cases with the same set of circumstances is an "extremist of the first order"?
> 
> That would be LIBERTARIAN and we are the furthest political party from extrmism there is.
> You do not compromise in favor of relinquishing reproductive rights TO THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, first of all, it's VERY possible to be an extremist Libertarian, they're called ANARCHISTS.
> 
> Every philosophy has extremists, unless that philosophy is centrism, which, by definition, is anti-extremist.
> 
> In fact, the fact that you feel that it's impossible to be an extremist in your favored philosophy is quite telling.
> 
> And, no-one said ANYTHING about what punishment should be involved, at least in the conversation I've been involved in.
> 
> Finally, I have never heard an actual Libertarian (rather than people who call themselves Libertarians, but are not) get involved in any public discussion about abortion.  I have no idea what the Libertarian Party's platform on abortion is (except in the theoretical), because they never talk about it.
Click to expand...


No Libertarian wants the police state power of government legislating women's reproductive rights.
It is not what a conservative stands for.
News flash for you there my man: Abortion laws ALWAYS have severe punishment.
The entire argument for banning it is PUNISHMENT.
If you don't see that as the ENTIRE argument then can't help you there bud.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Vast LWC said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the pro-abortionists say things like "a 9-week old fetus is just a clump of cells" they open the door for pics of what a 9-week old fetus really is.
> 
> So the stunt is in response to the "stunt" of referring to a 9-week old baby as a clump of cells.
> 
> This is a clump of cells:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise.    And just go on like it never happened.
Click to expand...


Compromise for what?  Abortion is legal and isn't going anywhere and restrictions are in place.  Unless you mean compromise on those restrictions?  Can't a woman get an abortion within the first 3 months now?


----------



## Vanquish

There's still no refuting that at conception (insert whatever you, personally want to call the cells/baby/fetus/life) everything that's needed to start the process is there...and the process has been started. Growth occurs...life exists.

You believe in souls? Prove that the soul doesnt enter when the fertilization occurs. (Hint: you cant)

Everything else is just rationalization.


----------



## Vast LWC

Zoom-boing said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the pro-abortionists say things like "a 9-week old fetus is just a clump of cells" they open the door for pics of what a 9-week old fetus really is.
> 
> So the stunt is in response to the "stunt" of referring to a 9-week old baby as a clump of cells.
> 
> This is a clump of cells:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise.    And just go on like it never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compromise for what?  Abortion is legal and isn't going anywhere and restrictions are in place.  Unless you mean compromise on those restrictions?  Can't a woman get an abortion within the first 3 months now?
Click to expand...


A court ruling is not a Law, and can be overturned.  Until a law is actually made providing definition, then there will always be a debate, and attempts to change the ruling.

And a woman can get an abortion in the 1st 3 months, but there are a myriad of exceptions allowing women to circumvent this.  

My point here is that a law that specifically defines when a fetus becomes a full human being would end the debate forever.  Such legislation would have to be a compromise.


----------



## Vast LWC

Vanquish said:


> There's still no refuting that at conception (insert whatever you, personally want to call the cells/baby/fetus/life) everything that's needed to start the process is there...and the process has been started. Growth occurs...life exists.
> 
> You believe in souls? Prove that the soul doesnt enter when the fertilization occurs. (Hint: you cant)
> 
> Everything else is just rationalization.



This fact makes that statement irrelevant:



> On August 2, 2007, after much independent investigation, it was revealed that discredited South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk unknowingly produced the first human embryos resulting from parthenogenesis. Initially, Hwang claimed he and his team had extracted stem cells from cloned human embryos, a result later found to be fabricated.  Further examination of the chromosomes of these cells show indicators of parthenogenesis in those extracted stem cells, similar to those found in the mice created by Tokyo scientists in 2004. Although Hwang deceived the world about being the first to create artificially cloned human embryos, he did contribute a major breakthrough to stem cell research by creating human embryos using parthenogenesis.



Parthenogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore, all the needed components to create a human are already resident in an egg cell.

Which means that if you use that as your rationalization to call abortion "killing", then everytime a woman has a period, she's committing a crime, so she must stay pregnant all the time to "save lives".


----------



## NYcarbineer

Vanquish said:


> There's still no refuting that at conception (insert whatever you, personally want to call the cells/baby/fetus/life) everything that's needed to start the process is there...and the process has been started. Growth occurs...life exists.
> 
> You believe in souls? Prove that the soul doesnt enter when the fertilization occurs. (Hint: you cant)
> 
> Everything else is just rationalization.



What?!  How about you prove there is a soul?


----------



## slukasiewski

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



Abortion - bad

"Catholics" like Nancy Pelosi, and you, should be ex-communicated.


----------



## Immanuel

slukasiewski said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion - bad
> 
> "Catholics" like Nancy Pelosi, and you, should be ex-communicated.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, the old "conversion by force" scam.  It works every time.

Immie


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see that too. Seems they keep banging into that wall and then running away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they realize that if they logically apply the principles of our law to their own view of what a fetus is, from conception on,
> 
> they have to take the stand that abortion should in fact logically be the crime of murder (*what else could it possibly be*?)
> 
> *and the anti-abortion crowd is well aware that the idea of convicting women of murder because they had an illegal abortion is viewed as crackpot extremism by normal America*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion does end the life of another individual human being.  Abortion was made legal with Roe v. Wade.  What abortion is, is legalized murder.
> 
> Second bolded -- Other than Vanquish I haven't seen anyone on the pro-life side saying that abortion should be made illegal.  What I have seen is _you _making this false claim then going around posing questions as if it were fact and actually expecting answers.
> 
> What I and many others _have_ stated is that reducing the number of abortions should be the goal of both sides. Do you disagree that this should be a common goal?  I have also stated that if making abortion illegal achieved this then make it illegal; if keeping it legal achieves this then keep it legal.
Click to expand...


That's an illogical position if you also claim that a fetus is a human being, and equivalent to a born person, or deserving the same rights and protections as a born person.

Why would you insist that the fetus is an individual human being, and then turn around and say you're willing to allow killing of it to be legal, if it reduces how many are killed?

Clearly you do not consider the fetus the same as a born person.


----------



## slukasiewski

Immanuel said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion - bad
> 
> "Catholics" like Nancy Pelosi, and you, should be ex-communicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the old "conversion by force" scam.  It works every time.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Huh?

Catholicism.

Pro Life

Dense much?


----------



## slukasiewski

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they realize that if they logically apply the principles of our law to their own view of what a fetus is, from conception on,
> 
> they have to take the stand that abortion should in fact logically be the crime of murder (*what else could it possibly be*?)
> 
> *and the anti-abortion crowd is well aware that the idea of convicting women of murder because they had an illegal abortion is viewed as crackpot extremism by normal America*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion does end the life of another individual human being.  Abortion was made legal with Roe v. Wade.  What abortion is, is legalized murder.
> 
> Second bolded -- Other than Vanquish I haven't seen anyone on the pro-life side saying that abortion should be made illegal.  What I have seen is _you _making this false claim then going around posing questions as if it were fact and actually expecting answers.
> 
> What I and many others _have_ stated is that reducing the number of abortions should be the goal of both sides. Do you disagree that this should be a common goal?  I have also stated that if making abortion illegal achieved this then make it illegal; if keeping it legal achieves this then keep it legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an illogical position if you also claim that a fetus is a human being, and equivalent to a born person, or deserving the same rights and protections as a born person.
> 
> Why would you insist that the fetus is an individual human being, and then turn around and say you're willing to allow killing of it to be legal, if it reduces how many are killed?
> 
> Clearly you do not consider the fetus the same as a born person.
Click to expand...


Oh look - the asswupe from Hannity.com forums has found a home. Getting the shit kicked out of you here too?

Idiot....


----------



## Immanuel

slukasiewski said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion - bad
> 
> "Catholics" like Nancy Pelosi, and you, should be ex-communicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the old "conversion by force" scam.  It works every time.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Catholicism.
> 
> Pro Life
> 
> Dense much?
Click to expand...


And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.

You can't make someone be faithful.  You can't make them follow doctrine.  Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.

I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.

Immie


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the old "conversion by force" scam. It works every time.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Catholicism.
> 
> Pro Life
> 
> Dense much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.
> 
> You can't make someone be faithful. You can't make them follow doctrine. Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.
> 
> I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
Has anyone actually defined what "pro abortion" is supposed to mean as far as this thread is concerned?


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they realize that if they logically apply the principles of our law to their own view of what a fetus is, from conception on,
> 
> they have to take the stand that abortion should in fact logically be the crime of murder (*what else could it possibly be*?)
> 
> *and the anti-abortion crowd is well aware that the idea of convicting women of murder because they had an illegal abortion is viewed as crackpot extremism by normal America*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion does end the life of another individual human being.  Abortion was made legal with Roe v. Wade.  What abortion is, is legalized murder.
> 
> Second bolded -- Other than Vanquish I haven't seen anyone on the pro-life side saying that abortion should be made illegal.  What I have seen is _you _making this false claim then going around posing questions as if it were fact and actually expecting answers.
> 
> What I and many others _have_ stated is that reducing the number of abortions should be the goal of both sides. Do you disagree that this should be a common goal?  I have also stated that if making abortion illegal achieved this then make it illegal; if keeping it legal achieves this then keep it legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an illogical position if you also claim that a fetus is a human being, and equivalent to a born person, or deserving the same rights and protections as a born person.
> 
> Why would you insist that the fetus is an individual human being, and then turn around and say you're willing to allow killing of it to be legal, if it reduces how many are killed?
> 
> Clearly you do not consider the fetus the same as a born person.
Click to expand...


Because preventing the unborn from being killed trumps punishing the woman.  Sometimes you have to settle for the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Catholicism.
> 
> Pro Life
> 
> Dense much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.
> 
> You can't make someone be faithful. You can't make them follow doctrine. Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.
> 
> I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has anyone actually defined what "pro abortion" is supposed to mean as far as this thread is concerned?
Click to expand...


Nope and in this case it is in my context.  Nancy Pelosi is a tool of the abortion industry and she will do whatever she can do to make sure that abortion is anything but "rare".

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vast LWC said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the pro-abortionists say things like "a 9-week old fetus is just a clump of cells" they open the door for pics of what a 9-week old fetus really is.
> 
> So the stunt is in response to the "stunt" of referring to a 9-week old baby as a clump of cells.
> 
> This is a clump of cells:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise.    And just go on like it never happened.
Click to expand...


How the fuck does one compromise on facts?  It's not like we can say, "Oh, all right, we'll just change the study of biology to make you feel better."  The truth is what it is, and I can't make the world flat just to be nice.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vast LWC said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise.    And just go on like it never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compromise for what?  Abortion is legal and isn't going anywhere and restrictions are in place.  Unless you mean compromise on those restrictions?  Can't a woman get an abortion within the first 3 months now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A court ruling is not a Law, and can be overturned.  Until a law is actually made providing definition, then there will always be a debate, and attempts to change the ruling.
> 
> And a woman can get an abortion in the 1st 3 months, but there are a myriad of exceptions allowing women to circumvent this.
> 
> My point here is that a law that specifically defines when a fetus becomes a full human being would end the debate forever.  Such legislation would have to be a compromise.
Click to expand...


Now we're having science decided for us by lawyers?  Really?  We need laws to tell us what reality is?  Jesus.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Immanuel said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the old "conversion by force" scam.  It works every time.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Catholicism.
> 
> Pro Life
> 
> Dense much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.
> 
> You can't make someone be faithful.  You can't make them follow doctrine.  Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.
> 
> I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


You can't make someone follow the rules of a club, but you CAN toss them out of the club if they don't.

If you don't share the beliefs that define being a Catholic, why the hell would you want to be one?  _I _don't usually join churches whose doctrines I disagree with.


----------



## Vast LWC

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the pro-abortionists say things like "a 9-week old fetus is just a clump of cells" they open the door for pics of what a 9-week old fetus really is.
> 
> So the stunt is in response to the "stunt" of referring to a 9-week old baby as a clump of cells.
> 
> This is a clump of cells:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise.    And just go on like it never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the fuck does one compromise on facts?  It's not like we can say, "Oh, all right, we'll just change the study of biology to make you feel better."  The truth is what it is, and I can't make the world flat just to be nice.
Click to expand...


You can keep shouting this BS until your head explodes.  92 pages of spouting the exact same argument over and over again doesn't make it any more true.


----------



## AllieBaba

Vast LWC said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise.  And just go on like it never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck does one compromise on facts? It's not like we can say, "Oh, all right, we'll just change the study of biology to make you feel better." The truth is what it is, and I can't make the world flat just to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep shouting this BS until your head explodes. 92 pages of spouting the exact same argument over and over again doesn't make it any more true.
Click to expand...

 
Lol..how true. Which is why the baby killer *argument* that it's just a cluster of cells is so laughable. As is their continued and wrong-headed assertion that abortion reduces child neglect, child abuse, child murder, and (in the case of the mothers) depression.

If one goes by the numbers, it appears to increase all those things.

But the abortionists just keep saying over and over that abortion is the cure...


----------



## Anguille

Vast LWC said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise.  And just go on like it never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck does one compromise on facts? It's not like we can say, "Oh, all right, we'll just change the study of biology to make you feel better." The truth is what it is, and I can't make the world flat just to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep shouting this BS until your head explodes. 92 pages of spouting the exact same argument over and over again doesn't make it any more true.
Click to expand...

No but it keeps her occupied. Think of the real people she knows and be glad for them that she is ranting away in real life.


----------



## RachelMadcow

Why do Democrats rally to kill black babies at will with other people's labor and wages?


Odd platform indeed


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vast LWC said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise.    And just go on like it never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck does one compromise on facts?  It's not like we can say, "Oh, all right, we'll just change the study of biology to make you feel better."  The truth is what it is, and I can't make the world flat just to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep shouting this BS until your head explodes.  92 pages of spouting the exact same argument over and over again doesn't make it any more true.
Click to expand...


And if I were you, spouting bullshit and opinions and how I WANTED things to be, that would be a problem.  Since I'M not the one who needs to make something true that isn't, I'm not worried about it.

And I have no problem spending as many pages shoving the facts in your face as are necessary to get you to quit avoiding and denying them.  How many pages of truth are too many?


----------



## Immanuel

Cecilie1200 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Catholicism.
> 
> Pro Life
> 
> Dense much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.
> 
> You can't make someone be faithful.  You can't make them follow doctrine.  Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.
> 
> I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't make someone follow the rules of a club, but you CAN toss them out of the club if they don't.
> 
> If you don't share the beliefs that define being a Catholic, why the hell would you want to be one?  _I _don't usually join churches whose doctrines I disagree with.
Click to expand...


I cannot believe one accepts ALL doctrine of a church.

I don't agree with all doctrines of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of which I am a member.  For instance, I disagree with "closed communion".  Disagreeing with that particular doctrine of my church does not mean that I disagree with all doctrines of my church.  

The only way, I can ever agree with all doctrines of my church would be to become the next David Koresh or Jim Jones.  I'm really not into the playing god kind of games.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Vast LWC said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise.    And just go on like it never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck does one compromise on facts?  It's not like we can say, "Oh, all right, we'll just change the study of biology to make you feel better."  The truth is what it is, and I can't make the world flat just to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep shouting this BS until your head explodes.  92 pages of spouting the exact same argument over and over again doesn't make it any more true.
Click to expand...


Note: you might want to try reading some of the BS spouted by NYCaribineer throughout this thread.  Not to mention JBeukemia as well.  It has really been pretty bad.

Immie


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.
> 
> You can't make someone be faithful. You can't make them follow doctrine. Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.
> 
> I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't make someone follow the rules of a club, but you CAN toss them out of the club if they don't.
> 
> If you don't share the beliefs that define being a Catholic, why the hell would you want to be one? _I _don't usually join churches whose doctrines I disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot believe one accepts ALL doctrine of a church.
> 
> I don't agree with all doctrines of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of which I am a member. For instance, I disagree with "closed communion". Disagreeing with that particular doctrine of my church does not mean that I disagree with all doctrines of my church.
> 
> The only way, I can ever agree with all doctrines of my church would be to become the next David Koresh or Jim Jones. I'm really not into the playing god kind of games.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.
> 
> You can't make someone be faithful.  You can't make them follow doctrine.  Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.
> 
> I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't make someone follow the rules of a club, but you CAN toss them out of the club if they don't.
> 
> If you don't share the beliefs that define being a Catholic, why the hell would you want to be one?  _I _don't usually join churches whose doctrines I disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot believe one accepts ALL doctrine of a church.
> 
> I don't agree with all doctrines of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of which I am a member.  For instance, I disagree with "closed communion".  Disagreeing with that particular doctrine of my church does not mean that I disagree with all doctrines of my church.
> 
> The only way, I can ever agree with all doctrines of my church would be to become the next David Koresh or Jim Jones.  I'm really not into the playing god kind of games.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Is closed communion a doctrine, or just a practice?  I'm not a Lutheran, so I have no idea.

As it happens, I believe all the doctrines and teachings of my church.  I wouldn't be a member if I didn't.  Now, I'll grant you, I don't agree with all of the beliefs that are prevalent among the members, but that's not the same thing.  

For example, virtually everyone who is a member of the Assemblies of God (the church to which I belong) believes that drinking alcohol is a sin.  I don't.  But it's not an official church doctrine or teaching.  IT IS a church teaching that because lowers your self-control and because it can be addictive, it can lead you into sin.  I can agree with THAT wholeheartedly.

The doctrines of a church are the basic, bedrock things it teaches you about God and about your relationship to Him.  I can't imagine belonging to a church if I thought it was founded on something dead wrong.

By the way, you don't have to be David Koresh or Jim Jones to start a church.  After all, someone had to start each and every one of the mainstream churches out there, too.  Y'know, like Martin Luther?


----------



## Immanuel

Cecilie1200 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't make someone follow the rules of a club, but you CAN toss them out of the club if they don't.
> 
> If you don't share the beliefs that define being a Catholic, why the hell would you want to be one?  _I _don't usually join churches whose doctrines I disagree with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot believe one accepts ALL doctrine of a church.
> 
> I don't agree with all doctrines of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of which I am a member.  For instance, I disagree with "closed communion".  Disagreeing with that particular doctrine of my church does not mean that I disagree with all doctrines of my church.
> 
> The only way, I can ever agree with all doctrines of my church would be to become the next David Koresh or Jim Jones.  I'm really not into the playing god kind of games.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is closed communion a doctrine, or just a practice?  I'm not a Lutheran, so I have no idea.
> 
> As it happens, I believe all the doctrines and teachings of my church.  I wouldn't be a member if I didn't.  Now, I'll grant you, I don't agree with all of the beliefs that are prevalent among the members, but that's not the same thing.
> 
> For example, virtually everyone who is a member of the Assemblies of God (the church to which I belong) believes that drinking alcohol is a sin.  I don't.  But it's not an official church doctrine or teaching.  IT IS a church teaching that because lowers your self-control and because it can be addictive, it can lead you into sin.  I can agree with THAT wholeheartedly.
> 
> The doctrines of a church are the basic, bedrock things it teaches you about God and about your relationship to Him.  I can't imagine belonging to a church if I thought it was founded on something dead wrong.
> 
> By the way, you don't have to be David Koresh or Jim Jones to start a church.  After all, someone had to start each and every one of the mainstream churches out there, too.  Y'know, like Martin Luther?
Click to expand...


Is Closed Communion a doctrine?  I think it is a doctrine, but maybe we need to define doctrine so that we are in agreement as to what it means.  To me, doctrine is a belief taught and practiced by a church.  My church believes in Closed Communion and I understand why, I simply disagree with the reasons, yet it is not a deal breaker for me.  



> doc·trine
> &#8194; &#8194;/&#712;d&#594;ktr&#618;n/ Show Spelled[dok-trin] Show IPA
> noun
> 1.
> a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
> 2.
> something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
> 3.
> a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.



It would not be possible for you to believe everything every member of your church believe as I suspect many of those beliefs are actually contradictory.  Not to mention that there are too many beliefs for you to even know.

I'm somewhat familiar with the Assembly of God, but not enough to discuss their doctrine with you particularly.  The Lutheran Church has the Book of Concord which lays out their doctrine.  Some Presbyterian Churches have the Westminster Confession that lays out their doctrine.  This is not a slam on you as a believer, but my guess is that if you delve into the doctrines of the Assemblies of God, you will find some things that you don't agree with and I say that knowing that you are just a little strong willed.    Just a little.

As for Martin Luther, it was not his goal to start a new church.  He simply wanted to reform the old.  I, too, would like to reform the LCMS when it comes to closed communion.  

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

I think doctrine is just institutionalized practice.

So any practice that is not necessarily scriptural (in the case of Christianity) is doctrine.


----------



## xEchox

taichiliberal said:


> unless YOU are going to take of that child, pay that woman's FULL medical bills for 9 months and delivery, etc., etc.




So unless you're going to pay for my child for 16 years, you can't tell me not to kill my 16 year old?

Isn't the whole rape and incest thing the very appeal to emotion that some people in this thread keep complaining about?




NYcarbineer said:


> an present no evidence whatsoever that it is a human being, a person, other than its 46 chromosomes which are nothing more than the plans for a human being.



The DNA might be 'the plans', but the unborn child is the human being made form those plans. This is basic stuff for anyone who took science class in school.



> You can no more claim a fertilized egg is a human than you can claim the blueprint for a house is a house.



So now the chromosomes and the zygote are the same thing?  Maybe you should look up the definitions, since you don't seem to know what any of the things are that you talk about.


It's also worth noting that in this post you equate 'human being' and 'person'. Hencwe, if the child is human, it is a person.



NYcarbineer said:


> There is no scientific argument that magically turns a human zygote into a human person


As opposed to a non-human person?

You deny that humans beget humans? What species is the zygote before it becomes a human? You define all humans as people without regard to age, yet you deny that we are people at our youngest?



Barb said:


> If YOU can't, WON'T, are UNWILLING to sustain it? YOU have absolutely NO say in the matter, and that is how it should be.



How many years of a child's life are you willing to apply that argument? What about the elderly and people who develop Alzheimer's?



Vast LWC said:


> O
> 
> Personally I would strongly prefer some sort of compromise, like a firm date on whether a fetus is considered a viable, thinking human being.



So is it "viability" or thought that's important? What definition of "viability" are we using? Modern science seems to make it possible to save the lives of the unborn earlier and earlier in pregnancy.



Anguille said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't look like a clump of cells to me.
> 
> The 9-Week Fetus in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like a human being either. It looks like a alien from some other planet.
> Not sure what you kooks are trying to achieve with those kinds of stunts.
Click to expand...


Two things. First, that's how we all looked at that age. Secondly, do you really mean that it should be  okay to kill someone *because they don't happen to look like you*? 



Zoom-boing said:


> Because preventing the unborn from being killed trumps punishing the woman..



Punishing women? Do these people really think of themselves as a punishment? Maybe they should take that up with their psychiatrists?

Obama: I don't want my daughters "punished with a baby"



Cecilie1200 said:


> Now we're having science decided for us by lawyers?  Really?  We need laws to tell us what reality is?  Jesus.



Dover Trial?


----------



## misteroboto

why should what some group of people who dont like abortion get be the rule for what everyone has to abide by?

if you dont like or dont agree with abortion you shouldnt be forced to have one  everyone can agree with that 

this irony is if you dont mind getting one  you shouldnt be legally prevented from having one just because someone else doesnt like but those persons want to try like hell to prevent someone from doing something they would never do 

the ethics of terminating a pregnancy are left to the individual - they should depend on what some other people like or dont like


----------



## Gadawg73

misteroboto said:


> why should what some group of people who dont like abortion get be the rule for what everyone has to abide by?
> 
> if you dont like or dont agree with abortion you shouldnt be forced to have one  everyone can agree with that
> 
> this irony is if you dont mind getting one  you shouldnt be legally prevented from having one just because someone else doesnt like but those persons want to try like hell to prevent someone from doing something they would never do
> 
> the ethics of terminating a pregnancy are left to the individual - they should depend on what some other people like or dont like



It is all about wanting to control the reproductive rights of women and wanting government, at the point of a gun, to grow more power to enforce that.


----------



## sinister59

Gadawg73 said:


> misteroboto said:
> 
> 
> 
> why should what some group of people who dont like abortion get be the rule for what everyone has to abide by?
> 
> if you dont like or dont agree with abortion you shouldnt be forced to have one  everyone can agree with that
> 
> this irony is if you dont mind getting one  you shouldnt be legally prevented from having one just because someone else doesnt like but those persons want to try like hell to prevent someone from doing something they would never do
> 
> the ethics of terminating a pregnancy are left to the individual - they should depend on what some other people like or dont like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is all about wanting to control the reproductive rights of women and wanting government, at the point of a gun, to grow more power to enforce that.
Click to expand...


and they did .women unions , people better wake up , the right is after our rights and the CR is not near done . 
unions are under attack no compromise , to the end of it , 
women are under it by reproductive rights and all the steps forward , like equal pay and the rest , you vigina is just the start of it .


----------



## AllieBaba

what a joke.


----------



## Agit8r

*"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a right to life. A piece of protoplasm has no rightsand no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyones benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."* -- Ayn Rand


----------



## Vast LWC

Gadawg73 said:


> misteroboto said:
> 
> 
> 
> why should what some group of people who dont like abortion get be the rule for what everyone has to abide by?
> 
> if you dont like or dont agree with abortion you shouldnt be forced to have one  everyone can agree with that
> 
> this irony is if you dont mind getting one  you shouldnt be legally prevented from having one just because someone else doesnt like but those persons want to try like hell to prevent someone from doing something they would never do
> 
> the ethics of terminating a pregnancy are left to the individual - they should depend on what some other people like or dont like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is all about wanting to control the reproductive rights of women and wanting government, at the point of a gun, to grow more power to enforce that.
Click to expand...


Now THAT is a purely Libertarian viewpoint.  Well done sir.  You are in fact exactly what you claim to be, and I have quite a good amount of respect for the true libertarian point of view, though I don't always necessarily agree with it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot believe one accepts ALL doctrine of a church.
> 
> I don't agree with all doctrines of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of which I am a member.  For instance, I disagree with "closed communion".  Disagreeing with that particular doctrine of my church does not mean that I disagree with all doctrines of my church.
> 
> The only way, I can ever agree with all doctrines of my church would be to become the next David Koresh or Jim Jones.  I'm really not into the playing god kind of games.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is closed communion a doctrine, or just a practice?  I'm not a Lutheran, so I have no idea.
> 
> As it happens, I believe all the doctrines and teachings of my church.  I wouldn't be a member if I didn't.  Now, I'll grant you, I don't agree with all of the beliefs that are prevalent among the members, but that's not the same thing.
> 
> For example, virtually everyone who is a member of the Assemblies of God (the church to which I belong) believes that drinking alcohol is a sin.  I don't.  But it's not an official church doctrine or teaching.  IT IS a church teaching that because lowers your self-control and because it can be addictive, it can lead you into sin.  I can agree with THAT wholeheartedly.
> 
> The doctrines of a church are the basic, bedrock things it teaches you about God and about your relationship to Him.  I can't imagine belonging to a church if I thought it was founded on something dead wrong.
> 
> By the way, you don't have to be David Koresh or Jim Jones to start a church.  After all, someone had to start each and every one of the mainstream churches out there, too.  Y'know, like Martin Luther?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is Closed Communion a doctrine?  I think it is a doctrine, but maybe we need to define doctrine so that we are in agreement as to what it means.  To me, doctrine is a belief taught and practiced by a church.  My church believes in Closed Communion and I understand why, I simply disagree with the reasons, yet it is not a deal breaker for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doc·trine
> &#8194; &#8194;/&#712;d&#594;ktr&#618;n/ Show Spelled[dok-trin] Show IPA
> noun
> 1.
> a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
> 2.
> something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
> 3.
> a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would not be possible for you to believe everything every member of your church believe as I suspect many of those beliefs are actually contradictory.  Not to mention that there are too many beliefs for you to even know.
Click to expand...


Nope, that's very true.  People get a lot of very strange ideas into their heads.  Fortunately, the beliefs of the individual members of my church are not the doctrines of the church itself, aka the body or system of teachings or principles upon which the church is based.

The doctrines of my church can be found here.  These are the things which, if I did not agree with them, I would feel that I needed to find another church.

Fundamental Truths (Condensed Statement)

Number 6 is a very good reason why, as much as I like and admire many of the things the Catholic Church has accomplished, I could never be a Catholic - just for example.  

WE BELIEVE...and practice two ordinances(1) Water Baptism by Immersion after repenting of one's sins and receiving Christ's gift of salvation, and (2) Holy Communion (the Lord's Supper) as a symbolic remembrance of Christ's suffering and death for our salvation.

The Catholic Church, for a start, teaches many more ordinances than this.  They also have the baptism of infants as a doctrine, and Holy Communion as a literal act of deo-cannibalism, as opposed to a symbolic remembrance.

Now, I don't personally care whether a church uses actual wine or grape juice (as all AG churches I've ever attended do) in their Holy Communion.  THAT is an issue of practice, not doctrine.  The DOCTRINE - the part that actually matters - is whether you practice it as a remembrance, or believe you're ingesting the actual body and blood of Christ.



Immanuel said:


> I'm somewhat familiar with the Assembly of God, but not enough to discuss their doctrine with you particularly.  The Lutheran Church has the Book of Concord which lays out their doctrine.  Some Presbyterian Churches have the Westminster Confession that lays out their doctrine.  This is not a slam on you as a believer, but my guess is that if you delve into the doctrines of the Assemblies of God, you will find some things that you don't agree with and I say that knowing that you are just a little strong willed.    Just a little.
> 
> As for Martin Luther, it was not his goal to start a new church.  He simply wanted to reform the old.  I, too, would like to reform the LCMS when it comes to closed communion.
> 
> Immie



I'm sure it wasn't Martin Luther's goal to start a new church.  For some people it has been, because they felt it was easier than trying to fix the myriad problems in the old one, as the Protestants who became the Church of England did after Henry VIII started a schism with the Catholic Church over his divorce.

And no, I was raised by a long line of AG ministers.  I'm very conversant with all of the fundamental doctrines of my church.  I disagree frequently with other members on practices, and sometimes even application of doctrine.  The doctrines themselves, though, I have no problem with.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> I think doctrine is just institutionalized practice.
> 
> So any practice that is not necessarily scriptural (in the case of Christianity) is doctrine.



No.  Doctrine encompasses what your church considers to be the "fundamental truths" - as the AG calls them - upon which it founds all of its teachings.  For example, the AG believes that the Scriptures are inspired directly by God.  If you're inclined to believe the Bible was written by men, you have no business joining an AG church.  The AG believes in the Triune Godhead.  If the Trinity bugs you, you'll want another church.  The deity of Jesus Christ is also not optional.

You get the idea.  It's not that the AG will forbid you from attending, or even having an official membership, if you disagree on these points, but you can see why disagreeing with them on doctrine adds up, in my eyes, to finding another church that I DO agree with.


----------



## Cecilie1200

misteroboto said:


> why should what some group of people who dont like abortion get be the rule for what everyone has to abide by?
> 
> if you dont like or dont agree with abortion you shouldnt be forced to have one  everyone can agree with that
> 
> this irony is if you dont mind getting one  you shouldnt be legally prevented from having one just because someone else doesnt like but those persons want to try like hell to prevent someone from doing something they would never do
> 
> the ethics of terminating a pregnancy are left to the individual - they should depend on what some other people like or dont like



If you really have this sort of confusion over the basic, fundamental issues under debate, you really have no business even wasting everyone else's time in this thread.  It's obvious to me that you've never bothered to actually LISTEN to what the other side is saying and what their position is.  It's just all you, alone in the echo chamber of your own head.

So go back there.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Agit8r said:


> *"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a right to life. A piece of protoplasm has no rightsand no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyones benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."* -- Ayn Rand



Yes, because I care deeply about the opinion of a fiction writer.  Hey, next why don't you quote to us from L. Ron Hubbard.  THERE'S a fiction writer who actually managed to get all the way to founding his own church.

And coincidentally, I don't give a fuck what HE thinks, either.

Next you'll be giving us quotes from Hollywood actors as though THEY settle the matter.  God forbid the left ever get any of its "fundamental truths" from people who don't make a living making shit up.


----------



## Agit8r

Cecilie1200 said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a right to life. A piece of protoplasm has no rightsand no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyones benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."* -- Ayn Rand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I care deeply about the opinion of a fiction writer.  Hey, next why don't you quote to us from L. Ron Hubbard.  THERE'S a fiction writer who actually managed to get all the way to founding his own church.
> 
> And coincidentally, I don't give a fuck what HE thinks, either.
> 
> Next you'll be giving us quotes from Hollywood actors as though THEY settle the matter.  God forbid the left ever get any of its "fundamental truths" from people who don't make a living making shit up.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the "Who is John Galt" crowd


----------



## taichiliberal

xEchox said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> unless YOU are going to take of that child, pay that woman's FULL medical bills for 9 months and delivery, etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So unless you're going to pay for my child for 16 years, you can't tell me not to kill my 16 year old?
> 
> 
> Only the convoluted logic of religiously fanatical anti-abortionist generally compare abortion to murder of a fully functioning young adult/adult.  To date NO Supreme Court state or federal has equated the two as such.  And since I made no such assertion/insinuation of the sort you are proposing here, you're just knee jerking propaganda responses.
> 
> Isn't the whole rape and incest thing the very appeal to emotion that some people in this thread keep complaining about?
> 
> Well bunky, I didn't make any such statement or alluded to such, so take your complaint to someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> an present no evidence whatsoever that it is a human being, a person, other than its 46 chromosomes which are nothing more than the plans for a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The DNA might be 'the plans', but the unborn child is the human being made form those plans. This is basic stuff for anyone who took science class in school.
> 
> So now the chromosomes and the zygote are the same thing?  Maybe you should look up the definitions, since you don't seem to know what any of the things are that you talk about.
> 
> 
> It's also worth noting that in this post you equate 'human being' and 'person'. Hencwe, if the child is human, it is a person.
> 
> 
> As opposed to a non-human person?
> 
> You deny that humans beget humans? What species is the zygote before it becomes a human? You define all humans as people without regard to age, yet you deny that we are people at our youngest?
> 
> 
> 
> How many years of a child's life are you willing to apply that argument? What about the elderly and people who develop Alzheimer's?
> 
> 
> 
> So is it "viability" or thought that's important? What definition of "viability" are we using? Modern science seems to make it possible to save the lives of the unborn earlier and earlier in pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> Two things. First, that's how we all looked at that age. Secondly, do you really mean that it should be  okay to kill someone *because they don't happen to look like you*?
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because preventing the unborn from being killed trumps punishing the woman..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Punishing women? Do these people really think of themselves as a punishment? Maybe they should take that up with their psychiatrists?
> 
> Obama: I don't want my daughters "punished with a baby"
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now we're having science decided for us by lawyers?  Really?  We need laws to tell us what reality is?  Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dover Trial?
Click to expand...


Again, with all the medical technology available to the public, if this country would get it's ideological head out of it's ass, abortion would be a rarity or a medical emergency procedure. Comparable, realistic sex education at all grade levels, junior license for contraceptives (parental approved) like you would a car, funding options on your tax return.  But for many, it's an irrational emotion based argument with both sides claiming to know what God wants (or if there is a God to weigh in on the matter).....and the band played on.


----------



## Chris

An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.

There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country. 

None of them are human beings.


----------



## Agit8r

Chris said:


> An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.
> 
> There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.
> 
> None of them are human beings.



Ayn Rand agreed, and her 'Atlas Shrugged' will "change the face of american politics"


----------



## Chris

It's worst than that.

Unwanted children are much more likely it be abused, so anti abortion advocates are pro child abuse.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Agit8r said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a right to life. A piece of protoplasm has no rightsand no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyones benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."* -- Ayn Rand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I care deeply about the opinion of a fiction writer.  Hey, next why don't you quote to us from L. Ron Hubbard.  THERE'S a fiction writer who actually managed to get all the way to founding his own church.
> 
> And coincidentally, I don't give a fuck what HE thinks, either.
> 
> Next you'll be giving us quotes from Hollywood actors as though THEY settle the matter.  God forbid the left ever get any of its "fundamental truths" from people who don't make a living making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the "Who is John Galt" crowd
Click to expand...


Consider that a generalized, blanket "fuck off, moron" to ANYONE it applies to.  I don't have time to tell every fucktard on the planet who can't separate fiction from reality to get a life.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Chris said:


> An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.
> 
> There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.
> 
> None of them are human beings.



The consensus is that 97% of USMB members think you're a moron.





Chris said:


> It's worst than that.
> 
> Unwanted children are much more likely it be abused, so anti abortion advocates are pro child abuse.



Make that 98%.


----------



## Agit8r

Cecilie1200 said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I care deeply about the opinion of a fiction writer.  Hey, next why don't you quote to us from L. Ron Hubbard.  THERE'S a fiction writer who actually managed to get all the way to founding his own church.
> 
> And coincidentally, I don't give a fuck what HE thinks, either.
> 
> Next you'll be giving us quotes from Hollywood actors as though THEY settle the matter.  God forbid the left ever get any of its "fundamental truths" from people who don't make a living making shit up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the "Who is John Galt" crowd
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consider that a generalized, blanket "fuck off, moron" to ANYONE it applies to.  I don't have time to tell every fucktard on the planet who can't separate fiction from reality to get a life.
Click to expand...


and now she starts in on the Birchers...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Agit8r said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.
> 
> There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.
> 
> None of them are human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand agreed, and her 'Atlas Shrugged' will "change the face of american politics"
Click to expand...


"Atlas Shrugged" was published in 1957.  I think it's done all the "changing the face of American politics" that it's going to.  That ship has sailed.


----------



## Agit8r

Cecilie1200 said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.
> 
> There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.
> 
> None of them are human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand agreed, and her 'Atlas Shrugged' will "change the face of american politics"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Atlas Shrugged" was published in 1957.  I think it's done all the "changing the face of American politics" that it's going to.  That ship has sailed.
Click to expand...


One can hope


----------



## misteroboto

Cecilie1200 said:


> If you really have this sort of confusion over the basic, fundamental issues under debate, you really have no business even wasting everyone else's time in this thread.  It's obvious to me that you've never bothered to actually LISTEN to what the other side is saying and what their position is.  It's just all you, alone in the echo chamber of your own head.
> 
> So go back there.



i dont have any confusion at all - really i was making a statement - its was obvious to a lot of people- and its also obvious why SOME in the RTL crowd seek to used the law to manipulate scenarios  with certain legislation- its so they can end run what people who DONT think like them, can do.

this is essentially my problem with the RTL movement and GOP Social Cons - what you cant get at the ballot box ( or popular opinion)  is saught  by jerry rigging the process so that hopefully you still get your way  

the other contradictory crap like how much social ( and fiscal ) cons dont like expanding the role of government as a social engineer, but insist that the law be used to curtail and or limit what people can do socially - well that stuff is just easily seen - and its mostly comedy and or frightening to see them advance their agenda


yeah ive listened to what the other side has said - theyve called women whores - called people who dont  hold their view murderers - and basically have offered up  all kinds of silly syllogisms about peoples values and how superior  RTL people are versus...well everyone else. kids are as much a "item" to them as they claim the other "pro-abortion" people regard them - babies are cute googly bundles that vaporize after a while - ignoring the fact that they eventually grow up and dependeing on where ( and who ) raises them have a lot of issues not only about the conditions under which they are raised but the very system that "took care" of them


----------



## Vast LWC

Cecilie1200 said:


> "Atlas Shrugged" was published in 1957.  I think it's done all the "changing the face of American politics" that it's going to.  That ship has sailed.



You know what?  You're dislike of Ayn Rand vastly improves my opinion of you.  

We may strongly disagree on the Abortion subject, but you're all good in my book


----------



## misteroboto

Vast LWC said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Atlas Shrugged" was published in 1957.  I think it's done all the "changing the face of American politics" that it's going to.  That ship has sailed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  You're dislike of Ayn Rand vastly improves my opinion of you.
> 
> We may strongly disagree on the Abortion subject, but you're all good in my book
Click to expand...


well rynd has some appeal - i mean if your are sleepless you wont be after picking up one of her books

hm then again you may be more sleepless - wondering what horror would befall us  if someone was actually inspired by her writings 

oh shit.....


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vast LWC said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Atlas Shrugged" was published in 1957.  I think it's done all the "changing the face of American politics" that it's going to.  That ship has sailed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  You're dislike of Ayn Rand vastly improves my opinion of you.
> 
> We may strongly disagree on the Abortion subject, but you're all good in my book
Click to expand...


  And I didn't even have to mention that I think she's a very mediocre writer and a nutjob.


----------



## taichiliberal

Chris said:


> An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.
> 
> There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.
> 
> None of them are human beings.



Now this brings up an interesting point.....are frozen embryos or conception induced by frozen sperm part of the anti-abortion litany?  Especially the anti-abortion folk claiming to have divine guidance?


----------



## Anguille

Cecilie1200 said:


> Consider that a generalized, blanket "fuck off, moron" to ANYONE it applies to. * I don't have time *to tell every fucktard on the planet who can't separate fiction from reality to get a life.



Sure about that?


----------



## taichiliberal

Right now you have a budget that reduces funding for social programs that would provide for children services,  of which the neocon GOP is very fond of and the idiotic Teabaggers are disappointed at that it's not gone far enough.  I wonder how many RTL folk supported that crap?  

Oh, and someone wake up fools like Frazzle and remind them that the majority of people on welfare are WHITE SINGLE FEMALE MOTHERS....in case she wants to play the race card again.


----------



## Vast LWC

taichiliberal said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.
> 
> There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.
> 
> None of them are human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this brings up an interesting point.....are frozen embryos or conception induced by frozen sperm part of the anti-abortion litany?  Especially the anti-abortion folk claiming to have divine guidance?
Click to expand...


Oooh, that is a good point.  If someone starts an accidental fire that burns down a frozen-embryo storage facility, are they then going to be culpable for hundreds of incidents of homocide?


----------



## taichiliberal

Vast LWC said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.
> 
> There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.
> 
> None of them are human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this brings up an interesting point.....are frozen embryos or conception induced by frozen sperm part of the anti-abortion litany?  Especially the anti-abortion folk claiming to have divine guidance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooh, that is a good point.  If someone starts an accidental fire that burns down a frozen-embryo storage facility, are they then going to be culpable for hundreds of incidents of homocide?
Click to expand...



Seriously though, one of the Pope's in the last 20 years stated that any form of contraception is a sin....and there was some nonsense about the sin of masturbation, if I recall.  So I'd be real interested in the incorporation of modern medical technology in the anti-abortion/religious dogma.


----------



## Chris

Vast LWC said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.
> 
> There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.
> 
> None of them are human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this brings up an interesting point.....are frozen embryos or conception induced by frozen sperm part of the anti-abortion litany?  Especially the anti-abortion folk claiming to have divine guidance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooh, that is a good point.  If someone starts an accidental fire that burns down a frozen-embryo storage facility, are they then going to be culpable for hundreds of incidents of homocide?
Click to expand...


According to the anti abortion idiots, yes.

Don't you remember when George Bush referred to frozen embryos as "snowflake babies?"


----------



## taichiliberal

Chris said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this brings up an interesting point.....are frozen embryos or conception induced by frozen sperm part of the anti-abortion litany?  Especially the anti-abortion folk claiming to have divine guidance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh, that is a good point.  If someone starts an accidental fire that burns down a frozen-embryo storage facility, are they then going to be culpable for hundreds of incidents of homocide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the anti abortion idiots, yes.
> 
> Don't you remember when George Bush referred to frozen embryos as "snowflake babies?"
Click to expand...


----------



## Gadawg73

There was a time when speaking of contraception would get you into trouble. 
That was a no no.
Until many Americans, mostly men, understand that even the Founders understood the problems with legislating a women's reproductive system we will never get anywhere.


----------



## taichiliberal

Gadawg73 said:


> There was a time when speaking of contraception would get you into trouble.
> That was a no no.
> Until many Americans, mostly men, understand that even the Founders understood the problems with legislating a women's reproductive system we will never get anywhere.



There's nothing in the original Constitution that indicates the Founders even contemplated women's rights as we understand them today....let alone a reproductive system.

Bottom line: the Constitution has evloved and adapted via the Bill of Rights, amendments and SCOTUS rulings which has resulted in Roe versus Wade....we should deal with that rather than detour into "what might have been" speculations.


----------



## Gadawg73

taichiliberal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time when speaking of contraception would get you into trouble.
> That was a no no.
> Until many Americans, mostly men, understand that even the Founders understood the problems with legislating a women's reproductive system we will never get anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in the original Constitution that indicates the Founders even contemplated women's rights as we understand them today....let alone a reproductive system.
> 
> Bottom line: the Constitution has evloved and adapted via the Bill of Rights, amendments and SCOTUS rulings which has resulted in Roe versus Wade....we should deal with that rather than detour into "what might have been" speculations.
Click to expand...


No shit.
Where has anyone stated anything about "what might have been"?


----------



## Vanquish

You did, actually. Perhaps you didn't know it.

You made a claim that the FF were hands off on women's rights - which you havent substantiated. Until you do...that's what amounts to "what might have been"


----------



## AllieBaba

taichiliberal said:


> Right now you have a budget that reduces funding for social programs that would provide for children services, of which the neocon GOP is very fond of and the idiotic Teabaggers are disappointed at that it's not gone far enough. I wonder how many RTL folk supported that crap?
> 
> Oh, and someone wake up fools like Frazzle and remind them that the majority of people on welfare are WHITE SINGLE FEMALE MOTHERS....in case she wants to play the race card again.


 
Actually, the majority of people on welfare are children.


----------



## NYcarbineer

taichiliberal said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.
> 
> There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.
> 
> None of them are human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this brings up an interesting point.....are frozen embryos or conception induced by frozen sperm part of the anti-abortion litany?  Especially the anti-abortion folk claiming to have divine guidance?
Click to expand...


I brought this up several times in the thread and don't recall getting much other than grumpy silence from the anti-choicers.

The question is:

1.  If a lab created fertilized egg is a human being, does its 'human being' status make disposing of it a criminal homicide?

Or, more precisely, _should_ the disposal of it be a criminal homicide, under our laws?

lol, watch the answers pour in...


----------



## Vanquish

I believe I did answer this...so the snide posturing is kinda weird...

I think that the fertilized egg needs to be IN a woman and growing to be life...and therefore no prosecution until it's at that stage.


----------



## Anguille

Vanquish said:


> I believe I did answer this...so the snide posturing is kinda weird...
> 
> I think that the fertilized egg needs to be IN a woman and growing to be life...and therefore no prosecution until it's at that stage.



I see. So it's really about the woman after all and about taking control of her body. A fertilized egg is nothing unless it is somewhere where it can be used as a tool to subjugate women.


----------



## Ravi

Anguille said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I did answer this...so the snide posturing is kinda weird...
> 
> I think that the fertilized egg needs to be IN a woman and growing to be life...and therefore no prosecution until it's at that stage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. So it's really about the woman after all and about taking control of her body. A fertilized egg is nothing unless it is somewhere where it can be used as a tool to subjugate women.
Click to expand...

In his case, absolutely.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Vanquish said:


> I believe I did answer this...so the snide posturing is kinda weird...
> 
> I think that the fertilized egg needs to be IN a woman and growing to be life...and therefore no prosecution until it's at that stage.



Well then most of the anti-choicers in this thread think you're full of shit.


----------



## AllieBaba

This is the reason pro-life people generally have a problem with genetic engineering and such as well.

I think a fertilized egg, regardless of where it's residing, is a developing human. I shudder at the thought of farming them and *disposing* of them.


----------



## taichiliberal

Gadawg73 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time when speaking of contraception would get you into trouble.
> That was a no no.
> Until many Americans, mostly men, understand that even the Founders understood the problems with legislating a women's reproductive system we will never get anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in the original Constitution that indicates the Founders even contemplated women's rights as we understand them today....let alone a reproductive system.
> 
> Bottom line: the Constitution has evloved and adapted via the Bill of Rights, amendments and SCOTUS rulings which has resulted in Roe versus Wade....we should deal with that rather than detour into "what might have been" speculations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit.
> Where has anyone stated anything about "what might have been"?
Click to expand...


YOU stated, ".... even the Founders understood the problems with legislating a women's reproductive system..."  I just pointed out that statement has no basis in reality.  Other than that, we're pretty much on the same wavelength on this issue.


----------



## Vanquish

Anguille said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I did answer this...so the snide posturing is kinda weird...
> 
> I think that the fertilized egg needs to be IN a woman and growing to be life...and therefore no prosecution until it's at that stage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. So it's really about the woman after all and about taking control of her body. A fertilized egg is nothing unless it is somewhere where it can be used as a tool to subjugate women.
Click to expand...


No, you sanctimonius thunderc@#t. I don't want to subjugate anyone. 

What I'm saying is that a fertilized egg that's not in a mother and growing is missing one of the IMPORTANT parts of the life equation - the mother.

I'm actually SAYING THE MOTHER IS IMPORTANT you retarded assclown.  This entire little side-track is simply an attempt to take an idea to an absurd extreme to somehow justify the pro-death/abortionist point of view.

Get your head out of your ass and stop mutherfucking insulting people who aren't insulting you, cumbubble.


----------



## Ravi

Vanquish said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I did answer this...so the snide posturing is kinda weird...
> 
> I think that the fertilized egg needs to be IN a woman and growing to be life...and therefore no prosecution until it's at that stage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. So it's really about the woman after all and about taking control of her body. A fertilized egg is nothing unless it is somewhere where it can be used as a tool to subjugate women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you sanctimonius thunderc@#t. I don't want to subjugate anyone.
> 
> What I'm saying is that a fertilized egg that's not in a mother and growing is missing one of the IMPORTANT parts of the life equation - the mother.
> 
> I'm actually SAYING THE MOTHER IS IMPORTANT you retarded assclown.  This entire little side-track is simply an attempt to take an idea to an absurd extreme to somehow justify the pro-death/abortionist point of view.
> 
> Get your head out of your ass and stop mutherfucking insulting people who aren't insulting you, cumbubble.
Click to expand...

You pretty much proved her correct with your sexist insult.

Good work.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Ravi said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. So it's really about the woman after all and about taking control of her body. A fertilized egg is nothing unless it is somewhere where it can be used as a tool to subjugate women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you sanctimonius thunderc@#t. I don't want to subjugate anyone.
> 
> What I'm saying is that a fertilized egg that's not in a mother and growing is missing one of the IMPORTANT parts of the life equation - the mother.
> 
> I'm actually SAYING THE MOTHER IS IMPORTANT you retarded assclown.  This entire little side-track is simply an attempt to take an idea to an absurd extreme to somehow justify the pro-death/abortionist point of view.
> 
> Get your head out of your ass and stop mutherfucking insulting people who aren't insulting you, cumbubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You pretty much proved her correct with your sexist insult.
> 
> Good work.
Click to expand...


How is  this sexist?


----------



## Vanquish

It's not sexist. Ravi's just trying to score cheap points.

Apparently not noticing the part where I say the Mother is a necessary, important part of the equation.
Good work, Rav.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Vanquish said:


> It's not sexist. Ravi's just trying to score cheap points.
> 
> Apparently not noticing the part where I say the Mother is a necessary, important part of the equation.
> Good work, Rav.



So... I got nothing, so I'll through out the race/gender card.

Yup.. seems to be a popular tactic with these folks.


----------



## Anguille

Vanquish said:


> It's not sexist. Ravi's just trying to score cheap points.
> 
> Apparently not noticing the part where I say the Mother is a necessary, important part of the equation.
> Good work, Rav.



I notice you say "Mother" not woman. A woman is only important to you in her role as baby incubator. 

Ravi was right on. You have no concept of women as human beings, nor even zygotes, since, as I said, you only see them as a tool for subjugating women.

I know it's not easy to recognise hypocrisy in yourself. Give yourself some time. You'll see what I mean.


----------



## Immanuel

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you sanctimonius thunderc@#t. I don't want to subjugate anyone.
> 
> What I'm saying is that a fertilized egg that's not in a mother and growing is missing one of the IMPORTANT parts of the life equation - the mother.
> 
> I'm actually SAYING THE MOTHER IS IMPORTANT you retarded assclown.  This entire little side-track is simply an attempt to take an idea to an absurd extreme to somehow justify the pro-death/abortionist point of view.
> 
> Get your head out of your ass and stop mutherfucking insulting people who aren't insulting you, cumbubble.
> 
> 
> 
> You pretty much proved her correct with your sexist insult.
> 
> Good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is  this sexist?
Click to expand...




Vanquish said:


> It's not sexist. Ravi's just trying to score cheap points.
> 
> Apparently not noticing the part where I say the Mother is a necessary, important part of the equation.
> Good work, Rav.



Maybe it was the words: "sanctimonius thunderc@#t"?

That might have lead her to pronounce the post: sexist.  Don't you think?

Immie


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Immanuel said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pretty much proved her correct with your sexist insult.
> 
> Good work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is  this sexist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not sexist. Ravi's just trying to score cheap points.
> 
> Apparently not noticing the part where I say the Mother is a necessary, important part of the equation.
> Good work, Rav.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe it was the words: "*sanctimonius thunderc@#t*"?
> 
> That might have lead her to pronounce the post: sexist.  Don't you think?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I assume this means thundercunt... so what?

Good grief.  I've been called a dick... who cares.

Actually, if a woman referred to me as _thunderdick_, that would be awesome!


----------



## Immanuel

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is  this sexist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not sexist. Ravi's just trying to score cheap points.
> 
> Apparently not noticing the part where I say the Mother is a necessary, important part of the equation.
> Good work, Rav.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe it was the words: "*sanctimonius thunderc@#t*"?
> 
> That might have lead her to pronounce the post: sexist.  Don't you think?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume this means thundercunt... so what?
> 
> Good grief.  I've been called a dick... who cares.
> 
> Actually, if a woman referred to me as _thunderdick_, that would be awesome!
Click to expand...


Hehe, 

I can understand.  I was only answering the question.  

Although, you have to admit there is a different connotation between the two terms.  

Immie


----------



## Vanquish

Anguille said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not sexist. Ravi's just trying to score cheap points.
> 
> Apparently not noticing the part where I say the Mother is a necessary, important part of the equation.
> Good work, Rav.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you say "Mother" not woman. A woman is only important to you in her role as baby incubator.
> 
> Ravi was right on. You have no concept of women as human beings, nor even zygotes, since, as I said, you only see them as a tool for subjugating women.
> 
> I know it's not easy to recognise hypocrisy in yourself. Give yourself some time. You'll see what I mean.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. You're making distinctions where there are none. I respect women. I realize that not all women should be mothers. I realize that women who elect not to be mothers are just as valuable and worthwhile.

You're mischaracterizing me on purpose...and you know you're doing it, toolbag.  Here we go again down your radical left agenda road. Any time someone actually VALUES motherhood they're evil.

Let's turn that same light around on you, dickwad. You don't value motherhood, you're a sexist evil, commie bastard.  That about cover it? That's the same bullshit you're doing to me.

For the record, I have no clue what anyone's sexes are on this board. People's avatars have no record of being correct in my mind.


----------



## Vanquish

Let's not forget I WAS THE ONE TO BE INSULTED first.  All my rage is coming from that particular bit of bullshit.


----------



## Ravi

Hey Anguille, pointing out that calling someone a **** is sexist is now considered sexist.


----------



## Vanquish

Nice try, but no, dipshit.

The sexism charge comes from the bevy of insults hurled at me simply because I'm a MAN and I have an opinion about the value of motherhood.

More fucking bullshit. And you wonder why people won't debate shit with you. Actually you probably don't wonder. You just float along believing your own bullshit.


----------



## Anguille

Vanquish said:


> Nice try, but no, dipshit.
> 
> The sexism charge comes from the bevy of insults hurled at me simply because I'm a MAN and I have an opinion about the value of motherhood.
> 
> More fucking bullshit. And you wonder why people won't debate shit with you. Actually you probably don't wonder. You just float along believing your own bullshit.



When did you tell us you were a man? 

I think I must have hit a nerve with you when I pointed out your hypocrisy and misogyny and that's why you lost your cool and started insulting people with obscenities. Call me **** till the cows come home. I doesn't change the fact that your posts indicate you view women primarily as breed cows.


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it was the words: "*sanctimonius thunderc@#t*"?
> 
> That might have lead her to pronounce the post: sexist.  Don't you think?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume this means thundercunt... so what?
> 
> Good grief.  I've been called a dick... who cares.
> 
> Actually, if a woman referred to me as _thunderdick_, that would be awesome!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hehe,
> 
> I can understand.  I was only answering the question.
> 
> Although, you have to admit there is a different connotation between the two terms.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

I imagine Soggy was only trying to inject some levity into the situation. So in gratitude I will henceforth refer to him as "Thunderdick"


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume this means thundercunt... so what?
> 
> Good grief.  I've been called a dick... who cares.
> 
> Actually, if a woman referred to me as _thunderdick_, that would be awesome!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hehe,
> 
> I can understand.  I was only answering the question.
> 
> Although, you have to admit there is a different connotation between the two terms.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I imagine Soggy was only trying to inject some levity into the situation. So in gratitude I will henceforth refer to him as "Thunderdick"
Click to expand...


You have to admit.  He did ask for it.

Immie


----------



## Ravi

Vanquish said:


> Nice try, but no, dipshit.
> 
> The sexism charge comes from the bevy of insults hurled at me simply because I'm a MAN and I have an opinion about the value of motherhood.
> 
> More fucking bullshit. And you wonder why people won't debate shit with you. Actually you probably don't wonder. You just float along believing your own bullshit.


 Idiot.


----------



## Vanquish

Anguille said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but no, dipshit.
> 
> The sexism charge comes from the bevy of insults hurled at me simply because I'm a MAN and I have an opinion about the value of motherhood.
> 
> More fucking bullshit. And you wonder why people won't debate shit with you. Actually you probably don't wonder. You just float along believing your own bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you tell us you were a man?
> 
> I think I must have hit a nerve with you when I pointed out your hypocrisy and misogyny and that's why you lost your cool and started insulting people with obscenities. Call me **** till the cows come home. I doesn't change the fact that your posts indicate you view women primarily as breed cows.
Click to expand...


I've said nothing of the kind that would lead any reasonable person would that in the least. That you persist in your character assassination (attempted) is proof of your radical hatred of men.

OMG!! All men are rape oppressors!


----------



## Anguille

Vanquish said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but no, dipshit.
> 
> The sexism charge comes from the bevy of insults hurled at me simply because I'm a MAN and I have an opinion about the value of motherhood.
> 
> More fucking bullshit. And you wonder why people won't debate shit with you. Actually you probably don't wonder. You just float along believing your own bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you tell us you were a man?
> 
> I think I must have hit a nerve with you when I pointed out your hypocrisy and misogyny and that's why you lost your cool and started insulting people with obscenities. Call me **** till the cows come home. I doesn't change the fact that your posts indicate you view women primarily as breed cows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said nothing of the kind that would lead any reasonable person would that in the least. That you persist in your character assassination (attempted) is proof of your radical hatred of men.
> 
> OMG!! All men are rape oppressors!
Click to expand...

What is a"rape oppressor"? Sounds like someone I would approve of. 

Vanquish, you been vanquished.


----------



## Vanquish

Not even close to being vanquished, but nice turn of phrase.

Rape oppressor is no doubt how you view all men - evil subjugators who impose their will at all turns. At least that's how your rabid posts make you out.  Have fun with that.

Back on topic - I added women/mothers to the equation because, FOR ME, the mere fertilized cells in a Petri dish still NEED the mother to become life. No crime if you're storing cells that have no attachment to the mother. Or disposing of them.

If the fertilized cells are in a vacuum, you're not stopping life...it needs the mother to START. Feel free to pick back up your incubator bullshit arguments if you want, but that's just logic people.


----------



## AllieBaba

Their mother is the woman from whom the egg comes.

They obviously don't need a mother to start. That's why it's important to define them as people in their own right. Because we can start humans outside the mother's body. They do it ALL THE TIME.


----------



## Anguille

Vanquish said:


> Not even close to being vanquished, but nice turn of phrase.
> 
> Rape oppressor is no doubt how you view all men - evil subjugators who impose their will at all turns. At least that's how your rabid posts make you out.  Have fun with that.
> 
> Back on topic - I added women/mothers to the equation because, FOR ME, the mere fertilized cells in a Petri dish still NEED the mother to become life. No crime if you're storing cells that have no attachment to the mother. Or disposing of them.
> 
> If the fertilized cells are in a vacuum, you're not stopping life...it needs the mother to START. Feel free to pick back up your incubator bullshit arguments if you want, but that's just logic people.



The fertilized cells are not kept in a vacuum. Biologically speaking they are no different than fertilized cells in a womb.


----------



## Vanquish

So you can bring a baby to term without a mother from start to finish?

WOW! We really do live in the future!


----------



## Vanquish

Guess that shut you up - which is just as well. You didn't really want to have a tempered, reasoned debate about this. You just wanted to say your radical, sexist "men are evil" shit and leave.

Can someone point people to this thread when they try to say I'm a liberal? I'm just sayin'.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again:
> 
> I believe it is in society's best interest to allow a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it best for society to allow homicide for any reason when the victim is very young?
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the first trimester time period of a pregnancy fairly represents that 'window'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? What, exactly, changes at the end of the first trimester that makes killing the child in cold blood no longer okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't tell me why I'm wrong.  You didn't state your own position and tell us why it's better.
Click to expand...


Why do you have to lie?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still haven't seen anyone answer these
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is shooting you in the face okay?
> 
> 
> If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your    fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from    being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a     not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
> _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why haven't you answered your own question?  Or is it fair to say that you believe an abortion is homicide from conception on?
> 
> Is that your position?
Click to expand...


Learn how to read


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> Until the embryo has developed a nervous system (which also means a brain), it's just a mass of cells.


Even today, you are just a mass of cells


----------



## JBeukema

Vast LWC said:


> Obviously, JB feels that abortion* should* be illegal



Do cite



> the meaning is clear.


Yes, it is. But you have to know how to read.


----------



## JBeukema

Why can't you people ever be honest?


----------



## Luissa

JBeukema said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, JB I could assume you are against the morning after pill?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Human life isn't important.
> 
> The morning after pill ends a human life, but does not end the existence of a mind- of a person. What matters is the individual, which is the sentient mind regardless of what system (fleshy, digital, or other) it arises from. When that mind ceases to be (the brain or other system from which arises ceases to function), the individual ceases to exist. That is the real death of a person.
> 
> If those systems are not yet operational, then the mind cannot have emerged. It does not yet exist and there is, therefore no individual to be harmed through the ending of the life of the system which might have one day given rise to a new mind. Killing a young foetus, then, is like dismantling the internet today. Each system might someday give rise to a new mind- a new individual person- but it has yet to do so. Therefore I cannot harm a non-existent individual by destroying that system.
> 
> See: theory of mind; epistemological solipsism
> 
> I have no way of knowing whether any of you are human or not. Nor do i really care. What matters is that you appear to me to be other minds. whether you emerge from a fleshy brain, a supercomputer, or some system I cannot even contemplate is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

When do you consider the brain to be operational?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people kill people for alleged crimes committed against them, it's called vigilantism. It's a crime.
> 
> Lots of people are perfectly justified in wanting other people dead. But they don't get to kill them, and if they do, they have committed murder. The only difference here is that the babies can't speak for themselves and have done absolutely nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us what the law should be then.  Tell us what abortion law in this country SHOULD look like.
Click to expand...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...tion-of-life-vs-protection-of-the-person.html


----------



## JBeukema

Luissa said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, JB I could assume you are against the morning after pill?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Human life isn't important.
> 
> The morning after pill ends a human life, but does not end the existence of a mind- of a person. What matters is the individual, which is the sentient mind regardless of what system (fleshy, digital, or other) it arises from. When that mind ceases to be (the brain or other system from which arises ceases to function), the individual ceases to exist. That is the real death of a person.
> 
> If those systems are not yet operational, then the mind cannot have emerged. It does not yet exist and there is, therefore no individual to be harmed through the ending of the life of the system which might have one day given rise to a new mind. Killing a young foetus, then, is like dismantling the internet today. Each system might someday give rise to a new mind- a new individual person- but it has yet to do so. Therefore I cannot harm a non-existent individual by destroying that system.
> 
> See: theory of mind; epistemological solipsism
> 
> I have no way of knowing whether any of you are human or not. Nor do i really care. What matters is that you appear to me to be other minds. whether you emerge from a fleshy brain, a supercomputer, or some system I cannot even contemplate is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When do you consider the brain to be operational?
Click to expand...

Erratic electrical impulses can be detected in about 6 weeks, but all structures necessary for higher brain function and the emergence of the individual sentient/intelligent mind are not present 'til near the end of the 1st trimester. I no longer have the original sources bookmarked, but could track them down if really necessary.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you presented any scientific evidence that a fertilized human egg has any resemblance to a born human being whatsoever, other than its DNA content?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need to, and why would HE need to?  It is unnecessary, ridiculous, and irrelevant to demand that an embryo look like anything other than an embryo.  A newborn infant doesn't look like an adult, and no one demands that he do so, much less that I "present scientific evidence" that he does.
> 
> At every stage in the human life span, from conception to death, the human organism looks exactly as he is supposed to look _at that point in his life _(barring severe, catastrophic defects, obviously).  That's all that's required.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, for the purposes of this particular thread, I just want to make the abortionistas be honest about the facts of the argument.  That's enough of an uphill battle to take on all by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> When did I ever say that chromosomes were my only evidence?  When in this thread have I said ANYTHING about chromosomes, as a matter of fact?  How's about you argue with me based on MY ACTUAL ARGUMENTS, rather than the arguments you'd LIKE me to have made?
> 
> I'm not going to restate those arguments and rehash the evidence just because YOU can't be bothered to read and pay attention.  Go back and look, or we can just consider this one more bit of evidence that you and your comrades are incapable of even the smallest iota of honesty on this subject.  Your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can no more claim a fertilized egg is a human than you can claim the blueprint for a house is a house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I can, and I have.  The fact that you just blew right past all the arguments in favor of "I want to believe she's claiming the DNA as evidence, so THAT'S what I'm going to argue against, never mind what she actually said" means nothing whatsoever.
> 
> Once again, go back and find my ACTUAL arguments, or continue on arguing with the voices in your head, thus proving that you bring nothing to the table.  Whichever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no scientific argument that magically turns a human zygote into a human person,  therefore there is no logical argument that science supports treating human zygotes AS persons.
Click to expand...



Care to define your terms?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Human life isn't important.
> 
> The morning after pill ends a human life, but does not end the existence of a mind- of a person. What matters is the individual, which is the sentient mind regardless of what system (fleshy, digital, or other) it arises from. When that mind ceases to be (the brain or other system from which arises ceases to function), the individual ceases to exist. That is the real death of a person.
> 
> If those systems are not yet operational, then the mind cannot have emerged. It does not yet exist and there is, therefore no individual to be harmed through the ending of the life of the system which might have one day given rise to a new mind. Killing a young foetus, then, is like dismantling the internet today. Each system might someday give rise to a new mind- a new individual person- but it has yet to do so. Therefore I cannot harm a non-existent individual by destroying that system.
> 
> See: theory of mind; epistemological solipsism
> 
> I have no way of knowing whether any of you are human or not. Nor do i really care. What matters is that you appear to me to be other minds. whether you emerge from a fleshy brain, a supercomputer, or some system I cannot even contemplate is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> When do you consider the brain to be operational?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Erratic electrical impulses can be detected in about 6 weeks, but all structures necessary for higher brain function and the emergence of the individual sentient/intelligent mind are not present 'til near the end of the 1st trimester. I no longer have the original sources bookmarked, but could track them down if really necessary.
Click to expand...


For the record, I consider the brain to be operational when the organism is capable of self-directing its own maintenance and development.  I no more apply the false standard of "must have a brain like that of an adult human" than I apply the false standard of "must look like an adult human".  It's unfair and kind of silly to penalize a creature for being exactly what nature intended it to be, simply because that isn't what YOU think it ought to be at that particular moment.


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> When do you consider the brain to be operational?
> 
> 
> 
> Erratic electrical impulses can be detected in about 6 weeks, but all structures necessary for higher brain function and the emergence of the individual sentient/intelligent mind are not present 'til near the end of the 1st trimester. I no longer have the original sources bookmarked, but could track them down if really necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the record, I consider the brain to be operational when the organism is capable of self-directing its own maintenance and development.
Click to expand...


Since when is a brain even necessary for homeostasis, growth, adaptation, or response to stimuli?

The rest of your post reads a lot like the animal liberation folk's rhetoric about animals.


----------



## JBeukema

Zoom-boing said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're bing disingenious.  I know of no one who is 'pro-abortion'.  If that were the case, abortion would be the only outcome that would satisfy them.  They would be lobbying for mandatory aboritions.  What you're calling pro-abortion is actually a name drummed up by those who don't want to have an honest conversation.
> 
> Pro-choice, which is a term, anti-abortionists will never use, is a simple position that says:
> 
> A woman has the right to determine if she will carry a baby to term.  This is not a determination for the government to make.  It is her choice.  It worked for Bristol Palin.  She could have aborted her son while he was a fetus, but she 'CHOSE" to carry to term.  *It's all about the woman's decision*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well on this we agree.  My first post in this thread said the very same thing.
> 
> For people on the "pro-choice" side of things, a woman's 'right to choose' trumps the unborns 'right to life'.
> 
> For people on the "pro-life" side of things, the unborns 'right to life' trumps a woman's 'right to choose'.
Click to expand...


>99% of the time, she made her choice when she opened her legs


----------



## JBeukema

Anguille said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't look like a clump of cells to me.
> 
> The 9-Week Fetus in Motion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like a human being either.
Click to expand...

All humans look like that at that age, barring severe developmental defects.


How can _x_ not look like _x_? 

Oh yeah, you're a dishonest sack of shit who can't admit what you advocate.


----------



## HUGGY

*Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Be Honest?*

Why is it always men that start threads on abortion?


----------



## JBeukema

HUGGY said:


> *Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Be Honest?*
> 
> Why is it always men that start threads on abortion?



Why is it you're so interested in the OP's genitalia?

Maybe you'd like to contribute to the discussion? Or is the thought of my cock too arousing to get out of your mind?


----------



## HUGGY

JBeukema said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Be Honest?*
> 
> Why is it always men that start threads on abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it you're so interested in the OP's genitalia?
> 
> Maybe you'd like to contribute to the discussion? Or is the thought of my cock too arousing to get out of your mind?
Click to expand...


WOW!  I had no idea you were gay.  I was contributing to the conversation noting that most anti abortion threads are started by someone that will never have to face such a decision.


----------



## JBeukema

Anguille said:


> Has anyone actually defined what "pro abortion" is supposed to mean as far as this thread is concerned?


If you thought it was referring to you, it was.


----------



## JBeukema

Agit8r said:


> *"Procreation is not a duty"* -- Ayn Rand


Have you seen a photo of that woman?

Her man left her for a woman he could look at without going limp.

No wonder she said adopted that view.


----------



## JBeukema

Chris said:


> An embryo is not a human being


Yes, it is. Biology outweighs your lies.





> , it is a collection of cells without consciousness.




Consciousness has nothing to do with whether an organism is human





> There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.


And?


> None of them are human beings.



Because you declare all science void?


----------



## JBeukema

HUGGY said:


> WOW!  I had no idea you were gay.


Why are you so concerned with another man's sexuality?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't look like a clump of cells to me.
> 
> The 9-Week Fetus in Motion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like a human being either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All humans look like that at that age, barring severe developmental defects.
> 
> 
> How can _x_ not look like _x_?
> 
> Oh yeah, you're a dishonest sack of shit who can't admit what you advocate.
Click to expand...


Why do you run away from debating the people who have stipulated that the embryo/fetuse is in fact human?


----------



## Gadawg73

JBeukema said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone actually defined what "pro abortion" is supposed to mean as far as this thread is concerned?
> 
> 
> 
> If you thought it was referring to you, it was.
Click to expand...


I have never met anyone that was pro abortion and no one here has ever defined what that means.
Ever.


----------



## HUGGY

JBeukema said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!  I had no idea you were gay.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so concerned with another man's sexuality?
Click to expand...


I think it is clear that I am surprised not concerned.  You being gay doesn't make you any more of a woman or any more likely to be in a position to have to make a relevant decision on abortion.

Don't use partial quotes.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Gadawg73 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone actually defined what "pro abortion" is supposed to mean as far as this thread is concerned?
> 
> 
> 
> If you thought it was referring to you, it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never met anyone that was pro abortion and no one here has ever defined what that means.
> Ever.
Click to expand...


'Pro-abortion' has simply become a propaganda term used by the anti-choicers as part of their arsenal of fallacious arguments against abortion rights.

It's very hard to make a logical argument against offering women a legally protected reasonable window of opportunity to choose to terminate a pregnancy,

in fact, I've heard never one (take that as a challenge, folks).  Thus, of course, the illogical arguments against that choice rule the debate,

from the anti-choice side.

This thread is a perfect example.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like a human being either.
> 
> 
> 
> All humans look like that at that age, barring severe developmental defects.
> 
> 
> How can _x_ not look like _x_?
> 
> Oh yeah, you're a dishonest sack of shit who can't admit what you advocate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you run away from debating the people who have stipulated that the embryo/fetuse is in fact human?
Click to expand...

Do cite.

Why do you have to lie?


----------



## JBeukema

JBeukema said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!  I had no idea you were gay.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so concerned with another man's sexuality?
Click to expand...




			
				mudwhistle said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -166 reputation points from mudwhistle.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> He said he lied, so fuck you.
> 
> Regards,
> mudwhistle
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.


He's obsessed with my cock because he's a liar and that makes you want to get in bed with me?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!  I had no idea you were gay.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so concerned with another man's sexuality?
Click to expand...


Because it facilitates his fantasies?


----------



## initforme

I see the utter HYPOCRISY of both sides of this issue.   There are those who are pro abortion.   To me that is abomination.   On the other hand, there are those that are pro life - until the child is born.   After that, the parent is on their own.  Well if its a situation where things are tough, then use taxpayer dollars to help support the child.   Pro life means promoting a normal life well after the child is born.


----------



## Gadawg73

initforme said:


> I see the utter HYPOCRISY of both sides of this issue.   There are those who are pro abortion.   To me that is abomination.   On the other hand, there are those that are pro life - until the child is born.   After that, the parent is on their own.  Well if its a situation where things are tough, then use taxpayer dollars to help support the child.   Pro life means promoting a normal life well after the child is born.



Who is pro abortion? I have never met anyone that is pro abortion. 
Why do I have to raise a child with my tax dollars? If women have children they can not afford then they need to think twice about that. If they can not raise the child then their family should help her, not the taxpayers. That is the problem we have now. That mentality encourages women to have kids out of wedlock.
The fathers, NOT THE TAXPAYERS should be made to pay. Never the taxpayers.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Gadawg73 said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the utter HYPOCRISY of both sides of this issue.   There are those who are pro abortion.   To me that is abomination.   On the other hand, there are those that are pro life - until the child is born.   After that, the parent is on their own.  Well if its a situation where things are tough, then use taxpayer dollars to help support the child.   Pro life means promoting a normal life well after the child is born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is pro abortion? I have never met anyone that is pro abortion.
> Why do I have to raise a child with my tax dollars? If women have children they can not afford then they need to think twice about that. If they can not raise the child then their family should help her, not the taxpayers. That is the problem we have now. That mentality encourages women to have kids out of wedlock.
> The fathers, NOT THE TAXPAYERS should be made to pay. Never the taxpayers.
Click to expand...


In a Utopian World that would be the case. But we are humans.


----------



## Gadawg73

Truthseeker420 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the utter HYPOCRISY of both sides of this issue.   There are those who are pro abortion.   To me that is abomination.   On the other hand, there are those that are pro life - until the child is born.   After that, the parent is on their own.  Well if its a situation where things are tough, then use taxpayer dollars to help support the child.   Pro life means promoting a normal life well after the child is born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is pro abortion? I have never met anyone that is pro abortion.
> Why do I have to raise a child with my tax dollars? If women have children they can not afford then they need to think twice about that. If they can not raise the child then their family should help her, not the taxpayers. That is the problem we have now. That mentality encourages women to have kids out of wedlock.
> The fathers, NOT THE TAXPAYERS should be made to pay. Never the taxpayers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a Utopian World that would be the case. But we are humans.
Click to expand...


And humans should be responsible and if they aren't then there should be consequences for the bad choices they make.
If not then we end up with what we have now. A failed system.
Taxpayers don't raise children and should never be forced to pay for someone else that is unqualified to do so. PARENTS do. If you are not mature enough to raise your own children then someone that is CAN.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Gadawg73 said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is pro abortion? I have never met anyone that is pro abortion.
> Why do I have to raise a child with my tax dollars? If women have children they can not afford then they need to think twice about that. If they can not raise the child then their family should help her, not the taxpayers. That is the problem we have now. That mentality encourages women to have kids out of wedlock.
> The fathers, NOT THE TAXPAYERS should be made to pay. Never the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Utopian World that would be the case. But we are humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And humans should be responsible and if they aren't then there should be consequences for the bad choices they make.
> If not then we end up with what we have now. A failed system.
> Taxpayers don't raise children and should never be forced to pay for someone else that is unqualified to do so. PARENTS do. If you are not mature enough to raise your own children then someone that is CAN.
Click to expand...


We shouldn't be forced to pay for bad decisions(criminal) bankers made either. But the question what do we do? And is helping a woman raise a child worth preventing an abortion?


----------



## Gadawg73

Truthseeker420 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a Utopian World that would be the case. But we are humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And humans should be responsible and if they aren't then there should be consequences for the bad choices they make.
> If not then we end up with what we have now. A failed system.
> Taxpayers don't raise children and should never be forced to pay for someone else that is unqualified to do so. PARENTS do. If you are not mature enough to raise your own children then someone that is CAN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We shouldn't be forced to pay for bad decisions(criminal) bankers made either. But the question what do we do? And is helping a woman raise a child worth preventing an abortion?
Click to expand...


LOL, if a woman is dumb enough to have a child they can not afford how can she raise it?
Giving an 18 year old child cash, housing, food stamps, WIC, and other benefits helps raise a child?
You have lost your mind.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Gadawg73 said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And humans should be responsible and if they aren't then there should be consequences for the bad choices they make.
> If not then we end up with what we have now. A failed system.
> Taxpayers don't raise children and should never be forced to pay for someone else that is unqualified to do so. PARENTS do. If you are not mature enough to raise your own children then someone that is CAN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't be forced to pay for bad decisions(criminal) bankers made either. But the question what do we do? And is helping a woman raise a child worth preventing an abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, if a woman is dumb enough to have a child they can not afford how can she raise it?
> Giving an 18 year old child cash, housing, food stamps, WIC, and other benefits helps raise a child?
> You have lost your mind.
Click to expand...


No woman knows if they can afford a child or not? I would trust an 18 year old being more responsible with my tax dollars than a 50 year old banker.


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And humans should be responsible and if they aren't then there should be consequences for the bad choices they make.
> If not then we end up with what we have now. A failed system.
> Taxpayers don't raise children and should never be forced to pay for someone else that is unqualified to do so. PARENTS do. If you are not mature enough to raise your own children then someone that is CAN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't be forced to pay for bad decisions(criminal) bankers made either. But the question what do we do? And is helping a woman raise a child worth preventing an abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, if a woman is dumb enough to have a child they can not afford how can she raise it?
> Giving an 18 year old child cash, housing, food stamps, WIC, and other benefits helps raise a child?
> You have lost your mind.
Click to expand...

 
How on earth you can say that providing a child with food and shelter is not helping that child, I don't know.

So you really think poor kids are better off dead?

Do you think we should end all assistance to children? Because that's what you just said. That it doesn't do any good....and if it doesn't do any good, then it follows you think it should be eradicated.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't be forced to pay for bad decisions(criminal) bankers made either. But the question what do we do? And is helping a woman raise a child worth preventing an abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, if a woman is dumb enough to have a child they can not afford how can she raise it?
> Giving an 18 year old child cash, housing, food stamps, WIC, and other benefits helps raise a child?
> You have lost your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How on earth you can say that providing a child with food and shelter is not helping that child, I don't know.
> 
> So you really think poor kids are better off dead?
> 
> Do you think we should end all assistance to children? Because that's what you just said. That it doesn't do any good....and if it doesn't do any good, then it follows you think it should be eradicated.
Click to expand...


The system we have in place is:
Any woman can get pregnant at age 18, demand housing, WIC, food stamps, energy assistance and free health care.
And one wonders why at age 19 she has another child. 
You take the child from this incompetent 18 year old mother and place it in another home.
And see how fast the current failed system changes over night.
Alliie speaks out of both sides of her mouth. She speaks all the time about how bad these mothers are and now she wants them to raise the kids.
No one said leave them for dead dumbass.


----------



## AllieBaba

You're a fucking idiot. But that doesn't stop you from blathering nonsensically about topics you know nothing about.

So carry on, I guess.


----------



## JBeukema

Democrats always go on about how hard it is for their slutty daughters to get birth control.

Yet they have no problem finding an abortionist.

Why is that?

Maybe you should teach your kids where the condoms are at Walgreens instead of where all those beloved old hags with hangers are that you talk about so much.


----------



## JBeukema

JBeukema said:


> Democrats always go on about how hard it is for their slutty daughters to get birth control.
> 
> Yet they have no problem finding an abortionist.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Maybe you should teach your kids where the condoms are at Walgreens instead of where all those beloved old hags with hangers are that you talk about so much.





			
				Vanquish said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -21 reputation points from Vanquish.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.




I guess the truth hurts.

So, Van... why can these girls find an abortionist but not a box of condoms?


----------



## taichiliberal

Poster JBeukema has stated that abortion is used as birth control in "93% of the cases".  I have repeatedly asked him to produce the link to the agency (state, federal, private) that has stated this statistic.  To date, JB just keeps stating that the link is "in this thread", but will NOT produce it him/herself.

This is a pattern similar to the one recently pulled by Senator John Kyl (R-AZ), when he stated on the Senate floor "If you want an abortion you go to Planned Parenthood and that is what Planned Parenthood does.....well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does"....when in fact it's actually 3%, of which NO GOV'T funding can be applied by law.  Now since this incident, Kyl's aides made a public statement saying that what he said on the Senate floor was "not intended to be a factual statement"....and subsequently he had the statement scrubbed from the Congressional record!  But unfortunately for Kyl, the internet doesn't easily forget.

Now the Only Evidence That Jon Kyl Lied About Planned Parenthood Will Be the Entire Internet -- Daily Intel

ThinkProgress » Defending Riders, Sen. Kyl Falsely Claims 90 Percent Of Planned Parenthood

It should be REAL interesting to see if JB will continue to bluff and bluster while avoiding a simple burden of proof.


----------



## JBeukema

*
** RETARD*​ 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487476

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487904

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-60.html#post3497540


----------



## JBeukema

Seriously, why can't you people ever be honest?

Why do you have to lie about what you advocate? Unless your own conscience tells you it's indefensible...


----------



## digger

OK, I'll be honest. I crave baby flesh. Have ever since I can remember. I'm never really content unless I have baby flesh. And legal abortion provides me with a steady and convenient supply. If abortion were illegal, I would have to go to all sorts of trouble to find the back alley abortion providers. So really I'm just in it for the expedience.


----------



## taichiliberal

JBeukema said:


> *
> ** RETARD*​
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487476
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487904
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-60.html#post3497540



You are retarded, JB...because ther reports claims that the title social reasons *include instances*  such as the mother deciding the child is unwanted or 'inconvenient'. 

That DOES NOT mean that 93% of abortions are for those reasons alone, you willfully ignorant clod.  "Instances" does not equate "totality". Go back and read what comes under Guttmacher's heading of "social reasons"...or get an adult you trust to explain it to you.


----------



## hipeter924

Abortion should be allowed on cases of rape, or due to the poverty of the parents (especially in Africa where population growth is out of control). 

Where it gets complex is over cases with genetic defects, some are so severe (aka no stomach or heart) that they necessitate abortion, but I disagree over disability and minor defects. Myself having a disability (and recovered from it), I have to imagine what if my parents had aborted me, what if parents aborted children because they had a leg missing, or because they were autistic, dyslexic and so on. In my opinion that is murder.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> All humans look like that at that age, barring severe developmental defects.
> 
> 
> How can _x_ not look like _x_?
> 
> Oh yeah, you're a dishonest sack of shit who can't admit what you advocate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you run away from debating the people who have stipulated that the embryo/fetuse is in fact human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do cite.
> 
> Why do you have to lie?
Click to expand...


It's true.  I've stipulated to your assertion that the embryo/fetus is human, but I've argued that that fact in and of itself does not change my opinion that it is a better option for our society to offer a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy, and to protect that as a right,

than it is to make any termination of any pregnancy, at any time, a crime.

You have offered nothing of substance to contradict that.

Now is your chance.  Here and now you can make the case that our society would be better served if your view was made law,

and your view was that abortion at any time ought to be at least the crime of manslaughter.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> Seriously, why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> Why do you have to lie about what you advocate? Unless your own conscience tells you it's indefensible...



I haven't.

What about my position have I lied about?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats always go on about how hard it is for their slutty daughters to get birth control.
> 
> Yet they have no problem finding an abortionist.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Maybe you should teach your kids where the condoms are at Walgreens instead of where all those beloved old hags with hangers are that you talk about so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -21 reputation points from Vanquish.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the truth hurts.
> 
> So, Van... why can these girls find an abortionist but not a box of condoms?
Click to expand...


Who can't find condoms?  Who specifically has made that complaint?


----------



## NYcarbineer

NYcarbineer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you thought it was referring to you, it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never met anyone that was pro abortion and no one here has ever defined what that means.
> Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Pro-abortion' has simply become a propaganda term used by the anti-choicers as part of their arsenal of fallacious arguments against abortion rights.
> 
> *It's very hard to make a logical argument against offering women a legally protected reasonable window of opportunity to choose to terminate a pregnancy,
> 
> in fact, I've heard never one (take that as a challenge, folks).  Thus, of course, the illogical arguments against that choice rule the debate*,
> 
> from the anti-choice side.This thread is a perfect example.
Click to expand...


And as you see,

no matter how much you challenge them to do so, no anti-abortionists can step forward and make such an argument.


----------



## Immanuel

taichiliberal said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> ** RETARD*​
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487476
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487904
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-60.html#post3497540
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are retarded, JB...because ther reports claims that the title social reasons *include instances*  such as the mother deciding the child is unwanted or 'inconvenient'.
> 
> That DOES NOT mean that 93% of abortions are for those reasons alone, you willfully ignorant clod.  "Instances" does not equate "totality". Go back and read what comes under Guttmacher's heading of "social reasons"...or get an adult you trust to explain it to you.
Click to expand...


Here you go, TL:

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/011003/ov_ab.pdf

Page 10 shows the primary reasons that mothers undergo abortions.

93% of those are for convenience sake.  That does not mean those are easy decisions to make, but they were made for nothing more than birth control reasons.  Mommy simply didn't want the baby.  

According to Guttmacher, the average number of "reasons" a mother gives is I believe between 3 and 4.  I did not go back and look.  However, the primary reason is stated on page 10.  I think it is pretty evident that secondary reasons are generally nothing more than "excuses".

Immie


----------



## Gadawg73

Immanuel said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> ** RETARD*​
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487476
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487904
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-60.html#post3497540
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are retarded, JB...because ther reports claims that the title social reasons *include instances*  such as the mother deciding the child is unwanted or 'inconvenient'.
> 
> That DOES NOT mean that 93% of abortions are for those reasons alone, you willfully ignorant clod.  "Instances" does not equate "totality". Go back and read what comes under Guttmacher's heading of "social reasons"...or get an adult you trust to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go, TL:
> 
> http://www.guttmacher.org/media/011003/ov_ab.pdf
> 
> Page 10 shows the primary reasons that mothers undergo abortions.
> 
> 93% of those are for convenience sake.  That does not mean those are easy decisions to make, but they were made for nothing more than birth control reasons.  Mommy simply didn't want the baby.
> 
> According to Guttmacher, the average number of "reasons" a mother gives is I believe between 3 and 4.  I did not go back and look.  However, the primary reason is stated on page 10.  I think it is pretty evident that secondary reasons are generally nothing more than "excuses".
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I agree with that and believe it is wrong.
Facts are facts.
Facts are also that out of that 93% that do it for convenience only:
100% of them that have $$$ will find a doctor to legally perform the abortion for "the safety of the mother" and not be challenged at all.
The others that have no $$ will have the kids that they do not want and do not know how to care for.
Abortion is terrible but no law stops it. Just adds more hypocrisy to it.


----------



## Immanuel

Gadawg73 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are retarded, JB...because ther reports claims that the title social reasons *include instances*  such as the mother deciding the child is unwanted or 'inconvenient'.
> 
> That DOES NOT mean that 93% of abortions are for those reasons alone, you willfully ignorant clod.  "Instances" does not equate "totality". Go back and read what comes under Guttmacher's heading of "social reasons"...or get an adult you trust to explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, TL:
> 
> http://www.guttmacher.org/media/011003/ov_ab.pdf
> 
> Page 10 shows the primary reasons that mothers undergo abortions.
> 
> 93% of those are for convenience sake.  That does not mean those are easy decisions to make, but they were made for nothing more than birth control reasons.  Mommy simply didn't want the baby.
> 
> According to Guttmacher, the average number of "reasons" a mother gives is I believe between 3 and 4.  I did not go back and look.  However, the primary reason is stated on page 10.  I think it is pretty evident that secondary reasons are generally nothing more than "excuses".
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with that and believe it is wrong.
> Facts are facts.
> Facts are also that out of that 93% that do it for convenience only:
> 100% of them that have $$$ will find a doctor to legally perform the abortion for "the safety of the mother" and not be challenged at all.
> The others that have no $$ will have the kids that they do not want and do not know how to care for.
> Abortion is terrible but no law stops it. Just adds more hypocrisy to it.
Click to expand...




> Abortion is terrible but no law stops it.



I am not quite sure that you don't mean what I am about to write but I'm not sure if your wording is just different than what I think or you meant something else.

Overturning Roe won't end or even reduce the number of abortions.  I know Allie disagrees with me on that and has numbers to back up her claim that there was a huge increase in the number of abortions (I contend the increase was in the number of reported abortions).  However, things are different today than they were almost 40 years ago when Roe became the law of the land.  Simply making abortion illegal (even in every state) would not reduce the numbers.  With the available drugs we have today, nothing would change.

Overturning Roe is not the answer to reducing the number of abortions.  The answer is dependent upon education and changing the views of society both in regards to sex and abortion.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

NYcarbineer said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never met anyone that was pro abortion and no one here has ever defined what that means.
> Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pro-abortion' has simply become a propaganda term used by the anti-choicers as part of their arsenal of fallacious arguments against abortion rights.
> 
> *It's very hard to make a logical argument against offering women a legally protected reasonable window of opportunity to choose to terminate a pregnancy,*
> 
> *in fact, I've heard never one (take that as a challenge, folks). Thus, of course, the illogical arguments against that choice rule the debate*,
> 
> from the anti-choice side.This thread is a perfect example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as you see,
> 
> no matter how much you challenge them to do so, no anti-abortionists can step forward and make such an argument.
Click to expand...

 
What a lie. But of course, if you're to promote the killing of children, you have to lie. There is no way to defend it, otherwise.
There are many arguments against it. The primary ones are  that the abortion system protects child rapists, and devalues the lives of children.


----------



## R.D.

Gadawg73 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone actually defined what "pro abortion" is supposed to mean as far as this thread is concerned?
> 
> 
> 
> If you thought it was referring to you, it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never met anyone that was pro abortion and no one here has ever defined what that means.
> Ever.
Click to expand...


Meh, you always say that.  Still not impressed.  Pro abortion is exactly as it sounds.  Many of us have provided you with proof, links and quotes from proud pro abortion folks and you just ignore us.


----------



## AllieBaba

Immanuel said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, TL:
> 
> http://www.guttmacher.org/media/011003/ov_ab.pdf
> 
> Page 10 shows the primary reasons that mothers undergo abortions.
> 
> 93% of those are for convenience sake. That does not mean those are easy decisions to make, but they were made for nothing more than birth control reasons. Mommy simply didn't want the baby.
> 
> According to Guttmacher, the average number of "reasons" a mother gives is I believe between 3 and 4. I did not go back and look. However, the primary reason is stated on page 10. I think it is pretty evident that secondary reasons are generally nothing more than "excuses".
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that and believe it is wrong.
> Facts are facts.
> Facts are also that out of that 93% that do it for convenience only:
> 100% of them that have $$$ will find a doctor to legally perform the abortion for "the safety of the mother" and not be challenged at all.
> The others that have no $$ will have the kids that they do not want and do not know how to care for.
> Abortion is terrible but no law stops it. Just adds more hypocrisy to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is terrible but no law stops it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not quite sure that you don't mean what I am about to write but I'm not sure if your wording is just different than what I think or you meant something else.
> 
> Overturning Roe won't end or even reduce the number of abortions. I know Allie disagrees with me on that and has numbers to back up her claim that there was a huge increase in the number of abortions (I contend the increase was in the number of reported abortions). However, things are different today than they were almost 40 years ago when Roe became the law of the land. Simply making abortion illegal (even in ever state) would not reduce the numbers. With the available drugs we have today, nothing would change.
> 
> Overturning Roe is not the answer to reducing the number of abortions. The answer is dependent upon education and changing the views of society both in regards to sex and abortion.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 I don't understand why you're so committed to a theory that is patently unreasonable. Of COURSE abortions would decrease if abortion were illegal. The numbers do support that. Before Roe v. Wade, not only were people not obtaining abortions like hotcakes, they weren't getting pregnant at the rate they started getting pregnant at after it passed. Unplanned pregnancies went through the roof with the advent of legalized abortion and the promotion of sex among the young and unmarried. 

And our young people are already educated to death about sex, and from a young age. I find it amazing that people still claim that increased information and encouragement to fuck will prevent pregnancy. We've been teaching them these things for decades, and STILL the abortion rate increased, pretty much in lock step with abortion accessibility and increased outreach.

Now I don't have any problem with kids learning the mechanics of sex in school, at an appropriate age. I do, however, draw the line at the promotion of sex in the schools via PP outreach, abortion advertisement, and the distribution of condoms by school employees. "Come to school and get laid! It's okay! We'll escort you to the abortion clinic, girls, and protect the men who take advantage of you! Woo hoo!" 

You mix up this attitude that "sex is great and natural among the underaged" with the fact that more sex offenders work in the education system than in ANY OTHER PROFESSION and I call foul. Stop pimping out our kids in the name of "education". It's disgusting.


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are retarded, JB...because ther reports claims that the title social reasons *include instances* such as the mother deciding the child is unwanted or 'inconvenient'.
> 
> That DOES NOT mean that 93% of abortions are for those reasons alone, you willfully ignorant clod. "Instances" does not equate "totality". Go back and read what comes under Guttmacher's heading of "social reasons"...or get an adult you trust to explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, TL:
> 
> http://www.guttmacher.org/media/011003/ov_ab.pdf
> 
> Page 10 shows the primary reasons that mothers undergo abortions.
> 
> 93% of those are for convenience sake. That does not mean those are easy decisions to make, but they were made for nothing more than birth control reasons. Mommy simply didn't want the baby.
> 
> According to Guttmacher, the average number of "reasons" a mother gives is I believe between 3 and 4. I did not go back and look. However, the primary reason is stated on page 10. I think it is pretty evident that secondary reasons are generally nothing more than "excuses".
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with that and believe it is wrong.
> Facts are facts.
> Facts are also that out of that 93% that do it for convenience only:
> 100% of them that have $$$ will find a doctor to legally perform the abortion for "the safety of the mother" and not be challenged at all.
> *The others that have no $$ will have the kids that they do not want and do not know how to care for*.
> Abortion is terrible but no law stops it. Just adds more hypocrisy to it.
Click to expand...

 
So you honestly think that all poor women who get knocked up are too stupid to round up $500 for an abortion and too stupid to care for a child?

That's ridiculous. There is absolutely NO correlation between abortion and child abuse or neglect. NONE. There is no evidence that abortion prevents any sort of child abuse or child neglect. The people who abuse and neglect their children are NOT women who wanted abortions but *couldn't* get them. 

And what makes you think that a woman who wants to kill her kid but can't would balk at putting the child up for adoption? Women who get pregnant can get a free ride throughout their pregnancy and all sorts of perks if they give the baby up for adoption. Do you really think poor women are universally too stupid to know that?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Grace said:


> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.



_"had it done"?_

Way to trivialize.


----------



## AllieBaba

What a dumb question. Of course you think poor women are too stupid to breathe. And that is the crux of the abortion issue. The reason it's being pushed is because the left wing nutjobs want to eliminate the poor and minority classes. It's not about what's best for the mom or the kids, and the silliness about child abuse is just an out and out lie. All it's about is getting rid of those despised groups of people.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, TL:
> 
> http://www.guttmacher.org/media/011003/ov_ab.pdf
> 
> Page 10 shows the primary reasons that mothers undergo abortions.
> 
> 93% of those are for convenience sake. That does not mean those are easy decisions to make, but they were made for nothing more than birth control reasons. Mommy simply didn't want the baby.
> 
> According to Guttmacher, the average number of "reasons" a mother gives is I believe between 3 and 4. I did not go back and look. However, the primary reason is stated on page 10. I think it is pretty evident that secondary reasons are generally nothing more than "excuses".
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that and believe it is wrong.
> Facts are facts.
> Facts are also that out of that 93% that do it for convenience only:
> 100% of them that have $$$ will find a doctor to legally perform the abortion for "the safety of the mother" and not be challenged at all.
> *The others that have no $$ will have the kids that they do not want and do not know how to care for*.
> Abortion is terrible but no law stops it. Just adds more hypocrisy to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you honestly think that all poor women who get knocked up are too stupid to round up $500 for an abortion and too stupid to care for a child?
> 
> That's ridiculous. There is absolutely NO correlation between abortion and child abuse or neglect. NONE. There is no evidence that abortion prevents any sort of child abuse or child neglect. The people who abuse and neglect their children are NOT women who wanted abortions but *couldn't* get them.
> 
> And what makes you think that a woman who wants to kill her kid but can't would balk at putting the child up for adoption? Women who get pregnant can get a free ride throughout their pregnancy and all sorts of perks if they give the baby up for adoption. Do you really think poor women are universally too stupid to know that?
Click to expand...


Abortion is all about flushing bad decisions down the drain.


----------



## AllieBaba

It's not about that. It's about convincing poor minorities that their children are worthless. It's also about dehumanizing and sexualizing children so they can better serve perverts.


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that and believe it is wrong.
> Facts are facts.
> Facts are also that out of that 93% that do it for convenience only:
> 100% of them that have $$$ will find a doctor to legally perform the abortion for "the safety of the mother" and not be challenged at all.
> The others that have no $$ will have the kids that they do not want and do not know how to care for.
> Abortion is terrible but no law stops it. Just adds more hypocrisy to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is terrible but no law stops it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not quite sure that you don't mean what I am about to write but I'm not sure if your wording is just different than what I think or you meant something else.
> 
> Overturning Roe won't end or even reduce the number of abortions. I know Allie disagrees with me on that and has numbers to back up her claim that there was a huge increase in the number of abortions (I contend the increase was in the number of reported abortions). However, things are different today than they were almost 40 years ago when Roe became the law of the land. Simply making abortion illegal (even in ever state) would not reduce the numbers. With the available drugs we have today, nothing would change.
> 
> Overturning Roe is not the answer to reducing the number of abortions. The answer is dependent upon education and changing the views of society both in regards to sex and abortion.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand why you're so committed to a theory that is patently unreasonable. Of COURSE abortions would decrease if abortion were illegal. The numbers do support that. Before Roe v. Wade, not only were people not obtaining abortions like hotcakes, they weren't getting pregnant at the rate they started getting pregnant at after it passed. Unplanned pregnancies went through the roof with the advent of legalized abortion and the promotion of sex among the young and unmarried.
> 
> And our young people are already educated to death about sex, and from a young age. I find it amazing that people still claim that increased information and encouragement to fuck will prevent pregnancy. We've been teaching them these things for decades, and STILL the abortion rate increased, pretty much in lock step with abortion accessibility and increased outreach.
> 
> Now I don't have any problem with kids learning the mechanics of sex in school, at an appropriate age. I do, however, draw the line at the promotion of sex in the schools via PP outreach, abortion advertisement, and the distribution of condoms by school employees. "Come to school and get laid! It's okay! We'll escort you to the abortion clinic, girls, and protect the men who take advantage of you! Woo hoo!"
> 
> You mix up this attitude that "sex is great and natural among the underaged" with the fact that more sex offenders work in the education system than in ANY OTHER PROFESSION and I call foul. Stop pimping out our kids in the name of "education". It's disgusting.
Click to expand...




> I don't understand why you're so committed to a theory that is patently unreasonable. Of COURSE abortions would decrease if abortion were illegal. The numbers do support that. Before Roe v. Wade, not only were people not obtaining abortions like hotcakes, they weren't getting pregnant at the rate they started getting pregnant at after it passed. Unplanned pregnancies went through the roof with the advent of legalized abortion and the promotion of sex among the young and unmarried.



Committed?  Hardly.

I disagree with you.  The world has changed in the 38 years of Roe.  The morals of this country have declined significantly and overturning Roe is not going to change that.   People think nothing of breaking the law, just look at the number of dope-smokers today.  Hell, I suspect those of us who have never smoked the shit are in the minority today.  Making abortion illegal won't reduce it at all as a percentage of the population that will get it and quite frankly, I don't believe that it changed all that significantly when it became legal.  What changed was the safety in admitting that one was preformed.  



> And our young people are already educated to death about sex, and from a young age. I find it amazing that people still claim that increased information and encouragement to fuck will prevent pregnancy. We've been teaching them these things for decades, and STILL the abortion rate increased, pretty much in lock step with abortion accessibility and increased outreach.



I said nothing about "increased information and encouragement" about sex.  The additional education I believe is necessary is in regards to life and what an abortion does.  That should be handled not only in the sex education classes but in science classes as well.



> Now I don't have any problem with kids learning the mechanics of sex in school, at an appropriate age. I do, however, draw the line at the promotion of sex in the schools via PP outreach, abortion advertisement, and the distribution of condoms by school employees. "Come to school and get laid! It's okay! We'll escort you to the abortion clinic, girls, and protect the men who take advantage of you! Woo hoo!"



Nor do I regarding the mechanics.  As do I in regards to the promotion.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Well I can't do much if you refuse to acknowledge the facts.


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Well I can't do much if you refuse to acknowledge the facts.



It seems to me that it is you that is unwilling to acknowledge facts.  For one, the fact, that life is so much different today than it was nearly 40 years ago.  

I wish I could agree with you, but I think you are wrong and worse than that, 100% dead wrong if Roe is overturned.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Yes, life is much different. Child abuse and abortion rates exploded after Roe v. Wade. That's a documented fact.


----------



## Vanquish

What's amazing to me is that people apply selective logic when it comes to abortion. They rationalize baby killing.

Hypo #1:
You've got a revolver with 6 chambers. 3 chambers have bullets in them. 3 don't. Would you put the gun to your head and pull the trigger?

Hypo #2
You have a fetus that's 1 week old in your belly. You can't afford to be a parent. Would you have an abortion?

In both hypotheticals, you have no concrete way of knowing whether your actions will result in murder.
So what's the difference? In the first hypo, most people wouldn't take the chance with their own life. In the second, they rationalize that it "might not be murder because we don't really know."

The lengths some people will go for convenience is astonishingly extreme.


----------



## AllieBaba

Immie, you've drunk the abortion Kool Aid and liked it, I see. You're so convinced that women are too stupid to function without having their uteruses scraped regularly that you're willing to throw the babies out with the dishwater, literally.

The thing is, it's not just the unborn babies that are hurt. It's the living breathing babies that are being abused, and whose abusers are being protected by PP, who are also being hurt. They are hurt by the fact that when we allow the slaughter of innocents, we in turn devalue ALL innocents. If an unborn baby is worth nothing, a 12 year old isn't worth much more. If we protect the people who get these young people pregnant, we are promoting child abuse.


----------



## JBeukema

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.






			
				Grace said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -89 reputation points from Grace.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Troll
> 
> Regards,
> Grace
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.




Asking for honesty is trolling?

If what you advocate isn't wrong, Grace, why do you have to lie about what you advocate?


----------



## JBeukema

taichiliberal said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> ** RETARD*​
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487476
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487904
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-60.html#post3497540
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are retarded, JB...because ther reports claims that the title social reasons *include instances*  such as the mother deciding the child is unwanted or 'inconvenient'.
> 
> That DOES NOT mean that 93% of abortions are for those reasons alone, you willfully ignorant clod.  "Instances" does not equate "totality". Go back and read what comes under Guttmacher's heading of "social reasons"...or get an adult you trust to explain it to you.
Click to expand...



Woman is concerned about how having a baby could change her life     16%
Think she'll be inconvenienced
Woman can't afford baby now     21%
inconvenient financial burden
Woman has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood     12%
afraid baby will be inconvenient burden when she wants to pursue career/go out and party
Woman is unready for responsibility     21%
straight inconvenience; doesn't want to grow the fuck up
Woman doesn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant     1%
revealing that she is sexually active would be a social inconvenience
Woman is not mature enough, or is too young to have a child     11%
doesn't want to grow up and be responsible for her actions; inconvenience
Woman has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children     8%
another baby would be an inconvenience
Husband or partner wants woman to have an abortion     1%
baby would be inconvenient as she got knocked up by the wrong dude
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%
Just over 7%
Other     3%


----------



## JBeukema

hipeter924 said:


> Abortion should be allowed on cases of rape



Why? Please explain how your parents' relationships effects whether or not it's okay to kill you.





> , or due to the poverty of the parents


Better for the kids to be dead than poor? Are you a eugenicist?




> but I disagree over disability and minor defects. Myself having a disability (and recovered from it), I have to imagine what if my parents had aborted me, what if parents aborted children because they had a leg missing, or because they were autistic, dyslexic and so on. In my opinion that is murder.



So better to be dead than poor, but better to be autistic than dead?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you run away from debating the people who have stipulated that the embryo/fetuse is in fact human?
> 
> 
> 
> Do cite.
> 
> Why do you have to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's true.  I've stipulated to your assertion that the embryo/fetus is human
Click to expand...


That's not an 'assertion'. That is a simple biological fact. Or did you get preggers from your dog like JD_2B?





> to make any termination of any pregnancy, at any time, a crime.



Who advocated that? Why do you have to lie and fight straw armies?



> You have offered nothing of substance to contradict that.



Only you have advocated any such thing, dumbass


> Now is your chance.  Here and now you can make the case that our society would be better served if your view was made law



You already agreed with me, genius


> and your view was that abortion at any time ought to be at least the crime of manslaughter.


Right after you explain why we should all adopt your view that every child should, at the age of two, be sodomized by a man with aids as a right of passage from infanthood to personhood


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats always go on about how hard it is for their slutty daughters to get birth control.
> 
> Yet they have no problem finding an abortionist.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Maybe you should teach your kids where the condoms are at Walgreens instead of where all those beloved old hags with hangers are that you talk about so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -21 reputation points from Vanquish.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the truth hurts.
> 
> So, Van... why can these girls find an abortionist but not a box of condoms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can't find condoms?  Who specifically has made that complaint?
Click to expand...


So now you people no longer say that getting condoms/birth control is a problem?

So these girls choose to not use condoms in order to get pregnant because they want to have abortions so they can prove to you how liberal they are?


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> more sex offenders work in the education system than in ANY OTHER PROFESSION .


Can you source that, please?


----------



## JBeukema

Someone please explain how these women can't find or can't afford a condom, the pill, the foam, and/or other means of avoiding pregnancy, but they can find and afford an abortionist.


----------



## Ravi

Jeesh...Buttemia is still here making an ass of himself?


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> Well I can't do much if you refuse to acknowledge the facts.



Allie, one of the rare posters on this board who thinks her prediction of what a potential future would bring is a fact.

I don't even think Miss Cleo does that.


----------



## JBeukema

Vanquish said:


> What's amazing to me is that people apply selective logic when it comes to abortion. They rationalize baby killing.
> 
> Hypo #1:
> You've got a revolver with 6 chambers. 3 chambers have bullets in them. 3 don't. Would you put the gun to your head and pull the trigger?
> 
> Hypo #2
> You have a fetus that's 1 week old in your belly. You can't afford to be a parent. Would you have an abortion?
> 
> In both hypotheticals, you have no concrete way of knowing whether your actions will result in murder.



If it's a revolver, you can see what chambers have rounds in them

And i have a guarantee in the second scenario, both legally and morally.


> So what's the difference? In the first hypo, most people wouldn't take the chance with their own life. In the second, they rationalize that it "might not be murder because we don't really know."



It ends a life. That is a simple scientific fact. Legally, it is not murder. Morally, it is also not 'murder', because there is no individual in existence to be harmed.


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Immie, you've drunk the abortion Kool Aid and liked it, I see. You're so convinced that women are too stupid to function without having their uteruses scraped regularly that you're willing to throw the babies out with the dishwater, literally.
> 
> The thing is, it's not just the unborn babies that are hurt. It's the living breathing babies that are being abused, and whose abusers are being protected by PP, who are also being hurt. They are hurt by the fact that when we allow the slaughter of innocents, we in turn devalue ALL innocents. If an unborn baby is worth nothing, a 12 year old isn't worth much more. If we protect the people who get these young people pregnant, we are promoting child abuse.



You are so off-base that it is not even funny.

I would be right there beside you, if your hypothesis had even an inkling of reality to it.  Instead you live in a fantasy world that says, "people are moral individuals and will never break the law.  If the law says abortions are illegal then women won't have abortions".  

Well, Allie, my friend, women were getting abortions before abortion was legal in the same percentages before it was legal as they are now.  The only difference is today they can claim it as a Constitutional Right whereas before they had to hide the fact that they underwent an abortion.  You seem to believe that on January 23, 1973 women suddenly began having abortions because it was legal now.  The sad fact is that they were having abortions before 1/23/73 but they were doing it illegally and not reporting it.  Doctors didn't start doing abortion on 1/23/73.  They were doing it before, but they were not reporting it and they were charging (literally) an arm and a leg to do it.

Beyond that... it is also a fact that overturning Roe today would not suddenly make abortion illegal.  It would simply revert it to the states and most likely the majority of states would still allow legal abortions in almost every case.  So, your little fantasy accomplishes zilch.  

Question: is reducing the number of abortions as important to you as winning the political point?

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> they were charging (literally) an arm and a leg to do it.


----------



## Immanuel

JBeukema said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> they were charging (literally) an arm and a leg to do it.
Click to expand...


Should I have included: "pun intended" in that post?

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Immanuel said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, you've drunk the abortion Kool Aid and liked it, I see. You're so convinced that women are too stupid to function without having their uteruses scraped regularly that you're willing to throw the babies out with the dishwater, literally.
> 
> The thing is, it's not just the unborn babies that are hurt. It's the living breathing babies that are being abused, and whose abusers are being protected by PP, who are also being hurt. They are hurt by the fact that when we allow the slaughter of innocents, we in turn devalue ALL innocents. If an unborn baby is worth nothing, a 12 year old isn't worth much more. If we protect the people who get these young people pregnant, we are promoting child abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so off-base that it is not even funny.
> 
> I would be right there beside you, if your hypothesis had even an inkling of reality to it. Instead you live in a fantasy world that says, "people are moral individuals and will never break the law. If the law says abortions are illegal then women won't have abortions".
> 
> Well, Allie, my friend, women were getting abortions before abortion was legal in the same percentages before it was legal as they are now. The only difference is today they can claim it as a Constitutional Right whereas before they had to hide the fact that they underwent an abortion. You seem to believe that on January 23, 1973 women suddenly began having abortions because it was legal now. The sad fact is that they were having abortions before 1/23/73 but they were doing it illegally and not reporting it. Doctors didn't start doing abortion on 1/23/73. They were doing it before, but they were not reporting it and they were charging (literally) an arm and a leg to do it.
> 
> Beyond that... it is also a fact that overturning Roe today would not suddenly make abortion illegal. It would simply revert it to the states and most likely the majority of states would still allow legal abortions in almost every case. So, your little fantasy accomplishes zilch.
> 
> Question: is reducing the number of abortions as important to you as winning the political point?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
Of course. And I know that eliminating the abortion industry, with all of it's promotion, political clout, and money will reduce abortions. The facts support that, and I'm a fact person.


----------



## Vanquish

JBeukema said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's amazing to me is that people apply selective logic when it comes to abortion. They rationalize baby killing.
> 
> Hypo #1:
> You've got a revolver with 6 chambers. 3 chambers have bullets in them. 3 don't. Would you put the gun to your head and pull the trigger?
> 
> Hypo #2
> You have a fetus that's 1 week old in your belly. You can't afford to be a parent. Would you have an abortion?
> 
> In both hypotheticals, you have no concrete way of knowing whether your actions will result in murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's a revolver, you can see what chambers have rounds in them
> 
> And i have a guarantee in the second scenario, both legally and morally.
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the difference? In the first hypo, most people wouldn't take the chance with their own life. In the second, they rationalize that it "might not be murder because we don't really know."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It ends a life. That is a simple scientific fact. Legally, it is not murder. Morally, it is also not 'murder', because there is no individual in existence to be harmed.
Click to expand...


Ok Mr. Cute. Way to be cheeky.

Assuming you're not looking at the chambers, and knowing you'd have a 50 50 result. Don't be obtuse.

And yes, it is murder. It's an innocent life that you're ending. It's not legally justified. 

That being said, you've come further out than most pro-death people. At least you're admitting that you're ending a life. Most wont even do that.

And that's my point - if you cant be absolutely certain that you're doing the right or wrong thing...why take the chance?


----------



## AllieBaba

" This study by John R. Lott Jr. and John Whitley of the American Enterprise Institute shows that not only did abortion not decrease crime rates, but it actually increased murder rates by 7 percent in the U.S.
By improving upon the methods used by Levitt, Lott and Whitley illustrated &#8220;a strong consistent positive relationship between  abortion and murder.&#8221; More simply said, they found that when abortion increases, murder increases as well. According to their estimates, the legalization of abortion resulted in about 700 more murders per year by 1998&#8212;a 7.2 percent increase.
How do Lott and Whitley explain their correlation?
Where Levitt assumed abortion would decrease the number of unwanted children and therefore reduce crime, Lott and Whitley demonstrated that the legalization of abortion actually increased the number of children born to unwed mothers.
Combine this with the fact that young males born out-of-wedlock (wanted or not) are disproportionately responsible for violent crimes, and you have a national increase in murders. &#8220;[T]he net effect [of the legalization of abortion],&#8221; Lott and Whitely concluded, &#8220;appears to be a reduction in human capital and an increase in crime.&#8221;
This correlation surely does not make abortion any more reprehensible than it already is, but it definitely shoots down the argument that legal abortion improves outcomes for those children who do survive."

Research shows: Abortion increases crime rate « The United Families International Blog


----------



## AllieBaba

" This study by John R. Lott Jr. and John Whitley of the American Enterprise Institute shows that not only did abortion not decrease crime rates, but it actually increased murder rates by 7 percent in the U.S.
By improving upon the methods used by Levitt, Lott and Whitley illustrated a strong consistent positive relationship between  abortion and murder. More simply said, they found that when abortion increases, murder increases as well. According to their estimates, the legalization of abortion resulted in about 700 more murders per year by 1998a 7.2 percent increase.
How do Lott and Whitley explain their correlation?
Where Levitt assumed abortion would decrease the number of unwanted children and therefore reduce crime, Lott and Whitley demonstrated that the legalization of abortion actually increased the number of children born to unwed mothers.
Combine this with the fact that young males born out-of-wedlock (wanted or not) are disproportionately responsible for violent crimes, and you have a national increase in murders. [T]he net effect [of the legalization of abortion], Lott and Whitely concluded, appears to be a reduction in human capital and an increase in crime.
This correlation surely does not make abortion any more reprehensible than it already is, but it definitely shoots down the argument that legal abortion improves outcomes for those children who do survive."

Research shows: Abortion increases crime rate « The United Families International Blog


----------



## AllieBaba

Did Legalizing Abortion Cut Crime? The Levitt Freakonomics theory critically analyzed. Additional analysis and data by Steve Sailer.


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, you've drunk the abortion Kool Aid and liked it, I see. You're so convinced that women are too stupid to function without having their uteruses scraped regularly that you're willing to throw the babies out with the dishwater, literally.
> 
> The thing is, it's not just the unborn babies that are hurt. It's the living breathing babies that are being abused, and whose abusers are being protected by PP, who are also being hurt. They are hurt by the fact that when we allow the slaughter of innocents, we in turn devalue ALL innocents. If an unborn baby is worth nothing, a 12 year old isn't worth much more. If we protect the people who get these young people pregnant, we are promoting child abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so off-base that it is not even funny.
> 
> I would be right there beside you, if your hypothesis had even an inkling of reality to it. Instead you live in a fantasy world that says, "people are moral individuals and will never break the law. If the law says abortions are illegal then women won't have abortions".
> 
> Well, Allie, my friend, women were getting abortions before abortion was legal in the same percentages before it was legal as they are now. The only difference is today they can claim it as a Constitutional Right whereas before they had to hide the fact that they underwent an abortion. You seem to believe that on January 23, 1973 women suddenly began having abortions because it was legal now. The sad fact is that they were having abortions before 1/23/73 but they were doing it illegally and not reporting it. Doctors didn't start doing abortion on 1/23/73. They were doing it before, but they were not reporting it and they were charging (literally) an arm and a leg to do it.
> 
> Beyond that... it is also a fact that overturning Roe today would not suddenly make abortion illegal. It would simply revert it to the states and most likely the majority of states would still allow legal abortions in almost every case. So, your little fantasy accomplishes zilch.
> 
> Question: is reducing the number of abortions as important to you as winning the political point?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course. And I know that eliminating the abortion industry, with all of it's promotion, political clout, and money will reduce abortions. The facts support that, and I'm a fact person.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, overturning Roe will not eliminate the industry.  

Immie


----------



## beowolfe

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.





> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.*



Okay.  Then remove it from the pregnant woman and lets see how it does.


----------



## AllieBaba

Immanuel said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so off-base that it is not even funny.
> 
> I would be right there beside you, if your hypothesis had even an inkling of reality to it. Instead you live in a fantasy world that says, "people are moral individuals and will never break the law. If the law says abortions are illegal then women won't have abortions".
> 
> Well, Allie, my friend, women were getting abortions before abortion was legal in the same percentages before it was legal as they are now. The only difference is today they can claim it as a Constitutional Right whereas before they had to hide the fact that they underwent an abortion. You seem to believe that on January 23, 1973 women suddenly began having abortions because it was legal now. The sad fact is that they were having abortions before 1/23/73 but they were doing it illegally and not reporting it. Doctors didn't start doing abortion on 1/23/73. They were doing it before, but they were not reporting it and they were charging (literally) an arm and a leg to do it.
> 
> Beyond that... it is also a fact that overturning Roe today would not suddenly make abortion illegal. It would simply revert it to the states and most likely the majority of states would still allow legal abortions in almost every case. So, your little fantasy accomplishes zilch.
> 
> Question: is reducing the number of abortions as important to you as winning the political point?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. And I know that eliminating the abortion industry, with all of it's promotion, political clout, and money will reduce abortions. The facts support that, and I'm a fact person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, overturning Roe will not eliminate the industry.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
That's idiotic. Of course it will. Those who are really committed to killing babies will go back underground and operate as the criminals they are.

You think they aren't sick fuckers now? They are. You're just giving them a pass and throwing money at them.


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. And I know that eliminating the abortion industry, with all of it's promotion, political clout, and money will reduce abortions. The facts support that, and I'm a fact person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, overturning Roe will not eliminate the industry.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's idiotic. Of course it will. Those who are really committed to killing babies will go back underground and operate as the criminals they are.
> 
> You think they aren't sick fuckers now? They are. You're just giving them a pass and throwing money at them.
Click to expand...


You are back in your fantasy world.

Overturning Roe will simply send the issue back to the states, most of which will still allow most abortions.  You have accomplished zilch.  The best you could do would be to sit upon your high horse after this happened and claim victory because the number of reported abortions had declined.  In the meantime... babies would still be dieing.

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

Vanquish said:


> And yes, it is murder. It's an innocent life that you're ending. It's not legally justified.



You appeal to the Law. The Law says that abortion in th first trimester is legal.



> if you cant be absolutely certain that you're doing the right or wrong thing...why take the chance?


Some things are neither right nor wrong. Is picking your nose right or wrong? Ir moving a bouquet of flowers from the kitchen or the den right or wrong? Or do they have no moral implications?


----------



## JBeukema

> Lott and Whitley demonstrated that the legalization of abortion actually increased the number of children born to unwed mothers.


----------



## AllieBaba

JBeukema said:


> Lott and Whitley demonstrated that the legalization of abortion actually increased the number of children born to unwed mothers.
Click to expand...

 
Yes. Because they take more chances.

The stats are what they are. Illegitimate births jumped and bounded upwards the second abortion became legal.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lott and Whitley demonstrated that the legalization of abortion actually increased the number of children born to unwed mothers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Because they take more chances.
> 
> The stats are what they are. Illegitimate births jumped and bounded upwards the second abortion became legal.
Click to expand...

As a result of Roe v Wade, or as a result of the same sociological factors that lead to Roe v. Wade? 

One would think that if someone toolk more risks due to RvW, as opposed to as a result of the same social changes that led to it,they'd be inclined to make use of an abortionist if a pregnancy resulted.

It seems more plausible to my mind that the two matters are actually the result of the same underlying social factors (see: libertinism), which would explain both the rates of sex and pregnancy outside marriage as well as an increase in the abortion rate.

We agree on the correlation, but I'm not seeing causation. I'm seeing a common cause.


----------



## AllieBaba

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Because they take more chances.
> 
> The stats are what they are. Illegitimate births jumped and bounded upwards the second abortion became legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a result of Roe v Wade, or as a result of the same sociological factors that lead to Roe v. Wade?
> 
> One would think that if someone toolk more risks due to RvW, as opposed to as a result of the same social changes that led to it,they'd be inclined to make use of an abortionist if a pregnancy resulted.
> 
> It seems more plausible to my mind that the two matters are actually the result of the same underlying social factors (see: libertinism), which would explain both the rates of sex and pregnancy outside marriage as well as an increase in the abortion rate.
> 
> We agree on the correlation, but I'm not seeing causation. I'm seeing a common cause.
Click to expand...

 
More people did take risks...and more people did use abortionists. But more people also had babies, because the very same people who peddle legal abortion also peddle sex to a whole population of people who should probably not be having sex. They removed the stigma of illegitimate birth, removed the stigma of abortion, promote the shit out of both..and look what happens.


----------



## AllieBaba

Also, remember...for many years, welfare programs (federal and state) DID fund abortions...and that is where you see the huge leaps in abortion numbers (and subsequently child abuse numbers, murders, etc). Now that we've almost stopped that.....abortion numbers have leveled out.


----------



## HUGGY

AllieBaba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Because they take more chances.
> 
> The stats are what they are. Illegitimate births jumped and bounded upwards the second abortion became legal.
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of Roe v Wade, or as a result of the same sociological factors that lead to Roe v. Wade?
> 
> One would think that if someone toolk more risks due to RvW, as opposed to as a result of the same social changes that led to it,they'd be inclined to make use of an abortionist if a pregnancy resulted.
> 
> It seems more plausible to my mind that the two matters are actually the result of the same underlying social factors (see: libertinism), which would explain both the rates of sex and pregnancy outside marriage as well as an increase in the abortion rate.
> 
> We agree on the correlation, but I'm not seeing causation. I'm seeing a common cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More people did take risks...and more people did use abortionists. But more people also had babies, because the *very same people who peddle legal abortion also peddle sex* to a whole population of people who should probably not be having sex. They removed the stigma of illegitimate birth, removed the stigma of abortion, promote the shit out of both..and look what happens.
Click to expand...


What planet are you REALLY from?  I consider myself fairly well informed and I have never seen a sexually suggestive advertisement or statement from Planned Parenthood. 

Sex has been a marketing tool for hundreds of years.  The vast majority of the companies that use sex in that way are not "for abortion".  That statement is ridiculous.  Corporate America promotes sex.  The media owned by corporate America sells and promotes sex.  

When I was a kid there was barely a mention of sexuality on the TV or in advertisements in magazines and definitely not in newspapers.  Now the only people not exposed to rampant sexual exploitation are blind deaf mutes.  Non of it comes from the government.  Non of it comes from health providers.  

Miss Baba..do you ever really think before you type this tripe?


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> Also, remember...for many years, welfare programs (federal and state) DID fund abortions..


Federal dollars still do fund abortions.


----------



## Immanuel

HUGGY said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of Roe v Wade, or as a result of the same sociological factors that lead to Roe v. Wade?
> 
> One would think that if someone toolk more risks due to RvW, as opposed to as a result of the same social changes that led to it,they'd be inclined to make use of an abortionist if a pregnancy resulted.
> 
> It seems more plausible to my mind that the two matters are actually the result of the same underlying social factors (see: libertinism), which would explain both the rates of sex and pregnancy outside marriage as well as an increase in the abortion rate.
> 
> We agree on the correlation, but I'm not seeing causation. I'm seeing a common cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More people did take risks...and more people did use abortionists. But more people also had babies, because the *very same people who peddle legal abortion also peddle sex* to a whole population of people who should probably not be having sex. They removed the stigma of illegitimate birth, removed the stigma of abortion, promote the shit out of both..and look what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What planet are you REALLY from?  I consider myself fairly well informed and I have never seen a sexually suggestive advertisement or statement from Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Sex has been a marketing tool for hundreds of years.  The vast majority of the companies that use sex in that way are not "for abortion".  That statement is ridiculous.  Corporate America promotes sex.  The media owned by corporate America sells and promotes sex.
> 
> When I was a kid there was barely a mention of sexuality on the TV or in advertisements in magazines and definitely not in newspapers.  Now the only people not exposed to rampant sexual exploitation are blind deaf mutes.  Non of it comes from the government.  Non of it comes from health providers.
> 
> Miss Baba..do you ever really think before you type this tripe?
Click to expand...


I've got to disagree with you regarding PP.  PP has been about free, unrestricted sex from the beginning.  They are the instigators of the "Sexual Revolution", not a product of it. They have not gone out and advertised, "Just Do It", but they may as well have done so.

This article doesn't mention Planned Parenthood, but scanning it has PP and Margaret Sanger written all over it.

Sexual revolution: Definition from Answers.com



> The sexual revolution (also known broadly as a time of "sexual liberation") was a social outlook that challenges traditional codes of behaviour related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships. The phenomenon took place throughout the Western world from the 1960s into the 1970s.[1] Many of the changes in outlook developed into new codes of sexual behaviour, many of which have become mainstream.[2]
> 
> Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage).[3] Contraception and the pill, public nudity, the normalization of homosexuality and alternative forms of sexuality, and the legalization of abortion all followed.[4][5]



Just read some of the buzz words in their "about us".

Who We Are



> We are a trusted health care provider, an informed educator, a passionate advocate, and a global partner helping similar organizations around the world. Planned Parenthood delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide.
> 
> For more than 90 years, Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to womens health and well-being, based on respect for each individuals right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning.





> Informing and Educating the Community
> 
> Planned Parenthood is a respected leader in educating Americans about reproductive and sexual  health. We deliver comprehensive and medically accurate information that empowers women, men, teens, and families to make informed choices and lead healthy lives. Planned Parenthood is proud of its vital role in providing young people with honest sexuality and relationship information in classrooms and online to help reduce our nations alarmingly high rates of teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. Nearly 1.2 million youths and adults participate in Planned Parenthood educational programs every year.



Immie


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, you've drunk the abortion Kool Aid and liked it, I see. You're so convinced that women are too stupid to function without having their uteruses scraped regularly that you're willing to throw the babies out with the dishwater, literally.
> 
> The thing is, it's not just the unborn babies that are hurt. It's the living breathing babies that are being abused, and whose abusers are being protected by PP, who are also being hurt. They are hurt by the fact that when we allow the slaughter of innocents, we in turn devalue ALL innocents. If an unborn baby is worth nothing, a 12 year old isn't worth much more. If we protect the people who get these young people pregnant, we are promoting child abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so off-base that it is not even funny.
> 
> I would be right there beside you, if your hypothesis had even an inkling of reality to it. Instead you live in a fantasy world that says, "people are moral individuals and will never break the law. If the law says abortions are illegal then women won't have abortions".
> 
> Well, Allie, my friend, women were getting abortions before abortion was legal in the same percentages before it was legal as they are now. The only difference is today they can claim it as a Constitutional Right whereas before they had to hide the fact that they underwent an abortion. You seem to believe that on January 23, 1973 women suddenly began having abortions because it was legal now. The sad fact is that they were having abortions before 1/23/73 but they were doing it illegally and not reporting it. Doctors didn't start doing abortion on 1/23/73. They were doing it before, but they were not reporting it and they were charging (literally) an arm and a leg to do it.
> 
> Beyond that... it is also a fact that overturning Roe today would not suddenly make abortion illegal. It would simply revert it to the states and most likely the majority of states would still allow legal abortions in almost every case. So, your little fantasy accomplishes zilch.
> 
> Question: is reducing the number of abortions as important to you as winning the political point?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course. And I know that eliminating the abortion industry, with all of it's promotion, political clout, and money will reduce abortions. The facts support that, and I'm a fact person.
Click to expand...


"political clout"
The abortion doctors have no political clout whatsoever. They wear a damn bulls eye on their back.
You are a loose cannon Allie. Try putting your brain in gear before mouth in motion. 
You need to listen Allie. You have 2 ears and one mouth for a reason. Use them.
Abortion is LEGAL. DUH.


----------



## snjmom

> I've got to disagree with you regarding PP. PP has been about free, unrestricted sex from the beginning. They are the instigators of the "Sexual Revolution", not a product of it. They have not gone out and advertised, "Just Do It", but they may as well have done so.



Bullshit. 

From our local PP website.




> Yet, according to teen surveys, those who had close parent relationships were more likely to abstain from sex, wait until they were older to begin sexual activity, have fewer partners and use contraception more consistently.
> 
> Parents need to start talking.
> 
> Family communication about relationships, sex, and sexuality should be an ongoing process, not a one-time talk.  So look for those "teachable moments" &#8211; those times when sexual issues come to the surface.  For instance, romantic or sexual story lines in TV shows, advertisements, lyrics from popular songs, movies or news shows &#8212; Janet Jackson&#8217;s Super Bowl performance or Paris Hilton&#8217;s commercial washing a car are a couple of examples.  Teachable moments are ideal opportunities to hear your child's questions and concerns, and to share your feelings and values about sexuality and sexual issues.  Ask what your child thinks about the behaviors and relationships of the people involved and if your family&#8217;s values are helpful in understanding them.  They may seem like they are not listening, or that they do not want to hear about sexuality from their patients, but they are listening.  If you remain silent on sexuality, it sends a message as well.  Speak up and you will both be glad you did!



Does that really sound like a message of "free love" and promiscuity to you?

Really?


----------



## HUGGY

Babba....You are full of shit and I hate you ....you ass face!!! 

The "sexual revolution" started with the invention of the birth control pill.  That is fact.  Any other nonsense about how it started is just you making things up.


----------



## AllieBaba

It began then but it didn't take off until the 70s...
I wonder why...hmmmmm....
*Roe v. Wade*, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## HUGGY

AllieBaba said:


> It began then but it didn't take off until the 70s...
> I wonder why...hmmmmm....
> *Roe v. Wade*, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
> 
> Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You have your cart in front of your donkey.  Roe/Wade and PP is a result of ..not the cause of the sexual revolution.

The steep increase in sexual freedom was far more influenced by sales techniques in the seventies than anything.  

Nowadays Walter Cronkite couldn't even get a job in a small town television news team.  We even have to have our teleprompter reading bubble head news casters look sexy and make stupid sexual innuendos constantly.  

Blaming this sex crazed media blitz on Roe/Wade or PP is too stupid for even your words.


----------



## Immanuel

snjmom said:


> I've got to disagree with you regarding PP. PP has been about free, unrestricted sex from the beginning. They are the instigators of the "Sexual Revolution", not a product of it. They have not gone out and advertised, "Just Do It", but they may as well have done so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> From our local PP website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to teen surveys, those who had close parent relationships were more likely to abstain from sex, wait until they were older to begin sexual activity, have fewer partners and use contraception more consistently.
> 
> Parents need to start talking.
> 
> Family communication about relationships, sex, and sexuality should be an ongoing process, not a one-time talk.  So look for those "teachable moments"  those times when sexual issues come to the surface.  For instance, romantic or sexual story lines in TV shows, advertisements, lyrics from popular songs, movies or news shows  Janet Jacksons Super Bowl performance or Paris Hiltons commercial washing a car are a couple of examples.  Teachable moments are ideal opportunities to hear your child's questions and concerns, and to share your feelings and values about sexuality and sexual issues.  Ask what your child thinks about the behaviors and relationships of the people involved and if your familys values are helpful in understanding them.  They may seem like they are not listening, or that they do not want to hear about sexuality from their patients, but they are listening.  If you remain silent on sexuality, it sends a message as well.  Speak up and you will both be glad you did!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that really sound like a message of "free love" and promiscuity to you?
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...


Can you provide a link to your site please?  There are simply too many PP sites for me to search for that one.

Do you deny PP's association with Margaret Sanger?  Do you deny that Margaret Sanger was a proponent of "free sex"?  I mean come on, they made her out to be a goddess!

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Margaret Sanger

The Truth about Margaret Sanger | Planned Parenthood Affiliates New Jersey



> Sanger and Eugenics
> 
> Eugenics is the science of improving hereditary qualities by socially controlling human reproduction. Unable to foment popular opposition to Margaret Sanger's accomplishments and the organization she founded, Sanger's critics attempt to discredit them by intentionally confusing her views on "fitness" with eugenics, racism, and anti-Semitism. Margaret Sanger was not a racist, an anti-Semite, or a eugenicist. Eugenicists, like the Nazis, were opposed to the use of abortion and contraception by healthy and fit women (Grossmann, 1995). In fact, Sangers books were among the very first burned by the Nazis in their campaign against family planning (Sanger on Exhibit, 1999/2000). Sanger actually helped several Jewish women and men and others escape the Nazi regime in Germany (Margaret Sanger and the Refugee Department, 1993). Sanger's disagreement with the eugenicists of her day is clear from her remarks in The Birth Control Review of February 1919:
> 
> Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother (1919a).



By the way, PP doesn't deny the link between themselves and Sanger.

Immie


----------



## beowolfe

Most of the anti Planned Parenthood posters here don't have a clue beyond the lies spread by the GOP of what Planned Parenthood does or how they do it.


----------



## AllieBaba

Actually, I get most of my information from the Guttmacher Institute.

Do you know where the name Guttmacher comes from?

Guttmacher, who provides most of the birth control/abortion stats worldwide, and who gives the CDC most of their information on the subject, is quite close to PP. But although PP will lie and hide information, the Guttmacher can't really get away with it...they report what they get..and they also have to report that it's not complete because PP won't provide complete information.


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, I get most of my information from the Guttmacher Institute.
> 
> Do you know where the name Guttmacher comes from?
> 
> Guttmacher, who provides most of the birth control/abortion stats worldwide, and who gives the CDC most of their information on the subject, is quite close to PP. But although PP will lie and hide information, the Guttmacher can't really get away with it...they report what they get..and they also have to report that it's not complete because PP won't provide complete information.



That is the first and usually only place I go when looking for information on the abortion industry.  Even if their information is not accurate, it is going to be under stated as opposed to over stated.  It also comes from the mouth of the beast itself as opposed to the Religious Right who are more likely to over estimate the number for their political cause.  At least if PP is being  "conservative" and instead of 1 million abortions annually it is really 1.25 million then proving me wrong, only makes the new information better for my case.  

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

I've never heard anyone actually brag about the fact that inaccurate numbers support their stance on something...


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> I've never heard anyone actually brag about the fact that inaccurate numbers support their stance on something...



I only said, "conservative" numbers.  As a corporate controller, one must budget for things.  One guesses as to what the actual numbers will be and when estimating revenue it is best to estimate lower than expected and when estimating expenses it is better to be conservative and estimate high.

I take the conservative figure offered by Planned Parenthood on the number of annual abortions and I can be pretty certain that the number is not less than what they brag about.  Whether or not the number is exactly what PP claims, the worse thing that can happen is that someone arguing with me about that number can do is show that the actual number is higher than what Planned Parenthood claims.  If they are right and the number is really higher, my argument is not hurt.  Whereas, if I took a "liberal" stance and claimed that the number was 1.3 million, and someone comes back and shows where it is only 1 million, I don't have to defend my position.

Immie


----------



## Gadawg73

Abortion will never be illegal. We have gone over that and the states and how some would ban it, some would allow it under certain restrictions and some would allow it at will.
Accordingly, for the last 30 years I have spent my efforts working with youth. I have coached over 70 rec teams, helped many young boys that have come from bad homes, raised over 250K to help those boys in rec and high school teams and have served on the board of directors in about every capacity for numerous youth organizations.
I have had numerous young men that I coached 30 years ago find me on Facebook and tell me how much of an influence I was in their lives. From coaching rec ball I have had one kid I coach be the starting QB at an ACC school Clemson for 2 years, one kid now starting at another ACC school in basketball at FSU and another playing professional baseball for the Padres. 
I focus on what I can do for the kids that need the help now. I can not do anything about what an irresponsible woman does to her unborn. As soon as others admit that they can also start making a difference.


----------



## Gunny

Because it isn't _en vogue_ to admit one murders unborn human beings for the sake of selfish, personal convenience.


----------



## AllieBaba

I'm trying really hard to figure out how you hanging with little kids all day is relevant to this thread.


----------



## Gadawg73

Gunny said:


> Because it isn't _en vogue_ to admit one murders unborn human beings for the sake of selfish, personal convenience.



I haven't murdered anyone and oppose abortion.
So you know the personal experiences of 100% of all the women that get abortions?


----------



## Gunny

Gadawg73 said:


> Abortion will never be illegal. We have gone over that and the states and how some would ban it, some would allow it under certain restrictions and some would allow it at will.
> Accordingly, for the last 30 years I have spent my efforts working with youth. I have coached over 70 rec teams, helped many young boys that have come from bad homes, raised over 250K to help those boys in rec and high school teams and have served on the board of directors in about every capacity for numerous youth organizations.
> I have had numerous young men that I coached 30 years ago find me on Facebook and tell me how much of an influence I was in their lives. From coaching rec ball I have had one kid I coach be the starting QB at an ACC school Clemson for 2 years, one kid now starting at another ACC school in basketball at FSU and another playing professional baseball for the Padres.
> I focus on what I can do for the kids that need the help now. I can not do anything about what an irresponsible woman does to her unborn. As soon as others admit that they can also start making a difference.



Ummm ... what allie said .....


----------



## Gunny

Gadawg73 said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it isn't _en vogue_ to admit one murders unborn human beings for the sake of selfish, personal convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't murdered anyone and oppose abortion.
> So you know the personal experiences of 100% of all the women that get abortions?
Click to expand...


If you scroll back up to my response ... you will note it is response to the OP, the thread title.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> I'm trying really hard to figure out how you hanging with little kids all day is relevant to this thread.



You have shit for brains.
Coaching and mentoring kids may be "hanging with little kids" to you but not to adults that know the problems this country faces. While you sit on your fat ass eating bon bons I am out trying to put you out of a job.
But you have a vested in keeping these kids down and out.
You are  a government social worker. If things got better you lose your "job".
Wonder what your employer would think of you on the damn internet all day Allie. 
You are supposed to be working and you are playing on the internet. Typical gummint worker.
Now I know why the system is so fucked up.


----------



## AllieBaba

Wow you sound a little stressed there, chief. 

Not entirely coherent, however.


----------



## Gadawg73

Allie is such a fool that she has no clue that you need to teach THE BOYS to be men and be disciplined and that is what men like me have been doing for years.
It takes a male to make the baby. Allie releases them of any and all responsibility.
You have to start while they are young and teach them to be responsible young men and respect their mothers and to obey their teachers.
If you start working with youth at a young age they respect their mothers, their teachers, authority and strive to better themselves. 
Education and work ethic with positive role models is key. Many of these so called "right to lifers" are a fucking joke. Pompous lazy turds that do nothing to help anyone in their community and want to point fingers at everyone else when trouble comes into their lives. 
Start with the kids and maybe this next generation will be better. We are trying and won't be detered.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Wow you sound a little stressed there, chief.
> 
> Not entirely coherent, however.



Not stressed. I do not have to look over my back because I am taking taxpayer $$ and sitting on my ass on the internet not doing my job.
Who do you work for? Do they approve of you on the internet all day?


----------



## AllieBaba

Okie dokie then.

*Allie leaves the thread so gadawg can continue to fantasize about boys*


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Okie dokie then.
> 
> *Allie leaves the thread so gadawg can continue to fantasize about boys*



You are definitely stressed now Allie. Sort of got to you there that you are now exposed. Worried about that gummint tit job so much you are not working at? 
All you have and all you have ever had are gutter remarks just like the one above. 
Sticks and stones. I have been beat up, shot at, left for dead. Played 4 quarters between the lines against 6'4" 290 lb O lineman. 
You have shown your true self once again. White trash.


----------



## PixieStix

Gunny said:


> Because it isn't _en vogue_ to admit one murders unborn human beings for the sake of selfish, personal convenience.



Their argument for abortion *_rights*_, is not backed up by the science.


----------



## AllieBaba

Or the numbers.


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okie dokie then.
> 
> *Allie leaves the thread so gadawg can continue to fantasize about boys*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are definitely stressed now Allie. Sort of got to you there that you are now exposed. Worried about that gummint tit job so much you are not working at?
> All you have and all you have ever had are gutter remarks just like the one above.
> Sticks and stones. I have been beat up, shot at, left for dead. Played 4 quarters between the lines against 6'4" 290 lb O lineman.
> You have shown your true self once again. White trash.
Click to expand...


----------



## snjmom

Immanuel said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got to disagree with you regarding PP. PP has been about free, unrestricted sex from the beginning. They are the instigators of the "Sexual Revolution", not a product of it. They have not gone out and advertised, "Just Do It", but they may as well have done so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> From our local PP website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that really sound like a message of "free love" and promiscuity to you?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Can you provide a link to your site please?  There are simply too many PP sites for me to search for that one.  

Here you go.  plannedparenthood.org/stlouis That particular part is under Sexual Health Education/Parents.



Immanuel said:


> Do you deny PP's association with Margaret Sanger?  Do you deny that Margaret Sanger was a proponent of "free sex"?  I mean come on, they made her out to be a goddess!



Do you understand that Ms. Sanger was a person of her times and as such was racist? That her concept of "free sex" meant that women should be able to actually enjoy sex rather than viewing it as a necessary evil that has to be suffered? Do you actually think that women should be made to bear as many children as they can until they die? Or that women should never have sex again once they have had all the children they want?

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Margaret Sanger

The Truth about Margaret Sanger | Planned Parenthood Affiliates New Jersey



Immanuel said:


> Sanger and Eugenics
> 
> Eugenics is the science of improving hereditary qualities by socially controlling human reproduction. Unable to foment popular opposition to Margaret Sanger's accomplishments and the organization she founded, Sanger's critics attempt to discredit them by intentionally confusing her views on "fitness" with eugenics, racism, and anti-Semitism. Margaret Sanger was not a racist, an anti-Semite, or a eugenicist. Eugenicists, like the Nazis, were opposed to the use of abortion and contraception by healthy and fit women (Grossmann, 1995). In fact, Sangers books were among the very first burned by the Nazis in their campaign against family planning (Sanger on Exhibit, 1999/2000). Sanger actually helped several Jewish women and men and others escape the Nazi regime in Germany (Margaret Sanger and the Refugee Department, 1993). Sanger's disagreement with the eugenicists of her day is clear from her remarks in The Birth Control Review of February 1919:
> 
> Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother (1919a).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, PP doesn't deny the link between themselves and Sanger.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I don't see why they should. Should we deny Washington and Jefferson because they owned slaves?  

I agree with this wholeheartedly.



> Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother (1919a).



What part of that do you disagree with?


----------



## AllieBaba

So are you saying that all women of Sanger's era were racists, and she was just a product of her times?

You do know she believed in forced sterilization of undesirables, right...do you think everyone wanted that?


----------



## traveler52

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



First off, no one "*Pro Abortion*", they are "*Pro Choice*".  


Second.  *IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO BIG GOVERNMENT

IF YOU ARE 


OPPOSED TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT GETTING IN BETWEEN


 THE DOCTOR ANDTHE  PATIENT.


 IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DECIDING MEDIAL TREATMENT....THEN


 YOU ARE A LYING ABOUT BEING ANTI-BIG GOVERNMENT YOU DAMN BIMBO!!!*


----------



## PixieStix

traveler52 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, no one "*Pro Abortion*", they are "*Pro Choice*".
> 
> 
> Second.  *IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO BIG GOVERNMENT
> 
> IF YOU ARE
> 
> 
> OPPOSED TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT GETTING IN BETWEEN
> 
> 
> THE DOCTOR ANDTHE  PATIENT.
> 
> 
> IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DECIDING MEDIAL TREATMENT....THEN
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A LYING ABOUT BEING ANTI-BIG GOVERNMENT YOU DAMN BIMBO!!!*
Click to expand...


JB a BIMBO?   Margaret Sanger your hero? Talk about a bimbo


----------



## taichiliberal

JBeukema said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> ** RETARD*​
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487476
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-27.html#post3487904
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-abortion-crowd-be-honest-60.html#post3497540
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are retarded, JB...because ther reports claims that the title social reasons *include instances*  such as the mother deciding the child is unwanted or 'inconvenient'.
> 
> That DOES NOT mean that 93% of abortions are for those reasons alone, you willfully ignorant clod.  "Instances" does not equate "totality". Go back and read what comes under Guttmacher's heading of "social reasons"...or get an adult you trust to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Woman is concerned about how having a baby could change her life     16%
> Think she'll be inconvenienced
> That's what YOU think, you clod! It's more than just change of college or career plans. If the woman is a teenager and poor, she sure as hell can't take of that kid properly...especially if her parents disown her.  If she's an adult and poor, she sure as hell can't feed another kid or properly do for current children in a manner that she expected.  Yeah, it happens....."change of life" isn't just an "inconvenience" in a lot of cases....you are one pathetic propagandist, JB.
> 
> Woman can't afford baby now     21%
> inconvenient financial burden
> 
> You ever been poor, JB.  I'm not talking about "inconvenient" poor, I'm talking about missing meals, clothes down to rags, 1 day shy of eviction poor.  There's a BIG difference between an "inconvenience" and a major problem, you JB idiot!  And I'll wager dollars to donuts that YOU are one of those simpletons parroting the neocon mantras to get rid of "entitlements" in our society.
> 
> Woman has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood     12%
> afraid baby will be inconvenient burden when she wants to pursue career/go out and party
> 
> No, you stupid JB....afraid that she can't afford to raise the kid properly (or better than her), or have the available resources to make the latter happen.....or maybe she doesn't want to join the statistics of unwed welfare mothers.  Sorry, but it's not about YOUR opinion, but her life...because YOU sure as hell are not going to take care of that kid.
> 
> Woman is unready for responsibility     21%
> straight inconvenience; doesn't want to grow the fuck up
> 
> Are you fucking stupid, JB?  Are you AWARE of the statistics of unwed mothers on welfare?  Of unwed TEEN mothers on welfare?  See stupid, the neocons in the last 30 years have waged a war on Day Care systems throughout the 50 states.....so how the hell can the forementioned moms take care of a kid if there are no avenues for her to work to provide for her kid...because not everyone has parents and relatives who are willing and/or able to provide a home and free daycare/babysitting.  Yeah, POS like you JB whine like stuck pigs about entitlements and welfare state, but you sure as hell want that woman to have that kid and then that's her problem.  Yeah, as hard as that decision is to have an abortion, the majority of those women are grown up and realistic...unlike your childish devotion to your myopic interpretations of definitions applying to the real world.
> 
> Woman doesn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant     1%
> revealing that she is sexually active would be a social inconvenience
> 
> No jackass, revealing that a 15 year is pregnant to her parents can result in disowning or violence.
> 
> Woman is not mature enough, or is too young to have a child     11%
> doesn't want to grow up and be responsible for her actions; inconvenience
> 
> See above responses, you stupe.
> 
> Woman has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children     8%
> another baby would be an inconvenience
> 
> See above responses.
> 
> Husband or partner wants woman to have an abortion     1%
> baby would be inconvenient as she got knocked up by the wrong dude
> 
> *Whoa!  the stat was for "husband or partner"....so since that doesn't fit into JB'S automatic sole condemnation of the woman in the abortion decision, he inserts that the woman must be a slut.  Fucking sanctimonious JB, braying ass.*
> 
> 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%
> Just over 7%
> 
> Are you saying that you approve of abortion in these circumstances?Other     3%
Click to expand...


What the hell is "other"?

So as you can see folks, JB's definition of "inconvenience" differs from the reality of reasons and situations that can and have resulted in abortions in this country due to dire situations.  Again, "Instances" does not equate "totality" for 93% of abortions.  

*Like Sen. Kyl, JB likes to exaggerate and distort the facts to fit his personal beliefs....but as I demonstrate above, the truth with a little simple analysis will always undo 3rd rate propagandist like JB.*


----------



## Gunny

spyce said:


> If men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would never have been illegal.
> 
> Do you expect rape victims who get pregnant to keep the baby?
> 
> There are too many people on the planet using up resources that cannot be replaced.  Try quality rather than quantity.  Wear a condom.



If women are the ones who GET pregnant, maybe they should keep their legs closed and their panties on?

It's a two way street and you're a f-ing moron with a lame-ass argument.


----------



## PixieStix

spyce said:


> If men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would never have been illegal.
> 
> Do you expect rape victims who get pregnant to keep the baby?
> 
> There are too many people on the planet using up resources that cannot be replaced.  Try quality rather than quantity.  Wear a condom.



Is that the best you can do? Same old tired sexist argument


----------



## snjmom

AllieBaba said:


> So are you saying that all women of Sanger's era were racists, and she was just a product of her times?



Pretty much. Wouldn't say it was absolute but a majority of the population? Yes.



AllieBaba said:


> You do know she believed in forced sterilization of undesirables, right...do you think everyone wanted that?



No, not everyone wanted it. Many were content to watch the slums fester, to see women die after producing 15 pregnancies with 6 or 10 surviving children. 


And the pendulum is swinging that way again.


----------



## Immanuel

snjmom said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> From our local PP website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that really sound like a message of "free love" and promiscuity to you?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you provide a link to your site please?  There are simply too many PP sites for me to search for that one.
> 
> Here you go.  plannedparenthood.org/stlouis That particular part is under Sexual Health Education/Parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that Ms. Sanger was a person of her times and as such was racist? That her concept of "free sex" meant that women should be able to actually enjoy sex rather than viewing it as a necessary evil that has to be suffered? Do you actually think that women should be made to bear as many children as they can until they die? Or that women should never have sex again once they have had all the children they want?
> 
> Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Margaret Sanger
> 
> The Truth about Margaret Sanger | Planned Parenthood Affiliates New Jersey
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, PP doesn't deny the link between themselves and Sanger.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see why they should. Should we deny Washington and Jefferson because they owned slaves?
> 
> I agree with this wholeheartedly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother (1919a).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of that do you disagree with?
Click to expand...


Mom, 

You screwed those quotes up!  

I'm not at all certain what part you wrote.  Except for that very last part so that is all I am going to attempt to answer.

I don't believe that you or anyone from PP should be worshipping eugenics as you are right here and ascribing any value to their murderous ways.

I also believe that the woman had the right to choose when to produce offspring.  She has that right, right up to the moment she conceives.  Prior to that it is fully her choice.  At the time of conception she has made her choice.  

PP has made the decision to support the killing of that child for any reason whatsoever.  That puts them on the level of eugenists and not worthy of support.

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

snjmom said:


> Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state



Bullshit. Eugenics implies a person's obligation is to their child or, depending on the ideological strain, their race or species. The State only enters the picture in those ideological strains wherein the State is closely tied to the idea of the Race.

Margaret Sanger, in making her statement, doesn't speak for Eugenics or its adherents as a whole any more than Tank speaks for all white folk if he were to say that 'White people imply or insist _________'



> We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother



Actually, she didn't think that at all. In practice, she didn't believe the 'Lower tenth' of the population should have been allowed to reproduction.


----------



## JBeukema

traveler52 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, no one "*Pro Abortion*", they are "*Pro Choice*".
> 
> 
> Second.  *IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO BIG GOVERNMENT
> 
> IF YOU ARE
> 
> 
> OPPOSED TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT GETTING IN BETWEEN
> 
> 
> THE DOCTOR ANDTHE  PATIENT.
> 
> 
> IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DECIDING MEDIAL TREATMENT....THEN
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A LYING ABOUT BEING ANTI-BIG GOVERNMENT YOU DAMN BIMBO!!!*
Click to expand...



So being anti-big-government means I can't want the State to step in when Ricardo Ramirez  murders old women and put his ass in jail?

Are you fucking retarded?


----------



## JBeukema

taichiliberal said:


> If the woman is a teenager and poor, she sure as hell can't take of that kid properly...



That's why we have WIC, Nutritional Assistance, and other assistance programs.

It's also why we have condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, the foam...

It's also why you don't go whoring around if you aren't prepared to take responsibility for your actions. Or do you support deadbeat fathers who don't take responsibility for their kids?





> You ever been poor, JB.  I'm not talking about "inconvenient" poor, I'm talking about missing meals, clothes down to rags, 1 day shy of eviction poor.



I've been on the streets in three states. I didn't make children I couldn't take care of. It's called 'personal responsibility' and 'common-fucking-sense'


> No, you stupid JB....afraid that she can't afford to raise the kid properly



adoption services - Google Search


> Are you fucking stupid, JB?  Are you AWARE of the statistics of unwed mothers on welfare?


Maybe we should stop encouraging sexual libertinism?




> Yeah, POS like you JB whine like stuck pigs about entitlements and welfare state



Cite.


> No jackass, revealing that a 15 year is pregnant to her parents can result in disowning or violence.


If the home environment is so unhealthy, then perhaps she shouldn't be there.

Hiding pregnancies of under-age girls, btw, helps protect those who abuse or take advantage of them





> *Whoa!  the stat was for "husband or partner"....so since that doesn't fit into JB'S automatic sole condemnation of the woman in the abortion decision, he inserts that the woman must be a slut.  Fucking sanctimonious JB, braying ass.*



Saying she has bad judgment is calling her a slut?

As shown by the info from the abortion industry itself, 93% of abortions are done out of convenience.

1% are rape

6% are due to health concerns


----------



## snjmom

Immanuel said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a link to your site please?  There are simply too many PP sites for me to search for that one.
> 
> Here you go.  plannedparenthood.org/stlouis That particular part is under Sexual Health Education/Parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that Ms. Sanger was a person of her times and as such was racist? That her concept of "free sex" meant that women should be able to actually enjoy sex rather than viewing it as a necessary evil that has to be suffered? Do you actually think that women should be made to bear as many children as they can until they die? Or that women should never have sex again once they have had all the children they want?
> 
> Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Margaret Sanger
> 
> The Truth about Margaret Sanger | Planned Parenthood Affiliates New Jersey
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why they should. Should we deny Washington and Jefferson because they owned slaves?
> 
> I agree with this wholeheartedly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother (1919a).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that do you disagree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mom,
> 
> You screwed those quotes up!
> 
> I'm not at all certain what part you wrote.  Except for that very last part so that is all I am going to attempt to answer.
> 
> I don't believe that you or anyone from PP should be worshipping eugenics as you are right here and ascribing any value to their murderous ways.
> 
> I also believe that the woman had the right to choose when to produce offspring.  She has that right, right up to the moment she conceives.  Prior to that it is fully her choice.  At the time of conception she has made her choice.
> 
> PP has made the decision to support the killing of that child for any reason whatsoever.  That puts them on the level of eugenists and not worthy of support.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...




> I also believe that the woman had the right to choose when to produce offspring. She has that right, right up to the moment she conceives. Prior to that it is fully her choice. At the time of conception she has made her choice.



The problem with this line of thinking is that conception is such a crap shoot. Many women that choose to conceive don't and many that choose not to conceive, do.

PP has made the decision to support the killing of a child when the woman chooses not to bear it. Anytime you can come up with an extraction method that doesn't kill the child and a suitable container to continue it's development and the resources to raise that child if no one winds up wanting it, I'll be first in line to eliminate abortions. Until then, it's the last ditch effort in limiting family size, which should be a fundamental right.

Sorry about the quotes. I prefer to just cut and past with a tag but the whole post quote strategy seems to be the board standard.


----------



## Immanuel

snjmom said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a link to your site please?  There are simply too many PP sites for me to search for that one.
> 
> Here you go.  plannedparenthood.org/stlouis That particular part is under Sexual Health Education/Parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that Ms. Sanger was a person of her times and as such was racist? That her concept of "free sex" meant that women should be able to actually enjoy sex rather than viewing it as a necessary evil that has to be suffered? Do you actually think that women should be made to bear as many children as they can until they die? Or that women should never have sex again once they have had all the children they want?
> 
> Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Margaret Sanger
> 
> The Truth about Margaret Sanger | Planned Parenthood Affiliates New Jersey
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why they should. Should we deny Washington and Jefferson because they owned slaves?
> 
> I agree with this wholeheartedly.
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that do you disagree with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mom,
> 
> You screwed those quotes up!
> 
> I'm not at all certain what part you wrote.  Except for that very last part so that is all I am going to attempt to answer.
> 
> I don't believe that you or anyone from PP should be worshipping eugenics as you are right here and ascribing any value to their murderous ways.
> 
> I also believe that the woman had the right to choose when to produce offspring.  She has that right, right up to the moment she conceives.  Prior to that it is fully her choice.  At the time of conception she has made her choice.
> 
> PP has made the decision to support the killing of that child for any reason whatsoever.  That puts them on the level of eugenists and not worthy of support.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also believe that the woman had the right to choose when to produce offspring. She has that right, right up to the moment she conceives. Prior to that it is fully her choice. At the time of conception she has made her choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with this line of thinking is that conception is such a crap shoot. Many women that choose to conceive don't and many that choose not to conceive, do.
> 
> PP has made the decision to support the killing of a child when the woman chooses not to bear it. Anytime you can come up with an extraction method that doesn't kill the child and a suitable container to continue it's development and the resources to raise that child if no one winds up wanting it, I'll be first in line to eliminate abortions. Until then, it's the last ditch effort in limiting family size, which should be a fundamental right.
> 
> Sorry about the quotes. I prefer to just cut and past with a tag but the whole post quote strategy seems to be the board standard.
Click to expand...


No problem about the quotes.  My eyes are tired and I was having trouble reading it.  It is allergy season here and I am trying to read Atlas Shrugged before I have to return it to the library on Tuesday.  Things get blurry after I finish a session of reading.

It is evident that you and I will not agree as to the issue of abortion and/or when life begins.  I respect your point of view.  I just don't agree with it.  I believe a woman should have the right to limit her family size as well, but my belief is that she makes her choice at the point of time when she has sex.

One more thing, I hope you didn't think I was being too familiar or rude when I addressed that post to "Mom".  Basically, you and my mom seem to agree on this issue.    I tell her she's wrong too!

Immie


----------



## taichiliberal

JBeukema said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the woman is a teenager and poor, she sure as hell can't take of that kid properly...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we have WIC, Nutritional Assistance, and other assistance programs.
> 
> And given that these and "other programs" are subject to funding reductions...and given the ratio of availability to the actual population, you're STILL going to have people coming up with unwanted pregnancies .... poor, wealthy, educated, uneducated, regardless of race creed or color....  A matter of history, a matter of fact.
> It's also why we have condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, the foam...
> 
> Which are NOT available to those under the age of 18.  And then you have the occasional asshole pharmacist who won't fulfill a contraceptive perscription or handle a purchase despite the age due to their personal moral/religious beliefs.
> 
> It's also why you don't go whoring around if you aren't prepared to take responsibility for your actions.  Wow, talk about Freudian slip!  Seems JB considers ALL pre-marital sex in general as "whoring around".  How Church Lady...how Victorian!  I guess JB doesn't know about the abortion rate for married women.   Or do you support deadbeat fathers who don't take responsibility for their kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no birth, then there is no deadbeat father, genius.  And please JB, explain to us all how you dimly arrived at a conclusion that I possibly support deadbeat dads?
> You ever been poor, JB.  I'm not talking about "inconvenient" poor, I'm talking about missing meals, clothes down to rags, 1 day shy of eviction poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been on the streets in three states.  I didn't make children I couldn't take care of. It's called 'personal responsibility' and 'common-fucking-sense'
> 
> And I'm calling YOU a fucking LIAR, JB.  Anyone who is "on the streets" is no better or worse than the rich guy/girl who finds themselves with an uwanted child.  The difference is that the wealthy can either afford the kid or the privated doctor for the abortion.  YOU made an assertion earlier that DID NOT take into consideration various reasons why abortion happens.  But like all 3rd rate propagandist, YOU try to demonize the individual simply for having an abortion regardless of the circumstances.
> 
> adoption services - Google Search
> 
> A worthy cause, but NOT the be all, end all solution:
> 
> Aging Out of Foster Care | The Children's Aid Society
> ADOPTION INSTITUTE: FOSTER CARE FACTS
> Maybe we should stop encouraging sexual libertinism?
> 
> Newsflash for you, genius....abortions were happening in alleys, flop houses and secret rooms for the poor and wealthy during the Puritanical aspects of European and American social history.  Bottom line: with an increase in population, media and some common sense changes, you just can't ignore it anymore.
> 
> 
> Cite.
> 
> 
> 
> No jackass, revealing that a 15 year is pregnant to her parents can result in disowning or violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the home environment is so unhealthy, then perhaps she shouldn't be there.
> 
> No shit sherlock!  But the issue is what is, not "it might have been".  I gave a valid reason that YOU did not consider in your dogmatic approach to the subject.
> Hiding pregnancies of under-age girls, btw, helps protect those who abuse or take advantage of them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, NO SHIT SHERLOCK!.  But assholes like you are against abortion....and your co-horts are against contraception for teens.....so YOU are exaccerbating the situation, aren't you now!  *Whoa!  the stat was for "husband or partner"....so since that doesn't fit into JB'S automatic sole condemnation of the woman in the abortion decision, he inserts that the woman must be a slut.  Fucking sanctimonious JB, braying ass.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying she has bad judgment is calling her a slut?
> 
> That's what YOU did, asshole. YOU were the POS who said "whoring around", did you not?
> 
> As shown by the info from the abortion industry itself, 93% of abortions are done out of convenience.
> 
> No stupid, they are not....YOU essentially take your personal OPINION, supposition and conjecture to substitute for what EXACTLY was stated by the stats you provided earlier....as I demonstrated.
> 
> 1% are rape
> 
> 6% are due to health concerns
Click to expand...


Which doesn't change the chronology of the post that shows YOU substituting your personal bias and opinion for what was ACTUALLY stated.  Get your shit together, JB.


----------



## JBeukema

Those under 18 can't get birth control/condoms?
Where do you live?



> I'm calling YOU a fucking LIAR, JB



Then there's no point wasting any more time with you, since you're just going to lie and call names.

Killing a child is not taking responsibility for the child. No amount or Orwellian spin will ever make it so.

Why can't you people ever be honest?


> Hiding pregnancies of under-age girls, btw, helps protect those who abuse or take advantage of them  Quote:
> 
> Again, NO SHIT SHERLOCK!.  But assholes like you are against abortion..




So you admit you advocate protecting those who sexually abuse underage girls?


----------



## JBeukema

Tai, why is it you Democrats' kids can't find a condom but can always find an abortionist?


----------



## taichiliberal

JBeukema said:


> Those under 18 can't get birth control/condoms?
> Where do you live?
> 
> For your education......I suggest you read it carefully and comprehensively:
> 
> Teen Birth Control Confidentiality Laws | eHow.com
> 
> 
> Get Real! Is It Really Illegal to Sell Me Condoms? | RH Reality Check
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calling YOU a fucking LIAR, JB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's no point wasting any more time with you, since you're just going to lie and call names.
> 
> The chronology of the post clearly shows YOU to initiate the nasty, condescending attitude and name calling JB....and I'm not even counting all those childish e-mails you sent.  If you can't take it, don't dish it out.  Also, since YOU can't logically or factually prove me to be Lying about anything, your accusation is a joke.   I just took your claim and measured it against all the dreck you've been posting...and YOU, JB, just don't bear up to examination.
> Killing a child is not taking responsibility for the child. No amount or Orwellian spin will ever make it so.
> 
> And no amount of bluenosed, Church lady dogma is going to change the facts regarding the reasons for abortion....or erase the facts that jokers like YOU, JB, are quick to whine about a "welfare state" and "entitlements".....or erase the posts that shows how YOU, JB, distort, misrepresent and avoid facts that don't fully support your beliefs.
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> As the chronology of the posts shows, it's YOU, JB, who has been intellectually dishonest.  To date, you keep trying to replace the facts with your opinion, supposition and conjecture....and you fail, JB...everytime.
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding pregnancies of under-age girls, btw, helps protect those who abuse or take advantage of them  Quote:
> 
> Again, NO SHIT SHERLOCK!.  But assholes like you are against abortion..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you advocate protecting those who sexually abuse underage girls?
Click to expand...


Ahhh, JB finally shows his hand.....when lying SOS like JB can't win an argument, they resort to either taking quotes out of context and slapping on their supposition and conjecture.  But all you have to do is read the actual exchange http://www.usmessageboard.com/3587635-post1593.html  to know what a third rate propagandist JB is.  Hell, notice all that JB WON'T DARE respond to.

Well, you can't argue with intellectually dishonest and insipidly stubborn jokers like JB.  I'm done humiliating him, and leave him to repeat his dreck ad nauseum.


----------



## taichiliberal

JBeukema said:


> Tai, why is it you Democrats' kids can't find a condom but can always find an abortionist?



JB, just when I think you can't get any more ridiculous, you surprise me with dreck like this.  Here stupid, Read the links provided in the post and learn something.  I'm done wasting time on you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3587635-post1593.html


----------



## JBeukema

taichiliberal said:


> YOU, JB, are quick to whine about a "welfare state" and "entitlements".....



Cite


Why do you people always lie? Why can't you ever be honest?


----------



## AllieBaba

snjmom said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that all women of Sanger's era were racists, and she was just a product of her times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much. Wouldn't say it was absolute but a majority of the population? Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know she believed in forced sterilization of undesirables, right...do you think everyone wanted that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not everyone wanted it. Many were content to watch the slums fester, to see women die after producing 15 pregnancies with 6 or 10 surviving children.
> 
> 
> And the pendulum is swinging that way again.
Click to expand...

 
The slums are much larger than they were now. So how did abortion help with reducing numbers in the slums?

It didn't.

Sanger was a fanatic, as are most proponents of baby killing and forced sterilization.


----------



## Chris

Unwanted children are much more likely to be abused.

Therefore abortion opponents are pro child abuse.


----------



## AllieBaba

So long as abortion is legal,  children are more likely to be killed.

And the stats bear that out.


----------



## AllieBaba

"
STUDY DESIGN: Since 1997, representative samples of Spanish women of childbearing potential (15-49 years) have been surveyed by the Daphne Team every 2 years to gather data of contraceptive methods used.
RESULTS: During the study period, 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. The most commonly used method was the condom (an increase from 21% to 38.8%), followed by the pill (an increase from 14.2% to 20.3%). Female sterilization and IUDs decreased slightly and were used by less than 5% of women in 2007. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women.
CONCLUSIONS: *The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation.*​As* Suzanne* at _*Big Blue Wave*_ noted:
So in the ten year period that contraception use increased by about 60%, the abortion rate doubled. In other words, even with an increase in contraception use, there werent fewer unwanted pregnancies, there were more.​Any person with common sense could cue the researchers that the more casual sex one has, the greater likelihood there will be of pregnancy, contraception use notwithstanding."

Study: Contraception use up, abortions double; researchers can&#8217;t figure out why - Jill Stanek


----------



## AllieBaba

The results from the study:

"
*Results*

During the study period, 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. The most commonly used method was the condom (an increase from 21% to 38.8%), followed by the pill (an increase from 14.2% to 20.3%). Female sterilization and IUDs decreased slightly and were used by less than 5% of women in 2007. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women."
Elsevier


----------



## manifold

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> *-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position*




Just yesterday this schizo claimed to be pro-choice.

I wonder what lies he uses to defend his indefensible position.


----------



## AllieBaba

JB has never been pro-choice, if by pro-choice you mean pro-abortion.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AllieBaba said:


> So are you saying that all women of Sanger's era were racists, and she was just a product of her times?
> 
> You do know she believed in forced sterilization of undesirables, right...do you think everyone wanted that?



Sanger has nothing to do with this argument.


----------



## AllieBaba

Really I agree, but I was just responding to the comment that racist nazism was universal in Sanger's time.

It's hogwash. And when someone in the pro-abortion crowd claims EVERYONE was racist and dabbled in nazism back then, it's dishonest, and that makes it relevant to this convo.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AllieBaba said:


> Really I agree, but I was just responding to the comment that racist nazism was universal in Sanger's time.
> 
> It's hogwash. And when someone in the pro-abortion crowd claims EVERYONE was racist and dabbled in nazism back then, it's dishonest, and that makes it relevant to this convo.



Eugenics was a very popular object of interest in the 1st half of the 20th century.


----------



## AllieBaba

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> more sex offenders work in the education system than in ANY OTHER PROFESSION .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you source that, please?
Click to expand...

 
Ooh...just came across this. Give me a little time and I'll source it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AllieBaba said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pro-abortion' has simply become a propaganda term used by the anti-choicers as part of their arsenal of fallacious arguments against abortion rights.
> 
> *It's very hard to make a logical argument against offering women a legally protected reasonable window of opportunity to choose to terminate a pregnancy,*
> 
> *in fact, I've heard never one (take that as a challenge, folks). Thus, of course, the illogical arguments against that choice rule the debate*,
> 
> from the anti-choice side.This thread is a perfect example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as you see,
> 
> no matter how much you challenge them to do so, no anti-abortionists can step forward and make such an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a lie. But of course, if you're to promote the killing of children, you have to lie. There is no way to defend it, otherwise.
> There are many arguments against it. The primary ones are  that the abortion system protects child rapists, and devalues the lives of children.
Click to expand...


I want to hear those arguments, then, in explicit detail.  I want to hear those arguments make the case that criminalizing abortion,

making abortion a serious crime for which both abortionists and women who have abortions are given appropriately serious criminal punishments,

is a greater good to society/humanity as opposed to allowing pregnant women a reasonable window of opportunity to legally terminate a pregnancy.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Soggy in NOLA said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that and believe it is wrong.
> Facts are facts.
> Facts are also that out of that 93% that do it for convenience only:
> 100% of them that have $$$ will find a doctor to legally perform the abortion for "the safety of the mother" and not be challenged at all.
> *The others that have no $$ will have the kids that they do not want and do not know how to care for*.
> Abortion is terrible but no law stops it. Just adds more hypocrisy to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you honestly think that all poor women who get knocked up are too stupid to round up $500 for an abortion and too stupid to care for a child?
> 
> That's ridiculous. There is absolutely NO correlation between abortion and child abuse or neglect. NONE. There is no evidence that abortion prevents any sort of child abuse or child neglect. The people who abuse and neglect their children are NOT women who wanted abortions but *couldn't* get them.
> 
> And what makes you think that a woman who wants to kill her kid but can't would balk at putting the child up for adoption? Women who get pregnant can get a free ride throughout their pregnancy and all sorts of perks if they give the baby up for adoption. Do you really think poor women are universally too stupid to know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion is all about flushing bad decisions down the drain.
Click to expand...


So what?

Criminalizing abortion is about sending women to prison for the rest of their lives for having taken some pills that brought about the death of a small group of cells that happen to contain human DNA.

When someone can convince me THAT makes sense, then they can convince me abortion is murder.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Your 14 year old daughter finds out she's a few weeks pregnant.  She does NOT want to have a baby.

Pro - choice:  She can go to a doctor, be given RU 486, and terminate the pregnancy.

Pro - life:  Abortion is murder.  Either she carries to term, or she tries to have an illegal abortion somehow, somewhere, and if caught,

goes to prison for many many years.

SOMEONE convince me scenario #2 above makes more sense in a civilized society.


----------



## AllieBaba

" Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade&#8212;1991-2000. That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests. 
Such figures led her to contend "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church


----------



## AllieBaba

NYcarbineer said:


> Your 14 year old daughter finds out she's a few weeks pregnant. She does NOT want to have a baby.
> 
> Pro - choice: She can go to a doctor, be given RU 486, and terminate the pregnancy.
> 
> Pro - life: Abortion is murder. Either she carries to term, or she tries to have an illegal abortion somehow, somewhere, and if caught,
> 
> goes to prison for many many years.
> 
> SOMEONE convince me scenario #2 above makes more sense in a civilized society.


 
You can't be convinced, and the arguments have already been made.

In which scenario do you think it's more likely that someone looks into the circumstances under which she was impregnated? Because it's almost certainly a much older man.


----------



## AllieBaba

And where do you get the garbage that she would go to jail for *many years*? That's hogwash. People who kill their (post birth) children don't go to jail for *many years*.


----------



## AllieBaba

JB:

"

*Job of offenders*
. Reflecting the reanalysis of the 2000 Hostile Hallways

data (published in 2001), Table 7 documents the percent of students who have been
targets of educator sexual misconduct by role of educator. Teachers are reported most
often, followed by coaches. Gallagher (2000) reported that teachers accounted for 90
percent of the school institutional sexual abuse cases in his analysis5.
Teachers whose job description includes time with individual students, such as
music teachers or coaches, are more likely to sexually abuse than other teachers.
Jennings and Tharp found that 25 percent of the educators in Texas who were disciplined
for sexual infractions involving students between 1995 and 2003 were coaches or music
teachers. Willmsen and O&#8217;Hagan found Washington state teachers who coach were
&#8220;three times more likely to be investigated by the state for sexual misconduct than noncoaching
teachers.&#8221; ​

​*
*http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf​


----------



## NYcarbineer

AllieBaba said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your 14 year old daughter finds out she's a few weeks pregnant. She does NOT want to have a baby.
> 
> Pro - choice: She can go to a doctor, be given RU 486, and terminate the pregnancy.
> 
> Pro - life: Abortion is murder. Either she carries to term, or she tries to have an illegal abortion somehow, somewhere, and if caught,
> 
> goes to prison for many many years.
> 
> SOMEONE convince me scenario #2 above makes more sense in a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be convinced, and the arguments have already been made.
> 
> In which scenario do you think it's more likely that someone looks into the circumstances under which she was impregnated? Because it's almost certainly a much older man.
Click to expand...


No the arguments haven't.  Not to me they haven't.  I want to hear a good argument that scenario #2 makes more sense.

Your position is that society is best served by criminalizing abortion because somehow, under fear of imprisonment, 14 year old girls having unwanted babies will make it easier to find out if they were victims of statutory rape??

That's a sensible tradeoff in your opinion?  That's your idea of a sound argument for criminalizing abortion?

Then what's your argument for criminalizing abortion if the woman is 35, married, and already has 3 children and neither her nor her husband want her to have another??


----------



## NYcarbineer

AllieBaba said:


> And where do you get the garbage that she would go to jail for *many years*? That's hogwash. People who kill their (post birth) children don't go to jail for *many years*.



Why wouldn't you want a woman to go to prison for 'many years' for murdering her unborn child?

You want to classify it as murder, and then condone it?  What penalties, specifically, would you like to see imposed for the crime of murder by abortion?


----------



## AllieBaba

NYcarbineer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your 14 year old daughter finds out she's a few weeks pregnant. She does NOT want to have a baby.
> 
> Pro - choice: She can go to a doctor, be given RU 486, and terminate the pregnancy.
> 
> Pro - life: Abortion is murder. Either she carries to term, or she tries to have an illegal abortion somehow, somewhere, and if caught,
> 
> goes to prison for many many years.
> 
> SOMEONE convince me scenario #2 above makes more sense in a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be convinced, and the arguments have already been made.
> 
> In which scenario do you think it's more likely that someone looks into the circumstances under which she was impregnated? Because it's almost certainly a much older man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the arguments haven't. Not to me they haven't. I want to hear a good argument that scenario #2 makes more sense.
> 
> Your position is that society is best served by criminalizing abortion because somehow, under fear of imprisonment, 14 year old girls having unwanted babies will make it easier to find out if they were victims of statutory rape??
> 
> That's a sensible tradeoff in your opinion? That's your idea of a sound argument for criminalizing abortion?
> 
> Then what's your argument for criminalizing abortion if the woman is 35, married, and already has 3 children and neither her nor her husband want her to have another??
Click to expand...

 
False premise
Logical fallacy.

Which is why I said, you can't be convinced. And also why the title of this thread pertains to the dishonesty of the pro-abortionists. You make up fake scenarios that have no basis in fact, and you expect an intelligent argument about it.


----------



## sinister59

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



funny how you think people that are for a women's rights of her own body are cowards  ,yet anti -abortionist murder , blow up building , stay anonymous are heroes so your definition of coward is distorted . badly .woman's body are not public domain .


----------



## AllieBaba

Another lie.

Thanks for proving the OP correct.


----------



## sinister59

AllieBaba said:


> Another lie.
> 
> Thanks for proving the OP correct.



lie ?


----------



## AllieBaba

"funny how you think people that are for a women's rights of her own body are cowards ,yet anti -abortionist murder , blow up building , stay anonymous are heroes so your definition of coward is distorted . "

Lie.

Though it's so jumbled it's hard to decipher, stating "you think" and then jamming together a bunch of lies that you can't verify, is of course, a lie.


----------



## sinister59

AllieBaba said:


> "funny how you think people that are for a women's rights of her own body are cowards ,yet anti -abortionist murder , blow up building , stay anonymous are heroes so your definition of coward is distorted . "
> 
> Lie.
> 
> Though it's so jumbled it's hard to decipher, stating "you think" and then jamming together a bunch of lies that you can't verify, is of course, a lie.



wow I'd get my computer looked at if thats what you see .
 its plain if your not stupid ? or a child trying to be funny .

you don't like people that aborted their pregnancy ? ok .

you think woman should not have the last say? ok 

but to say doctors have not been murdered [oh wait I didn't take into consideration your moral stance on killing people doing things you don't approve of]

not one fucking lie .

clinics have been blown up , doctors have been lets say killed . ok because my guess is you think a christan doesn't murder sop that one is semantics .

as for you thoughts on me ? LOL fuck you I could care less . .

your just a putts anyway


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as you see,
> 
> no matter how much you challenge them to do so, no anti-abortionists can step forward and make such an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a lie. But of course, if you're to promote the killing of children, you have to lie. There is no way to defend it, otherwise.
> There are many arguments against it. The primary ones are  that the abortion system protects child rapists, and devalues the lives of children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to hear those arguments, then, in explicit detail.
Click to expand...

So you're pretending you never read her posts earlier in this thread?

Or are you just being dishonest again, as is your wont?


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you honestly think that all poor women who get knocked up are too stupid to round up $500 for an abortion and too stupid to care for a child?
> 
> That's ridiculous. There is absolutely NO correlation between abortion and child abuse or neglect. NONE. There is no evidence that abortion prevents any sort of child abuse or child neglect. The people who abuse and neglect their children are NOT women who wanted abortions but *couldn't* get them.
> 
> And what makes you think that a woman who wants to kill her kid but can't would balk at putting the child up for adoption? Women who get pregnant can get a free ride throughout their pregnancy and all sorts of perks if they give the baby up for adoption. Do you really think poor women are universally too stupid to know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is all about flushing bad decisions down the drain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Criminalizing abortion is about sending women to prison for the rest of their lives for having taken some pills that brought about the death of a small group of cells that happen to contain human DNA.
Click to expand...

Is your body not a mere collection of cells even today?


----------



## JBeukema

sinister59 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny how you think people that are for a women's rights of her own body are cowards
Click to expand...


1) Not your body. Learn basic biology. Why do you people have to lie?

2) Where did I say they were cowards? Why do you people always lie?





> ,yet anti -abortionist murder , blow up building , stay anonymous are heroes



Do Cite.

Why can't you people ever  be honest?


----------



## JBeukema

I'm tempted to call Poe's law on this one.


----------



## CandySlice

It's not about dead babies. Nobody wants to see dead babies. What the right to life groups all have in common is they are usually headed up by men. Men that want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen. It's not about abortion as much as it is about taking away the rights we women have fought so hard to achieve. Up until 1920 a woman was little more than chattle and could be dismissed and thrown out with the garbage or bartered like cattle. We've come a long way and  not the Government nor anybody else needs to concern themselves with my bush! I'm managing fine, thank you.
What a woman does with her body is between her, her doctor and her God. It is nobody elses business.


----------



## JBeukema

CandySlice said:


> What a woman does with her body is between her, her doctor and her God. It is nobody elses business.




Agreed. As for what she does to another human being, well that's another matter, isn't it?


----------



## snjmom

AllieBaba said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that all women of Sanger's era were racists, and she was just a product of her times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much. Wouldn't say it was absolute but a majority of the population? Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know she believed in forced sterilization of undesirables, right...do you think everyone wanted that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not everyone wanted it. Many were content to watch the slums fester, to see women die after producing 15 pregnancies with 6 or 10 surviving children.
> 
> 
> And the pendulum is swinging that way again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The slums are much larger than they were now. So how did abortion help with reducing numbers in the slums?
> 
> It didn't.
> 
> Sanger was a fanatic, as are most proponents of baby killing and forced sterilization.
Click to expand...


You must be insane. Please look at population statistics for the turn of the century and compare the percentages with today. Then look at average family size. 

As for your educator/priest comparison, how is a study of abuse in an educational setting offer a comparison to a religious setting? You do know that the majority of abuse happens within a family context, right? You are also aware that the past two decades have seen a decline in both physical and sexual abuse, right?

Could that possibly be because we have tried as a society to turn away from the only sluts and whores have sex meme? 

Where is your proof that turn of the century folk believed in the equality of the races? Is that enshrined in the Jim Crow statutes? The Chinese Exclusion Act? I'll grant you the Progressives, but do you want to base your argument on commie sympathizing?


----------



## snjmom

JBeukema said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a woman does with her body is between her, her doctor and her God. It is nobody elses business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. As for what she does to another human being, well that's another matter, isn't it?
Click to expand...


And when that other human being exists inside another human being, then it exists on the permission of it's host, no?

That is basic biology.


----------



## JBeukema

If you chose to have sex, you invited the possibility of pregnancy. Time to grow up. If you're big enough to fuck, you're big enough to take responsibility for your child. Spare us the bullshit.


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> It's not about dead babies. Nobody wants to see dead babies. What the right to life groups all have in common is they are usually headed up by men. Men that want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen. It's not about abortion as much as it is about taking away the rights we women have fought so hard to achieve. Up until 1920 a woman was little more than chattle and could be dismissed and thrown out with the garbage or bartered like cattle. We've come a long way and  not the Government nor anybody else needs to concern themselves with my bush! I'm managing fine, thank you.
> What a woman does with her body is between her, her doctor and her God. It is nobody elses business.



Please cite where you get your information in regards to what men want.  Because I think you are either dead wrong or not being honest.

Also, there are two (or more) bodies involved in every abortion.  The mother and at least one of her offspring.  The body of the offspring is not hers nor is its life.

Immie


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Be Honest?



Whom exactly are you challenging to be honest? I know of no one who is pro-abortion, including myself. 

Remember also that a woman doesnt have a right to an abortion, but all Americans have a Constitutional right to privacy  and in that context of privacy the state may not prohibit a woman from having an abortion. 

Now, you may consider scientific, ethical, or religious doctrine when making a decision as to whether to have an abortion or not, but thats a personal matter, decided by the individual, not to be interfered with by the state. 

And although the issue is unresolved in the scientific community and by ethicists, the legal aspect of the issue is settled  which is all that matters from a public policy standpoint. 

See: 

_Griswold v. Connecticut_, 1965

_Roe v Wade,_ 1973

_Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey_, 1992


----------



## snjmom

JBeukema said:


> If you chose to have sex, you invited the possibility of pregnancy. Time to grow up. If you're big enough to fuck, you're big enough to take responsibility for your child. Spare us the bullshit.



Bullshit. The choice is celibacy or as many children as nature decides to throw at you?

Any other aspect of life that you refuse redress on?

If you drive and get in an accident, no hospital for you, you took that risk on?

If you eat red meat and have a heart attack, tough shit?

I believe in taking care of your children. Sometimes that means not having one while it's still in the fetal stage. Even if you do have sex.


----------



## snjmom

Immanuel said:


> ]
> Also, there are two (or more) bodies involved in every abortion.  The mother and at least one of her offspring.  The body of the offspring is not hers nor is its life.
> 
> Immie



Nor does the body of the woman belong to the offspring to do with as it pleases. Again, anytime you can remove the offspring and find an alternative incubation method, feel free to outlaw abortion.

Until then, direct your energies at caring for the living and preventing unwanted pregnancy.


----------



## JBeukema

snjmom said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you chose to have sex, you invited the possibility of pregnancy. Time to grow up. If you're big enough to fuck, you're big enough to take responsibility for your child. Spare us the bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The choice is celibacy or as many children as nature decides to throw at you?
Click to expand...


Yes, if you're retarded.

Why is it Democrats' children can never find a condom or the pill or the foam, but can always find someone willing to kill their child?





> If you drive and get in an accident, no hospital for you, you took that risk on?



If you drive 100MPH on the wrong side of the road, yes. If you're old enough to fuck, you're old enough to the responsible and take reasonable measures to prevented unwanted pregnancy. If you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to drive in the right side of the fucking road and obey the speed limit.


> I believe in taking care of your children.



By killing them?

Killing your children in taking care of them?

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength...


> Sometimes that means not having one



Condom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> while it's still in the fetal stage.



If there's a foetus, you already have a child, genius.


----------



## Immanuel

snjmom said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you chose to have sex, you invited the possibility of pregnancy. Time to grow up. If you're big enough to fuck, you're big enough to take responsibility for your child. Spare us the bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The choice is celibacy or as many children as nature decides to throw at you?
> 
> Any other aspect of life that you refuse redress on?
> 
> If you drive and get in an accident, no hospital for you, you took that risk on?
> 
> If you eat red meat and have a heart attack, tough shit?
> 
> I believe in taking care of your children. Sometimes that means not having one while it's still in the fetal stage. Even if you do have sex.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that birth control is not effective?  Are you saying the ONLY way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence?  Abstinence is, I would agree the only 100% guaranteed way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STD's but I was pretty certain there were other methods that had pretty decent records to rely on.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

snjmom said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> Also, there are two (or more) bodies involved in every abortion.  The mother and at least one of her offspring.  The body of the offspring is not hers nor is its life.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does the body of the woman belong to the offspring to do with as it pleases. Again, anytime you can remove the offspring and find an alternative incubation method, feel free to outlaw abortion.
> 
> Until then, direct your energies at caring for the living and preventing unwanted pregnancy.
Click to expand...


You're not my mom.   I do not have to obey you.    I'll direct my energies where and in however many different directions I care to direct them... thank you very much.

Immie


----------



## Shooter

People who defend abortion don't call their baby a human or a living being because by doing so makes them face reality.  It's easier for them to defend abortion and have one if they believe in their minds it's not alive.  It desensitizes them and the situation and makes what they do seem justified.


----------



## snjmom

> Killing your children in taking care of them?



In some circumstances, yes. If by killing one child I save three, that is taking care of my children. A fetus is not a child, it's a fetus.  A blastocyst is not a child it's a blastocyst. Both may be children in the future, but they aren't at that stage of development.

Maybe they can't find a condom or foam or the pill because they have been told that only sluts and whores have sex and since they aren't sluts and whores planning to have sex, they don't need them? That and Planned Parenthood has been shut down so they can't afford it. Are you saying no Republican children ever have abortions? Since the recorded data doesn't indicate that to be true.

So you are on record that one can only mitigate the risks that JBeukema thinks should be mitigated and no others? Does your universe extend beyond your person?

Immie, what I'm saying is that legal abortion needs to be available in the event that whatever form of birth control is used, fails. Even if the only form is self-control. 

The bottom line is that I am willing to use deadly force to protect my body and property and that not even my own offspring have any right to them. Period.


----------



## Immanuel

Shooter said:


> People who defend abortion don't call their baby a human or a living being because by doing so makes them face reality.  It's easier for them to defend abortion and have one if they believe in their minds it's not alive.  It desensitizes them and the situation and makes what they do seem justified.



Not to mention the more they say it, the more likely they are to convince others sitting on the fence that a fetus is just a clump of cells and is not human.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

snjmom said:


> Killing your children in taking care of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In some circumstances, yes. If by killing one child I save three, that is taking care of my children. A fetus is not a child, it's a fetus.  A blastocyst is not a child it's a blastocyst. Both may be children in the future, but they aren't at that stage of development.
> 
> Maybe they can't find a condom or foam or the pill because they have been told that only sluts and whores have sex and since they aren't sluts and whores planning to have sex, they don't need them? That and Planned Parenthood has been shut down so they can't afford it. Are you saying no Republican children ever have abortions? Since the recorded data doesn't indicate that to be true.
> 
> So you are on record that one can only mitigate the risks that JBeukema thinks should be mitigated and no others? Does your universe extend beyond your person?
> 
> Immie, what I'm saying is that legal abortion needs to be available in the event that whatever form of birth control is used, fails. Even if the only form is self-control.
> 
> The bottom line is that I am willing to use deadly force to protect my body and property and that not even my own offspring have any right to them. Period.
Click to expand...


Mom, 

Have you seen a post of mine calling for abortion to be made illegal?

If you have only been reading my posts on this site and not posts that I made 10 years ago on another site, then no, you have never read that from me.  I've grown from the thought that all who support abortion were "pro-abortion" baby-killers to the realization that most of you really want the same thing I want... fewer abortion and in a perfect world, no abortions at all.

That does not mean that I believe we as a nation should promote the killing of babies as we now do.

Immie


----------



## sinister59

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a lie. But of course, if you're to promote the killing of children, you have to lie. There is no way to defend it, otherwise.
> There are many arguments against it. The primary ones are  that the abortion system protects child rapists, and devalues the lives of children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to hear those arguments, then, in explicit detail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're pretending you never read her posts earlier in this thread?
> 
> Or are you just being dishonest again, as is your wont?
Click to expand...


if a women doesn't want the pregnancy ? screw you . 
who are you to tell anyone if or if not they can have sex ?
where dose your nose come in on other people lives ? 
 now I know you have adopted so many unwonted fertilized eggs and orphanages know you by sight as a prolific adopter . 

but where do you get off judging others?

your not carrying the it, I'm not , no labor pain for me or you ? we're not going to take responsibility to raise it . 
wheres your right ?


----------



## snjmom

Who "promotes" killing babies?

Being available if necessary is far different than promoting it. The only abortion advertising I have seen is to keep it safe and legal and anti-abortion. I've yet to see a 2 for 1 deal or how having one will make you more attractive etc, etc.

Would you say the medical industry promotes amputation because it is safe and legal?


----------



## Immanuel

sinister59 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to hear those arguments, then, in explicit detail.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're pretending you never read her posts earlier in this thread?
> 
> Or are you just being dishonest again, as is your wont?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if a women doesn't want the pregnancy ? screw you .
> who are you to tell anyone if or if not they can have sex ?
> where dose your nose come in on other people lives ?
> now I know you have adopted so many unwonted fertilized eggs and orphanages know you by sight as a prolific adopter .
> 
> but where do you get off judging others?
> 
> your not carrying the it, I'm not , no labor pain for me or you ? we're not going to take responsibility to raise it .
> wheres your right ?
Click to expand...


I was unaware that JB ever said a person could not have sex.  I do recall him saying that the product of sex is biological life.  I also recall him asking those who are pro-choice to defend their positions, which I don't believe any have done successfully and few have done even remotely well.

Shame on you JB for forbidding sex!

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

snjmom said:


> Who "promotes" killing babies?
> 
> Being available if necessary is far different than promoting it. The only abortion advertising I have seen is to keep it safe and legal and anti-abortion. I've yet to see a 2 for 1 deal or how having one will make you more attractive etc, etc.
> 
> Would you say the medical industry promotes amputation because it is safe and legal?



Planned Parenthood promotes killing babies.

This nation by supporting Planned Parenthood promotes abortion.  Planned Parenthood IS abortion in this nation.  It IS the voice of abortion in this nation and it MOST certainly does promote abortion, not even just the right to abortion.  It promotes abortion as a good thing... no a great thing.

As for the logical fallacy of the medical industry promoting amputation, they don't go out and tell every woman they have the right to an amputation.  When an amputation is warranted, it is a necessity not a "choice".

Immie


----------



## Shadow

Shooter said:


> People who defend abortion don't call their baby a human or a living being because by doing so makes them face reality.  It's easier for them to defend abortion and have one if they believe in their minds it's not alive.  It desensitizes them and the situation and makes what they do seem justified.



They may try...don't know if they actually succeed though.  I think when it comes right down to it,the woman who end up having them all know it's a baby they are killing.  Why do you think abortions give women emotional trauma's that take years to reconcile?  They don't have "after" an abortion support groups for nothing you know.


----------



## JBeukema

snjmom said:


> A fetus is not a child


Yes, it is. 

Child: offspring; young human

Why do you have to lie about what you advocate unless you know it's inexcusable?




1
_a_ *:* an unborn or recently born person  _b_ _dialect_ *:* a female infant 

2
_a_ *:* a young person especially between infancy and youth    _b_ *:* a childlike or childish person    _c_ *:* a person not yet of age 

3
  usually *childe* _archaic_ *:* a youth of noble birth 

4
_a_ *:* a son or daughter of human parents    _b_ *:* descendant 

5
*:* one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs 

6
*:* product, result <barbed wire  is truly a _child_ of the plains   W. P. Webb> 

 *child·less* _adjective_ 
 *child·less·ness* _noun_ 
 *with child* *:* pregnant

Child - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Why can't you people ever be honest?





> Maybe they can't find a condom or foam or the pill



Yet they can find an abortionist?





> because they have been told that only sluts and whores have sex and since they aren't sluts and whores planning to have sex, they don't need them?



They don't plan to have sex, but they're sexually active?  

Whycome you and your ilk can always find someone to kill your baby, but you can't find a condom?


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who defend abortion don't call their baby a human or a living being because by doing so makes them face reality.  It's easier for them to defend abortion and have one if they believe in their minds it's not alive.  It desensitizes them and the situation and makes what they do seem justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the more they say it, the more likely they are to convince others sitting on the fence that a fetus is just a clump of cells and is not human.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

If you say something enough times, stupid people will believe it.

Unfortunately for the pro-abortionists, the earth is not flat, no matter how many times they say it is.


----------



## JBeukema

sinister59 said:


> if a women doesn't want the pregnancy ?


Then take all reasonable measures to avoid pregnancy. I don't want to get hit by a bus, so I take all reasonable measures to avoid it.


> screw you .



I'll pass. If you give it up that easily, I don't want it.


> who are you to tell anyone if or if not they can have sex ?


Where has anyone here done any such thing? Oh yeah, only in your head.

Why can't you people ever be honest?



> but where do you get off judging others?



You're right. Let's not judge anyone or tell people what they can or can't do. Let's release all the murderers and rapists, get rid of the police, revoke all traffic laws, and enjoy our libertarian paradise.


----------



## JBeukema

snjmom said:


> Who "promotes" killing babies?



People like you in this very thread. Also, the doctors who make their monney from abortions.





> Being available if necessary



93% of abortions are done for simple convenience. The only case you've made is one of convenience- is she doesn't want her baby to live.

As for abortion being 'safe', I refer you to Philadelphia.


----------



## JBeukema

On both February 18 and February 23, 2010, federal agents raided  Gosnell&#8217;s abortion clinic, the Women&#8217;s Medical Society, and found  &#8220;deplorable and unsanitary&#8221; conditions including blood on the floors;  parts of aborted children stored in jars; post-operative recovery areas  that consisted solely of recliners; padlocked emergency exits; and  broken and inoperable emergency equipment.  During the course of the  investigation, it was discovered that Gosnell typically did not arrive  at the clinic until 6 pm each day and sanctioned the performance of  gynecological exams and the administration of controlled substances and  prescription medication by non-licensed staff at the clinic.


----------



## snjmom

> Then take all reasonable measures to avoid pregnancy. I don't want to get hit by a bus, so I take all reasonable measures to avoid it.



And when those reasonable measure fail, you should just accept the fact the bus hit you and you will have to carry on in life, crippled with no medical remedy?

Why does having sex give someone else the right to use my body for their own survival? Because biology says so? 

Any other instances where we just have to agree with biology and not fight it's results and consequences? 

No cancer treatment, no diabetes treatment, no STD treatment etc etc?

We kill already born children for political reasons yet abortion is the issue you can't avoid?


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> I was unaware that JB ever said a person could not have sex.



I didn't. That's why they can't cite.



> Shame on you JB for forbidding sex!



Are you being sarcastic? All I ever said was that if you're old enough to fuck, you're old enough to take responsibility for your actions and your children.

If you're not ready to take all reasonable measures to avoid pregnancy and to be responsible, them keep your pants on.

That right there *alone* would end 93% of abortions (all those done for convenience, leaving 6%out of medical concern and 1% in cases of rape). If they really wanted less abortions, Immie, they'd tell their kids to keep their pants on until they're ready to take all reasonable measures to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and take responsibility for any children they do make, either by providing a good home or by placing the child with someone who will.

Yet they steadfastly rail against personal responsibility. They take up their pro-abortion banner because they are anti-responsibility. They do not believe anyone should ever be responsible for their decisions. They do not want to grow up. Killing their children appeals to them because it means they never have to grow up and be responsible.

No, Immie, you are wrong. Most of them do* not* want less abortions. If they did, they wouldn't advocate irresponsibility and having unprotected sex outside of a committed relationship. They would teach their daughters how to pick a good man, how to use a condom, and where to acquire birth control. Instead, they teach them how to find an abortionist. They would locate sources of free condoms. These women would learn how to use a condom instead of how to find someone to kill their children.

No, Immie, they don't want less abortions and it's not an emergency 93% of the time. That's why they do it again and again and again instead of showing the slightest bit of personal responsibility. Because killing your child is easier than growing up and no longer acting like a child yourself.


----------



## snjmom

JBeukema said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who "promotes" killing babies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you in this very thread. Also, the doctors who make their monney from abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being available if necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 93% of abortions are done for simple convenience. The only case you've made is one of convenience- is she doesn't want her baby to live.
> 
> As for abortion being 'safe', I refer you to Philadelphia.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. Making them safe and legal does not "promote" abortion. It just makes it safe and legal. Ever try to talk a woman out of having a baby? Me neither.

Is pregnancy, delivery and the raising of a child a mere "inconvenience"? In my neck of the woods it's a life-changing event, not an inconvenience.


----------



## JBeukema

snjmom said:


> Then take all reasonable measures to avoid pregnancy. I don't want to get hit by a bus, so I take all reasonable measures to avoid it.
> 
> 
> 
> And when those reasonable measure fail, you should just accept the fact the bus hit you and you will have to carry on in life, crippled with no medical remedy?
Click to expand...


Fixing my broken bones =/= killing another human being.

Why can't you people ever show the slightest bit oh honesty or intelligence?





> Why does having sex give someone else the right to use my body for their own survival?


You chose to have sex. You accepted the risk of pregnancy. Time to grow up and be responsible for your decisions. Instead of killing your child, you shouldn't have engaged in sex if you weren't prepared to care for your child.





> No cancer treatment, no diabetes treatment, no STD treatment etc etc?



None of those involve killing a human child.

Why can't you people ever show any sign of intellectual honesty? Why do you have to lie to yourself about the subject if what you advocate isn't wrong?


> We kill already born children for political reasons


You'll have a hard time finding any instance of me supporting war in principle or any recent wars in practice.

Why do you feel the need to change the subject? If what you advocate isn't wrong, why can't you face it?


----------



## JBeukema

Shadow said:


> Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who defend abortion don't call their baby a human or a living being because by doing so makes them face reality.  It's easier for them to defend abortion and have one if they believe in their minds it's not alive.  It desensitizes them and the situation and makes what they do seem justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They may try...don't know if they actually succeed though.  I think when it comes right down to it,the woman who end up having them all know it's a baby they are killing.  Why do you think abortions give women emotional trauma's that take years to reconcile?  They don't have "after" an abortion support groups for nothing you know.
Click to expand...


Most people who kill other human beings aren't given therapy, are they?

Why should i feel pity for the 93% cases who killed their baby out of convenience?


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about dead babies. Nobody wants to see dead babies. What the right to life groups all have in common is they are usually headed up by men. Men that want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen. It's not about abortion as much as it is about taking away the rights we women have fought so hard to achieve. Up until 1920 a woman was little more than chattle and could be dismissed and thrown out with the garbage or bartered like cattle. We've come a long way and  not the Government nor anybody else needs to concern themselves with my bush! I'm managing fine, thank you.
> What a woman does with her body is between her, her doctor and her God. It is nobody elses business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite where you get your information in regards to what men want.  Because I think you are either dead wrong or not being honest.
> 
> Also, there are two (or more) bodies involved in every abortion.  The mother and at least one of her offspring.  The body of the offspring is not hers nor is its life.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Immie, glad you asked that. Here's a partial list of the good people (mostly men) that want to stop abortion.


United States
The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.[citation needed]

[edit] Murders In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[6][7]

March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.

December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.

January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.[/COLOR

]October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas[edit] Attempted murder, assault, and kidnappingAccording to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[9] Attempted murders in the U.S. included:

August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).
July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.

December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.

October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.

January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.

Arson, bombing, and property crimeAccording to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[9] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[13] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[14] Incidents have included:

December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."

May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.

October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison

May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved. This was the second arson at the clinic.

September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.

June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.

July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.

December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a &#8220;memorial lamp&#8221; for an abortion she had had there.


September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.

April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. 

May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman&#8217;s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.

January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness  rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.


Anthrax threats'

The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.

November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.[edit] 

Outside the United States

Outside of the United States, known incidents of anti-abortion violence were committed in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

[edit] AustraliaJuly 16, 2001: Steven Rogers, a security guard at a clinic in Melbourne, Australia was shot in the chest and killed by Peter James Knight. Knight was charged and was sentenced to life in prison on November 19, 2002.

January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Faulty construction of the bombs limited damage to a single external burnt area, though if successful damage would have been severe. It is believed that the inviduals who made the attack were responsible for graffiti "baby killers" on the site, indicating a pro-life reason for the attack. The site turned out to in fact not be an abortion clinic, though the attackers most likely were not aware of this.

[edit] Canada[edit] Attempted murder

Violence has also occurred in Canada, where three doctors have been attacked to date. There is speculation that the timing of the shootings is related to the Canadian observance of Remembrance Day. The physicians were part of pattern of attacks, which targeted providers in Canada and upstate New York, including Dr. Barnett Slepian. All victims were shot in their homes with a rifle, at dusk, in late October or early November. James Kopp was charged with the murder of Dr. Slepian and the attempted murder of Dr. Short; he is suspected of having committed the other shootings as well.[10][11]

November 8, 1994: Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver, British Columbia was shot.

November 10, 1995: Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ontario was shot.

November 11, 1997: Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg, Manitoba was shot.

July 11, 2000: Dr. Romalis was stabbed by an unidentified assailant in the lobby of his clinic.
[edit] Bombing and property damage

February 25, 1990: Two men broke into a clinic in Vancouver and destroyed $C30,000 worth of medical equipment with crowbars.[36]
May 18, 1992: A Toronto clinic operated by Henry Morgentaler was firebombed, causing the entire front wall of the building to collapse.[37]
[edit] New Zealand

In 1999 Graeme White was found guilty and jailed for tunneling into an abortion clinic in a failed attempt to blow it up.


----------



## JBeukema

snjmom said:


> Bullshit. Making them safe and legal does not "promote" abortion.



Safe? Do you ever watch the news?

And yes, making it legal and then telling women it's the easy solution to the problem of having to grow the fuck up and be responsible for their actions and decisions *is* promoting it.


----------



## Immanuel

JBeukema said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was unaware that JB ever said a person could not have sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. That's why they can't cite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on you JB for forbidding sex!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being sarcastic? All I ever said was that if you're old enough to fuck, you're old enough to take responsibility for your actions and your children.
> 
> If you're not ready to take all reasonable measures to avoid pregnancy and to be responsible, them keep your pants on.
> 
> That right there *alone* would end 93% of abortions (all those done for convenience, leaving 6%out of medical concern and 1% in cases of rape). If they really wanted less abortions, Immie, they'd tell their kids to keep their pants on until they're ready to take all reasonable measures to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and take responsibility for any children they do make, either by providing a good home or by placing the child with someone who will.
> 
> Yet they steadfastly rail against personal responsibility. They take up their pro-abortion banner because they are anti-responsibility. They do not believe anyone should ever be responsible for their decisions. They do not want to grow up. Killing their children appeals to them because it means they never have to grow up and be responsible.
> 
> No, Immie, you are wrong. Most of them do* not* want less abortions. If they did, they wouldn't advocate irresponsibility and having unprotected sex outside of a committed relationship. They would teach their daughters how to pick a good man, how to use a condom, and where to acquire birth control. Instead, they teach them how to find an abortionist. They would locate sources of free condoms. These women would learn how to use a condom instead of how to find someone to kill their children.
> 
> No, Immie, they don't want less abortions and it's not an emergency 93% of the time. That's why they do it again and again and again instead of showing the slightest bit of personal responsibility. Because killing your child is easier than growing up and no longer acting like a child yourself.
Click to expand...


In regards to the "No, Immie, you are wrong" and "No, Immie, they don't want less abortions".  You seem to be under the assumption that all who promote abortion rights have engaged in sexual promiscuity, have encouraged (or at least not discouraged) their daughters from doing so or have undergone abortions themselves or even would encourage their daughters to do so.  I believe that many of them would not have one themselves, but do not want the government dictating to them whether or not they can have one.  I can understand that... I don't like the government dictating to me what speed I can drive or (even though I don't smoke it) whether or not I can smoke pot.  

I am not gay and I believe that marriage is the realm of the church.  That does not mean that I believe that the government should a) interfere with a homosexual couple's right to  be married in a church that will marry them and b) show preference to straight couples who are married in or out of the church.

I, honestly, do not believe that most "pro-choice" people want a high number of abortions.  I think most people find abortion abhorrent... or at least, dagnamit I hope they do.

Immie


----------



## snjmom

> You chose to have sex. You accepted the risk of pregnancy.



This is where you are wrong. Just because I chose to have sex does not mean I have accepted the risk of pregnancy, anymore than leaving my door unlocked means I have accepted the risk of home invasion and cannot kill to defend it. 

My bottom line remains the same. I will use deadly force to protect my body and my property.


----------



## Immanuel

snjmom said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who "promotes" killing babies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you in this very thread. Also, the doctors who make their monney from abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being available if necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 93% of abortions are done for simple convenience. The only case you've made is one of convenience- is she doesn't want her baby to live.
> 
> As for abortion being 'safe', I refer you to Philadelphia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Making them safe and legal does not "promote" abortion. It just makes it safe and legal. Ever try to talk a woman out of having a baby? Me neither.
> 
> Is pregnancy, delivery and the raising of a child a mere "inconvenience"? In my neck of the woods it's a life-changing event, not an inconvenience.
Click to expand...


The marketing slogan is "Abortion: safe, legal and rare".  The problem is that they don't want it rare.  By the way, rare is a subjective term.  For me, rare would be 50 per year.  For them, 5 million a year could be "rare".

Or maybe Planned Parenthood has recently dropped "rare" from their slogan?  That would be quite telling, wouldn't it?

And yes, even with that slogan, they are, in fact, promoting abortion.

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> I can understand that... I don't like the government dictating to me what speed I can drive or (even though I don't smoke it) whether or not I can smoke pot.



Actually, it's the government telling you it's not okay to kill another human being. That's exactly what it is. It's not 'like' anything. It is the government saying whether or not homicide is okay in a given instance. Same as murder and homicide laws or castle doctrine and self-defense laws.





> I am not gay and I believe that marriage is the realm of the church



Except when it is recognized by the State- then it in the realm of the State. Personally, I'm not convinced the State should play a role in recognizing such relationships, but that's another discussion.



> I, honestly, do not believe that most "pro-choice" people want a high number of abortions.



They don't want less, Immie. If they did, they'd be advocating sexual responsibility and teaching women where the condoms are, not where the abortionist is.





> I think most people find abortion abhorrent... or at least, dagnamit I hope they do.



Women having multiple abortions reaches record high - Times Online


----------



## Shadow

JBeukema said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who defend abortion don't call their baby a human or a living being because by doing so makes them face reality.  It's easier for them to defend abortion and have one if they believe in their minds it's not alive.  It desensitizes them and the situation and makes what they do seem justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They may try...don't know if they actually succeed though.  I think when it comes right down to it,the woman who end up having them all know it's a baby they are killing.  Why do you think abortions give women emotional trauma's that take years to reconcile?  They don't have "after" an abortion support groups for nothing you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people who kill other human beings aren't given therapy, are they?
> 
> Why should i feel pity for the 93% cases who killed their baby out of convenience?
Click to expand...


They have doctors who do nothing but specialize in abortion related therapy. And group therapy sessions are also offered to women after an abortion is performed. Why would these programs be offered if abortions were just like getting an appendix removed or passing a kidney stone?  Do I say you should pity them..no..I'm saying that for the folks who think an abortion is an emotionless experience and no big deal because the so called "mass of cells" being ripped from the womb are not alive or actual "babies"...they are way off base.


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> The problem is that they don't want it rare.


[
Didn't you just say the opposite?


----------



## Vast LWC

CandySlice said:


> Immie, glad you asked that. Here's a partial list of the good people (mostly men) that want to stop abortion.
> 
> 
> United States
> 
> _(Edited to save space, not for context.  If the Mods want me to repost the whole long post, I'll be happy to...)_



I'm a man, and I'm not in favor of stopping abortion.  I am, however, in favor of making some sort of point of no return in a pregnancy, and making a law that forces people to stick to it, unless the mother is going to die without the procedure.

But the incidents you mention above are in fact *terrorism*, pure and simple.  

The organizations and people involved in said incidents should be arrested and tried for *terrorism*, and then locked up in Guantanamo, same as any other *terrorist*.


----------



## snjmom

> The marketing slogan is "Abortion: safe, legal and rare". The problem is that they don't want it rare. By the way, rare is a subjective term. For me, rare would be 50 per year. For them, 5 million a year could be "rare".



The actual rate is 1.2 million a year and I'm guessing they aren't saying it's "rare" yet. That is less than 3% of the population.

The very worst parent to have is one that doesn't want you. Why advocate for that kind of parenting?


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was unaware that JB ever said a person could not have sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. That's why they can't cite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on you JB for forbidding sex!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being sarcastic? All I ever said was that if you're old enough to fuck, you're old enough to take responsibility for your actions and your children.
> 
> If you're not ready to take all reasonable measures to avoid pregnancy and to be responsible, them keep your pants on.
> 
> That right there *alone* would end 93% of abortions (all those done for convenience, leaving 6%out of medical concern and 1% in cases of rape). If they really wanted less abortions, Immie, they'd tell their kids to keep their pants on until they're ready to take all reasonable measures to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and take responsibility for any children they do make, either by providing a good home or by placing the child with someone who will.
> 
> Yet they steadfastly rail against personal responsibility. They take up their pro-abortion banner because they are anti-responsibility. They do not believe anyone should ever be responsible for their decisions. They do not want to grow up. Killing their children appeals to them because it means they never have to grow up and be responsible.
> 
> No, Immie, you are wrong. Most of them do* not* want less abortions. If they did, they wouldn't advocate irresponsibility and having unprotected sex outside of a committed relationship. They would teach their daughters how to pick a good man, how to use a condom, and where to acquire birth control. Instead, they teach them how to find an abortionist. They would locate sources of free condoms. These women would learn how to use a condom instead of how to find someone to kill their children.
> 
> No, Immie, they don't want less abortions and it's not an emergency 93% of the time. That's why they do it again and again and again instead of showing the slightest bit of personal responsibility. Because killing your child is easier than growing up and no longer acting like a child yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In regards to the "No, Immie, you are wrong" and "No, Immie, they don't want less abortions".  You seem to be under the assumption that all who promote abortion rights have engaged in sexual promiscuity, have encouraged (or at least not discouraged) their daughters from doing so or have undergone abortions themselves or even would encourage their daughters to do so.  I believe that many of them would not have one themselves, but do not want the government dictating to them whether or not they can have one.  I can understand that... I don't like the government dictating to me what speed I can drive or (even though I don't smoke it) whether or not I can smoke pot.
> 
> I am not gay and I believe that marriage is the realm of the church.  That does not mean that I believe that the government should a) interfere with a homosexual couple's right to  be married in a church that will marry them and b) show preference to straight couples who are married in or out of the church.
> 
> I, honestly, do not believe that most "pro-choice" people want a high number of abortions.  I think most people find abortion abhorrent... or at least, dagnamit I hope they do.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...




I, honestly, do not believe that most "pro-choice" people want a high number of abortions.  I think most people find abortion abhorrent... or at least, dagnamit I hope they do.


Of course not, Immy. I wasn't saying they did. It's the RIGHT to do so that I defend, not the actual act of terminating a fetus. There is birth control on every corner and people also have the right to act responsible.


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about dead babies. Nobody wants to see dead babies. What the right to life groups all have in common is they are usually headed up by men. Men that want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen. It's not about abortion as much as it is about taking away the rights we women have fought so hard to achieve. Up until 1920 a woman was little more than chattle and could be dismissed and thrown out with the garbage or bartered like cattle. We've come a long way and  not the Government nor anybody else needs to concern themselves with my bush! I'm managing fine, thank you.
> What a woman does with her body is between her, her doctor and her God. It is nobody elses business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite where you get your information in regards to what men want.  Because I think you are either dead wrong or not being honest.
> 
> Also, there are two (or more) bodies involved in every abortion.  The mother and at least one of her offspring.  The body of the offspring is not hers nor is its life.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie, glad you asked that. Here's a partial list of the good people (mostly men) that want to stop abortion.
> 
> 
> United States
> The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.[citation needed]
> 
> [edit] Murders In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[6][7]
> 
> March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
> 
> July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.[/COLOR
> 
> ]October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas[edit] Attempted murder, assault, and kidnappingAccording to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[9] Attempted murders in the U.S. included:
> 
> August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).
> July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
> 
> October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.
> 
> Arson, bombing, and property crimeAccording to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[9] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[13] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[14] Incidents have included:
> 
> December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."
> 
> May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.
> 
> October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison
> 
> May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved. This was the second arson at the clinic.
> 
> September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.
> 
> June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.
> 
> July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.
> 
> December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a &#8220;memorial lamp&#8221; for an abortion she had had there.
> 
> 
> September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.
> 
> April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building.
> 
> May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
> 
> December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman&#8217;s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.
> 
> January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness  rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.
> 
> 
> Anthrax threats'
> 
> The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.
> 
> November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.[edit]
> 
> Outside the United States
> 
> Outside of the United States, known incidents of anti-abortion violence were committed in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
> 
> [edit] AustraliaJuly 16, 2001: Steven Rogers, a security guard at a clinic in Melbourne, Australia was shot in the chest and killed by Peter James Knight. Knight was charged and was sentenced to life in prison on November 19, 2002.
> 
> January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Faulty construction of the bombs limited damage to a single external burnt area, though if successful damage would have been severe. It is believed that the inviduals who made the attack were responsible for graffiti "baby killers" on the site, indicating a pro-life reason for the attack. The site turned out to in fact not be an abortion clinic, though the attackers most likely were not aware of this.
> 
> [edit] Canada[edit] Attempted murder
> 
> Violence has also occurred in Canada, where three doctors have been attacked to date. There is speculation that the timing of the shootings is related to the Canadian observance of Remembrance Day. The physicians were part of pattern of attacks, which targeted providers in Canada and upstate New York, including Dr. Barnett Slepian. All victims were shot in their homes with a rifle, at dusk, in late October or early November. James Kopp was charged with the murder of Dr. Slepian and the attempted murder of Dr. Short; he is suspected of having committed the other shootings as well.[10][11]
> 
> November 8, 1994: Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver, British Columbia was shot.
> 
> November 10, 1995: Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ontario was shot.
> 
> November 11, 1997: Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg, Manitoba was shot.
> 
> July 11, 2000: Dr. Romalis was stabbed by an unidentified assailant in the lobby of his clinic.
> [edit] Bombing and property damage
> 
> February 25, 1990: Two men broke into a clinic in Vancouver and destroyed $C30,000 worth of medical equipment with crowbars.[36]
> May 18, 1992: A Toronto clinic operated by Henry Morgentaler was firebombed, causing the entire front wall of the building to collapse.[37]
> [edit] New Zealand
> 
> In 1999 Graeme White was found guilty and jailed for tunneling into an abortion clinic in a failed attempt to blow it up.
Click to expand...



Thanks CS, but is there anything in that list (I only skimmed it) that states as you have said that these men want to, (let me quote you specifically)



> want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen



Who claims that abortion is a woman's right?  What gives anyone the right to kill an innocent human being?  I realize that our courts have found an unwritten "right to privacy" and from there have manufactured a right to kill, but I do not recognize a right to kill a human being in that right to privacy or in any right, written or non-written, on the face of the earth.

Also, for the record, I do not recognize those men (all of whom I believe resorted to violence) as being what I would consider "pro-life".  That is not to elevate the so-called pro-life movement but rather to state that those who resort to violence do not appear to advocate a true right to life. 

You claim an unwritten right.  What prevents me from claiming the right to do anything on earth (say blowing smoke in Anguille's face whenever I want... if you don't know her yet, that would tick her off) that I feel I want to do and then claim that interference in that right is a violation of my right to privacy?  

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

snjmom said:


> You chose to have sex. You accepted the risk of pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you are wrong. Just because I chose to have sex does not mean I have accepted the risk of pregnancy, anymore than leaving my door unlocked means I have accepted the risk of home invasion and cannot kill to defend it.
> 
> My bottom line remains the same. I will use deadly force to protect my body and my property.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but that is where you are wrong... on both counts.  You have accepted the risk both of pregnancy and of a home invasion.  You leaving the door unlocked is accepting the risk that you believe is minimal of having your home invaded.  You are in fact accepting and taking that risk.

The best argument you can make here is that abortion is the insurance that you have taken out to combat the risk that you have accepted when you have sex.  And that is what makes abortion in these cases a matter of convenience.

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite where you get your information in regards to what men want.  Because I think you are either dead wrong or not being honest.
> 
> Also, there are two (or more) bodies involved in every abortion.  The mother and at least one of her offspring.  The body of the offspring is not hers nor is its life.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, glad you asked that. Here's a partial list of the good people (mostly men) that want to stop abortion.
> 
> 
> United States
> The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.[citation needed]
> 
> [edit] Murders In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[6][7]
> 
> March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
> 
> July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.[/COLOR
> 
> ]October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas[edit] Attempted murder, assault, and kidnappingAccording to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[9] Attempted murders in the U.S. included:
> 
> August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).
> July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
> 
> October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.
> 
> Arson, bombing, and property crimeAccording to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[9] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[13] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[14] Incidents have included:
> 
> December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."
> 
> May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.
> 
> October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison
> 
> May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved. This was the second arson at the clinic.
> 
> September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.
> 
> June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.
> 
> July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.
> 
> December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a memorial lamp for an abortion she had had there.
> 
> 
> September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.
> 
> April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building.
> 
> May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
> 
> December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altmans girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.
> 
> January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness  rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.
> 
> 
> Anthrax threats'
> 
> The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.
> 
> November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.[edit]
> 
> Outside the United States
> 
> Outside of the United States, known incidents of anti-abortion violence were committed in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
> 
> [edit] AustraliaJuly 16, 2001: Steven Rogers, a security guard at a clinic in Melbourne, Australia was shot in the chest and killed by Peter James Knight. Knight was charged and was sentenced to life in prison on November 19, 2002.
> 
> January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Faulty construction of the bombs limited damage to a single external burnt area, though if successful damage would have been severe. It is believed that the inviduals who made the attack were responsible for graffiti "baby killers" on the site, indicating a pro-life reason for the attack. The site turned out to in fact not be an abortion clinic, though the attackers most likely were not aware of this.
> 
> [edit] Canada[edit] Attempted murder
> 
> Violence has also occurred in Canada, where three doctors have been attacked to date. There is speculation that the timing of the shootings is related to the Canadian observance of Remembrance Day. The physicians were part of pattern of attacks, which targeted providers in Canada and upstate New York, including Dr. Barnett Slepian. All victims were shot in their homes with a rifle, at dusk, in late October or early November. James Kopp was charged with the murder of Dr. Slepian and the attempted murder of Dr. Short; he is suspected of having committed the other shootings as well.[10][11]
> 
> November 8, 1994: Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver, British Columbia was shot.
> 
> November 10, 1995: Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ontario was shot.
> 
> November 11, 1997: Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg, Manitoba was shot.
> 
> July 11, 2000: Dr. Romalis was stabbed by an unidentified assailant in the lobby of his clinic.
> [edit] Bombing and property damage
> 
> February 25, 1990: Two men broke into a clinic in Vancouver and destroyed $C30,000 worth of medical equipment with crowbars.[36]
> May 18, 1992: A Toronto clinic operated by Henry Morgentaler was firebombed, causing the entire front wall of the building to collapse.[37]
> [edit] New Zealand
> 
> In 1999 Graeme White was found guilty and jailed for tunneling into an abortion clinic in a failed attempt to blow it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks CS, but is there anything in that list (I only skimmed it) that states as you have said that these men want to, (let me quote you specifically)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
> 
> Who claims that abortion is a woman's right?  What gives anyone the right to kill an innocent human being?  I realize that our courts have found an unwritten "right to privacy" and from there have manufactured a right to kill, but I do not recognize a right to kill a human being in that right to privacy or in any right, written or non-written, on the face of the earth.
> 
> Also, for the record, I do not recognize those men (all of whom I believe resorted to violence) as being what I would consider "pro-life".  That is not to elevate the so-called pro-life movement but rather to state that those who resort to violence do not appear to advocate a true right to life.
> 
> You claim an unwritten right.  What prevents me from claiming the right to do anything on earth (say blowing smoke in Anguille's face whenever I want... if you don't know her yet, that would tick her off) that I feel I want to do and then claim that interference in that right is a violation of my right to privacy?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...




All good points Immy but let me ask you this. Have you ever had an abortion? I have. I was 15 years old and my father insisted on it. It wasn't legal back then and it was hell on earth. I had an actual doctor in attendance who could have lost his medical licence for 'helping us out' and it created a rift between my family and I  that wasn't resolved for decades. I became a 'womens rights' advocate on that very day and I will never change. There is no way to describe the pain and humiliation and misery I suffered that day and for whatever reason I hope no woman ever has to again. The reasons aren't  important.


----------



## snjmom

> They don't want less, Immie. If they did, they'd be advocating sexual responsibility and teaching women where the condoms are, not where the abortionist is.



You do realize that this is 97% of what Planned Parenthood does, right? You do realize that men encourage women to be sexually irresponsible, right? Not abortionists. I certainly advocate sexual responsibility. That doesn't mean that mistakes don't happen. Sometimes that means a human being will lose it's life. Happens all the time in all aspects of life.


----------



## Immanuel

JBeukema said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that they don't want it rare.
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Didn't you just say the opposite?
Click to expand...


No, the "they" I am talking about is Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry.  I didn't make myself clear on that.

I don't consider the people that we are discussing this with to be part of the abortion industry.  

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite where you get your information in regards to what men want.  Because I think you are either dead wrong or not being honest.
> 
> Also, there are two (or more) bodies involved in every abortion.  The mother and at least one of her offspring.  The body of the offspring is not hers nor is its life.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, glad you asked that. Here's a partial list of the good people (mostly men) that want to stop abortion.
> 
> 
> United States
> The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.[citation needed]
> 
> [edit] Murders In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[6][7]
> 
> March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
> 
> July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.[/COLOR
> 
> ]October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas[edit] Attempted murder, assault, and kidnappingAccording to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[9] Attempted murders in the U.S. included:
> 
> August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).
> July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
> 
> October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.
> 
> Arson, bombing, and property crimeAccording to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[9] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[13] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[14] Incidents have included:
> 
> December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."
> 
> May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.
> 
> October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison
> 
> May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved. This was the second arson at the clinic.
> 
> September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.
> 
> June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.
> 
> July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.
> 
> December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a memorial lamp for an abortion she had had there.
> 
> 
> September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.
> 
> April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building.
> 
> May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
> 
> December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altmans girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.
> 
> January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness  rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.
> 
> 
> Anthrax threats'
> 
> The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.
> 
> November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.[edit]
> 
> Outside the United States
> 
> Outside of the United States, known incidents of anti-abortion violence were committed in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
> 
> [edit] AustraliaJuly 16, 2001: Steven Rogers, a security guard at a clinic in Melbourne, Australia was shot in the chest and killed by Peter James Knight. Knight was charged and was sentenced to life in prison on November 19, 2002.
> 
> January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Faulty construction of the bombs limited damage to a single external burnt area, though if successful damage would have been severe. It is believed that the inviduals who made the attack were responsible for graffiti "baby killers" on the site, indicating a pro-life reason for the attack. The site turned out to in fact not be an abortion clinic, though the attackers most likely were not aware of this.
> 
> [edit] Canada[edit] Attempted murder
> 
> Violence has also occurred in Canada, where three doctors have been attacked to date. There is speculation that the timing of the shootings is related to the Canadian observance of Remembrance Day. The physicians were part of pattern of attacks, which targeted providers in Canada and upstate New York, including Dr. Barnett Slepian. All victims were shot in their homes with a rifle, at dusk, in late October or early November. James Kopp was charged with the murder of Dr. Slepian and the attempted murder of Dr. Short; he is suspected of having committed the other shootings as well.[10][11]
> 
> November 8, 1994: Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver, British Columbia was shot.
> 
> November 10, 1995: Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ontario was shot.
> 
> November 11, 1997: Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg, Manitoba was shot.
> 
> July 11, 2000: Dr. Romalis was stabbed by an unidentified assailant in the lobby of his clinic.
> [edit] Bombing and property damage
> 
> February 25, 1990: Two men broke into a clinic in Vancouver and destroyed $C30,000 worth of medical equipment with crowbars.[36]
> May 18, 1992: A Toronto clinic operated by Henry Morgentaler was firebombed, causing the entire front wall of the building to collapse.[37]
> [edit] New Zealand
> 
> In 1999 Graeme White was found guilty and jailed for tunneling into an abortion clinic in a failed attempt to blow it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks CS, but is there anything in that list (I only skimmed it) that states as you have said that these men want to, (let me quote you specifically)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who claims that abortion is a woman's right?  What gives anyone the right to kill an innocent human being?  I realize that our courts have found an unwritten "right to privacy" and from there have manufactured a right to kill, but I do not recognize a right to kill a human being in that right to privacy or in any right, written or non-written, on the face of the earth.
> 
> Also, for the record, I do not recognize those men (all of whom I believe resorted to violence) as being what I would consider "pro-life".  That is not to elevate the so-called pro-life movement but rather to state that those who resort to violence do not appear to advocate a true right to life.
> 
> You claim an unwritten right.  What prevents me from claiming the right to do anything on earth (say blowing smoke in Anguille's face whenever I want... if you don't know her yet, that would tick her off) that I feel I want to do and then claim that interference in that right is a violation of my right to privacy?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Also, for the record, I do not recognize those men (all of whom I believe resorted to violence) as being what I would consider "pro-life".

Well of course there is always the possibilty they just liked blowing things up and killed for the fun of it but I wouldn't try to push that idea past any intelligent thinking people.


----------



## snjmom

Immanuel said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You chose to have sex. You accepted the risk of pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you are wrong. Just because I chose to have sex does not mean I have accepted the risk of pregnancy, anymore than leaving my door unlocked means I have accepted the risk of home invasion and cannot kill to defend it.
> 
> My bottom line remains the same. I will use deadly force to protect my body and my property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that is where you are wrong... on both counts.  You have accepted the risk both of pregnancy and of a home invasion.  You leaving the door unlocked is accepting the risk that you believe is minimal of having your home invaded.  You are in fact accepting and taking that risk.
> 
> The best argument you can make her is that abortion is the insurance that you have taken out to combat the risk that you have accepted when you have sex.  And that is what makes abortion in these cases a matter of convenience.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


And having a gun in my home is my insurance against home invasion. When I shoot the intruder, is it simply a "matter of convenience"? 

Why do you and others insist on belittling the process of pregnancy, delivery and raising a child? Have you ever delivered a child, Immie? Ever risked stroke or eclampsia? Ever had to vomit 6 times a day for 9 months, forcing your employer to find someone that didn't need to do that? I have. Twice. My risk to assume and if I hadn't been willing to go through that, I should have been able to remove the cause. It's my body. I don't owe it to anyone. Without regard to biology or anyones moral rigidity.


----------



## Immanuel

snjmom said:


> The marketing slogan is "Abortion: safe, legal and rare". The problem is that they don't want it rare. By the way, rare is a subjective term. For me, rare would be 50 per year. For them, 5 million a year could be "rare".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual rate is 1.2 million a year and I'm guessing they aren't saying it's "rare" yet. That is less than 3% of the population.
> 
> The very worst parent to have is one that doesn't want you. Why advocate for that kind of parenting?
Click to expand...




> Why advocate for that kind of parenting?



Because the alternative is advocating the killing of an innocent human being.  I will not advocate that!

Do I think life would be grand for such a child?  No, I don't, but at least it is life.  Who knows what good will come to that child or from that child?  I advocate adoption in such a case, but truthfully, I believe that most women in "crisis pregnancies" who go through with the pregnancy end up being great mothers to the child they considered killing.  They're scared when they contemplate taking that life, but once the decision is made, the child is born and life goes on, they end up being fabulous moms.

No, they aren't saying it is rare yet, but they are not truly advocating anything that will actually reduce it either.  It is nothing but a "feel good" slogan.  Trying to win the hearts and minds of the public.  In the same manner as declaring me to be "anti-woman" or "anti-choice" because I fight against the "choice" of killing an innocent human being.  Or in the same manner as "my" side attempting to make your side seem like monsters by declaring you "pro-abortion".

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

snjmom said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you are wrong. Just because I chose to have sex does not mean I have accepted the risk of pregnancy, anymore than leaving my door unlocked means I have accepted the risk of home invasion and cannot kill to defend it.
> 
> My bottom line remains the same. I will use deadly force to protect my body and my property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that is where you are wrong... on both counts.  You have accepted the risk both of pregnancy and of a home invasion.  You leaving the door unlocked is accepting the risk that you believe is minimal of having your home invaded.  You are in fact accepting and taking that risk.
> 
> The best argument you can make her is that abortion is the insurance that you have taken out to combat the risk that you have accepted when you have sex.  And that is what makes abortion in these cases a matter of convenience.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And having a gun in my home is my insurance against home invasion. When I shoot the intruder, is it simply a "matter of convenience"?
> 
> Why do you and others insist on belittling the process of pregnancy, delivery and raising a child? Have you ever delivered a child, Immie? Ever risked stroke or eclampsia? Ever had to vomit 6 times a day for 9 months, forcing your employer to find someone that didn't need to do that? I have. Twice. My risk to assume and if I hadn't been willing to go through that, I should have been able to remove the cause. It's my body. I don't owe it to anyone. Without regard to biology or anyones moral rigidity.
Click to expand...



It's always so easy to pass moral judgement on people when you aren't personally involved.


----------



## CandySlice

JBeukema said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if a women doesn't want the pregnancy ?
> 
> 
> 
> Then take all reasonable measures to avoid pregnancy. I don't want to get hit by a bus, so I take all reasonable measures to avoid it.
> 
> 
> 
> screw you .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll pass. If you give it up that easily, I don't want it.
> 
> 
> 
> who are you to tell anyone if or if not they can have sex ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where has anyone here done any such thing? Oh yeah, only in your head.
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but where do you get off judging others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. Let's not judge anyone or tell people what they can or can't do. Let's release all the murderers and rapists, get rid of the police, revoke all traffic laws, and enjoy our libertarian paradise.
Click to expand...


But sometimes the bus hits you anyway. Im sure in your well ordered life such a thing never occured to you.


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, glad you asked that. Here's a partial list of the good people (mostly men) that want to stop abortion.
> 
> 
> United States
> The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.[citation needed]
> 
> [edit] Murders In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[6][7]
> 
> March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
> 
> July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.[/COLOR
> 
> ]October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas[edit] Attempted murder, assault, and kidnappingAccording to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[9] Attempted murders in the U.S. included:
> 
> August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).
> July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
> 
> October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.
> 
> Arson, bombing, and property crimeAccording to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[9] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[13] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[14] Incidents have included:
> 
> December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."
> 
> May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.
> 
> October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison
> 
> May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved. This was the second arson at the clinic.
> 
> September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.
> 
> June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.
> 
> July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.
> 
> December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a &#8220;memorial lamp&#8221; for an abortion she had had there.
> 
> 
> September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.
> 
> April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building.
> 
> May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
> 
> December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman&#8217;s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.
> 
> January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness  rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.
> 
> 
> Anthrax threats'
> 
> The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.
> 
> November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.[edit]
> 
> Outside the United States
> 
> Outside of the United States, known incidents of anti-abortion violence were committed in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
> 
> [edit] AustraliaJuly 16, 2001: Steven Rogers, a security guard at a clinic in Melbourne, Australia was shot in the chest and killed by Peter James Knight. Knight was charged and was sentenced to life in prison on November 19, 2002.
> 
> January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Faulty construction of the bombs limited damage to a single external burnt area, though if successful damage would have been severe. It is believed that the inviduals who made the attack were responsible for graffiti "baby killers" on the site, indicating a pro-life reason for the attack. The site turned out to in fact not be an abortion clinic, though the attackers most likely were not aware of this.
> 
> [edit] Canada[edit] Attempted murder
> 
> Violence has also occurred in Canada, where three doctors have been attacked to date. There is speculation that the timing of the shootings is related to the Canadian observance of Remembrance Day. The physicians were part of pattern of attacks, which targeted providers in Canada and upstate New York, including Dr. Barnett Slepian. All victims were shot in their homes with a rifle, at dusk, in late October or early November. James Kopp was charged with the murder of Dr. Slepian and the attempted murder of Dr. Short; he is suspected of having committed the other shootings as well.[10][11]
> 
> November 8, 1994: Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver, British Columbia was shot.
> 
> November 10, 1995: Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ontario was shot.
> 
> November 11, 1997: Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg, Manitoba was shot.
> 
> July 11, 2000: Dr. Romalis was stabbed by an unidentified assailant in the lobby of his clinic.
> [edit] Bombing and property damage
> 
> February 25, 1990: Two men broke into a clinic in Vancouver and destroyed $C30,000 worth of medical equipment with crowbars.[36]
> May 18, 1992: A Toronto clinic operated by Henry Morgentaler was firebombed, causing the entire front wall of the building to collapse.[37]
> [edit] New Zealand
> 
> In 1999 Graeme White was found guilty and jailed for tunneling into an abortion clinic in a failed attempt to blow it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks CS, but is there anything in that list (I only skimmed it) that states as you have said that these men want to, (let me quote you specifically)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
> 
> Who claims that abortion is a woman's right?  What gives anyone the right to kill an innocent human being?  I realize that our courts have found an unwritten "right to privacy" and from there have manufactured a right to kill, but I do not recognize a right to kill a human being in that right to privacy or in any right, written or non-written, on the face of the earth.
> 
> Also, for the record, I do not recognize those men (all of whom I believe resorted to violence) as being what I would consider "pro-life".  That is not to elevate the so-called pro-life movement but rather to state that those who resort to violence do not appear to advocate a true right to life.
> 
> You claim an unwritten right.  What prevents me from claiming the right to do anything on earth (say blowing smoke in Anguille's face whenever I want... if you don't know her yet, that would tick her off) that I feel I want to do and then claim that interference in that right is a violation of my right to privacy?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All good points Immy but let me ask you this. Have you ever had an abortion? I have. I was 15 years old and my father insisted on it. It wasn't legal back then and it was hell on earth. I had an actual doctor in attendance who could have lost his medical licence for 'helping us out' and it created a rift between my family and I  that wasn't resolved for decades. I became a 'womens rights' advocate on that very day and I will never change. There is no way to describe the pain and humiliation and misery I suffered that day and for whatever reason I hope no woman ever has to again. The reasons aren't  important.
Click to expand...



Have I ever had an abortion?    I have to confess.  I am one of those evil men that you think "want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen", so, no I have never had an abortion.  Nor has my wife, nor either one of my two daughters.  I have I will confess though much to my shame, counseled a friend of my wife who called me for advice.  I told her that she should do what she felt was in her best interest.  This was before I became "pro-life".  She did and she has not spoken to us since.  

If you don't mind, I would prefer not to comment on the rest of this post.  Nothing I can say will sound right and I don't particularly care to have you "not speak to me since".  Make sense?

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The marketing slogan is "Abortion: safe, legal and rare". The problem is that they don't want it rare. By the way, rare is a subjective term. For me, rare would be 50 per year. For them, 5 million a year could be "rare".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual rate is 1.2 million a year and I'm guessing they aren't saying it's "rare" yet. That is less than 3% of the population.
> 
> The very worst parent to have is one that doesn't want you. Why advocate for that kind of parenting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why advocate for that kind of parenting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the alternative is advocating the killing of an innocent human being.  I will not advocate that!
> 
> Do I think life would be grand for such a child?  No, I don't, but at least it is life.  Who knows what good will come to that child or from that child?  I advocate adoption in such a case, but truthfully, I believe that most women in "crisis pregnancies" who go through with the pregnancy end up being great mothers to the child they considered killing.  They're scared when they contemplate taking that life, but once the decision is made, the child is born and life goes on, they end up being fabulous moms.
> 
> No, they aren't saying it is rare yet, but they are not truly advocating anything that will actually reduce it either.  It is nothing but a "feel good" slogan.  Trying to win the hearts and minds of the public.  In the same manner as declaring me to be "anti-woman" or "anti-choice" because I fight against the "choice" of killing an innocent human being.  Or in the same manner as "my" side attempting to make your side seem like monsters by declaring you "pro-abortion".
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


My God, you must be the most the most naive person on earth. The shelters and orphanages in this country are packed full of abused and abandoned children whose parents had no other choice but to have them.
Also noticed you had nothing further to say regarding my question.


----------



## snjmom

Immanuel said:


> No, they aren't saying it is rare yet, but they are not truly advocating anything that will actually reduce it either.  It is nothing but a "feel good" slogan.  Trying to win the hearts and minds of the public.  In the same manner as declaring me to be "anti-woman" or "anti-choice" because I fight against the "choice" of killing an innocent human being.  Or in the same manner as "my" side attempting to make your side seem like monsters by declaring you "pro-abortion".
> 
> Immie



Again, from my local Planned Parenting site.




> Our Services
> Planned Parenthood provides direct medical care and family planing services to more than 50,000 women, men and teens each year.
> 
> 
> Our health services include:
> 
> emergency contraception
> comprehensive birth control and contraceptive services
> testing and treatment for STDs
> hepatitis vaccinations
> HIV testing and counseling
> cancer screenings (breast and cervical, testicular and prostate)
> HPV vaccinations
> colposcopy and cryotherapy
> vasectomies
> annual GYN exams
> Announcing Fall 2010 Insemination Services.
> 
> We also provide options counseling and abortion care through Reproductive Health Services.



None of those services reduce unwanted pregnancy other than abortion? 

Seriously?

Did you even realize than in the event you are pregnant and choose to have the child that PP will hook you up with every social service known to man?

Want to end abortion? Force every male to make a sperm deposit at 15 and then mandatory vasectomy.

That would really reduce the number of abortions.


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, glad you asked that. Here's a partial list of the good people (mostly men) that want to stop abortion.
> 
> 
> United States
> The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.[citation needed]
> 
> [edit] Murders In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[6][7]
> 
> March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
> 
> July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.[/COLOR
> 
> ]October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas[edit] Attempted murder, assault, and kidnappingAccording to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[9] Attempted murders in the U.S. included:
> 
> August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).
> July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
> 
> October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.
> 
> Arson, bombing, and property crimeAccording to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[9] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[13] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[14] Incidents have included:
> 
> December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."
> 
> May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.
> 
> October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison
> 
> May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved. This was the second arson at the clinic.
> 
> September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.
> 
> June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.
> 
> July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.
> 
> December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a memorial lamp for an abortion she had had there.
> 
> 
> September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.
> 
> April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building.
> 
> May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
> 
> December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altmans girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.
> 
> January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness  rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.
> 
> 
> Anthrax threats'
> 
> The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.
> 
> November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.[edit]
> 
> Outside the United States
> 
> Outside of the United States, known incidents of anti-abortion violence were committed in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
> 
> [edit] AustraliaJuly 16, 2001: Steven Rogers, a security guard at a clinic in Melbourne, Australia was shot in the chest and killed by Peter James Knight. Knight was charged and was sentenced to life in prison on November 19, 2002.
> 
> January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Faulty construction of the bombs limited damage to a single external burnt area, though if successful damage would have been severe. It is believed that the inviduals who made the attack were responsible for graffiti "baby killers" on the site, indicating a pro-life reason for the attack. The site turned out to in fact not be an abortion clinic, though the attackers most likely were not aware of this.
> 
> [edit] Canada[edit] Attempted murder
> 
> Violence has also occurred in Canada, where three doctors have been attacked to date. There is speculation that the timing of the shootings is related to the Canadian observance of Remembrance Day. The physicians were part of pattern of attacks, which targeted providers in Canada and upstate New York, including Dr. Barnett Slepian. All victims were shot in their homes with a rifle, at dusk, in late October or early November. James Kopp was charged with the murder of Dr. Slepian and the attempted murder of Dr. Short; he is suspected of having committed the other shootings as well.[10][11]
> 
> November 8, 1994: Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver, British Columbia was shot.
> 
> November 10, 1995: Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ontario was shot.
> 
> November 11, 1997: Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg, Manitoba was shot.
> 
> July 11, 2000: Dr. Romalis was stabbed by an unidentified assailant in the lobby of his clinic.
> [edit] Bombing and property damage
> 
> February 25, 1990: Two men broke into a clinic in Vancouver and destroyed $C30,000 worth of medical equipment with crowbars.[36]
> May 18, 1992: A Toronto clinic operated by Henry Morgentaler was firebombed, causing the entire front wall of the building to collapse.[37]
> [edit] New Zealand
> 
> In 1999 Graeme White was found guilty and jailed for tunneling into an abortion clinic in a failed attempt to blow it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks CS, but is there anything in that list (I only skimmed it) that states as you have said that these men want to, (let me quote you specifically)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who claims that abortion is a woman's right?  What gives anyone the right to kill an innocent human being?  I realize that our courts have found an unwritten "right to privacy" and from there have manufactured a right to kill, but I do not recognize a right to kill a human being in that right to privacy or in any right, written or non-written, on the face of the earth.
> 
> Also, for the record, I do not recognize those men (all of whom I believe resorted to violence) as being what I would consider "pro-life".  That is not to elevate the so-called pro-life movement but rather to state that those who resort to violence do not appear to advocate a true right to life.
> 
> You claim an unwritten right.  What prevents me from claiming the right to do anything on earth (say blowing smoke in Anguille's face whenever I want... if you don't know her yet, that would tick her off) that I feel I want to do and then claim that interference in that right is a violation of my right to privacy?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, for the record, I do not recognize those men (all of whom I believe resorted to violence) as being what I would consider "pro-life".
> 
> Well of course there is always the possibilty they just liked blowing things up and killed for the fun of it but I wouldn't try to push that idea past any intelligent thinking people.
Click to expand...



No, my point is that you can not be "pro-life" and then go out an kill or attempt to kill people you don't agree with.  Stopping them through force of law is one thing.  Stopping their lives is in a whole other galaxy.

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks CS, but is there anything in that list (I only skimmed it) that states as you have said that these men want to, (let me quote you specifically)
> 
> ?
> 
> Who claims that abortion is a woman's right?  What gives anyone the right to kill an innocent human being?  I realize that our courts have found an unwritten "right to privacy" and from there have manufactured a right to kill, but I do not recognize a right to kill a human being in that right to privacy or in any right, written or non-written, on the face of the earth.
> 
> Also, for the record, I do not recognize those men (all of whom I believe resorted to violence) as being what I would consider "pro-life".  That is not to elevate the so-called pro-life movement but rather to state that those who resort to violence do not appear to advocate a true right to life.
> 
> You claim an unwritten right.  What prevents me from claiming the right to do anything on earth (say blowing smoke in Anguille's face whenever I want... if you don't know her yet, that would tick her off) that I feel I want to do and then claim that interference in that right is a violation of my right to privacy?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All good points Immy but let me ask you this. Have you ever had an abortion? I have. I was 15 years old and my father insisted on it. It wasn't legal back then and it was hell on earth. I had an actual doctor in attendance who could have lost his medical licence for 'helping us out' and it created a rift between my family and I  that wasn't resolved for decades. I became a 'womens rights' advocate on that very day and I will never change. There is no way to describe the pain and humiliation and misery I suffered that day and for whatever reason I hope no woman ever has to again. The reasons aren't  important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have I ever had an abortion?    I have to confess.  I am one of those evil men that you think "want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen", so, no I have never had an abortion.  Nor has my wife, nor either one of my two daughters.  I have I will confess though much to my shame, counseled a friend of my wife who called me for advice.  I told her that she should do what she felt was in her best interest.  This was before I became "pro-life".  She did and she has not spoken to us since.
> 
> If you don't mind, I would prefer not to comment on the rest of this post.  Nothing I can say will sound right and I don't particularly care to have you "not speak to me since".  Make sense?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



Fair enough. So I will leave you with this. Until you grow a vagina of your own  keep your nose out of mine.


----------



## Immanuel

snjmom said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you are wrong. Just because I chose to have sex does not mean I have accepted the risk of pregnancy, anymore than leaving my door unlocked means I have accepted the risk of home invasion and cannot kill to defend it.
> 
> My bottom line remains the same. I will use deadly force to protect my body and my property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that is where you are wrong... on both counts.  You have accepted the risk both of pregnancy and of a home invasion.  You leaving the door unlocked is accepting the risk that you believe is minimal of having your home invaded.  You are in fact accepting and taking that risk.
> 
> The best argument you can make her is that abortion is the insurance that you have taken out to combat the risk that you have accepted when you have sex.  And that is what makes abortion in these cases a matter of convenience.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And having a gun in my home is my insurance against home invasion. When I shoot the intruder, is it simply a "matter of convenience"?
> 
> Why do you and others insist on belittling the process of pregnancy, delivery and raising a child? Have you ever delivered a child, Immie? Ever risked stroke or eclampsia? Ever had to vomit 6 times a day for 9 months, forcing your employer to find someone that didn't need to do that? I have. Twice. My risk to assume and if I hadn't been willing to go through that, I should have been able to remove the cause. It's my body. I don't owe it to anyone. Without regard to biology or anyones moral rigidity.
Click to expand...


No, if you were not willing to go through that, you should not have had intercourse.  There are other ways to sexually gratify your partner without actually having intercourse.  You made your choice the moment you allowed your partner entry into your body.  

Man!  Did that sound graphic or what?  Sorry.

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks CS, but is there anything in that list (I only skimmed it) that states as you have said that these men want to, (let me quote you specifically)
> 
> 
> 
> Who claims that abortion is a woman's right?  What gives anyone the right to kill an innocent human being?  I realize that our courts have found an unwritten "right to privacy" and from there have manufactured a right to kill, but I do not recognize a right to kill a human being in that right to privacy or in any right, written or non-written, on the face of the earth.
> 
> Also, for the record, I do not recognize those men (all of whom I believe resorted to violence) as being what I would consider "pro-life".  That is not to elevate the so-called pro-life movement but rather to state that those who resort to violence do not appear to advocate a true right to life.
> 
> You claim an unwritten right.  What prevents me from claiming the right to do anything on earth (say blowing smoke in Anguille's face whenever I want... if you don't know her yet, that would tick her off) that I feel I want to do and then claim that interference in that right is a violation of my right to privacy?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Also, for the record, I do not recognize those men (all of whom I believe resorted to violence) as being what I would consider "pro-life".
> 
> Well of course there is always the possibilty they just liked blowing things up and killed for the fun of it but I wouldn't try to push that idea past any intelligent thinking people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point is that you can not be "pro-life" and then go out an kill or attempt to kill people you don't agree with.  Stopping them through force of law is one thing.  Stopping their lives is in a whole other galaxy.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Well you wouldn't think so, would you?? But you know what happens when people decide they know whats best for everybody else.


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that is where you are wrong... on both counts.  You have accepted the risk both of pregnancy and of a home invasion.  You leaving the door unlocked is accepting the risk that you believe is minimal of having your home invaded.  You are in fact accepting and taking that risk.
> 
> The best argument you can make her is that abortion is the insurance that you have taken out to combat the risk that you have accepted when you have sex.  And that is what makes abortion in these cases a matter of convenience.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having a gun in my home is my insurance against home invasion. When I shoot the intruder, is it simply a "matter of convenience"?
> 
> Why do you and others insist on belittling the process of pregnancy, delivery and raising a child? Have you ever delivered a child, Immie? Ever risked stroke or eclampsia? Ever had to vomit 6 times a day for 9 months, forcing your employer to find someone that didn't need to do that? I have. Twice. My risk to assume and if I hadn't been willing to go through that, I should have been able to remove the cause. It's my body. I don't owe it to anyone. Without regard to biology or anyones moral rigidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's always so easy to pass moral judgement on people when you aren't personally involved.
Click to expand...


Have I passed judgment on you or mom?

I disagree with what you are supporting, but I do not believe I have passed judgment on either one of you any more than you have passed judgment upon me.

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that is where you are wrong... on both counts.  You have accepted the risk both of pregnancy and of a home invasion.  You leaving the door unlocked is accepting the risk that you believe is minimal of having your home invaded.  You are in fact accepting and taking that risk.
> 
> The best argument you can make her is that abortion is the insurance that you have taken out to combat the risk that you have accepted when you have sex.  And that is what makes abortion in these cases a matter of convenience.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having a gun in my home is my insurance against home invasion. When I shoot the intruder, is it simply a "matter of convenience"?
> 
> Why do you and others insist on belittling the process of pregnancy, delivery and raising a child? Have you ever delivered a child, Immie? Ever risked stroke or eclampsia? Ever had to vomit 6 times a day for 9 months, forcing your employer to find someone that didn't need to do that? I have. Twice. My risk to assume and if I hadn't been willing to go through that, I should have been able to remove the cause. It's my body. I don't owe it to anyone. Without regard to biology or anyones moral rigidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you were not willing to go through that, you should not have had intercourse.  There are other ways to sexually gratify your partner without actually having intercourse.  You made your choice the moment you allowed your partner entry into your body.
> 
> Man!  Did that sound graphic or what?  Sorry.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Now THAT sounds like a man, fer sure!! Never mind YOU, just don't leave MY needs unattended. LOL


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual rate is 1.2 million a year and I'm guessing they aren't saying it's "rare" yet. That is less than 3% of the population.
> 
> The very worst parent to have is one that doesn't want you. Why advocate for that kind of parenting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why advocate for that kind of parenting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the alternative is advocating the killing of an innocent human being.  I will not advocate that!
> 
> Do I think life would be grand for such a child?  No, I don't, but at least it is life.  Who knows what good will come to that child or from that child?  I advocate adoption in such a case, but truthfully, I believe that most women in "crisis pregnancies" who go through with the pregnancy end up being great mothers to the child they considered killing.  They're scared when they contemplate taking that life, but once the decision is made, the child is born and life goes on, they end up being fabulous moms.
> 
> No, they aren't saying it is rare yet, but they are not truly advocating anything that will actually reduce it either.  It is nothing but a "feel good" slogan.  Trying to win the hearts and minds of the public.  In the same manner as declaring me to be "anti-woman" or "anti-choice" because I fight against the "choice" of killing an innocent human being.  Or in the same manner as "my" side attempting to make your side seem like monsters by declaring you "pro-abortion".
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God, you must be the most the most naive person on earth. The shelters and orphanages in this country are packed full of abused and abandoned children whose parents had no other choice but to have them.
> Also noticed you had nothing further to say regarding my question.
Click to expand...


You assume that any of the parents of those children would have chosen abortion or even considered abortion.  And you call me naive?

What question did I miss?  

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a gun in my home is my insurance against home invasion. When I shoot the intruder, is it simply a "matter of convenience"?
> 
> Why do you and others insist on belittling the process of pregnancy, delivery and raising a child? Have you ever delivered a child, Immie? Ever risked stroke or eclampsia? Ever had to vomit 6 times a day for 9 months, forcing your employer to find someone that didn't need to do that? I have. Twice. My risk to assume and if I hadn't been willing to go through that, I should have been able to remove the cause. It's my body. I don't owe it to anyone. Without regard to biology or anyones moral rigidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always so easy to pass moral judgement on people when you aren't personally involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have I passed judgment on you or mom?
> 
> I disagree with what you are supporting, but I do not believe I have passed judgment on either one of you any more than you have passed judgment upon me.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Like I said before, I support the RIGHT if not the actual _act _of terminating a pregnancy. YOU are passing judgement on an entire segment of the population without ever having had the unhappy misfortune to find yourself in such dire straights. I wonder if being a woman would neutralize your thinking? Or maybe make you think at all? It's easy to judge when you have no possibility of ever having to make such a decision. Wish I had that kind of ecclesiastical white-out at my disposal. (wink)


----------



## Immanuel

snjmom said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't saying it is rare yet, but they are not truly advocating anything that will actually reduce it either.  It is nothing but a "feel good" slogan.  Trying to win the hearts and minds of the public.  In the same manner as declaring me to be "anti-woman" or "anti-choice" because I fight against the "choice" of killing an innocent human being.  Or in the same manner as "my" side attempting to make your side seem like monsters by declaring you "pro-abortion".
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, from my local Planned Parenting site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Services
> Planned Parenthood provides direct medical care and family planing services to more than 50,000 women, men and teens each year.
> 
> 
> Our health services include:
> 
> emergency contraception
> comprehensive birth control and contraceptive services
> testing and treatment for STDs
> hepatitis vaccinations
> HIV testing and counseling
> cancer screenings (breast and cervical, testicular and prostate)
> HPV vaccinations
> colposcopy and cryotherapy
> vasectomies
> annual GYN exams
> Announcing Fall 2010 Insemination Services.
> 
> We also provide options counseling and abortion care through Reproductive Health Services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of those services reduce unwanted pregnancy other than abortion?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Did you even realize than in the event you are pregnant and choose to have the child that PP will hook you up with every social service known to man?
> 
> Want to end abortion? Force every male to make a sperm deposit at 15 and then mandatory vasectomy.
> 
> That would really reduce the number of abortions.
Click to expand...




> None of those services reduce unwanted pregnancy other than abortion?



*All* of those services promote sexual promiscuity and lead to unwanted pregnancies followed by abortions!



> Want to end abortion? Force every male to make a sperm deposit at 15 and then mandatory vasectomy.



Screw that shit!  I would no sooner promote that women be forced to be sterilized?  Why should I suffer because some women refuse not to spread their legs or some assholes can't keep their ding-a-lings in their pants?  



> Did you even realize than in the event you are pregnant and choose to have the child that PP will hook you up with every social service known to man?



I realize that is what you and they claim.  In reality, they rush women into clinics not even wanting to allow them the time to "think it over" and end the question before the woman has the chance to come to her senses.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, for the record, I do not recognize those men (all of whom I believe resorted to violence) as being what I would consider "pro-life".
> 
> Well of course there is always the possibilty they just liked blowing things up and killed for the fun of it but I wouldn't try to push that idea past any intelligent thinking people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my point is that you can not be "pro-life" and then go out an kill or attempt to kill people you don't agree with.  Stopping them through force of law is one thing.  Stopping their lives is in a whole other galaxy.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you wouldn't think so, would you?? But you know what happens when people decide they know whats best for everybody else.
Click to expand...


Like you deciding that you know what is best for me by telling me:



> Until you grow a vagina of your own keep your nose out of mine.



Basically, you were attempting to remove my right to free speech... by the way, that right is actually listed in the Constitution.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a gun in my home is my insurance against home invasion. When I shoot the intruder, is it simply a "matter of convenience"?
> 
> Why do you and others insist on belittling the process of pregnancy, delivery and raising a child? Have you ever delivered a child, Immie? Ever risked stroke or eclampsia? Ever had to vomit 6 times a day for 9 months, forcing your employer to find someone that didn't need to do that? I have. Twice. My risk to assume and if I hadn't been willing to go through that, I should have been able to remove the cause. It's my body. I don't owe it to anyone. Without regard to biology or anyones moral rigidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you were not willing to go through that, you should not have had intercourse.  There are other ways to sexually gratify your partner without actually having intercourse.  You made your choice the moment you allowed your partner entry into your body.
> 
> Man!  Did that sound graphic or what?  Sorry.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now THAT sounds like a man, fer sure!! Never mind YOU, just don't leave MY needs unattended. LOL
Click to expand...


Hey, in the first place, I didn't say anything about not satisfying the lady.  I am told intercourse is not the only way a woman can achieve ecstasy. 

Second, I confess, I'm a selfish male.  So sue me!

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't saying it is rare yet, but they are not truly advocating anything that will actually reduce it either.  It is nothing but a "feel good" slogan.  Trying to win the hearts and minds of the public.  In the same manner as declaring me to be "anti-woman" or "anti-choice" because I fight against the "choice" of killing an innocent human being.  Or in the same manner as "my" side attempting to make your side seem like monsters by declaring you "pro-abortion".
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, from my local Planned Parenting site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those services reduce unwanted pregnancy other than abortion?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Did you even realize than in the event you are pregnant and choose to have the child that PP will hook you up with every social service known to man?
> 
> Want to end abortion? Force every male to make a sperm deposit at 15 and then mandatory vasectomy.
> 
> That would really reduce the number of abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All* of those services promote sexual promiscuity and lead to unwanted pregnancies followed by abortions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to end abortion? Force every male to make a sperm deposit at 15 and then mandatory vasectomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Screw that shit!  I would no sooner promote that women be forced to be sterilized?  Why should I suffer because some women refuse not to spread their legs or some assholes can't keep their ding-a-lings in their pants?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even realize than in the event you are pregnant and choose to have the child that PP will hook you up with every social service known to man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that is what you and they claim.  In reality, they rush women into clinics not even wanting to allow them the time to "think it over" and end the question before the woman has the chance to come to her senses.Immie
Click to expand...


Immy, again you are commenting on ground you've never trodded. I've been to planned parenthood before and do you know what was the first thing they told those girls? Abortion is NOT an acceptable form of birth control.  The counseling was first rate and there were all manner of alternatives offered. Nobody was 'rushed' anywhere. You need to limit your comments to subjects you are familiar with. Just sayin.


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you were not willing to go through that, you should not have had intercourse.  There are other ways to sexually gratify your partner without actually having intercourse.  You made your choice the moment you allowed your partner entry into your body.
> 
> Man!  Did that sound graphic or what?  Sorry.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT sounds like a man, fer sure!! Never mind YOU, just don't leave MY needs unattended. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, in the first place, I didn't say anything about not satisfying the lady.  I am told intercourse is not the only way a woman can achieve ecstasy.
> 
> Second, I confess, I'm a selfish male.  So sue me!
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Believe me, I know the species. 'Let me tell YOU how to act but I'M special. Don't mess with MY dogma!!'


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, from my local Planned Parenting site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those services reduce unwanted pregnancy other than abortion?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Did you even realize than in the event you are pregnant and choose to have the child that PP will hook you up with every social service known to man?
> 
> Want to end abortion? Force every male to make a sperm deposit at 15 and then mandatory vasectomy.
> 
> That would really reduce the number of abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All* of those services promote sexual promiscuity and lead to unwanted pregnancies followed by abortions!
> 
> 
> 
> Screw that shit!  I would no sooner promote that women be forced to be sterilized?  Why should I suffer because some women refuse not to spread their legs or some assholes can't keep their ding-a-lings in their pants?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even realize than in the event you are pregnant and choose to have the child that PP will hook you up with every social service known to man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that is what you and they claim.  In reality, they rush women into clinics not even wanting to allow them the time to "think it over" and end the question before the woman has the chance to come to her senses.Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immy, again you are commenting on ground you've never trodded. I've been to planned parenthood before and do you know what was the first thing they told those girls? Abortion is NOT an acceptable form of birth control.  The counseling was first rate and there were all manner of alternatives offered. Nibody was 'rushed' anywhere. You need to limit your comments to subjects you are familiar with. Just sayin.
Click to expand...


They also deny that choosing to abort because the mother is not ready for a child is birth control.  What would you call it if not "birth control"?  Oh wait, I know... Family Planning!

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT sounds like a man, fer sure!! Never mind YOU, just don't leave MY needs unattended. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, in the first place, I didn't say anything about not satisfying the lady.  I am told intercourse is not the only way a woman can achieve ecstasy.
> 
> Second, I confess, I'm a selfish male.  So sue me!
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe me, I know the species. 'Let me tell YOU how to act but I'M special. Don't mess with MY dogma!!'
Click to expand...


I'm taking the  and guessing that your just trying to have fun with me and push my buttons.

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> All good points Immy but let me ask you this. Have you ever had an abortion? I have. I was 15 years old and my father insisted on it. It wasn't legal back then and it was hell on earth. I had an actual doctor in attendance who could have lost his medical licence for 'helping us out' and it created a rift between my family and I  that wasn't resolved for decades. I became a 'womens rights' advocate on that very day and I will never change. There is no way to describe the pain and humiliation and misery I suffered that day and for whatever reason I hope no woman ever has to again. The reasons aren't  important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have I ever had an abortion?    I have to confess.  I am one of those evil men that you think "want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen", so, no I have never had an abortion.  Nor has my wife, nor either one of my two daughters.  I have I will confess though much to my shame, counseled a friend of my wife who called me for advice.  I told her that she should do what she felt was in her best interest.  This was before I became "pro-life".  She did and she has not spoken to us since.
> 
> If you don't mind, I would prefer not to comment on the rest of this post.  Nothing I can say will sound right and I don't particularly care to have you "not speak to me since".  Make sense?
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. So I will leave you with this. Until you grow a vagina of your own  keep your nose out of mine.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind, I would prefer not to comment on the rest of this post.  Nothing I can say will sound right and I don't particularly care to have you "not speak to me since".  Make sense?


PS, the OP accused us of not being honest. I just laid a weeks worth of honesty on you folks and you act like it's a dead animal carcass. Puleeze.
Let me know when you really wanna talk turkey as opposed to mouthing platitudes you can't back up with experience.


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, in the first place, I didn't say anything about not satisfying the lady.  I am told intercourse is not the only way a woman can achieve ecstasy.
> 
> Second, I confess, I'm a selfish male.  So sue me!
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, I know the species. 'Let me tell YOU how to act but I'M special. Don't mess with MY dogma!!'
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taking the  and guessing that your just trying to have fun with me and push my buttons.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Naw. It's not personal. Im just having a weekend message board rant about something I feel strongly about. Good arguments are hard to come by. Don't think I'm being anything but bombastic.
PS I didn't know that was a razz, but it kinda fits.


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have I ever had an abortion?    I have to confess.  I am one of those evil men that you think "want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen", so, no I have never had an abortion.  Nor has my wife, nor either one of my two daughters.  I have I will confess though much to my shame, counseled a friend of my wife who called me for advice.  I told her that she should do what she felt was in her best interest.  This was before I became "pro-life".  She did and she has not spoken to us since.
> 
> If you don't mind, I would prefer not to comment on the rest of this post.  Nothing I can say will sound right and I don't particularly care to have you "not speak to me since".  Make sense?
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. So I will leave you with this. Until you grow a vagina of your own  keep your nose out of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't mind, I would prefer not to comment on the rest of this post.  Nothing I can say will sound right and I don't particularly care to have you "not speak to me since".  Make sense?
> 
> 
> PS, the OP accused us of not being honest. I just layed a weeks worth of honesty on you folks and you act like it's a dead animal carcass. Puleeze.
> Let me know when you really wanna talk turkey as opposed to mouthing platitudes you can't back up with experience.
Click to expand...


FYI: I did not write the OP.  You did in fact lay out your personal experiences and I can tell from experience with other friends on these sites who have laid out that very same honesty that they will eat you alive for your honesty.  I, personally, do not want to be part of that and since I had no idea what you wanted me to say, I chose to skip any response at all.  Nothing I can say will change the events that happened.

Do you want me to condemn your family?  I don't know them.

Do you want me to condemn you?  I don't know what you have gone through.

Do you want me to tell you that you made a good decision?  It doesn't sound like you had a decision to make.

Do you want me to say, I am sorry?  Sorry, doesn't cut it.

Do you want me to tell you that everything will be okay?  It sounds like you have worked through the issue yourself.  

Am I willing to discuss it if you so choose?  Sure, but, until I know where you want to go with that, I'm not going to push your buttons in that realm.  My being an asshole to you about it won't help either one of us.

Immie


----------



## Shadow

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> All good points Immy but let me ask you this. Have you ever had an abortion? I have. I was 15 years old and my father insisted on it. It wasn't legal back then and it was hell on earth. I had an actual doctor in attendance who could have lost his medical licence for 'helping us out' and it created a rift between my family and I  that wasn't resolved for decades. I became a 'womens rights' advocate on that very day and I will never change. There is no way to describe the pain and humiliation and misery I suffered that day and for whatever reason I hope no woman ever has to again. The reasons aren't  important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have I ever had an abortion?    I have to confess.  I am one of those evil men that you think "want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen", so, no I have never had an abortion.  Nor has my wife, nor either one of my two daughters.  I have I will confess though much to my shame, counseled a friend of my wife who called me for advice.  I told her that she should do what she felt was in her best interest.  This was before I became "pro-life".  She did and she has not spoken to us since.
> 
> If you don't mind, I would prefer not to comment on the rest of this post.  Nothing I can say will sound right and I don't particularly care to have you "not speak to me since".  Make sense?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. So I will leave you with this. Until you grow a vagina of your own  keep your nose out of mine.
Click to expand...


As long as you keep your nose out of everyone elses vagina.  See...pro abortion people do not "own" the female "vagina" or this argument...even if they "think" they do. You don't get to speak for everyone...nice try though.


----------



## taichiliberal

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always so easy to pass moral judgement on people when you aren't personally involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have I passed judgment on you or mom?
> 
> I disagree with what you are supporting, but I do not believe I have passed judgment on either one of you any more than you have passed judgment upon me.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said before, I support the RIGHT if not the actual _act _of terminating a pregnancy. YOU are passing judgement on an entire segment of the population without ever having had the unhappy misfortune to find yourself in such dire straights. I wonder if being a woman would neutralize your thinking? Or maybe make you think at all? It's easy to judge when you have no possibility of ever having to make such a decision. Wish I had that kind of ecclesiastical white-out at my disposal. (wink)
Click to expand...


Ahh, but as you know there are those women who think it is there right to tell other women what to do when it comes to the legal right to choose abortion or not.  Hell, there are women who feel it is their moral obligation as decreed by GOD (via their church leader) to tell women not to have pre-marital sex, and NOT to use contraception...EVER.

What I find hysterical are the "statistics" used on both sides of the aisle....one says abortion decreases crime, the other says opposite....forget the FACT that a lousy economy coupled with racism, sexism, a competitive society with limited resources and opportunities, a fractured educational system...are heavy contributing factors to crime rise and falling, especially among the poor.

Bottom line: IMHO, if this society were to stop the misogynist BS and treat sex education they way they treat indoctrinating kids about sports stats....and treated contraception to teenagers like they do junior driver's licenses and military recruitment...then maybe one day we'll live in a world were abortion is indeed a rarity.  Of course, you have to clean up poverty, corruption and racism too.  Oh well, I guess I won't live to see it.

Until then, it's a choice, and a private one.


----------



## Immanuel

taichiliberal said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have I passed judgment on you or mom?
> 
> I disagree with what you are supporting, but I do not believe I have passed judgment on either one of you any more than you have passed judgment upon me.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, I support the RIGHT if not the actual _act _of terminating a pregnancy. YOU are passing judgement on an entire segment of the population without ever having had the unhappy misfortune to find yourself in such dire straights. I wonder if being a woman would neutralize your thinking? Or maybe make you think at all? It's easy to judge when you have no possibility of ever having to make such a decision. Wish I had that kind of ecclesiastical white-out at my disposal. (wink)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, but as you know there are those women who think it is there right to tell other women what to do when it comes to the legal right to choose abortion or not.  Hell, there are women who feel it is their moral obligation as decreed by GOD (via their church leader) to tell women not to have pre-marital sex, and NOT to use contraception...EVER.
> 
> What I find hysterical are the "statistics" used on both sides of the aisle....one says abortion decreases crime, the other says opposite....forget the FACT that a lousy economy coupled with racism, sexism, a competitive society with limited resources and opportunities, a fractured educational system...are heavy contributing factors to crime rise and falling, especially among the poor.
> 
> Bottom line: IMHO, if this society were to stop the misogynist BS and treat sex education they way they treat indoctrinating kids about sports stats....and treated contraception to teenagers like they do junior driver's licenses and military recruitment...then maybe one day we'll live in a world were abortion is indeed a rarity.  Of course, you have to clean up poverty, corruption and racism too.  Oh well, I guess I won't live to see it.
> 
> Until then, it's a choice, and a private one.
Click to expand...




Well said TL.

One of the reasons I tried to avoid CS's honesty was because I do believe it is a private decision.  I do not like to sound like I am condemning anyone for their choice.  I'll argue with them about their viewpoint... but, when CS became honest, then anything and everything I say from that point on begins to sound judgmental.  At that point, I seemed to be damned if I do and damned if I don't discuss it.

I have my beliefs about the issue and if I had my choice in the matter, both sides would be working together to make abortion rare.  Both sides need to agree to come together and brainstorm on the issue.  They need to be willing to work together.  Unfortunately, the two parties won't allow that to happen.

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, I support the RIGHT if not the actual _act _of terminating a pregnancy. YOU are passing judgement on an entire segment of the population without ever having had the unhappy misfortune to find yourself in such dire straights. I wonder if being a woman would neutralize your thinking? Or maybe make you think at all? It's easy to judge when you have no possibility of ever having to make such a decision. Wish I had that kind of ecclesiastical white-out at my disposal. (wink)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, but as you know there are those women who think it is there right to tell other women what to do when it comes to the legal right to choose abortion or not.  Hell, there are women who feel it is their moral obligation as decreed by GOD (via their church leader) to tell women not to have pre-marital sex, and NOT to use contraception...EVER.
> 
> What I find hysterical are the "statistics" used on both sides of the aisle....one says abortion decreases crime, the other says opposite....forget the FACT that a lousy economy coupled with racism, sexism, a competitive society with limited resources and opportunities, a fractured educational system...are heavy contributing factors to crime rise and falling, especially among the poor.
> 
> Bottom line: IMHO, if this society were to stop the misogynist BS and treat sex education they way they treat indoctrinating kids about sports stats....and treated contraception to teenagers like they do junior driver's licenses and military recruitment...then maybe one day we'll live in a world were abortion is indeed a rarity.  Of course, you have to clean up poverty, corruption and racism too.  Oh well, I guess I won't live to see it.
> 
> Until then, it's a choice, and a private one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said TL.
> 
> One of the reasons I tried to avoid CS's honesty was because I do believe it is a private decision.  I do not like to sound like I am condemning anyone for their choice.  I'll argue with them about their viewpoint... but, when CS became honest, then anything and everything I say from that point on begins to sound judgmental.  At that point, I seemed to be damned if I do and damned if I don't discuss it.
> 
> I have my beliefs about the issue and if I had my choice in the matter, both sides would be working together to make abortion rare.  Both sides need to agree to come together and brainstorm on the issue.  They need to be willing to work together.  Unfortunately, the two parties won't allow that to happen.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



I don't really think taking away a womans right's as declared by Roe vs Wade is a step forward. As for telling others what to do, don't be silly. I'm all about NOT doing that. But the law is in place. Why rescind it? And to who's benefit would that be if we did? Im for GIVING choices, NOT taking them away.
As for sex education,  why is it we also want to hold back on that? Somebody (woof woof) said indoctrinate the kids with sexual truths as we do with the importance of sports. I really like that idea. Take the mystery and bugaboo out of it and lay some facts on our kids instead of what I've found here today. 'Oh, we can't talk about that, we might hurt somebodies feelings' Trust me, the kids are probably wiser about it than any of us are. And for those of you that found the first part of my story disconcerting, God knows the second part would kill you so I'll spare you.


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, I support the RIGHT if not the actual _act _of terminating a pregnancy. YOU are passing judgement on an entire segment of the population without ever having had the unhappy misfortune to find yourself in such dire straights. I wonder if being a woman would neutralize your thinking? Or maybe make you think at all? It's easy to judge when you have no possibility of ever having to make such a decision. Wish I had that kind of ecclesiastical white-out at my disposal. (wink)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, but as you know there are those women who think it is there right to tell other women what to do when it comes to the legal right to choose abortion or not.  Hell, there are women who feel it is their moral obligation as decreed by GOD (via their church leader) to tell women not to have pre-marital sex, and NOT to use contraception...EVER.
> 
> What I find hysterical are the "statistics" used on both sides of the aisle....one says abortion decreases crime, the other says opposite....forget the FACT that a lousy economy coupled with racism, sexism, a competitive society with limited resources and opportunities, a fractured educational system...are heavy contributing factors to crime rise and falling, especially among the poor.
> 
> Bottom line: IMHO, if this society were to stop the misogynist BS and treat sex education they way they treat indoctrinating kids about sports stats....and treated contraception to teenagers like they do junior driver's licenses and military recruitment...then maybe one day we'll live in a world were abortion is indeed a rarity.  Of course, you have to clean up poverty, corruption and racism too.  Oh well, I guess I won't live to see it.
> 
> Until then, it's a choice, and a private one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said TL.
> 
> One of the reasons I tried to avoid CS's honesty was because I do believe it is a private decision.  I do not like to sound like I am condemning anyone for their choice.  I'll argue with them about their viewpoint... but, when CS became honest, then anything and everything I say from that point on begins to sound judgmental.  At that point, I seemed to be damned if I do and damned if I don't discuss it.
> 
> I have my beliefs about the issue and if I had my choice in the matter, both sides would be working together to make abortion rare.  Both sides need to agree to come together and brainstorm on the issue.  They need to be willing to work together.  Unfortunately, the two parties won't allow that to happen.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


 In a perfect world, Immy. Which, unfortunately we'll never see. Life is messy. And full of unpopular decisions that should NOT be hampered by some windbag politician or some 'I know better than you so SHUT UP' wanker that has no idea where the reality of the situation lies.


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, but as you know there are those women who think it is there right to tell other women what to do when it comes to the legal right to choose abortion or not.  Hell, there are women who feel it is their moral obligation as decreed by GOD (via their church leader) to tell women not to have pre-marital sex, and NOT to use contraception...EVER.
> 
> What I find hysterical are the "statistics" used on both sides of the aisle....one says abortion decreases crime, the other says opposite....forget the FACT that a lousy economy coupled with racism, sexism, a competitive society with limited resources and opportunities, a fractured educational system...are heavy contributing factors to crime rise and falling, especially among the poor.
> 
> Bottom line: IMHO, if this society were to stop the misogynist BS and treat sex education they way they treat indoctrinating kids about sports stats....and treated contraception to teenagers like they do junior driver's licenses and military recruitment...then maybe one day we'll live in a world were abortion is indeed a rarity.  Of course, you have to clean up poverty, corruption and racism too.  Oh well, I guess I won't live to see it.
> 
> Until then, it's a choice, and a private one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said TL.
> 
> One of the reasons I tried to avoid CS's honesty was because I do believe it is a private decision.  I do not like to sound like I am condemning anyone for their choice.  I'll argue with them about their viewpoint... but, when CS became honest, then anything and everything I say from that point on begins to sound judgmental.  At that point, I seemed to be damned if I do and damned if I don't discuss it.
> 
> I have my beliefs about the issue and if I had my choice in the matter, both sides would be working together to make abortion rare.  Both sides need to agree to come together and brainstorm on the issue.  They need to be willing to work together.  Unfortunately, the two parties won't allow that to happen.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really think taking away a womans right's as declared by Roe vs Wade is a step forward. As for telling others what to do, don't be silly. I'm all about NOT doing that. But the law is in place. Why rescind it? And to who's benefit would that be if we did? Im for GIVING choices, NOT taking them away.
> As for sex education,  why is it we also want to hold back on that? Somebody (woof woof) said indoctrinate the kids with sexual thruths as we do with the importance of sports. I really like that idea. Take the mystery and bugaboo out of it and lay some facts on our kids instead of what I've found here today. 'Oh, we can't talk about that, we might hurt somebodies feelings' Trust me, the kids are probably wiser about it than any of us are. And for those of you that found the first part of my story disconcerting, God knows the second part would kill you so I'll spare you.
Click to expand...


I'll ask you the same question I asked snjmom a couple hours ago:  where have you seen me promote making abortion illegal?  Where have I called for overturning Roe?

Also, I am a proponent of Sex Ed and yes, I am one of those evil men that believe we should teach abstinence... ALONG with sex education... alongside it not in place of.

You are falling into the liberal trap of putting words in people's mouths.

Did I say I found your story disconcerting?  No, I said I don't want to be an asshole to you, so I would rather not discuss it with you.  At least at a point when I have only just "met" you.  I know nothing about you.  

The last person that was honest on this site, flipped out several times when she became honest.  

So sue me for trying to be sensitive to your feelings.

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

Shadow said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have I ever had an abortion?    I have to confess.  I am one of those evil men that you think "want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen", so, no I have never had an abortion.  Nor has my wife, nor either one of my two daughters.  I have I will confess though much to my shame, counseled a friend of my wife who called me for advice.  I told her that she should do what she felt was in her best interest.  This was before I became "pro-life".  She did and she has not spoken to us since.
> 
> If you don't mind, I would prefer not to comment on the rest of this post.  Nothing I can say will sound right and I don't particularly care to have you "not speak to me since".  Make sense?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. So I will leave you with this. Until you grow a vagina of your own  keep your nose out of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as you keep your nose out of everyone elses vagina.  See...pro abortion people do not "own" the female "vagina" or this argument...even if they "think" they do. You don't get to speak for everyone...nice try though.
Click to expand...


 Nope, I speak for no vagina but my own.


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said TL.
> 
> One of the reasons I tried to avoid CS's honesty was because I do believe it is a private decision.  I do not like to sound like I am condemning anyone for their choice.  I'll argue with them about their viewpoint... but, when CS became honest, then anything and everything I say from that point on begins to sound judgmental.  At that point, I seemed to be damned if I do and damned if I don't discuss it.
> 
> I have my beliefs about the issue and if I had my choice in the matter, both sides would be working together to make abortion rare.  Both sides need to agree to come together and brainstorm on the issue.  They need to be willing to work together.  Unfortunately, the two parties won't allow that to happen.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really think taking away a womans right's as declared by Roe vs Wade is a step forward. As for telling others what to do, don't be silly. I'm all about NOT doing that. But the law is in place. Why rescind it? And to who's benefit would that be if we did? Im for GIVING choices, NOT taking them away.
> As for sex education,  why is it we also want to hold back on that? Somebody (woof woof) said indoctrinate the kids with sexual thruths as we do with the importance of sports. I really like that idea. Take the mystery and bugaboo out of it and lay some facts on our kids instead of what I've found here today. 'Oh, we can't talk about that, we might hurt somebodies feelings' Trust me, the kids are probably wiser about it than any of us are. And for those of you that found the first part of my story disconcerting, God knows the second part would kill you so I'll spare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll ask you the same question I asked snjmom a couple hours ago:  where have you seen me promote making abortion illegal?  Where have I called for overturning Roe?
> 
> Also, I am a proponent of Sex Ed and yes, I am one of those evil men that believe we should teach abstinence... ALONG with sex education... alongside it not in place of.
> 
> You are falling into the liberal trap of putting words in people's mouths.
> 
> Did I say I found your story disconcerting?  No, I said I don't want to be an asshole to you, so I would rather not discuss it with you.  At least at a point when I have only just "met" you.  I know nothing about you.
> 
> The last person that was honest on this site, flipped out several times when she became honest.
> 
> So sue me for trying to be sensitive to your feelings.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Now Immy, settle down. Im not trying to make an enemy of you. I would just rather speak from experience  when I can and after all it was a long time ago. But it does give me an insight you may not have. If I sounded like I was getting rough with you, Im sorry. Candy Slice is also an attitude. You'll appreciate it someday when we are troll battling together and I show you what I can REALLY do when I get fired up!(wink)
How could honesty flip somebody out? I did my flipping out years ago. It's out of my system. We hope!!


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. So I will leave you with this. Until you grow a vagina of your own  keep your nose out of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't mind, I would prefer not to comment on the rest of this post.  Nothing I can say will sound right and I don't particularly care to have you "not speak to me since".  Make sense?
> 
> 
> PS, the OP accused us of not being honest. I just layed a weeks worth of honesty on you folks and you act like it's a dead animal carcass. Puleeze.
> Let me know when you really wanna talk turkey as opposed to mouthing platitudes you can't back up with experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI: I did not write the OP.  You did in fact lay out your personal experiences and I can tell from experience with other friends on these sites who have laid out that very same honesty that they will eat you alive for your honesty.  I, personally, do not want to be part of that and since I had no idea what you wanted me to say, I chose to skip any response at all.  Nothing I can say will change the events that happened.
> 
> Do you want me to condemn your family?  I don't know them.
> 
> Do you want me to condemn you?  I don't know what you have gone through.
> 
> Do you want me to tell you that you made a good decision?  It doesn't sound like you had a decision to make.
> 
> Do you want me to say, I am sorry?  Sorry, doesn't cut it.
> 
> Do you want me to tell you that everything will be okay?  It sounds like you have worked through the issue yourself.
> 
> Am I willing to discuss it if you so choose?  Sure, but, until I know where you want to go with that, I'm not going to push your buttons in that realm.  My being an asshole to you about it won't help either one of us.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I gotta love ya for that but trust me, NOBODY here has the power to ring ANY of my bells. I said earlier Im a grizzled veteran of some of the nastiest message boards, populated by some of the most excremental rat packs know to internet-dom and my claws are sharp. Also I have one thing they don't. A sense of  humor.

I like you. You don't run. We will agree to disagree, okay?


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really think taking away a womans right's as declared by Roe vs Wade is a step forward. As for telling others what to do, don't be silly. I'm all about NOT doing that. But the law is in place. Why rescind it? And to who's benefit would that be if we did? Im for GIVING choices, NOT taking them away.
> As for sex education,  why is it we also want to hold back on that? Somebody (woof woof) said indoctrinate the kids with sexual thruths as we do with the importance of sports. I really like that idea. Take the mystery and bugaboo out of it and lay some facts on our kids instead of what I've found here today. 'Oh, we can't talk about that, we might hurt somebodies feelings' Trust me, the kids are probably wiser about it than any of us are. And for those of you that found the first part of my story disconcerting, God knows the second part would kill you so I'll spare you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you the same question I asked snjmom a couple hours ago:  where have you seen me promote making abortion illegal?  Where have I called for overturning Roe?
> 
> Also, I am a proponent of Sex Ed and yes, I am one of those evil men that believe we should teach abstinence... ALONG with sex education... alongside it not in place of.
> 
> You are falling into the liberal trap of putting words in people's mouths.
> 
> Did I say I found your story disconcerting?  No, I said I don't want to be an asshole to you, so I would rather not discuss it with you.  At least at a point when I have only just "met" you.  I know nothing about you.
> 
> The last person that was honest on this site, flipped out several times when she became honest.
> 
> So sue me for trying to be sensitive to your feelings.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now Immy, settle down. Im not trying to make an enemy of you. I would just rather speak from experience  when I can and after all it was a long time ago. But it does give me an insight you may not have. If I sounded like I was getting rough with you, Im sorry. Candy Slice is also an attitude. You'll appreciate it someday when we are troll battling together and I show you what I can REALLY do when I get fired up!(wink)
> How could honesty flip somebody out? I did my flipping out years ago. It's out of my system. We hope!!
Click to expand...


Suffice it to say that I believe that her honesty was her way of working things out.  I believe she is reading this thread so I will not put words in her mouth.  

I would love to know more about your experience, but I am not about to be the one that instigates the furtherance of that discussion.  You spoke your heart there and "confessed" some very personal things.  If you want to discuss it, that is fine, but I will not pry.  You bring out the parts of it that you want to discuss.  We can go from there.

Going from there, let me say, it will be a cold day in hell before you will get me to say anything nice about Planned Parenthood.  I do not advocate shutting them down as I realize that much of what they do is good for people, but, I also realize much of what they do is feeder industry to that other thing they do.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't mind, I would prefer not to comment on the rest of this post.  Nothing I can say will sound right and I don't particularly care to have you "not speak to me since".  Make sense?
> 
> 
> PS, the OP accused us of not being honest. I just layed a weeks worth of honesty on you folks and you act like it's a dead animal carcass. Puleeze.
> Let me know when you really wanna talk turkey as opposed to mouthing platitudes you can't back up with experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI: I did not write the OP.  You did in fact lay out your personal experiences and I can tell from experience with other friends on these sites who have laid out that very same honesty that they will eat you alive for your honesty.  I, personally, do not want to be part of that and since I had no idea what you wanted me to say, I chose to skip any response at all.  Nothing I can say will change the events that happened.
> 
> Do you want me to condemn your family?  I don't know them.
> 
> Do you want me to condemn you?  I don't know what you have gone through.
> 
> Do you want me to tell you that you made a good decision?  It doesn't sound like you had a decision to make.
> 
> Do you want me to say, I am sorry?  Sorry, doesn't cut it.
> 
> Do you want me to tell you that everything will be okay?  It sounds like you have worked through the issue yourself.
> 
> Am I willing to discuss it if you so choose?  Sure, but, until I know where you want to go with that, I'm not going to push your buttons in that realm.  My being an asshole to you about it won't help either one of us.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gotta love ya for that but trust me, NOBODY here has the power to ring ANY of my bells. I said earlier Im a grizzled veteran of some of the nastiest message boards, populated by some of the most excremental rat packs know to internet-dom and my claws are sharp. Also I have one thing they don't. A sense of  humor.
> 
> I like you. You don't run. We will agree to disagree, okay?
Click to expand...


Agree to disagree?  For now... by the time we're done you will be on my side.  

I don't know what sites you have come from, but let me just warn ya... there are some vicious people on this site that will not be "loving" in their responses to your honesty.  Of course, maybe (and I think it likely) you will be able to handle it.

Edit: got to run for an hour or so.  If this conversation is still on-going.  Catch ya later!

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

Immanuel said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you the same question I asked snjmom a couple hours ago:  where have you seen me promote making abortion illegal?  Where have I called for overturning Roe?
> 
> Also, I am a proponent of Sex Ed and yes, I am one of those evil men that believe we should teach abstinence... ALONG with sex education... alongside it not in place of.
> 
> You are falling into the liberal trap of putting words in people's mouths.
> 
> Did I say I found your story disconcerting?  No, I said I don't want to be an asshole to you, so I would rather not discuss it with you.  At least at a point when I have only just "met" you.  I know nothing about you.
> 
> The last person that was honest on this site, flipped out several times when she became honest.
> 
> So sue me for trying to be sensitive to your feelings.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now Immy, settle down. Im not trying to make an enemy of you. I would just rather speak from experience  when I can and after all it was a long time ago. But it does give me an insight you may not have. If I sounded like I was getting rough with you, Im sorry. Candy Slice is also an attitude. You'll appreciate it someday when we are troll battling together and I show you what I can REALLY do when I get fired up!(wink)
> How could honesty flip somebody out? I did my flipping out years ago. It's out of my system. We hope!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suffice it to say that I believe that her honesty was her way of working things out.  I believe she is reading this thread so I will not put words in her mouth.
> 
> I would love to know more about your experience, but I am not about to be the one that instigates the furtherance of that discussion.  You spoke your heart there and "confessed" some very personal things.  If you want to discuss it, that is fine, but I will not pry.  You bring out the parts of it that you want to discuss.  We can go from there.
> 
> Going from there, let me say, it will be a cold day in hell before you will get me to say anything nice about Planned Parenthood.  I do not advocate shutting them down as I realize that much of what they do is good for people, but, I also realize much of what they do is feeder industry to that other thing they do.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

I certainly understand the need to put something down on paper. Just this AM I told someone it's the best way to lay the demons that I've found. There is something so assertive about laying it out in black and white, something so cathartic,  until you've tried it you cannot imagine the good of it.
As for me, my demons were laid to rest long ago and what is left is a burning need to tell people it's okay to screw up and there are alternatives out there that do NOT bear a stigma except in the minds of those that would control you for their own gain.
Woman are fragile people , Immy,  and it is easy to control them by battering their self esteem.   It's a low cowardly thing to do but that doesn't seem to stop people from doing it everyday.
We all make our own choices and our own peace in this world and thank God there are still a few choices out there we can still make with honor and a modicum of dignity. Our Government is striving full time now to take those choices away, even as we speak, so it's more important than ever to take a stand where we can and fight the demons with all our hearts.

I leave you in peace tonight, appreciating a fight well fought and more fun to come.
Have a good one. Good night. 
Lynne


----------



## JBeukema

CandySlice said:


> It's the RIGHT to do so that I defend, not the actual act of terminating a fetus.


Is there a difference between supporting the right own slaves and supporting slavery?


----------



## JBeukema

CandySlice said:


> I hope no woman ever has to again


Yet you're here siding with those who encourage such things?


----------



## JBeukema

snjmom said:


> And having a gun in my home is my insurance against home invasion. When I shoot the intruder, is it simply a "matter of convenience"?



So now the act of being created by you is the same as kicking in your oor or crawling through your window with clearly ill intent?


> It's my body


Another human being is not your body. That is a simple biological fact.

Why do you people always have to lie to make your arguments?



> moral rigidity.


So I can invade your home, tie you up, rape you, and kill you without regard to anyone's moral rigidity?


----------



## JBeukema

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual rate is 1.2 million a year and I'm guessing they aren't saying it's "rare" yet. That is less than 3% of the population.
> 
> The very worst parent to have is one that doesn't want you. Why advocate for that kind of parenting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why advocate for that kind of parenting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the alternative is advocating the killing of an innocent human being.  I will not advocate that!
> 
> Do I think life would be grand for such a child?  No, I don't, but at least it is life.  Who knows what good will come to that child or from that child?  I advocate adoption in such a case, but truthfully, I believe that most women in "crisis pregnancies" who go through with the pregnancy end up being great mothers to the child they considered killing.  They're scared when they contemplate taking that life, but once the decision is made, the child is born and life goes on, they end up being fabulous moms.
> 
> No, they aren't saying it is rare yet, but they are not truly advocating anything that will actually reduce it either.  It is nothing but a "feel good" slogan.  Trying to win the hearts and minds of the public.  In the same manner as declaring me to be "anti-woman" or "anti-choice" because I fight against the "choice" of killing an innocent human being.  Or in the same manner as "my" side attempting to make your side seem like monsters by declaring you "pro-abortion".
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God, you must be the most the most naive person on earth. The shelters and orphanages in this country are packed full of abused and abandoned children whose parents had no other choice but to have them.
> Also noticed you had nothing further to say regarding my question.
Click to expand...

Better to kill the children than fix the system, eh?


Any excuse to kill a child...


----------



## JBeukema

snjmom said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't saying it is rare yet, but they are not truly advocating anything that will actually reduce it either.  It is nothing but a "feel good" slogan.  Trying to win the hearts and minds of the public.  In the same manner as declaring me to be "anti-woman" or "anti-choice" because I fight against the "choice" of killing an innocent human being.  Or in the same manner as "my" side attempting to make your side seem like monsters by declaring you "pro-abortion".
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, from my local Planned Parenting site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Services
> Planned Parenthood provides direct medical care and family planing services to more than 50,000 women, men and teens each year.
> 
> 
> Our health services include:
> 
> emergency contraception
> comprehensive birth control and contraceptive services
> testing and treatment for STDs
> hepatitis vaccinations
> HIV testing and counseling
> cancer screenings (breast and cervical, testicular and prostate)
> HPV vaccinations
> colposcopy and cryotherapy
> vasectomies
> annual GYN exams
> Announcing Fall 2010 Insemination Services.
> 
> We also provide options counseling and abortion care through Reproductive Health Services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of those services reduce unwanted pregnancy other than abortion?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Did you even realize than in the event you are pregnant and choose to have the child that PP will hook you up with every social service known to man?
> 
> Want to end abortion? Force every male to make a sperm deposit at 15 and then mandatory vasectomy.
> 
> That would really reduce the number of abortions.
Click to expand...

I know how to eliminate the overwhelming number of abortions without forced sterilization ala' the Nazis.

Keep your pants on and don't have unprotected sex if you're not prepared to be responsible for a child.

How telling that, in order to avoid personal responsibility, you'd rather have Der Staat forcefully sterilize everyone.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ4A2MflNL8]YouTube - Laibach - Der Staat[/ame]


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> *All* of those services promote sexual promiscuity and lead to unwanted pregnancies followed by abortions!



Really? Vasectomies and breast cancer screenings do that?

Come on now, Immie.


----------



## JBeukema

Immanuel said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All* of those services promote sexual promiscuity and lead to unwanted pregnancies followed by abortions!
> 
> 
> 
> Screw that shit!  I would no sooner promote that women be forced to be sterilized?  Why should I suffer because some women refuse not to spread their legs or some assholes can't keep their ding-a-lings in their pants?
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that is what you and they claim.  In reality, they rush women into clinics not even wanting to allow them the time to "think it over" and end the question before the woman has the chance to come to her senses.Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immy, again you are commenting on ground you've never trodded. I've been to planned parenthood before and do you know what was the first thing they told those girls? Abortion is NOT an acceptable form of birth control.  The counseling was first rate and there were all manner of alternatives offered. Nibody was 'rushed' anywhere. You need to limit your comments to subjects you are familiar with. Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also deny that choosing to abort because the mother is not ready for a child is birth control.  What would you call it if not "birth control"?  Oh wait, I know... Family Planning!
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I always thought 'family planning' sounded like what you do when you see a genetic counselor.


----------



## Immanuel

JBeukema said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All* of those services promote sexual promiscuity and lead to unwanted pregnancies followed by abortions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Vasectomies and breast cancer screenings do that?
> 
> Come on now, Immie.
Click to expand...


Sorry, did I miss those when I was reviewing her post?

Hey, I'm not always right. 

That does not change the fact that Planned Parenthood promotes sexual promiscuity which leads to more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.

Immie


----------



## CandySlice

JBeukema said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope no woman ever has to again
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you're here siding with those who encourage such things?
Click to expand...



Ya know, I read your posts and saw your point of view. But I think we'd all benefit if you dailed down the drama about half a decible. Kay? Kay. You obviously don't have any idea what you are talking about and far be it from me to add to your humiliation. When you are ready to discuss instead of force opinions out of people like a verbal ram induction we'll get together asnd hash this thing out.
Kay? kay.


----------



## xsited1

Immanuel said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All* of those services promote sexual promiscuity and lead to unwanted pregnancies followed by abortions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Vasectomies and breast cancer screenings do that?
> 
> Come on now, Immie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, did I miss those when I was reviewing her post?
> 
> Hey, I'm not always right.
> 
> That does not change the fact that Planned Parenthood promotes sexual promiscuity which leads to more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Don't be dissin' Planned Parenthood.  If the Democrats didn't support them, the black population would skyrocket.  God Bless those Democrats.


----------



## Contumacious

Grace said:


> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. *Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody *on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.



Excellent.
glad to know that you are assertive and not a slave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.


----------



## Immanuel

xsited1 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Vasectomies and breast cancer screenings do that?
> 
> Come on now, Immie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, did I miss those when I was reviewing her post?
> 
> Hey, I'm not always right.
> 
> That does not change the fact that Planned Parenthood promotes sexual promiscuity which leads to more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be dissin' Planned Parenthood.  If the Democrats didn't support them, the black population would skyrocket.  God Bless those Democrats.
Click to expand...


I be dissin' 'em whenever I want and you can't stop me.  Last I checked this was a free country.  How long that last, I can't say, but for now, I can say what I want.  

What scares me is the ability for them to track down my IP address.

Immie


----------



## JBeukema

Grace said:


> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you.



bullshit

Women having multiple abortions reaches record high - Times Online


----------



## Grace

I can't speak for others. I can only speak for myself. And I said it already.
You, JB, are a nutbar.


----------



## JBeukema

You just lied about me in another thread.

Since you decided to show again, let me repeat the questions you keep evading:
1)Why can't you people ever be honest? If what you advocate isn't evil, why can't you admit what it is you advocate?

2)Does my right to do as I wish with/to my body extend to rights which harm another or are rape and murder not cool with you?

3)If killing your baby was okay and killing you now is not, why? At what point did what fundamental aspect of the child's nature change that made killing it go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?


----------



## Gadawg73

JBeukema said:


> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit
> 
> Women having multiple abortions reaches record high - Times Online
Click to expand...


Strange how all of a sudden out of no where these women become pregnant.


----------



## PatriciaClark

Many pro-abortion advocates in California are still fighting for the legal rights and i think we should support and trust such lawyers.


----------



## American Legacy

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.


"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.  For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." -- John 3:19-20


----------



## American Legacy

If the pro-abortion lobby is so pro-choice why aren't they promoting the choice to not have sex, the choice to use preventative birth control methods or the choice to give up and unwanted child for adoption?  Why don't they advocate giving parents a choice over the medical care their minor daughters receive or giving pregnant women who seek counseling a true choice about their options by presenting the emotional and physical health risks involved in an abortion?  The only "choice" the pro-abortion lobby supports is a woman's choice to kill the unborn child inside her because its the inconvenient consequence of poor choices or (rarely) tragic circumstances.


----------



## Gadawg73

American Legacy said:


> If the pro-abortion lobby is so pro-choice why aren't they promoting the choice to not have sex, the choice to use preventative birth control methods or the choice to give up and unwanted child for adoption?  Why don't they advocate giving parents a choice over the medical care their minor daughters receive or giving pregnant women who seek counseling a true choice about their options by presenting the emotional and physical health risks involved in an abortion?  The only "choice" the pro-abortion lobby supports is a woman's choice to kill the unborn child inside her because its the inconvenient consequence of poor choices or (rarely) tragic circumstances.



I know of no one pro abortion. 
How many pregnancies have you had?
Name one "pro abortionist" that does not advocate choice for the mother, birth control and adoption. 
I oppose abortion adamantly. 
I not stupid and believe that district attorneys, police, doctors (you do know that doctors deliver babies and perform abortions listing the reasons for the abortion), do not pick and choose who can LEGALLY have an abortion and who will prosecuted for having an abortion.
You see my man, that is how the real world operates, not some fantasy land where abortion can be made illegal and everyone would be treated equally. Only a damn fool would ever believe that.
Criminalize abortion and this is what those of that have lived in the real world when IT WAS ILLEGAL SAW AND KNOW AS FACT (anyone with half a brain would know this as fact):
The ONLY 2 scenarios there are with abortion or better put:
Abortion facts for Idiots:
1.
"She needed the abortion for her safety" cries the doctor after he performs the abortion for an affluent family. Of course the dumb asses believe it and know for sure the doctor would never lie. She got her abortion and was not prosecuted. Oh, of course, it is just coincidence she comes from a connected family.
2. "No, she can NOT have an abortion and will be charged with murder."  cries the doctor. And of course there is no coincidence that this woman is poor and not connected to the community.
Those of us that live and work in the real world, myself as a private investigator for 32 years, know that the net result of making it illegal again are:
So the legal abortions will go on for those with $$$ and willing doctors to doctor their reasons and:
Illegal for poor women that will end up having their children that:
THEY DO NOT WANT
DO NOT KNOW HOW TO TAKE CARE


----------



## American Legacy

So you're suggesting we not criminalize murder because some people might choose to break the law?  Wow.  Why not just decriminalize murdering people who are already out of the womb too, since rich people can afford fancy lawyers who get them off on technicalities?  I wish you would avoid the irresponsible class warfare rhetoric by the way.  It does you and every one who hears you a grave disservice.

You and I do agree on one point you made and that is that any one who accepts your opinions as "facts" really does have half a brain.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sinister59 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny how you think people that are for a women's rights of her own body are cowards  ,yet anti -abortionist murder , blow up building , stay anonymous are heroes so your definition of coward is distorted . badly .woman's body are not public domain .
Click to expand...


Could you please point me to the occasion when JB EVER said that people who kill abortion doctors are heroes?  If not, could you please keep your fucking delusions about what other people think and believe OUT of the discussion?  I realize it would be a lot easier for you to debate against the voices in your head, rather than against real people, but I don't think anyone appreciates having your filth projected onto them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sinister59 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> "funny how you think people that are for a women's rights of her own body are cowards ,yet anti -abortionist murder , blow up building , stay anonymous are heroes so your definition of coward is distorted . "
> 
> Lie.
> 
> Though it's so jumbled it's hard to decipher, stating "you think" and then jamming together a bunch of lies that you can't verify, is of course, a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow I'd get my computer looked at if thats what you see .
> its plain if your not stupid ? or a child trying to be funny .
> 
> you don't like people that aborted their pregnancy ? ok .
> 
> you think woman should not have the last say? ok
> 
> but to say doctors have not been murdered [oh wait I didn't take into consideration your moral stance on killing people doing things you don't approve of]
> 
> not one fucking lie .
> 
> clinics have been blown up , doctors have been lets say killed . ok because my guess is you think a christan doesn't murder sop that one is semantics .
> 
> as for you thoughts on me ? LOL fuck you I could care less . .
> 
> your just a putts anyway
Click to expand...


That's not even a good attempt at misdirection.

And it's "putz", you putz.


----------



## manifold

​


----------



## HUGGY

*Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Be Honest?
*

If you don't ask questions that are none of your business then you won't be disappointed in the answer you get.


----------



## manifold

PS: Don't forget that the author of the OP insists that he is pro-choice.


----------



## Gadawg73

American Legacy said:


> So you're suggesting we not criminalize murder because some people might choose to break the law?  Wow.  Why not just decriminalize murdering people who are already out of the womb too, since rich people can afford fancy lawyers who get them off on technicalities?  I wish you would avoid the irresponsible class warfare rhetoric by the way.  It does you and every one who hears you a grave disservice.
> 
> You and I do agree on one point you made and that is that any one who accepts your opinions as "facts" really does have half a brain.



When does a doctor perform a murder in every case involved and give a legal reason why he murdered someone?
The parameters here once again are THE REAL WORLD.
Hate to bust your bubble there my man but it would be DOCTORS that perform the abortions.
And to further complicate this issue for you it would be DOCTORS that give the reasons why they had to perform the abortions.
And not to confuse any more but it would be DOCTORS that can list almost ANYTHING in their opinion as to why they just had to do the abortion.
And the ONLY WAY anyone would ever be prosecuted for murder in an abortion case if it was criminalized again is IF A DOCTOR TESTIFIED IT WAS NOT NECESSARY.
One doctor testifies it was necessary and another says it wasn't.
So who is right? Are you a doctor?
Real world Moe. Please join us that oppose abortion but KNOW FOR DAMN SURE that anyone that has any $$$ will get any abortion at any time they want regardles if they law makes it legal or not.
All abortion laws do is mandate that poor women have babies THEY DO NOT WANT AND DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR. 
And if you favor that go work at a birthing center for wayward teen girls and adopt 4 dozen babies. 
But we know that is NOT REAL WORLD.


----------



## Gadawg73

American Legacy said:


> So you're suggesting we not criminalize murder because some people might choose to break the law?  Wow.  Why not just decriminalize murdering people who are already out of the womb too, since rich people can afford fancy lawyers who get them off on technicalities?  I wish you would avoid the irresponsible class warfare rhetoric by the way.  It does you and every one who hears you a grave disservice.
> 
> You and I do agree on one point you made and that is that any one who accepts your opinions as "facts" really does have half a brain.



Class warfare?
I am a millionaire 3 times over. Vote Republican for 39 years. Own 3 corporations.
The subject is abortion. If you do not know that women with $$$ will get any abortion they want then you are about naive and gullible as they come.
US LAW FOR DUMMIES:
If Roe was overturned TODAY this is what THE LAW WOULD BE:
The STATES would individually make the laws on abortion.
Some would ban it outright, no abortions for rape, incest, whatever. That is their right and I support their rights and Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al will be happy their campaign dollars came through once again.
Some states will ban it with some reasons for allowing it. That is their right and I support their rights.
Some states will allow it with some reasons for restrciting but differently than the last scenario. Again, this is a states' issue so I support that. 
Some states will allow it at will. I do not support that and oppose that but that is their right.
So, given that is the ONLY scenario that we would be under as this is the law, a state makes their criminal code, what we will ALWAYS END UP WITH is:
If a woman wants an abortion and lives in a state that bans it OUTRIGHT and has money, then all she does is book airfare to a state that allows it. She has the abortion.
If a woman wants an abortion and lives in astate that bans it outright and has NO money, she has the baby that SHE DOES NOT WANT AND DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
Real world Moe. That is the law and that WAS THE LAW before Roe.


----------



## High_Gravity

Why do people who are usually against abortions stop caring about the child once it is born?


----------



## American Legacy

High_Gravity said:


> Why do people who are usually against abortions stop caring about the child once it is born?


I've never heard of any pro-lifer advocating killing a child outside the womb either.  Such a position would be inconsistent.  If you meant something else, perhaps you should clearly explain how you define "caring"?


----------



## High_Gravity

American Legacy said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people who are usually against abortions stop caring about the child once it is born?
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard of any pro-lifer advocating killing a child outside the womb either.  Such a position would be inconsistent.  If you meant something else, perhaps you should clearly explain how you define "caring"?
Click to expand...


What I mean is that these pro life loonies are all up in arms about not wanting anyone to have abortions, but than if that child is born in poverty they are against that child getting any government assistance like welfare, food stamps etc etc most pro lifers I have met are adamantly against assistance, which ironically is what a woman with very little options would need if she decides to keep the child.


----------



## Grace

Cecilie1200 said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny how you think people that are for a women's rights of her own body are cowards  ,yet anti -abortionist murder , blow up building , stay anonymous are heroes so your definition of coward is distorted . badly .woman's body are not public domain .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you please point me to the occasion when JB EVER said that people who kill abortion doctors are heroes?  If not, could you please keep your fucking delusions about what other people think and believe OUT of the discussion?  I realize it would be a lot easier for you to debate against the voices in your head, rather than against real people, but I don't think anyone appreciates having your filth projected onto them.
Click to expand...


Delusions of what other people think. Ok. How's this? I believe I am the only one that stated I had an abortion, and why. I don't appreciate having JB's filth projected unto me no matter what thread I happen to start, or post in. Does that count too?


----------



## High_Gravity

Grace said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny how you think people that are for a women's rights of her own body are cowards  ,yet anti -abortionist murder , blow up building , stay anonymous are heroes so your definition of coward is distorted . badly .woman's body are not public domain .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please point me to the occasion when JB EVER said that people who kill abortion doctors are heroes?  If not, could you please keep your fucking delusions about what other people think and believe OUT of the discussion?  I realize it would be a lot easier for you to debate against the voices in your head, rather than against real people, but I don't think anyone appreciates having your filth projected onto them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Delusions of what other people think. Ok. How's this? I believe I am the only one that stated I had an abortion, and why. I don't appreciate having JB's filth projected unto me no matter what thread I happen to start, or post in. Does that count too?
Click to expand...


Grace JB is a phsycotic who stopped taking his meds and started drinking vodkas of bottle per day, don't worry about what he says he is just a piece of trash anyways.


----------



## Vanquish

Abortion debates always go round and round because they're based on an uncertainty. Pro-abortionists want to convince themselves that the baby is not alive simply because it's microscopic and unseen.

The only question you need answer is this:
Given the possibility that it MIGHT be life at conception...which is the wiser choice?
a) not aborting, therefore *saving* what could be a life
b) aborting, therefore killing  what could be a life

put even more simply, why take a chance that you're wrong?

All the pro-choice gobbledy-gook can't ever get around that question.


----------



## American Legacy

High_Gravity said:


> American Legacy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people who are usually against abortions stop caring about the child once it is born?
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard of any pro-lifer advocating killing a child outside the womb either.  Such a position would be inconsistent.  If you meant something else, perhaps you should clearly explain how you define "caring"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I mean is that these pro life loonies are all up in arms about not wanting anyone to have abortions, but than if that child is born in poverty they are against that child getting any government assistance like welfare, food stamps etc etc most pro lifers I have met are adamantly against assistance, which ironically is what a woman with very little options would need if she decides to keep the child.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting a child is better off dead than raised by a poor single mother?


----------



## AllieBaba

Of course that's what he means.

He also thinks poor mothers are too stupid to make the choice to give an unwanted child up for adoption.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is all about flushing bad decisions down the drain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Criminalizing abortion is about sending women to prison for the rest of their lives for having taken some pills that brought about the death of a small group of cells that happen to contain human DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is your body not a mere collection of cells even today?
Click to expand...


It's not a SMALL collection, though.  Apparently, human beings are defined by their size.  Who knew?


----------



## Cecilie1200

CandySlice said:


> It's not about dead babies. Nobody wants to see dead babies. What the right to life groups all have in common is they are usually headed up by men. Men that want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen. It's not about abortion as much as it is about taking away the rights we women have fought so hard to achieve. Up until 1920 a woman was little more than chattle and could be dismissed and thrown out with the garbage or bartered like cattle. We've come a long way and  not the Government nor anybody else needs to concern themselves with my bush! I'm managing fine, thank you.
> What a woman does with her body is between her, her doctor and her God. It is nobody elses business.



As I suspected.  Abortion is really all about hatred of men (as well as hatred of children, who are really just living shackles used by men to keep women down).  Explains why the most vocal supporters of abortion are ugly lesbian feminazis.

Shockingly, Gloria Steinem, all women don't agree with you, all women don't hate and fear men, and all women don't want abortion on demand to be legal.  In other words, stop speaking for me if you're going to be saying such utter bullshit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

snjmom said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> Also, there are two (or more) bodies involved in every abortion.  The mother and at least one of her offspring.  The body of the offspring is not hers nor is its life.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does the body of the woman belong to the offspring to do with as it pleases. Again, anytime you can remove the offspring and find an alternative incubation method, feel free to outlaw abortion.
> 
> Until then, direct your energies at caring for the living and preventing unwanted pregnancy.
Click to expand...


Your vision of women as helpless, defenseless victims of Machiavellian fetuses, actively and maliciously plotting and manipulating to enslave them, alternately disturbs me and makes me laugh my ass off at you.

Seriously, get some therapy for this visceral fear and hatred you have of children and pregnancy.  It's just not healthy.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Pregnancy is probably the one and only medical condition that is 100% avoidable.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus is not a child
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> Child: offspring; young human
> 
> Why do you have to lie about what you advocate unless you know it's inexcusable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1
> _a_ *:* an unborn or recently born person  _b_ _dialect_ *:* a female infant
> 
> 2
> _a_ *:* a young person especially between infancy and youth    _b_ *:* a childlike or childish person    _c_ *:* a person not yet of age
> 
> 3
> usually *childe* _archaic_ *:* a youth of noble birth
> 
> 4
> _a_ *:* a son or daughter of human parents    _b_ *:* descendant
> 
> 5
> *:* one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
> 
> 6
> *:* product, result <barbed wire  is truly a _child_ of the plains   W. P. Webb>
> 
>  *child·less* _adjective_
>  *child·less·ness* _noun_
>  *with child* *:* pregnant
> 
> Child - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they can't find a condom or foam or the pill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet they can find an abortionist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because they have been told that only sluts and whores have sex and since they aren't sluts and whores planning to have sex, they don't need them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't plan to have sex, but they're sexually active?
> 
> Whycome you and your ilk can always find someone to kill your baby, but you can't find a condom?
Click to expand...


Unplanned sex?  All I can say is if you're really THAT clumsy that you routinely fall down and land on a penis, you need to be on birth control even more than women who plan to have sex.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Watching "It's Good to be President" on The History Channel, looks like the only U.S. Presidents we've had were JFK, LBJ, Ford, Clinton and Obama.


----------



## Cecilie1200

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about dead babies. Nobody wants to see dead babies. What the right to life groups all have in common is they are usually headed up by men. Men that want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen. It's not about abortion as much as it is about taking away the rights we women have fought so hard to achieve. Up until 1920 a woman was little more than chattle and could be dismissed and thrown out with the garbage or bartered like cattle. We've come a long way and  not the Government nor anybody else needs to concern themselves with my bush! I'm managing fine, thank you.
> What a woman does with her body is between her, her doctor and her God. It is nobody elses business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite where you get your information in regards to what men want.  Because I think you are either dead wrong or not being honest.
> 
> Also, there are two (or more) bodies involved in every abortion.  The mother and at least one of her offspring.  The body of the offspring is not hers nor is its life.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie, glad you asked that. Here's a partial list of the good people (mostly men) that want to stop abortion.
> 
> 
> United States
> The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.[citation needed]
> 
> [edit] Murders In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[6][7]
> 
> March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
> 
> July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.[/COLOR
> 
> ]October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas[edit] Attempted murder, assault, and kidnappingAccording to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[9] Attempted murders in the U.S. included:
> 
> August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).
> July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
> 
> October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.
> 
> Arson, bombing, and property crimeAccording to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[9] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[13] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[14] Incidents have included:
> 
> December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."
> 
> May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.
> 
> October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison
> 
> May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved. This was the second arson at the clinic.
> 
> September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.
> 
> June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.
> 
> July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.
> 
> December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a memorial lamp for an abortion she had had there.
> 
> 
> September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.
> 
> April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building.
> 
> May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
> 
> December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altmans girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.
> 
> January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness  rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.
> 
> 
> Anthrax threats'
> 
> The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.
> 
> November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.[edit]
> 
> Outside the United States
> 
> Outside of the United States, known incidents of anti-abortion violence were committed in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
> 
> [edit] AustraliaJuly 16, 2001: Steven Rogers, a security guard at a clinic in Melbourne, Australia was shot in the chest and killed by Peter James Knight. Knight was charged and was sentenced to life in prison on November 19, 2002.
> 
> January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Faulty construction of the bombs limited damage to a single external burnt area, though if successful damage would have been severe. It is believed that the inviduals who made the attack were responsible for graffiti "baby killers" on the site, indicating a pro-life reason for the attack. The site turned out to in fact not be an abortion clinic, though the attackers most likely were not aware of this.
> 
> [edit] Canada[edit] Attempted murder
> 
> Violence has also occurred in Canada, where three doctors have been attacked to date. There is speculation that the timing of the shootings is related to the Canadian observance of Remembrance Day. The physicians were part of pattern of attacks, which targeted providers in Canada and upstate New York, including Dr. Barnett Slepian. All victims were shot in their homes with a rifle, at dusk, in late October or early November. James Kopp was charged with the murder of Dr. Slepian and the attempted murder of Dr. Short; he is suspected of having committed the other shootings as well.[10][11]
> 
> November 8, 1994: Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver, British Columbia was shot.
> 
> November 10, 1995: Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ontario was shot.
> 
> November 11, 1997: Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg, Manitoba was shot.
> 
> July 11, 2000: Dr. Romalis was stabbed by an unidentified assailant in the lobby of his clinic.
> [edit] Bombing and property damage
> 
> February 25, 1990: Two men broke into a clinic in Vancouver and destroyed $C30,000 worth of medical equipment with crowbars.[36]
> May 18, 1992: A Toronto clinic operated by Henry Morgentaler was firebombed, causing the entire front wall of the building to collapse.[37]
> [edit] New Zealand
> 
> In 1999 Graeme White was found guilty and jailed for tunneling into an abortion clinic in a failed attempt to blow it up.
Click to expand...



I could list the names and crimes of every woman on death row in this country.  Does that make THEM representative of all WOMEN and what they think, feel, and want?

Epic fail.  You're an embarassment to uteruses everywhere.


----------



## Cecilie1200

snjmom said:


> You chose to have sex. You accepted the risk of pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you are wrong. Just because I chose to have sex does not mean I have accepted the risk of pregnancy, anymore than leaving my door unlocked means I have accepted the risk of home invasion and cannot kill to defend it.
> 
> My bottom line remains the same. I will use deadly force to protect my body and my property.
Click to expand...


If you're running around fucking and you HAVEN'T accepted the risks that go with it, then you're a moron who shouldn't be allowed out without a keeper.

The universe doesn't give do-overs because you choose to wander around careless, uninformed, and clueless.  Just because you didn't bother to find out the risks doesn't mean you didn't still take them.

And unplanned fetus = home invader?  Seriously?  You need industrial-strength therapy STAT.


----------



## Cecilie1200

snjmom said:


> The marketing slogan is "Abortion: safe, legal and rare". The problem is that they don't want it rare. By the way, rare is a subjective term. For me, rare would be 50 per year. For them, 5 million a year could be "rare".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual rate is 1.2 million a year and I'm guessing they aren't saying it's "rare" yet. That is less than 3% of the population.
> 
> The very worst parent to have is one that doesn't want you. Why advocate for that kind of parenting?
Click to expand...


Beats advocating for the kind of parenting where you "take care of" your children by kakking them?


----------



## Shadow

Cecilie1200 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus is not a child
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> Child: offspring; young human
> 
> Why do you have to lie about what you advocate unless you know it's inexcusable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1
> _a_ *:* an unborn or recently born person  _b_ _dialect_ *:* a female infant
> 
> 2
> _a_ *:* a young person especially between infancy and youth    _b_ *:* a childlike or childish person    _c_ *:* a person not yet of age
> 
> 3
> usually *childe* _archaic_ *:* a youth of noble birth
> 
> 4
> _a_ *:* a son or daughter of human parents    _b_ *:* descendant
> 
> 5
> *:* one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
> 
> 6
> *:* product, result <barbed wire &#8230; is truly a _child_ of the plains  &#8212; W. P. Webb>
> 
> &#8212; *child·less* _adjective_
> &#8212; *child·less·ness* _noun_
> &#8212; *with child* *:* pregnant
> 
> Child - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> Yet they can find an abortionist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because they have been told that only sluts and whores have sex and since they aren't sluts and whores planning to have sex, they don't need them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't plan to have sex, but they're sexually active?
> 
> Whycome you and your ilk can always find someone to kill your baby, but you can't find a condom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unplanned sex?  All I can say is if you're really THAT clumsy that you routinely fall down and land on a penis, you need to be on birth control even more than women who plan to have sex.
Click to expand...


And they make it easy for the forgetful these days too.  Go get a birth control shot every 3 months and you are good to go (works great for those prown fall on penises too).


----------



## Cecilie1200

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, glad you asked that. Here's a partial list of the good people (mostly men) that want to stop abortion.
> 
> 
> United States
> The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.[citation needed]
> 
> [edit] Murders In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[6][7]
> 
> March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
> 
> July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.[/COLOR
> 
> ]October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas[edit] Attempted murder, assault, and kidnappingAccording to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[9] Attempted murders in the U.S. included:
> 
> August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).
> July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.
> 
> December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
> 
> October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.
> 
> January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.
> 
> Arson, bombing, and property crimeAccording to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[9] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[13] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[14] Incidents have included:
> 
> December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."
> 
> May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.
> 
> October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison
> 
> May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved. This was the second arson at the clinic.
> 
> September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.
> 
> June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.
> 
> July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.
> 
> December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a memorial lamp for an abortion she had had there.
> 
> 
> September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.
> 
> April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building.
> 
> May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
> 
> December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altmans girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.
> 
> January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness  rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.
> 
> 
> Anthrax threats'
> 
> The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.
> 
> November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.[edit]
> 
> Outside the United States
> 
> Outside of the United States, known incidents of anti-abortion violence were committed in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
> 
> [edit] AustraliaJuly 16, 2001: Steven Rogers, a security guard at a clinic in Melbourne, Australia was shot in the chest and killed by Peter James Knight. Knight was charged and was sentenced to life in prison on November 19, 2002.
> 
> January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Faulty construction of the bombs limited damage to a single external burnt area, though if successful damage would have been severe. It is believed that the inviduals who made the attack were responsible for graffiti "baby killers" on the site, indicating a pro-life reason for the attack. The site turned out to in fact not be an abortion clinic, though the attackers most likely were not aware of this.
> 
> [edit] Canada[edit] Attempted murder
> 
> Violence has also occurred in Canada, where three doctors have been attacked to date. There is speculation that the timing of the shootings is related to the Canadian observance of Remembrance Day. The physicians were part of pattern of attacks, which targeted providers in Canada and upstate New York, including Dr. Barnett Slepian. All victims were shot in their homes with a rifle, at dusk, in late October or early November. James Kopp was charged with the murder of Dr. Slepian and the attempted murder of Dr. Short; he is suspected of having committed the other shootings as well.[10][11]
> 
> November 8, 1994: Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver, British Columbia was shot.
> 
> November 10, 1995: Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ontario was shot.
> 
> November 11, 1997: Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg, Manitoba was shot.
> 
> July 11, 2000: Dr. Romalis was stabbed by an unidentified assailant in the lobby of his clinic.
> [edit] Bombing and property damage
> 
> February 25, 1990: Two men broke into a clinic in Vancouver and destroyed $C30,000 worth of medical equipment with crowbars.[36]
> May 18, 1992: A Toronto clinic operated by Henry Morgentaler was firebombed, causing the entire front wall of the building to collapse.[37]
> [edit] New Zealand
> 
> In 1999 Graeme White was found guilty and jailed for tunneling into an abortion clinic in a failed attempt to blow it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks CS, but is there anything in that list (I only skimmed it) that states as you have said that these men want to, (let me quote you specifically)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
> 
> Who claims that abortion is a woman's right?  What gives anyone the right to kill an innocent human being?  I realize that our courts have found an unwritten "right to privacy" and from there have manufactured a right to kill, but I do not recognize a right to kill a human being in that right to privacy or in any right, written or non-written, on the face of the earth.
> 
> Also, for the record, I do not recognize those men (all of whom I believe resorted to violence) as being what I would consider "pro-life".  That is not to elevate the so-called pro-life movement but rather to state that those who resort to violence do not appear to advocate a true right to life.
> 
> You claim an unwritten right.  What prevents me from claiming the right to do anything on earth (say blowing smoke in Anguille's face whenever I want... if you don't know her yet, that would tick her off) that I feel I want to do and then claim that interference in that right is a violation of my right to privacy?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All good points Immy but let me ask you this. Have you ever had an abortion? I have. I was 15 years old and my father insisted on it. It wasn't legal back then and it was hell on earth. I had an actual doctor in attendance who could have lost his medical licence for 'helping us out' and it created a rift between my family and I  that wasn't resolved for decades. I became a 'womens rights' advocate on that very day and I will never change. There is no way to describe the pain and humiliation and misery I suffered that day and for whatever reason I hope no woman ever has to again. The reasons aren't  important.
Click to expand...



Is there any particular reason that you are now vomiting your life story all over us?  Is it because you've mistaken us for your group therapy session?  Or is it that you think your anecdotal sob story somehow trumps logical, rational thought and lets you win the argument without presenting a good argument?

I dunno what Immy is going to say about this (he's a nicer person than I am), but my opinion of your life and your choices (and yes, you DID ask by rubbing our noses in your shit uninvited, so suck it up) is that everything anyone here has said in the general and abstract concerning abortion and those who have them DOES apply to you every single iota, and you STILL are not invited to present yourself as representing other women, which includes me.  You're not a "women's rights advocate", you're an abortion advocate.  Worse, you're an "I need to justify my crappy life decisions to myself" advocate.  Pitiful.

I AM impressed by how you tell us how painful and miserable the experience was, and your solution is to advocate for even more women to go through it.  Are you really so pig-stupid as to think the problem was that it was illegal, and not that it was an ABORTION?

You're still an embarassment to uteruses everywhere.


----------



## Cecilie1200

CandySlice said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that is where you are wrong... on both counts.  You have accepted the risk both of pregnancy and of a home invasion.  You leaving the door unlocked is accepting the risk that you believe is minimal of having your home invaded.  You are in fact accepting and taking that risk.
> 
> The best argument you can make her is that abortion is the insurance that you have taken out to combat the risk that you have accepted when you have sex.  And that is what makes abortion in these cases a matter of convenience.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having a gun in my home is my insurance against home invasion. When I shoot the intruder, is it simply a "matter of convenience"?
> 
> Why do you and others insist on belittling the process of pregnancy, delivery and raising a child? Have you ever delivered a child, Immie? Ever risked stroke or eclampsia? Ever had to vomit 6 times a day for 9 months, forcing your employer to find someone that didn't need to do that? I have. Twice. My risk to assume and if I hadn't been willing to go through that, I should have been able to remove the cause. It's my body. I don't owe it to anyone. Without regard to biology or anyones moral rigidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's always so easy to pass moral judgement on people when you aren't personally involved.
Click to expand...


It's so easy to rail against moral judgement when you don't bother to employ any yourself.

It's also easy to assume that you're the only one for whom a topic is personal.  But guess what?  I don't have to be a murderer for the issue of murder to be personal and important to me.  I don't have to be an armed robber to care about armed robbery laws.  And I don't have to kill babies to take baby-killing personally.

Those of us who both exercise moral judgement and don't consider it to be an epithet (Really, what kind of person thinks "you made a moral judgement" to be an INSULT?) are capable of considering the killing of human beings to be personal simply because we ARE human beings.


----------



## Cecilie1200

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> All good points Immy but let me ask you this. Have you ever had an abortion? I have. I was 15 years old and my father insisted on it. It wasn't legal back then and it was hell on earth. I had an actual doctor in attendance who could have lost his medical licence for 'helping us out' and it created a rift between my family and I  that wasn't resolved for decades. I became a 'womens rights' advocate on that very day and I will never change. There is no way to describe the pain and humiliation and misery I suffered that day and for whatever reason I hope no woman ever has to again. The reasons aren't  important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have I ever had an abortion?    I have to confess.  I am one of those evil men that you think "want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen", so, no I have never had an abortion.  Nor has my wife, nor either one of my two daughters.  I have I will confess though much to my shame, counseled a friend of my wife who called me for advice.  I told her that she should do what she felt was in her best interest.  This was before I became "pro-life".  She did and she has not spoken to us since.
> 
> If you don't mind, I would prefer not to comment on the rest of this post.  Nothing I can say will sound right and I don't particularly care to have you "not speak to me since".  Make sense?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. So I will leave you with this. Until you grow a vagina of your own  keep your nose out of mine.
Click to expand...


Really hard to keep our noses out of your vagina when you essentially stripped down, climbed on the table, and spread your legs for us to see it.

Here's a thought.  If you don't want people to have opinions about your business, keep your business to yourself.


----------



## Cecilie1200

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, for the record, I do not recognize those men (all of whom I believe resorted to violence) as being what I would consider "pro-life".
> 
> Well of course there is always the possibilty they just liked blowing things up and killed for the fun of it but I wouldn't try to push that idea past any intelligent thinking people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my point is that you can not be "pro-life" and then go out an kill or attempt to kill people you don't agree with.  Stopping them through force of law is one thing.  Stopping their lives is in a whole other galaxy.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you wouldn't think so, would you?? But you know what happens when people decide they know whats best for everybody else.
Click to expand...


They abort them?


----------



## Cecilie1200

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a gun in my home is my insurance against home invasion. When I shoot the intruder, is it simply a "matter of convenience"?
> 
> Why do you and others insist on belittling the process of pregnancy, delivery and raising a child? Have you ever delivered a child, Immie? Ever risked stroke or eclampsia? Ever had to vomit 6 times a day for 9 months, forcing your employer to find someone that didn't need to do that? I have. Twice. My risk to assume and if I hadn't been willing to go through that, I should have been able to remove the cause. It's my body. I don't owe it to anyone. Without regard to biology or anyones moral rigidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you were not willing to go through that, you should not have had intercourse.  There are other ways to sexually gratify your partner without actually having intercourse.  You made your choice the moment you allowed your partner entry into your body.
> 
> Man!  Did that sound graphic or what?  Sorry.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now THAT sounds like a man, fer sure!! Never mind YOU, just don't leave MY needs unattended. LOL
Click to expand...


I believe he meant that to go both ways.  It wasn't the best grammar on his part, but I find it very telling that you automatically jumped to such a man-hating interpretation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

CandySlice said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have I ever had an abortion?    I have to confess.  I am one of those evil men that you think "want to rescind women's rights and send us all back to the kitchen", so, no I have never had an abortion.  Nor has my wife, nor either one of my two daughters.  I have I will confess though much to my shame, counseled a friend of my wife who called me for advice.  I told her that she should do what she felt was in her best interest.  This was before I became "pro-life".  She did and she has not spoken to us since.
> 
> If you don't mind, I would prefer not to comment on the rest of this post.  Nothing I can say will sound right and I don't particularly care to have you "not speak to me since".  Make sense?
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. So I will leave you with this. Until you grow a vagina of your own  keep your nose out of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't mind, I would prefer not to comment on the rest of this post.  Nothing I can say will sound right and I don't particularly care to have you "not speak to me since".  Make sense?
> 
> 
> PS, the OP accused us of not being honest. I just laid a weeks worth of honesty on you folks and you act like it's a dead animal carcass. Puleeze.
> Let me know when you really wanna talk turkey as opposed to mouthing platitudes you can't back up with experience.
Click to expand...


He meant be honest about the facts, not overshare your life story with total strangers.

Let me know when you want to talk facts, not play the "I'm a victim, so I win!" card.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Immanuel said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, I support the RIGHT if not the actual _act _of terminating a pregnancy. YOU are passing judgement on an entire segment of the population without ever having had the unhappy misfortune to find yourself in such dire straights. I wonder if being a woman would neutralize your thinking? Or maybe make you think at all? It's easy to judge when you have no possibility of ever having to make such a decision. Wish I had that kind of ecclesiastical white-out at my disposal. (wink)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, but as you know there are those women who think it is there right to tell other women what to do when it comes to the legal right to choose abortion or not.  Hell, there are women who feel it is their moral obligation as decreed by GOD (via their church leader) to tell women not to have pre-marital sex, and NOT to use contraception...EVER.
> 
> What I find hysterical are the "statistics" used on both sides of the aisle....one says abortion decreases crime, the other says opposite....forget the FACT that a lousy economy coupled with racism, sexism, a competitive society with limited resources and opportunities, a fractured educational system...are heavy contributing factors to crime rise and falling, especially among the poor.
> 
> Bottom line: IMHO, if this society were to stop the misogynist BS and treat sex education they way they treat indoctrinating kids about sports stats....and treated contraception to teenagers like they do junior driver's licenses and military recruitment...then maybe one day we'll live in a world were abortion is indeed a rarity.  Of course, you have to clean up poverty, corruption and racism too.  Oh well, I guess I won't live to see it.
> 
> Until then, it's a choice, and a private one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said TL.
> 
> One of the reasons I tried to avoid CS's honesty was because I do believe it is a private decision.  I do not like to sound like I am condemning anyone for their choice.  I'll argue with them about their viewpoint... but, when CS became honest, then anything and everything I say from that point on begins to sound judgmental.  At that point, I seemed to be damned if I do and damned if I don't discuss it.
> 
> I have my beliefs about the issue and if I had my choice in the matter, both sides would be working together to make abortion rare.  Both sides need to agree to come together and brainstorm on the issue.  They need to be willing to work together.  Unfortunately, the two parties won't allow that to happen.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


See, that's why people on the left play the "I'm a victim" card:  so that nice people will feel too awkward and mean, and will silence themselves and leave the debate field to them.

The main reason I get so hostile and "eat them alive" when broads like Candy and Grace start spewing their life garbage on us - aside from the fact that it makes me feel violated - is because I don't like tactics designed to not only deprive people of their right to have and voice an opinion, but designed to convince them to deprive themselves.  Oh, and because I'm not a nice person, I feel compelled to take up the slack for those who are.


----------



## Cecilie1200

CandySlice said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, but as you know there are those women who think it is there right to tell other women what to do when it comes to the legal right to choose abortion or not.  Hell, there are women who feel it is their moral obligation as decreed by GOD (via their church leader) to tell women not to have pre-marital sex, and NOT to use contraception...EVER.
> 
> What I find hysterical are the "statistics" used on both sides of the aisle....one says abortion decreases crime, the other says opposite....forget the FACT that a lousy economy coupled with racism, sexism, a competitive society with limited resources and opportunities, a fractured educational system...are heavy contributing factors to crime rise and falling, especially among the poor.
> 
> Bottom line: IMHO, if this society were to stop the misogynist BS and treat sex education they way they treat indoctrinating kids about sports stats....and treated contraception to teenagers like they do junior driver's licenses and military recruitment...then maybe one day we'll live in a world were abortion is indeed a rarity.  Of course, you have to clean up poverty, corruption and racism too.  Oh well, I guess I won't live to see it.
> 
> Until then, it's a choice, and a private one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said TL.
> 
> One of the reasons I tried to avoid CS's honesty was because I do believe it is a private decision.  I do not like to sound like I am condemning anyone for their choice.  I'll argue with them about their viewpoint... but, when CS became honest, then anything and everything I say from that point on begins to sound judgmental.  At that point, I seemed to be damned if I do and damned if I don't discuss it.
> 
> I have my beliefs about the issue and if I had my choice in the matter, both sides would be working together to make abortion rare.  Both sides need to agree to come together and brainstorm on the issue.  They need to be willing to work together.  Unfortunately, the two parties won't allow that to happen.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a perfect world, Immy. Which, unfortunately we'll never see. Life is messy. And full of unpopular decisions that should NOT be hampered by some windbag politician or *some 'I know better than you so SHUT UP' wanker* that has no idea where the reality of the situation lies.
Click to expand...


You mean like you, with your "I had an abortion, and YOU don't even have a vagina, so don't comment" rap you were aiming at Immie earlier?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immy, again you are commenting on ground you've never trodded. I've been to planned parenthood before and do you know what was the first thing they told those girls? Abortion is NOT an acceptable form of birth control.  The counseling was first rate and there were all manner of alternatives offered. Nibody was 'rushed' anywhere. You need to limit your comments to subjects you are familiar with. Just sayin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also deny that choosing to abort because the mother is not ready for a child is birth control.  What would you call it if not "birth control"?  Oh wait, I know... Family Planning!
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always thought 'family planning' sounded like what you do when you see a genetic counselor.
Click to expand...


It is, but not the way you think.  See, genetic counseling is basically an attempt for them to scare the shit out of you and try to convince you to have an abortion if there's the slightest thing wrong with the baby at all.

I think I mentioned on the board before that I had to agree to "genetic counseling" in order to have an amniocentesis with my last child.  All it really amounted to was the woman lecturing me and my husband in EXCRUCIATING detail about all the horrible things that could POSSIBLY be wrong with my baby, and how he'd be better off dead if they found any of them, before giving me the test and then sending me home to worry for two weeks until the results came in.

So yeah, "family planning" as the abortionists use it and "genetic counseling" are essentially the same thing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grace said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny how you think people that are for a women's rights of her own body are cowards  ,yet anti -abortionist murder , blow up building , stay anonymous are heroes so your definition of coward is distorted . badly .woman's body are not public domain .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please point me to the occasion when JB EVER said that people who kill abortion doctors are heroes?  If not, could you please keep your fucking delusions about what other people think and believe OUT of the discussion?  I realize it would be a lot easier for you to debate against the voices in your head, rather than against real people, but I don't think anyone appreciates having your filth projected onto them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Delusions of what other people think. Ok. How's this? I believe I am the only one that stated I had an abortion, and why. I don't appreciate having JB's filth projected unto me no matter what thread I happen to start, or post in. Does that count too?
Click to expand...


Very little of what you say on this thread counts with me, particularly as it regards your obsessive need to take everything ever said about abortion personally and you dragging other people into your personal problems with JB.  I don't know what it is with you that you feel compelled to use the rest of us as your therapy group for every issue you have in your life, but I really wish you'd learn some self-control.


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said TL.
> 
> One of the reasons I tried to avoid CS's honesty was because I do believe it is a private decision.  I do not like to sound like I am condemning anyone for their choice.  I'll argue with them about their viewpoint... but, when CS became honest, then anything and everything I say from that point on begins to sound judgmental.  At that point, I seemed to be damned if I do and damned if I don't discuss it.
> 
> I have my beliefs about the issue and if I had my choice in the matter, both sides would be working together to make abortion rare.  Both sides need to agree to come together and brainstorm on the issue.  They need to be willing to work together.  Unfortunately, the two parties won't allow that to happen.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a perfect world, Immy. Which, unfortunately we'll never see. Life is messy. And full of unpopular decisions that should NOT be hampered by some windbag politician or *some 'I know better than you so SHUT UP' wanker* that has no idea where the reality of the situation lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like you, with your "I had an abortion, and YOU don't even have a vagina, so don't comment" rap you were aiming at Immie earlier?
Click to expand...


No, like you, butting your unwanted opinion into other peoples' business all the time like your some great seer or oracle, when in fact you don't know your arse from your elbow...


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, and because I'm not a nice person, I feel compelled to take up the slack for those who are.



I thought it was because you're a miserable bitch.....


----------



## AllieBaba

Wow, stunning, Grump. Way to go! You obviously are a champion of women everywhere!


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> Wow, stunning, Grump. Way to go! You obviously are a champion of women everywhere!



Why thank you....


----------



## Grace

Cecilie1200 said:


> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please point me to the occasion when JB EVER said that people who kill abortion doctors are heroes?  If not, could you please keep your fucking delusions about what other people think and believe OUT of the discussion?  I realize it would be a lot easier for you to debate against the voices in your head, rather than against real people, but I don't think anyone appreciates having your filth projected onto them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delusions of what other people think. Ok. How's this? I believe I am the only one that stated I had an abortion, and why. I don't appreciate having JB's filth projected unto me no matter what thread I happen to start, or post in. Does that count too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very little of what you say on this thread counts with me, particularly as it regards your obsessive need to take everything ever said about abortion personally and you dragging other people into your personal problems with JB.  I don't know what it is with you that you feel compelled to use the rest of us as your therapy group for every issue you have in your life, but I really wish you'd learn some self-control.
Click to expand...


Some facts:
I don't obsess over JB. He seems fascinated by me, though.

I don't give a rats ass what you think about me.

I haven't dragged anyone else in this thread. Link, or it didn't happen.

This place is far from a therapy group and I never thought it as such. You are self projecting.

You really should practice what you are preaching about self control.


----------



## High_Gravity

AllieBaba said:


> Of course that's what he means.
> 
> He also thinks poor mothers are too stupid to make the choice to give an unwanted child up for adoption.



Don't fucking speak for me, my point is you fucking pro life clowns only care about these kids when their in the womb, when they are out in the world you could give a fuck less.


----------



## Gadawg73

The ignorance of most of the posters here is incredible as they totally ignore what the law was before Roe, what the law is now and what the law would be if Roe was overturned.
They label anyone and everyone as "pro-abortion" that explains the facts of the law and how the states only regulate their individual criminal codes in each state, murder specifically.
But we all know that ideologues do not care to learn, educate themselves, study and debate facts.
They are interested in rah rah pep rally chants for themselves and their band wagon chirpers only.
Ideology requires no facts.


----------



## AllieBaba

High_Gravity said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's what he means.
> 
> He also thinks poor mothers are too stupid to make the choice to give an unwanted child up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't fucking speak for me, my point is you fucking pro life clowns only care about these kids when their in the womb, when they are out in the world you could give a fuck less.
Click to expand...

 
Isn't that speaking for me?

Anyway, that's one of the more ridiculous arguments (and logical fallacies) going.


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> The ignorance of most of the posters here is incredible as they totally ignore what the law was before Roe, what the law is now and what the law would be if Roe was overturned.
> They label anyone and everyone as "pro-abortion" that explains the facts of the law and how the states only regulate their individual criminal codes in each state, murder specifically.
> But we all know that ideologues do not care to learn, educate themselves, study and debate facts.
> They are interested in rah rah pep rally chants for themselves and their band wagon chirpers only.
> Ideology requires no facts.


 
No shit. Ironic post of the day, possibly the century.


----------



## High_Gravity

AllieBaba said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's what he means.
> 
> He also thinks poor mothers are too stupid to make the choice to give an unwanted child up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't fucking speak for me, my point is you fucking pro life clowns only care about these kids when their in the womb, when they are out in the world you could give a fuck less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that speaking for me?
> 
> Anyway, that's one of the more ridiculous arguments (and logical fallacies) going.
Click to expand...


----------



## AllieBaba

Ineducable.

Or high.


----------



## High_Gravity

AllieBaba said:


> Ineducable.
> 
> Or high.



You are a looney tunes bat shit crazy worthless piece of trash fucking slut, and I am done with you. You are dismissed.


----------



## AllieBaba

Brilliant! You and Grump have quite a little hate club going there.


----------



## Vanquish

Vanquish said:


> Abortion debates always go round and round because they're based on an uncertainty. Pro-abortionists want to convince themselves that the baby is not alive simply because it's microscopic and unseen.
> 
> The only question you need answer is this:
> Given the possibility that it MIGHT be life at conception...which is the wiser choice?
> a) not aborting, therefore *saving* what could be a life
> b) aborting, therefore killing  what could be a life
> 
> put even more simply, why take a chance that you're wrong?
> 
> All the pro-choice gobbledy-gook can't ever get around that question.



You motherfuckers can side-step my question all you want, but until a pro-death/pro-abortion person answers this question...your replies are a fucking joke.


----------



## Shadow

High_Gravity said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ineducable.
> 
> Or high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a looney tunes bat shit crazy worthless piece of trash fucking slut, and I am done with you. You are dismissed.
Click to expand...



You just *wish* it was that easy to shut people you don't agree with up.   You are an arrogant ass.


----------



## High_Gravity

Shadow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ineducable.
> 
> Or high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a looney tunes bat shit crazy worthless piece of trash fucking slut, and I am done with you. You are dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just *wish* it was that easy to shut people you don't agree with up.   You are an arrogant ass.
Click to expand...


 and who the hell is this Captain Save a hoe clown? you can go fuck yourself too bitch.


----------



## AllieBaba

High_Gravity said:


> Shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a looney tunes bat shit crazy worthless piece of trash fucking slut, and I am done with you. You are dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just *wish* it was that easy to shut people you don't agree with up. You are an arrogant ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who the hell is this Captain Save a hoe clown? you can go fuck yourself too bitch.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr.Drock

Gadawg73 said:


> The ignorance of most of the posters here is incredible as they totally ignore what the law was before Roe, what the law is now and what the law would be if Roe was overturned.
> They label anyone and everyone as "pro-abortion" that explains the facts of the law and how the states only regulate their individual criminal codes in each state, murder specifically.
> But we all know that ideologues do not care to learn, educate themselves, study and debate facts.
> They are interested in rah rah pep rally chants for themselves and their band wagon chirpers only.
> Ideology requires no facts.



Yeah the whole thread is a lie, never in my life have I met anyone who's pro-abortion.

Everyone I've talked to on both sides of the issue agree that they want the same number of abortions, zero, and most of what I want in law as a pro-choicer is in agreement with the pro-lifers.

But for some reason getting offended, getting emotional outweighs the need to debate the issue logically.


----------



## johnbriner

_Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its *death*_"-- Well it simply means that when you tried to end someones life, then you may be considered as a killer. And it is right that when we are talking about "ending a human life" you are dealing with homicide- I absolutely agree with that! But on the other side of the coin, there may be some reasons why a person decided to make some abortion, Who knows?


----------



## American Legacy

High_Gravity said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's what he means.
> 
> He also thinks poor mothers are too stupid to make the choice to give an unwanted child up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't fucking speak for me, *my point is you fucking pro life clowns only care about these kids when their in the womb, when they are out in the world you could give a fuck less.*
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense.  Obviously you're defining "caring" as "happy to let the government create welfare dependency, fraud and waste with our hard-earned tax dollars".  It must be easy for you to "care" with other people's hard-earned money.


----------



## AllieBaba

Pro-abortionists want to see all children genetically engineered, essentially, and raised by the state.

That's their idea of a perfect world.


----------



## American Legacy

AllieBaba said:


> Pro-abortionists want to see all children genetically engineered, essentially, and raised by the state.
> 
> That's their idea of a perfect world.


That's essentially what Planned Parenthood's founder espoused.


----------



## AllieBaba

It's essentially what any person I've ever talked to who supports abortion espouses.


----------



## PixieStix

American Legacy said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists want to see all children genetically engineered, essentially, and raised by the state.
> 
> That's their idea of a perfect world.
> 
> 
> 
> That's essentially what Planned Parenthood's founder espoused.
Click to expand...


It is...but many who have been raised with the pro abortion ideals of society, may not be aware of the roots of abortion and the founder of PP


What is it that they say?..._*Knowledge is power*_

Margaret Sanger's biography, in truth has been disappearing from the internet slowly.


----------



## AllieBaba

Yup.


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> It's essentially what any person I've ever talked to who supports abortion espouses.



Lol Allie this board wouldn't be half as entertaining without you, keep up the good work.


----------



## AllieBaba

Thanks, I shall.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grace said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusions of what other people think. Ok. How's this? I believe I am the only one that stated I had an abortion, and why. I don't appreciate having JB's filth projected unto me no matter what thread I happen to start, or post in. Does that count too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very little of what you say on this thread counts with me, particularly as it regards your obsessive need to take everything ever said about abortion personally and you dragging other people into your personal problems with JB.  I don't know what it is with you that you feel compelled to use the rest of us as your therapy group for every issue you have in your life, but I really wish you'd learn some self-control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some facts:
> I don't obsess over JB. He seems fascinated by me, though.
> 
> I don't give a rats ass what you think about me.
> 
> I haven't dragged anyone else in this thread. Link, or it didn't happen.
> 
> This place is far from a therapy group and I never thought it as such. You are self projecting.
> 
> You really should practice what you are preaching about self control.
Click to expand...


Right, sweetie.  That's why 1) you keep talking about him, 2) you felt compelled to take general, abstract statements concerning a social issue as personal attacks, despite the fact that, at the time, none of us knew you had had an abortion, and so couldn't possibly be attacking you personally, 3) your previous post dragged JB into a conversation that had nothing to do with him . . . or YOU, for that matter, since it was directed specifically at someone else,  and 4) you felt the need to share with a group of total strangers on the Internet who didn't ask and didn't give a shit (and still DON'T give a shit, just so you know) AAAALLLL about your abortion and how persecuted you feel because people DARE to discuss the subject and NOT think you're a beleaguered champion of womanhood.

You might want to actually learn what "projecting" is, you silly bitch.  Amazingly enough, "No, you are!" is only an effective comeback when you're in grade school.  I do not make a habit of spilling deep, uncomfortable secrets about my past on message boards in a blatant, defensive, and pathetic attempt to justify myself to myself, or to try to declare myself the winner in a debate I cannot win by facts and logic.  You did both.  IF I mention my private life at all, it is to illustrate a point (as with explaining earlier how I know that "genetic counseling" and leftist "family planning" are really both just attempts to convince women to abort) or to explain why I'm bringing up a specific topic.  I genuinely DON'T give a fuck what other people think, the attitude you'd like to claim for yourself and denied yourself for all time with your "I had an abortion, so everything is about MEEEE!!!" rant a while back.

I think the mention of your painfully embarassing (at least, for those of us forced to watch it and who actually have a sense of shame), multi-page meltdown also settles the question of who does and does not need to learn self-control.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> It's essentially what any person I've ever talked to who supports abortion espouses.



It's always scary to talk to people who would view "Brave New World" as a how-to manual . . . if they hadn't been educated in public schools, and therefore had ever actually heard of the book.


----------



## Grace

Cecilie1200 said:


> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very little of what you say on this thread counts with me, particularly as it regards your obsessive need to take everything ever said about abortion personally and you dragging other people into your personal problems with JB.  I don't know what it is with you that you feel compelled to use the rest of us as your therapy group for every issue you have in your life, but I really wish you'd learn some self-control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some facts:
> I don't obsess over JB. He seems fascinated by me, though.
> 
> I don't give a rats ass what you think about me.
> 
> I haven't dragged anyone else in this thread. Link, or it didn't happen.
> 
> This place is far from a therapy group and I never thought it as such. You are self projecting.
> 
> You really should practice what you are preaching about self control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, sweetie.  That's why 1) you keep talking about him,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do? Where. Links or it didnt happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) you felt compelled to take general, abstract statements concerning a social issue as personal attacks, despite the fact that, at the time, none of us knew you had had an abortion, and so couldn't possibly be attacking you personally,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? At the beginning of this thread, I stated abortions are never an easy thing to do but sometimes, there is no option the woman has. Then said why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) your previous post dragged JB into a conversation that had nothing to do with him . . . or YOU, for that matter, since it was directed specifically at someone else,  and
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My bad. Perhaps if he would cease going in to threads and doing the same thing to me, I would forget all about his existence. Quid pro quo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4) you felt the need to share with a group of total strangers on the Internet who didn't ask and didn't give a shit (and still DON'T give a shit, just so you know) AAAALLLL about your abortion and how persecuted you feel because people DARE to discuss the subject and NOT think you're a beleaguered champion of womanhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shared it because I felt like it. Do you speak for all? Some give a shit because they were in the same proverbial boat. I felt persecuted because some schmucks like you kept saying it was an inconvenience to be pregnant when you, that perfect stranger you spoke of, decided you know all about my life and/or what I CHOSE to do. Which I'd do again in a heartbeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to actually learn what "projecting" is, you silly bitch.  Amazingly enough, "No, you are!" is only an effective comeback when you're in grade school.  I do not make a habit of spilling deep, uncomfortable secrets about my past on message boards in a blatant, defensive, and pathetic attempt to justify myself to myself, or to try to declare myself the winner in a debate I cannot win by facts and logic.  You did both.  IF I mention my private life at all, it is to illustrate a point (as with explaining earlier how I know that "genetic counseling" and leftist "family planning" are really both just attempts to convince women to abort) or to explain why I'm bringing up a specific topic.  I genuinely DON'T give a fuck what other people think, the attitude you'd like to claim for yourself and denied yourself for all time with your "I had an abortion, so everything is about MEEEE!!!" rant a while back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blah blah blah de blah de blah blah, Blah blah blah de blah de blah blah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the mention of your painfully embarassing (at least, for those of us forced to watch it and who actually have a sense of shame), multi-page meltdown also settles the question of who does and does not need to learn self-control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Really again? I have no shame on tearing out something I didn't ask for. Don't like it? Tough shit. The only "meltdown" I see going on is your novels you furiously tap out on your keyboard trying to make some kind of point while waggling your finger at me. THAT, sweetcakes, is self projection.
Click to expand...


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Grace said:


> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.



I'm sorry to hear that.  It's sounds like it was a painful ordeal.


----------



## JBeukema

High_Gravity said:


> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please point me to the occasion when JB EVER said that people who kill abortion doctors are heroes?  If not, could you please keep your fucking delusions about what other people think and believe OUT of the discussion?  I realize it would be a lot easier for you to debate against the voices in your head, rather than against real people, but I don't think anyone appreciates having your filth projected onto them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delusions of what other people think. Ok. How's this? I believe I am the only one that stated I had an abortion, and why. I don't appreciate having JB's filth projected unto me no matter what thread I happen to start, or post in. Does that count too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grace JB is a phsycotic who stopped taking his meds and started drinking vodkas of bottle per day, don't worry about what he says he is just a piece of trash anyways.
Click to expand...


I am one of the most moral and consistent people on this board and I have consumed a drop of alcohol in months, though a pomegranate martini does sound nice.

Grace is the one who think rape and suicide bombings are okay.

She has refused time and again to say my right to do as I wish with.to my body does not extend to acts which cause direct physical harm to another.


----------



## JBeukema

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Pregnancy is probably the one and only medical condition that is 100% avoidable.


Well, 99.9%, if you believe in Jesus.


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> See, that's why people on the left play the "I'm a victim" card:  so that nice people will feel too awkward and mean, and will silence themselves and leave the debate field to them.




Good thing I'm an asshole


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> They also deny that choosing to abort because the mother is not ready for a child is birth control.  What would you call it if not "birth control"?  Oh wait, I know... Family Planning!
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought 'family planning' sounded like what you do when you see a genetic counselor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is, but not the way you think.  See, genetic counseling is basically an attempt for them to scare the shit out of you and try to convince you to have an abortion if there's the slightest thing wrong with the baby at all.
Click to expand...


As a eugenicist, I feel I must correct you.

Genetic counseling and related services are geared toward helping you understand potential medical concerns and inform you regarding various methods and options should you wish to take measures to ensure your child the best possible form/life.

If one is encouraging any given choice of action (as opposed to simply providing the information about possible choices and outcomes and letting you make your own decision), it's debatable whether they're doing their job as a medical professional.

That seems like a matter for an ethics committee to decide. 


> I think I mentioned on the board before that I had to agree to "genetic counseling" in order to have an amniocentesis with my last child.  All it really amounted to was the woman lecturing me and my husband in EXCRUCIATING detail about all the horrible things that could POSSIBLY be wrong with my baby, and how he'd be better off dead if they found any of them, before giving me the test and then sending me home to worry for two weeks until the results came in.



See the above. I question her impartiality and professionalism.


----------



## Grace

JBeukema said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusions of what other people think. Ok. How's this? I believe I am the only one that stated I had an abortion, and why. I don't appreciate having JB's filth projected unto me no matter what thread I happen to start, or post in. Does that count too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace JB is a phsycotic who stopped taking his meds and started drinking vodkas of bottle per day, don't worry about what he says he is just a piece of trash anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am one of the most moral and consistent people on this board and I have consumed a drop of alcohol in months, though a pomegranate martini does sound nice.
> 
> Grace is the one who think rape and suicide bombings are okay.
> 
> She has refused time and again to say my right to do as I wish with.to my body does not extend to acts which cause direct physical harm to another.
Click to expand...


Are you fucking INSANE???? Post a link where I EVER claimed any such thing!!! 
You are the biggest wack job I have ever had the displeasure of meeting online. You LIE. Flat out lie. Link or it never happened, asshole liar.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> It is...but many who have been raised with the pro abortion ideals of society, may not be aware of the roots of abortion and the founder of PP
> 
> 
> What is it that they say?...Knowledge is power
> 
> Margaret Sanger's biography, in truth has been disappearing from the internet slowly.



This is constitutionally and legally irrelevant  this is pertinent only for those contemplating abortion in the context of the right to privacy.


----------



## JBeukema

Grace said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grace JB is a phsycotic who stopped taking his meds and started drinking vodkas of bottle per day, don't worry about what he says he is just a piece of trash anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am one of the most moral and consistent people on this board and I have consumed a drop of alcohol in months, though a pomegranate martini does sound nice.
> 
> Grace is the one who think rape and suicide bombings are okay.
> 
> She has refused time and again to say my right to do as I wish with.to my body does not extend to acts which cause direct physical harm to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking INSANE???? Post a link where I EVER claimed any such thing!!!
> You are the biggest wack job I have ever had the displeasure of meeting online. You LIE. Flat out lie. Link or it never happened, asshole liar.
Click to expand...

Why can't you say that rape and suicide bombings are not okay?

Time and again you've refused to say my right to do as I wish with/to my body does not extend to acts which cause direct physical harm to another.

Are you going to say it now?

Say it. Say 'my right to do as I wish with/to my body does not extend to acts which cause direct physical harm to another.'

Why can't you say rape and suicide bombing aren't okay?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought 'family planning' sounded like what you do when you see a genetic counselor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is, but not the way you think.  See, genetic counseling is basically an attempt for them to scare the shit out of you and try to convince you to have an abortion if there's the slightest thing wrong with the baby at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a eugenicist, I feel I must correct you.
> 
> Genetic counseling and related services are geared toward helping you understand potential medical concerns and inform you regarding various methods and options should you wish to take measures to ensure your child the best possible form/life.
Click to expand...


Ahhh, idealism.  So refreshingly naive.  



JBeukema said:


> If one is encouraging any given choice of action (as opposed to simply providing the information about possible choices and outcomes and letting you make your own decision), it's debatable whether they're doing their job as a medical professional.
> 
> That seems like a matter for an ethics committee to decide.



Yes, because I'm sure medical ethics committees are horrified - HORRIFIED, I tell you - by the idea of people assuming that babies with any sort of problems at all in life are better off dead and discarded like so much trash.

You DO realize that my own obstetrician, who is hardly a fan of abortion himself, wanted to know why I wanted to bother having an amnio at all, since he knew there was no chance I would ever consider an abortion.  It's simply beyond the standard thinking of today that a parent might value the life of a less-than-perfect child (assuming one accepts the idea that any baby is less than perfect).



> I think I mentioned on the board before that I had to agree to "genetic counseling" in order to have an amniocentesis with my last child.  All it really amounted to was the woman lecturing me and my husband in EXCRUCIATING detail about all the horrible things that could POSSIBLY be wrong with my baby, and how he'd be better off dead if they found any of them, before giving me the test and then sending me home to worry for two weeks until the results came in.



See the above. I question her impartiality and professionalism.[/QUOTE]

I don't.  That's just the norm nowadays, so much so that many people don't even question it.


----------



## Grace

I would also like your clone Cecille to SHOW A LINK where I EVER said JB called people who killed abortion doctors a hero. PROVE I SAID IT.

I swear to god, I have never met such blatant LIARS on any board on the net in all these years as you two.


----------



## PixieStix

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It is...but many who have been raised with the pro abortion ideals of society, may not be aware of the roots of abortion and the founder of PP
> 
> 
> What is it that they say?...Knowledge is power
> 
> Margaret Sanger's biography, in truth has been disappearing from the internet slowly.
> 
> 
> 
> This is constitutionally and legally irrelevant  this is pertinent only for those contemplating abortion in the context of the right to privacy.
Click to expand...


Right to privacy has nothing to do with mutilating babies while in utero or not.

How easy it is for some to forget what they already have.

Right to life


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yes, because I'm sure medical ethics committees are horrified - HORRIFIED, I tell you - by the idea of people assuming that babies with any sort of problems at all in life are better off dead and discarded like so much trash.




I assume some medical professionals fall on both sides of that one.



> You DO realize that my own obstetrician, who is hardly a fan of abortion himself, wanted to know why I wanted to bother having an amnio at all, since he knew there was no chance I would ever consider an abortion.



Maybe he's an idiot. I assume you wanted to know whether to plan ahead for any special circumstances resulting from medical abnormality. I mean, isn't that why we do sonograms? 


> It's simply beyond the standard thinking of today that a parent might value the life of a less-than-perfect child (assuming one accepts the idea that any baby is less than perfect).



That is by design. Unfortunately, some choose the wickeder of paths to change the world.



> I think I mentioned on the board before that I had to agree to "genetic counseling" in order to have an amniocentesis with my last child.  All it really amounted to was the woman lecturing me and my husband in EXCRUCIATING detail about all the horrible things that could POSSIBLY be wrong with my baby, and how he'd be better off dead if they found any of them, before giving me the test and then sending me home to worry for two weeks until the results came in.


See the above. I question her impartiality and professionalism.[/quote]



> That's just the norm nowadays, so much so that many people don't even question it.



Doesn't change the fact that it's a disgrace.


----------



## Grace

> Hi, you have received -229 reputation points from JBeukema.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> For supporting rape and murder like the piece of shit you are
> 
> Regards,
> JBeukema



I support rape and murder? Really???? Show a link where I state that, nutjob.


----------



## JBeukema

PixieStix said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is...but many who have been raised with the pro abortion ideals of society, may not be aware of the roots of abortion and the founder of PP
> 
> 
> What is it that they say?...Knowledge is power
> 
> Margaret Sanger's biography, in truth has been disappearing from the internet slowly.
> 
> 
> 
> This is constitutionally and legally irrelevant  this is pertinent only for those contemplating abortion in the context of the right to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right to privacy has nothing to do with mutilating babies while in utero or not.
> 
> How easy it is for some to forget what they already have.
> 
> Right to life
Click to expand...


_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,  that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,  that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._


​


----------



## JBeukema

Grace said:


> Hi, you have received -229 reputation points from JBeukema.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> For supporting rape and murder like the piece of shit you are
> 
> Regards,
> JBeukema
> 
> 
> 
> I support rape and murder? Really???? Show a link where I state that, nutjob.
Click to expand...




JBeukema said:


> Time and again you've refused to say my right to do as I wish with/to my  body does not extend to acts which cause direct physical harm to  another.
> 
> Are you going to say it now?
> 
> Say it. Say 'my right to do as I wish with/to my body does not extend to acts which cause direct physical harm to another.'
> 
> Why can't you say rape and suicide bombing aren't okay?





Well?


----------



## Grace

JBeukema said:


> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -229 reputation points from JBeukema.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> For supporting rape and murder like the piece of shit you are
> 
> Regards,
> JBeukema
> 
> 
> 
> I support rape and murder? Really???? Show a link where I state that, nutjob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time and again you've refused to say my right to do as I wish with/to my  body does not extend to acts which cause direct physical harm to  another.
> 
> Are you going to say it now?
> 
> Say it. Say 'my right to do as I wish with/to my body does not extend to acts which cause direct physical harm to another.'
> 
> Why can't you say rape and suicide bombing aren't okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
Click to expand...


Yeah? Well, fucktard? That isn't showing me saying I think abortion doctors are heroes. Nor does it show a link where I support rape victims and murder. 

Still waiting. Oh. I know. You CAN'T show it because I never said it. Which makes you BOTH liars spreading vicious gossip. You, I'm not surprised at. Cecile, I am surprised at. She's a bitch, but I didn't know she was a LYING bitch.


----------



## JBeukema

So you *still* refuse to say rape and murder are not-okay?

My right to do as I wish with/to my body does not extend to acts which cause direct physical harm to another.

Why can't you say that? I can and have. Why can't you? _Why can't you say rape and murder are not okay?
_


----------



## JBeukema

Grace said:


> Nor does it show a link where I support rape victims



You're not supportive of women who are assaulted in their efforts to overcome their trauma and build live their lives?

You are a truly disgusting human being.





> Still waiting


So are we. And you *still* refuse to say rape and murder are not okay.

Why can't you say it?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Right to privacy has nothing to do with mutilating babies while in utero or not.
> 
> How easy it is for some to forget what they already have.
> 
> Right to life



The right to privacy protects against the government interfering with decisions which should be made by the individual and family. The government has no authority to dictate morality or codify religious dogma. 

The courts have wisely left this matter to science and the individual to determine when life begins; science has made no determination, and the individual&#8217;s determination is relevant only to that person, not society as a whole. 

As the Supreme Court noted in _Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey_ (1992): 


> If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.
> 
> FindLaw | Cases and Codes


----------



## Grace

At another place, in another part of the vast internet, there are some really evil people I had the misfortune to meet. You both remind me of them.

A woman that was the member of a board for many years and felt comfortable there, shared something really painful. Something along the lines of someone here who said they were in a very dark place and was contemplating suicide. This person got support and hands held out to lift up.

But at the board where the evil people are, this woman shared something and had no clue as to the results of that sharing. Like Cecille berated me for saying too much, nobody was there to berate this other gal. She shared that she was raped by her own father. She used her pic as her avi for years because she thought she was amongst human beings. When she told about her ordeal and the years it took seeing shrinks to deal with what happened to her and how many times she contemplated suicide, these evil beings decided she would be the soup de jour of the day. They said she was so ugly, nobody BUT her father would fuck her. They had great sport with her, for months. And they always made sure to add extra's to the tale. Oh, it was such fun for them. They were evil. She left that place and went to a support group and her mission from then on was to teach other victims that there is a light ahead. That they can be helped. That it was not their fault they were abused. She withstood, and learned from her previous mistake to not trust anyone online. And NO, this woman was not me. But I felt her pain at what was being done to her, said on a message board, on the net, for all to see. Her picture posted and filthy things said and lots of smilies and cacklings and joy at her pain.

But that's not the point. The point is, Cecille and JB both....you are evil to the core. Evil. 
I will no longer give you my energy, nor my power. Both of you can rot in hell.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grace said:


> I would also like your clone Cecille to SHOW A LINK where I EVER said JB called people who killed abortion doctors a hero. PROVE I SAID IT.
> 
> I swear to god, I have never met such blatant LIARS on any board on the net in all these years as you two.



I never said you did, you stupid, self-absorbed twat.  I realize you think the entire universe revolves around your sorry, over-emotional, self-pitying ass, and that every remark ever made on this board is made directly to or about you, but . . . try to stay with me here through your haze of me-monkey conceit . . . I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU!

While I know that retracing this for you is a complete waste of valuable time, I'm feeling mildly charitable, so I will explain how it is that you came to the erroneous conclusion that anyone was addressing you or, indeed, gave a tin shit whether you showed up and contributed your usual nothing or not.

Sinister - not you - responded in #1619 to JB's opening post thusly:

_funny how you think people that are for a women's rights of her own body are cowards ,*yet anti -abortionist murder , blow up building , stay anonymous are heroes *so your definition of coward is distorted . badly .woman's body are not public domain ._

You do, I hope, have at least enough brain wattage to note the highlighted passage.

I responded in #1734 - to Sinister, not you - in this fashion:

_Could you please point me to the occasion when JB EVER said that people who kill abortion doctors are heroes? If not, could you please keep your fucking delusions about what other people think and believe OUT of the discussion? I realize it would be a lot easier for you to debate against the voices in your head, rather than against real people, but I don't think anyone appreciates having your filth projected onto them._

Please notice that, despite your apparent delusion that the sun shines out of your belly button, I never once mentioned you, alluded to you, or - I can assure you - thought of you.  You were, as in so many things, utterly irrelevant at that moment.

Contrary to that painfully obvious fact of life, YOU then burst into the conversation unsolicited in #1744, with THIS little waste of electricity:

_Delusions of what other people think. Ok. How's this? I believe I am the only one that stated I had an abortion, and why. I don't appreciate having JB's filth projected unto me no matter what thread I happen to start, or post in. Does that count too? _

Upon being informed that you are too pig-ignorant and mentally unstable to be of any value to me, you promptly took the entire conversation on yourself.

I won't wait for an apology, since that would take an intelligent, principled adult to deliver.


----------



## JBeukema

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Right to privacy has nothing to do with mutilating babies while in utero or not.
> 
> How easy it is for some to forget what they already have.
> 
> Right to life
> 
> 
> 
> The right to privacy protects against the government interfering with decisions which should be made by the individual and family.
Click to expand...


We're not talking about choosing a Roth IRA here. We're talking about killing another human being.





> The government has no authority to dictate morality or codify religious dogma.



So... rape, theft, murder.... shouldn't be illegal? 


> The courts have wisely left this matter to science





> and the individual to determine when life begins;



Individuals decide whether Earth is flat. The life of a human organism begins with the creation of the zygote. That is the scientifically verified reality. It is no more up for debate than whether Earth orbits Sol.





> science has made no determination



Um, yes it has. Have you never heard of biology?

Or are you just another pro-abortionist incapable of honesty?


> , and the individuals determination is relevant only to that person, not society as a whole.



So... if I say life begins at 18 and I only kill minors?





> As the Supreme Court noted



SCOTUS? As in the same government that handed down Dred Scott? They legislate reality now?


----------



## JBeukema

Grace said:


> Cecille and JB both....you are evil to the core. Evil.
> I will no longer give you my energy, nor my power. Both of you can rot in hell.


Of the two of us (you and myself) only *I* have declared rape to be not okay.


You're the one who's cool with it.


Want to see evil? Find a mirror.


----------



## JBeukema

Someone here believes she is the center of the universe

That someone needs therapy


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grace said:


> At another place, in another part of the vast internet, there are some really evil people I had the misfortune to meet. You both remind me of them.
> 
> A woman that was the member of a board for many years and felt comfortable there, shared something really painful. Something along the lines of someone here who said they were in a very dark place and was contemplating suicide. This person got support and hands held out to lift up.
> 
> But at the board where the evil people are, this woman shared something and had no clue as to the results of that sharing. Like Cecille berated me for saying too much, nobody was there to berate this other gal. She shared that she was raped by her own father. She used her pic as her avi for years because she thought she was amongst human beings. When she told about her ordeal and the years it took seeing shrinks to deal with what happened to her and how many times she contemplated suicide, these evil beings decided she would be the soup de jour of the day. They said she was so ugly, nobody BUT her father would fuck her. They had great sport with her, for months. And they always made sure to add extra's to the tale. Oh, it was such fun for them. They were evil. She left that place and went to a support group and her mission from then on was to teach other victims that there is a light ahead. That they can be helped. That it was not their fault they were abused. She withstood, and learned from her previous mistake to not trust anyone online. And NO, this woman was not me. But I felt her pain at what was being done to her, said on a message board, on the net, for all to see. Her picture posted and filthy things said and lots of smilies and cacklings and joy at her pain.
> 
> But that's not the point. The point is, Cecille and JB both....you are evil to the core. Evil.
> I will no longer give you my energy, nor my power. Both of you can rot in hell.



Now you're vomiting OTHER people's personal garbage all over us.  Christ, woman, do you ever do anything but watch "Oprah" and _Lifetime for Women_?  The world is not a giant talk show.

And I'd rather be viewed as evil by a deranged, self-absorbed me-monkey like you than actually BE a deranged, self-absorbed me-monkey like you.

Go enjoy your hyperdramatic, adolescent flounce offstage . . . for the whole week or two that it'll take before you're back here, eagerly telling us shit we don't want to hear, didn't ask for, and don't give a shit about and incoherently shrieking about how we "lied" when we said things about you that we never said.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Someone here believes she is the venter of the universe
> 
> That someone needs therapy



They say some people, when they receive a trauma, simply stop developing emotionally and mentally at that point, and never mature past it.  I guess our little drama queen is the living proof.

Personally, I think she needs a good, swift kick in the ass a lot more.


----------



## Dr Grump

Why is the Cesspit so angry all the time....hhhhmmm....


----------



## AllieBaba

It makes me angry when people justify killing the weak and vulnerable.

It makes me even angrier that they have been taught that it's not murder.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> It makes me angry when people justify killing the weak and vulnerable.
> 
> It makes me even angrier that they have been taught that it's not murder.


But they're just Jews, Blacks, and cripples, and children....


----------



## Vanquish

Vanquish said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion debates always go round and round because they're based on an uncertainty. Pro-abortionists want to convince themselves that the baby is not alive simply because it's microscopic and unseen.
> 
> The only question you need answer is this:
> Given the possibility that it MIGHT be life at conception...which is the wiser choice?
> a) not aborting, therefore *saving* what could be a life
> b) aborting, therefore killing  what could be a life
> 
> put even more simply, why take a chance that you're wrong?
> 
> All the pro-choice gobbledy-gook can't ever get around that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You motherfuckers can side-step my question all you want, but until a pro-death/pro-abortion person answers this question...your replies are a fucking joke.
Click to expand...


Keep sidestepping me, pro-choicers.

It's all you CAN do...as you dont want to have a real debate.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> It makes me angry when people justify killing the weak and vulnerable.
> 
> It makes me even angrier that they have been taught that it's not murder.



The Founders did not believe or teach their children abortion was murder. 
THE LAW decides what is murder or not.
You folks want mob, mass rule by a theocracy. 
Unfortunately for you the Founders knew exactly what the likes of you could do to undermine free people. 
From 1776-mid 1800s abortion was LEGAL in most ALL states. The states where it WAS illegal, the laws were all ambiguous and never enforced.
Well, DUH. Guess why.
All the while the masses claim this nation was founded on Christian principles.
You folks have no clue about history. Never read a book, study anything or go to the archives to research. If Rush and Sean said it and we sang about it in 3rd grade, IT HAS TO BE TRUE.


----------



## AllieBaba

What the hell are you yammering about?

Nutbar.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

_My response to Jbeukema, post 1820_

(sorry for the delay responding, this is a big and busy forum)

My opinion is irrelevant, I simply note the legal status of the issue and the current thinking of the courts, providing documentation accordingly. 

It doesnt mean I approve or disapprove, or believe its right or wrong  I do accept it as settled law and have moved on. 

For those who are opposed to abortion and wish to see it banned/outlawed, however, youve got a long, hard road to negotiate. The best chance was lost with _Casey_ in 1992, that was almost 20 years ago. And _Roe_ and _Griswold _are well over 30 years decided. Im not saying overturning _Griswold/Roe/Casey_ cant be done, but eliminating the right to privacy is going to be a tough sell to most Americans, whether abortion is factored in or not. 



> Keep sidestepping me, pro-choicers.
> 
> It's all you CAN do...as you dont want to have a real debate.



And what exactly is there to debate? 

The issue isnt really about abortion per se but how to end it. It could be argued simply banning it would be as effective as banning marijuana is now or alcohol during the 1920s, which wouldnt end it at all. Americans historically dont respond well being told what to do concerning things they consider private.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> It makes me angry when people justify killing the weak and vulnerable.
> 
> It makes me even angrier that they have been taught that it's not murder.



It makes me even angrier when they actually convince themselves that the weak and vulnerable are, in fact, the evil malefactors and they themselves are the helpless, downtrodden victims.


----------



## Varth Dader

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Pregnancy is probably the one and only medical condition that is 100% avoidable.



Except when a woman gets raped...

This kind of statement is 100% empty talking points.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Avatar4321 said:


> Because they would lose if they were.



Well, abortion fits most states statutes for First Degree Murder....

Woman who have abortions should be charged with First Degree Murder.

Furthermore I find the pro-abortion croweds argument of "don't tell me what I can do with my body" argument to be highly ironic considering that fetus is an individual. Who the fuck do these people think they are impeding the life of a little human?? Having an abortion is telling another person they're being executed for no reason other than the host is selfish.

I could understand a morning after pill or whatever but getting an abortion 6-12 weeks later?? thats blatant first degree murder.... Any doctor that performs such a procedure should have a knife rammed into his head just like they did to that little fetus.

Some of these doctors are serial killers...

Sorry you just cant kill a fetus and rationalize it whatever way makes you feel the best - that would be using flawed logic..... Thats probably my pet peeve with the pro-abortion crowd - they rationalize abortion in a way that suits them best and makes them sleep good at night - they believe that if they believe its not murder its not when it actually is.

Once again "Whole Language" destroys morals and society...


----------



## Mr.Nick

Varth Dader said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnancy is probably the one and only medical condition that is 100% avoidable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except when a woman gets raped...
> 
> This kind of statement is 100% empty talking points.
Click to expand...


So how is it the fetuses fault??

So a woman gets raped, finds out shes pregnant a few weeks later and kills an innocent fetus ??

Nice...

So an individual gets raped and another gets murdered..... 

Besides, you'd think in modern times rapists would be a little more careful with their DNA, so that argument is pretty much moot in present times. It just happens to be a typical excuse for the left to continue to support murder as a right.


----------



## JBeukema

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It doesnt mean I approve or disapprove, or believe its right or wrong  I do accept it as settled law and have moved on.



Because you have no principles? Should we have accepted that slavery and the Mormon Extermination Order were established Law and moved on?





> For those who are opposed to abortion and wish to see it banned/outlawed, however, youve got a long, hard road to negotiate.



So, too, did the abolitionists. Like the abolitionists, the anti-abortion crowd views theirs as a moral struggle against a great evil that is protected by the Law.





> The best chance was lost with _Casey_ in 1992, that was almost 20 years ago. And _Roe_ and _Griswold _are well over 30 years decided.



Roe should be thrown out completely. In any other court case, if one party later admitted publicly that the entire case was based on perjury, that would be cause for throwing out the ruling.


> Keep sidestepping me, pro-choicers.
> 
> It's all you CAN do...as you dont want to have a real debate.
Click to expand...

That's nowhere in my post.


> The issue isnt really about abortion per se but how to end it. It could be argued simply banning it would be as effective as banning marijuana is now or alcohol during the 1920s, which wouldnt end it at all



You're being dishonest. It is homicide, so it is like overturning the Mormon executioner order or outlawing other forms of homicide.



> Americans historically dont respond well being told what to do concerning things they consider private.



How curious that homicide should be deemed a 'private matter'. That argument is, to be blunt, fucking bullshit.


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnancy is probably the one and only medical condition that is 100% avoidable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except when a woman gets raped...
> 
> This kind of statement is 100% empty talking points.
Click to expand...

Plan B, taken within 48 hours of insemination, is rather effective.


----------



## Varth Dader

Mr.Nick said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnancy is probably the one and only medical condition that is 100% avoidable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except when a woman gets raped...
> 
> This kind of statement is 100% empty talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how is it the fetuses fault??
> 
> So a woman gets raped, finds out shes pregnant a few weeks later and kills an innocent fetus ??
> 
> Nice...
> 
> So an individual gets raped and another gets murdered.....
> 
> Besides, you'd think in modern times rapists would be a little more careful with their DNA, so that argument is pretty much moot in present times. It just happens to be a typical excuse for the left to continue to support murder as a right.
Click to expand...


It's not the fetus' fault, but your answer has nothing to do with my point. My point is that the "100%" is totally wrong. Rape is unfortunately not 100% avoidable. I wish it was, but it isn't.

As for your description, let's try again.

So a woman gets raped, finds out shes pregnant a few weeks later and has to carry a baby to maturity, reminding her every single moment of the following 8 months that she was raped, followed by decades after. Time to congratulate yourself for imposing such a possibly heavy burden on a woman.

Apparently you seem to think women/mothers are robots that can get raped and can merrily go through a pregnancy.

As for the DNA argument, apparently not all rapists have received the memo. And, as I am sure you know, birth control is never 100% effective (except the bogus abstinence argument). So even the rapist that you seem to describe, which either pulls out at the last minute or uses a condom might not be 100% successful in preventing a pregnancy.


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> Plan B, taken within 48 hours of insemination, is rather effective.



The same Plan B right wingers fought tooth and nail to prevent from coming to the market, prevent from being sold OTC, etc?


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> Rape is unfortunately not 100% avoidable.



Who said it was?

Why can't you be honest?


> So a woman gets raped, finds out shes pregnant a few weeks later



I call bullshit.

If you gave half a damn, you'd have made Plan B available immediately so this wouldn't have happened at all.

You just want to exploit rape victims for your own purposes.

Also, please explain how your right to your life is dependent on the relationship between your parents.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Varth Dader said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except when a woman gets raped...
> 
> This kind of statement is 100% empty talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how is it the fetuses fault??
> 
> So a woman gets raped, finds out shes pregnant a few weeks later and kills an innocent fetus ??
> 
> Nice...
> 
> So an individual gets raped and another gets murdered.....
> 
> Besides, you'd think in modern times rapists would be a little more careful with their DNA, so that argument is pretty much moot in present times. It just happens to be a typical excuse for the left to continue to support murder as a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not the fetus' fault, but your answer has nothing to do with my point. My point is that the "100%" is totally wrong. Rape is unfortunately not 100% avoidable. I wish it was, but it isn't.
> 
> As for your description, let's try again.
> 
> So a woman gets raped, finds out shes pregnant a few weeks later and has to carry a baby to maturity, reminding her every single moment of the following 8 months that she was raped, followed by decades after. Time to congratulate yourself for imposing such a possibly heavy burden on a woman.
> 
> Apparently you seem to think women/mothers are robots that can get raped and can merrily go through a pregnancy.
> 
> As for the DNA argument, apparently not all rapists have received the memo. And, as I am sure you know, birth control is never 100% effective (except the bogus abstinence argument). So even the rapist that you seem to describe, which either pulls out at the last minute or uses a condom might not be 100% successful in preventing a pregnancy.
Click to expand...


Thats just a knee-jerk emotional theory, mixed with flawed logic (no offense to you personally)

Rape is not a good excuse to murder an innocent fetus - no matter what.

That type of response would be (and is) emotionally immature...

Now, I'm not saying in a case of rape the mother should have to raise the child but what I am saying is murdering the fetus is wrong.


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape is unfortunately not 100% avoidable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it was?
> 
> Why can't you be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> So a woman gets raped, finds out shes pregnant a few weeks later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call bullshit.
> 
> If you gave half a damn, you'd have made Plan B available immediately so this wouldn't have happened at all.
> 
> You just want to exploit rape victims for your own purposes.
> 
> Also, please explain how your right to your life is dependent on the relationship between your parents.
Click to expand...


Who said it was? Soggy in NOLA who said:

"Pregnancy is probably the one and only medical condition that is 100% avoidable."

Yes of course, because you necessarily have access to Plan B within 24-72 hours of being raped. Is that provided by the person that rapes you? Should woman carry a Plan B "just in case"?

I will tell you how your right to your life is dependent on the relationship between your parents.

- No parents? No life
- One of the parent can't procreate? No life
- Your mom dies while you are pregnant? No life
- Mom refuses for her body to be used to sustain a portion of her body? No life

Until you are born, or nearly born, you are dependent on some other body for your existence. Just deal with it.

The better option would of course be to reduce the risk of pregnancies (birth control, sex education, etc.) combined with a better support for children, mother and families to reduce the need for abortions (access to health care, access to housing, etc). But of course it's much more fun to vilify women getting abortions.


----------



## Varth Dader

Mr.Nick said:


> Thats just a knee-jerk emotional theory, mixed with flawed logic (no offense to you personally)
> 
> Rape is not a good excuse to murder an innocent fetus - no matter what.
> 
> That type of response would be (and is) emotionally immature...
> 
> Now, I'm not saying in a case of rape the mother should have to raise the child but what I am saying is murdering the fetus is wrong.



I've never been raped, and since I am a guy, I will certainly never be pregnant, but I really hope you are not around someone who does, goes through that horrible time only to hear "rape is not a good excuse to murder an innocent fetus"

Between a real living traumatized woman and a bunch of cells in her tummy, I will try to help the former first.


----------



## Varth Dader

This is just amazing. You read these boards and you get the feeling that being pregnant is like having to carry your driver license or reading your mail every day: no biggie! Maybe we should pass a law preventing the waste of sperm to see if we would get a different reaction. After all, that's half a life right there.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Varth Dader said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats just a knee-jerk emotional theory, mixed with flawed logic (no offense to you personally)
> 
> Rape is not a good excuse to murder an innocent fetus - no matter what.
> 
> That type of response would be (and is) emotionally immature...
> 
> Now, I'm not saying in a case of rape the mother should have to raise the child but what I am saying is murdering the fetus is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been raped, and since I am a guy, I will certainly never be pregnant, but I really hope you are not around someone who does, goes through that horrible time only to hear "rape is not a good excuse to murder an innocent fetus"
> 
> Between a real living traumatized woman and a bunch of cells in her tummy, I will try to help the former first.
Click to expand...


So using your logic anyone who is traumatized has the right to murder?

I'm not implying a raped woman was not traumatized, however I am implying that doesn't justify a murder.

Do you not realize these are people who are being murdered???

In what universe should a fetus be treated any differently than you???

What the fuck man??

Psychological trauma doesn't justify murder...

Maybe some people need to carry around reminders that they're adults, hence they need to rationalize even traumatic situations like adults.

Now, abortion via rape is no different than punching a 3 year old in the face out of knee-jerk emotion because he spilled his Hawaiian Punch on your new white carpet..


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except when a woman gets raped...
> 
> This kind of statement is 100% empty talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how is it the fetuses fault??
> 
> So a woman gets raped, finds out shes pregnant a few weeks later and kills an innocent fetus ??
> 
> Nice...
> 
> So an individual gets raped and another gets murdered.....
> 
> Besides, you'd think in modern times rapists would be a little more careful with their DNA, so that argument is pretty much moot in present times. It just happens to be a typical excuse for the left to continue to support murder as a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not the fetus' fault, but your answer has nothing to do with my point. My point is that the "100%" is totally wrong. Rape is unfortunately not 100% avoidable. I wish it was, but it isn't.
> 
> As for your description, let's try again.
> 
> So a woman gets raped, finds out shes pregnant a few weeks later and has to carry a baby to maturity, reminding her every single moment of the following 8 months that she was raped, followed by decades after. Time to congratulate yourself for imposing such a possibly heavy burden on a woman.
> 
> Apparently you seem to think women/mothers are robots that can get raped and can merrily go through a pregnancy.
> 
> As for the DNA argument, apparently not all rapists have received the memo. And, as I am sure you know, birth control is never 100% effective (except the bogus abstinence argument). So even the rapist that you seem to describe, which either pulls out at the last minute or uses a condom might not be 100% successful in preventing a pregnancy.
Click to expand...


What are you, crazy?  Do you think she's EVER going to forget she was raped?  You think an abortion is going to make it all better, let her la-di-da on with her life as though it never happened?  Be serious.  Apparently, you seem to think killing babies is a quick cure for rape trauma.

And what kind of sick bastard thinks of a BABY this way, anyway?  I don't even want to comment on how repulsively twisted and depraved your mind must be.

As YOU should know, rape almost never results in pregnancy, anyway.  And I for one am goddamned sick and tired of trying to talk about the MONSTROUS fact of a million dead babies every year, and disingenuous fucks like you running straight to hide behind the skirts of rape victims.  How about this?  You agree to stop all abortions NOT resulting from rape, and we'll call it square.  Are you willing to compromise on that?


----------



## Mr.Nick

Varth Dader said:


> This is just amazing. You read these boards and you get the feeling that being pregnant is like having to carry your driver license or reading your mail every day: no biggie! Maybe we should pass a law preventing the waste of sperm to see if we would get a different reaction. After all, that's half a life right there.



So now you're comparing sperm to a viable fetus....

Sweet argument...

Maybe you just spent your life attempting to rationalize nefarious ideas as benevolent?


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape is unfortunately not 100% avoidable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it was?
> 
> Why can't you be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> So a woman gets raped, finds out shes pregnant a few weeks later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I call bullshit.
> 
> If you gave half a damn, you'd have made Plan B available immediately so this wouldn't have happened at all.
> 
> You just want to exploit rape victims for your own purposes.
> 
> Also, please explain how your right to your life is dependent on the relationship between your parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it was? Soggy in NOLA who said:
> 
> "Pregnancy is probably the one and only medical condition that is 100% avoidable."
Click to expand...


Why can't you be honest?

*3rape*

_noun_ 
*Definition of RAPE*

1
*:* an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force 

2
*:*  unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out  forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female  or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid  consent   compare sexual assault,  statutory rape 

3
*:* an outrageous violation 


*First Known Use of RAPE*

14th century

*preg·nan·cy*

_noun_ \&#712;preg-n&#601;n(t)-s&#275;\
_plural_ *preg·nan·cies*
*Definition of PREGNANCY*

1
*:* the quality of being pregnant (as in meaning) 

2
*:* the condition of being pregnant *:* gestation 

3
*:* an instance of being pregnant 





 See pregnancy defined for English-language learners »

See pregnancy defined for kids »

*Examples of PREGNANCY*



<an elephant's _pregnancy_ can last almost a year>


*First Known Use of PREGNANCY*

15th century





> Yes of course, because you necessarily have access to Plan B within 24-72 hours of being raped





Whenever a rape kit is performed, Plan B should be offered, imo.





> . Is that provided by the person that rapes you? Should woman carry a Plan B "just in case"?



Why is it that Democrats can't find a pharmacy, yet they can find someone to kill their baby?


> A ParaGard IUD  can also be used as backup birth control if inserted within 120 hours   five days  after unprotected intercourse. It is 99.9 percent  effective.



From the same place you people send girls to get their babies killed

Planned Parenthood Locations and Health Centers


> I will tell you how your right to your life is dependent on the relationship between your parents.
> 
> - No parents? No life



So orphans should be executed by the State?





> - One of the parent can't procreate? No life



Really? You're going to claim that non-existent entities can have or be denied any rights at all?





> - Your mom dies while you are pregnant? No life



Not necessarily. Then again, you don't seem all that interest in reality and biology seems a foreign concept to you.


> - Mom refuses for her body to be used to sustain a portion of her body? No life






Baby formula. And we put people in prison for starving their children.





> Until you are born, or nearly born, you are dependent on some other body for your existence.



You always are. Without your gut flora, you die. Without plants, we all die. The entire ecosystem of earth is interconnected. What's your point?





> Just deal with it.



Take your own advice.





> The better option would of course be to reduce the risk of pregnancies (birth control, sex education, etc.)



Sex ed and birth control have been available for some time now. Abortions- including repeat customers- are more popular than ever.





> combined with a better support for children, mother and families



WIC, SNAP, and numerous other programs have only encouraged those who can't provide for their children to continue to reproduce because they can get on the gov't teat. 


> to reduce the need for abortions (access to health care, access to housing, etc).



To reduce the need for abortions, you tell people to stop fucking- and especially stop having unprotected sex- if they're not ready to be be responsible for their children.



> But of course it's much more fun to vilify women getting abortions.



Nobody's done any such thing. Why can't you be honest?


----------



## JBeukema

Why can't the pro-abortionists ever be honest?


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> This is just amazing. You read these boards and you get the feeling that being pregnant is like having to carry your driver license or reading your mail every day: no biggie! Maybe we should pass a law preventing the waste of sperm to see if we would get a different reaction. After all, that's half a life right there.


A sperm is a gamete, a cell of the man's body.

A zygote is a distinct human organism- a human being.

This is biology 101.


----------



## JBeukema

Anyone else notice the pro-abortionists keep repeating the same bullshit lies time and again after they've already been refuted time and again?

Just goes to show: abortionism is a religion.



			
				Arthur Koestler said:
			
		

> Once the renunciation has been made, the mind, instead of operating  freely, becomes the servant of a higher and unquestioned purpose. To  deny the truth is an act of service...Any genuine intellectual contact  which you have with him involves a challenge to his fundamental faith, a  struggle for his soul.


----------



## Avatar4321

Cecilie1200 said:


> What are you, crazy?  Do you think she's EVER going to forget she was raped?  You think an abortion is going to make it all better, let her la-di-da on with her life as though it never happened?  Be serious.  Apparently, you seem to think killing babies is a quick cure for rape trauma.
> 
> And what kind of sick bastard thinks of a BABY this way, anyway?  I don't even want to comment on how repulsively twisted and depraved your mind must be.
> 
> As YOU should know, rape almost never results in pregnancy, anyway.  And I for one am goddamned sick and tired of trying to talk about the MONSTROUS fact of a million dead babies every year, and disingenuous fucks like you running straight to hide behind the skirts of rape victims.  How about this?  You agree to stop all abortions NOT resulting from rape, and we'll call it square.  Are you willing to compromise on that?



My guess is no. Because some pregnancies could occur do to rape, we should kill all children at will.

Like I said earlier in the thread, they aren't honest with what they want because they would lose the argument.


----------



## Avatar4321

JBeukema said:


> Anyone else notice the pro-abortionists keep repeating the same bullshit lies time and again after they've already been refuted time and again?
> 
> Just goes to show: abortionism is a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arthur Koestler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once the renunciation has been made, the mind, instead of operating  freely, becomes the servant of a higher and unquestioned purpose. To  deny the truth is an act of service...Any genuine intellectual contact  which you have with him involves a challenge to his fundamental faith, a  struggle for his soul.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's not a religion, It's just the sacrament to their religion.


----------



## Avatar4321

JBeukema said:


> Why can't the pro-abortionists ever be honest?



The truth brings life. If they were honest, they couldn't support their death policy.


----------



## Varth Dader

I used the rape argument to illustrate that pregnancies are not a medical condition 100% avoidable.

Or, if you go by the logic that pregnancies can't happen by magic (as opposed to a disease like cancer that we can't yet accurately predict the future existence of), I suppose breaking your leg is also a medical condition that is 100% avoidable. Your leg won't just break by itself. 

My original problem is that the 100% argument is an empty argument. It's not true, and it doesn't mean anything. Just because something can be avoided doesn't mean our whole logic should be based on that being the case. It reminds me of the pro-abstinence crowd that says that abstinence is the only technique that gives 100% results. Yes when you actually use that technique. When you stop using it, for whatever reason, your 100% protection becomes WAY lower. Better stick with the condom that will constantly give you good results.

As for the Plan B argument, the person being raped might not be able, for physical or mental reasons, to get to a pharmacy or a place that provides plan B. I agree it should be provided, but I am not going to impose a 72 or 120 hour time limit on somebody being raped to start acting rationally again. 

My point with respect to the mother's body is that the relationship between a mother and a fetus is one that I am really worried about getting into. If it was my body, then I hope I would make the best decisions. But it isn't. At one point, you have to let go and realize that it's not your body. You can't force someone to go through a pregnancy. Or at least, you shouldn't be able to.

I'm not willing to compromise on only rape, incest and life of the mother. I think it should be a decision made by women, and I am convinced it's not a decision most women takes lightly. I much rather have society work on reducing the odds unwanted pregnancies happen or by increasing support for women/people that don't see how they can make it with a baby. 

The sad thing in this debate is that everyone is one the same side. No one gets a blast out of women having abortions: not the women, not you and not me.


----------



## JBeukema

At what age did what fundamental thing change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?


----------



## elvis

JBeukema said:


> At what age did what fundamental thing change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?



the pro choicers don't consider abortion killing at all.


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> At what age did what fundamental thing change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?



It's a good question. I don't know the answer. I don't think it's 6 weeks, but I do have a problem with an abortion in the 9th month. Somewhere in between.

Would you prevent pregnant women from smoking or drinking?


----------



## Mr.Nick

Varth Dader said:


> I used the rape argument to illustrate that pregnancies are not a medical condition 100% avoidable.
> 
> Or, if you go by the logic that pregnancies can't happen by magic (as opposed to a disease like cancer that we can't yet accurately predict the future existence of), I suppose breaking your leg is also a medical condition that is 100% avoidable. Your leg won't just break by itself.
> 
> My original problem is that the 100% argument is an empty argument. It's not true, and it doesn't mean anything. Just because something can be avoided doesn't mean our whole logic should be based on that being the case. It reminds me of the pro-abstinence crowd that says that abstinence is the only technique that gives 100% results. Yes when you actually use that technique. When you stop using it, for whatever reason, your 100% protection becomes WAY lower. Better stick with the condom that will constantly give you good results.
> 
> As for the Plan B argument, the person being raped might not be able, for physical or mental reasons, to get to a pharmacy or a place that provides plan B. I agree it should be provided, but I am not going to impose a 72 or 120 hour time limit on somebody being raped to start acting rationally again.
> 
> My point with respect to the mother's body is that the relationship between a mother and a fetus is one that I am really worried about getting into. If it was my body, then I hope I would make the best decisions. But it isn't. At one point, you have to let go and realize that it's not your body. You can't force someone to go through a pregnancy. Or at least, you shouldn't be able to.
> 
> I'm not willing to compromise on only rape, incest and life of the mother. I think it should be a decision made by women, and I am convinced it's not a decision most women takes lightly. I much rather have society work on reducing the odds unwanted pregnancies happen or by increasing support for women/people that don't see how they can make it with a baby.
> 
> The sad thing in this debate is that everyone is one the same side. No one gets a blast out of women having abortions: not the women, not you and not me.



Your entire post is based on hypothetical knee jerk emotional responses in an attempt to justify your position on abortion.

Its quite clear you never thought about the issue and are doing nothing more than regurgitating a notion that was programmed into your melon.

Its almost like you're blocking out what people are trying to tell you by reassuring yourself what you believe is right..


----------



## Varth Dader

Mr.Nick said:


> Your entire post is based on hypothetical knee jerk emotional responses in an attempt to justify your position on abortion.
> 
> Its quite clear you never thought about the issue and are doing nothing more than regurgitating a notion that was programmed into your melon.
> 
> Its almost like you're blocking out what people are trying to tell you by reassuring yourself what you believe is right..



My position is that at the end of the day, I don't want to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Even if the effect of that leads to an abortion. But this right fades over time, and if a fetus is 40 weeks, I don't think an abortion should be performed.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> At what age did what fundamental thing change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good question. I don't know the answer. I don't think it's 6 weeks, but I do have a problem with an abortion in the 9th month. Somewhere in between.
> 
> Would you prevent pregnant women from smoking or drinking?
Click to expand...


You fucking serious?

The "9th month" is when you have a problem with it???

You may as well not have a problem with putting those that are early in a blender then.

Hell, I was three weeks early - I suppose according to your logic aborting me would have been fine a week after I was actually born.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Varth Dader said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire post is based on hypothetical knee jerk emotional responses in an attempt to justify your position on abortion.
> 
> Its quite clear you never thought about the issue and are doing nothing more than regurgitating a notion that was programmed into your melon.
> 
> Its almost like you're blocking out what people are trying to tell you by reassuring yourself what you believe is right..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My position is that at the end of the day, I don't want to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Even if the effect of that leads to an abortion. But this right fades over time, and if a fetus is 40 weeks, I don't think an abortion should be performed.
Click to expand...


The mother or potential mother is nothing more than a host for a PERSON WITH A BODY...

She has no right to take the life of another individual that has A BODY.

Its like a pandoras box - you understand that?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

You're so worried about the mothers "body" but you never even bothered to think about the fetuses body and the fetuses right to live.

Sorry to tell you that fetuses have the right to be born and live and grow into adults just like anyone else. The mother has ZERO right to say "its my body" because its NOT her body anymore its two bodies, two separate individuals - the mother and the fetus.

So its not her body anymore - its THEIR bodies....

Geez I almost feel like Lenard Nemoi from Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), "his body, her body"


----------



## Varth Dader

Mr.Nick said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> At what age did what fundamental thing change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good question. I don't know the answer. I don't think it's 6 weeks, but I do have a problem with an abortion in the 9th month. Somewhere in between.
> 
> Would you prevent pregnant women from smoking or drinking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fucking serious?
> 
> The "9th month" is when you have a problem with it???
> 
> You may as well not have a problem with putting those that are early in a blender then.
> 
> Hell, I was three weeks early - I suppose according to your logic aborting me would have been fine a week after I was actually born.
Click to expand...


Like I said, somewhere in between. Apparently your conclusion is that my magic number is 37 weeks.

And I don't think any abortion is 'fine'.


----------



## elvis

Varth Dader said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good question. I don't know the answer. I don't think it's 6 weeks, but I do have a problem with an abortion in the 9th month. Somewhere in between.
> 
> Would you prevent pregnant women from smoking or drinking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking serious?
> 
> The "9th month" is when you have a problem with it???
> 
> You may as well not have a problem with putting those that are early in a blender then.
> 
> Hell, I was three weeks early - I suppose according to your logic aborting me would have been fine a week after I was actually born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, somewhere in between. Apparently your conclusion is that my magic number is 37 weeks.
> 
> And I don't think any abortion is 'fine'.
Click to expand...


so you have a problem with it at any time.  you just contradicted what you said above.


----------



## Varth Dader

Mr.Nick said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire post is based on hypothetical knee jerk emotional responses in an attempt to justify your position on abortion.
> 
> Its quite clear you never thought about the issue and are doing nothing more than regurgitating a notion that was programmed into your melon.
> 
> Its almost like you're blocking out what people are trying to tell you by reassuring yourself what you believe is right..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My position is that at the end of the day, I don't want to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Even if the effect of that leads to an abortion. But this right fades over time, and if a fetus is 40 weeks, I don't think an abortion should be performed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mother or potential mother is nothing more than a host for a PERSON WITH A BODY...
> 
> She has no right to take the life of another individual that has A BODY.
> 
> Its like a pandoras box - you understand that?
> 
> What the fuck is wrong with you?
> 
> You're so worried about the mothers "body" but you never even bothered to think about the fetuses body and the fetuses right to live.
> 
> Sorry to tell you that fetuses have the right to be born and live and grow into adults just like anyone else. The mother has ZERO right to say "its my body" because its NOT her body anymore its two bodies, two separate individuals - the mother and the fetus.
> 
> So its not her body anymore - its THEIR bodies....
> 
> Geez I almost feel like Lenard Nemoi from Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), "his body, her body"
Click to expand...


Really? Because if I check correctly, after 6 weeks, the mother can live without the fetus while the reverse isn't true. So it's not their bodies.

I mentioned earlier that I think a 40 week old fetus has rights. So I'm not sure how you conclude that I have not even bothered to think about that.


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> At what age did what fundamental thing change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good question. I don't know the answer. I don't think it's 6 weeks, but I do have a problem with an abortion in the 9th month.
Click to expand...



Why?



What changed?


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> My position is that at the end of the day, I don't want to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.



Agreed. Nobody's saying she can't get a tattoo or masturbate. 

As for rape and suicide bombings, though... well, you tell me: does my right to do with.to my own body extend to acts which cause direct physical harm to another person? 





> Even if the effect of that leads to an abortion. But this right fades over time, and if a fetus is 40 weeks, I don't think an abortion should be performed.




Why? What changed?


----------



## Mr.Nick

Varth Dader said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position is that at the end of the day, I don't want to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Even if the effect of that leads to an abortion. But this right fades over time, and if a fetus is 40 weeks, I don't think an abortion should be performed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mother or potential mother is nothing more than a host for a PERSON WITH A BODY...
> 
> She has no right to take the life of another individual that has A BODY.
> 
> Its like a pandoras box - you understand that?
> 
> What the fuck is wrong with you?
> 
> You're so worried about the mothers "body" but you never even bothered to think about the fetuses body and the fetuses right to live.
> 
> Sorry to tell you that fetuses have the right to be born and live and grow into adults just like anyone else. The mother has ZERO right to say "its my body" because its NOT her body anymore its two bodies, two separate individuals - the mother and the fetus.
> 
> So its not her body anymore - its THEIR bodies....
> 
> Geez I almost feel like Lenard Nemoi from Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), "his body, her body"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Because if I check correctly, after 6 weeks, the mother can live without the fetus while the reverse isn't true. So it's not their bodies.
> 
> I mentioned earlier that I think a 40 week old fetus has rights. So I'm not sure how you conclude that I have not even bothered to think about that.
Click to expand...


Yes it is their bodies...

Not only that but the mother has an obligation to her child...

Its almost like you pro-choice nuts are sociopaths.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Varth Dader said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good question. I don't know the answer. I don't think it's 6 weeks, but I do have a problem with an abortion in the 9th month. Somewhere in between.
> 
> Would you prevent pregnant women from smoking or drinking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking serious?
> 
> The "9th month" is when you have a problem with it???
> 
> You may as well not have a problem with putting those that are early in a blender then.
> 
> Hell, I was three weeks early - I suppose according to your logic aborting me would have been fine a week after I was actually born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, somewhere in between. Apparently your conclusion is that my magic number is 37 weeks.
> 
> And I don't think any abortion is 'fine'.
Click to expand...



You do realize that you're advocating the abortion of infants do you not?


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> What changed?



The rights of the fetus increase over time.


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> What changed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rights of the fetus increase over time.
Click to expand...

Why? What changes?


----------



## elvis

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> What changed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rights of the fetus increase over time.
Click to expand...


minute by minute?


----------



## Mr.Nick

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> What changed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rights of the fetus increase over time.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? 

I've heard of the Bill of Rights, I've never heard a "progressive rights."


----------



## JBeukema

Mr.Nick said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> What changed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rights of the fetus increase over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> I've heard of the Bill of Rights, I've never heard a "progressive rights."
Click to expand...

They get the right to life when they start voting Democrat


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Varth Dader said:


> ...The sad thing in this debate is that everyone is one the same side. No one gets a blast out of women having abortions: not the women, not you and not me.



I beg to differ.  You and I are not on the same side of this argument.

I am pro-life and that means I fully buy-into the proposition that ALL men are CREATED equal.

And you don&#8217;t because, otherwise, you would be on this thread advocating for the unalienable rights of ALL people (including those created but not yet born).


----------



## Dr.Drock

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The sad thing in this debate is that everyone is one the same side. No one gets a blast out of women having abortions: not the women, not you and not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ.  You and I are not on the same side of this argument.
> 
> I am pro-life and that means I fully buy-into the proposition that ALL men are CREATED equal.
> 
> And you dont because, otherwise, you would be on this thread advocating for the unalienable rights of ALL people (including those created but not yet born).
Click to expand...


And we're right back to what I say, the reason why people want pro-life legislation is so they can shove their religion down everyone elses throats.


----------



## AllieBaba

Pro-life legislation has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with murder. Pure and simple. The pro-life faction believes murder is always wrong. The pro-abortion crowd thinks it's okay to kill off the vulnerable and weak.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Pro-life legislation has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with murder. Pure and simple. The pro-life faction believes murder is always wrong. The pro-abortion crowd thinks it's okay to kill off the vulnerable and weak.



So the Founders, those you claim founded this nation on Christian principles, favored by a majority that abortion was legal.
Accordingly, the Founders believed that murder was okayand were pro abortion.
And that abortion was a Christian principle.
You are not very smart Allie.


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> Pro-life legislation has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with murder. Pure and simple. The pro-life faction believes murder is always wrong. The pro-abortion crowd thinks it's okay to kill off the vulnerable and weak.



Whatever crazy thoughts you feel you need to conjure up in that mind of yours to keep you from falling off your holier than thou perch Allie.


You're not a big fan of debate, it's all about slinging mud and telling people you're better than them.


----------



## AllieBaba

Show me some proposed legislation that shoves religion down anybody's throat.


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr.Drock said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-life legislation has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with murder. Pure and simple. The pro-life faction believes murder is always wrong. The pro-abortion crowd thinks it's okay to kill off the vulnerable and weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever crazy thoughts you feel you need to conjure up in that mind of yours to keep you from falling off your holier than thou perch Allie.
> 
> 
> You're not a big fan of debate, it's all about slinging mud and telling people you're better than them.
Click to expand...

 
Well I'd say this exchange shows that you're the one slinging mud...

And I'm very good at debate. Very, very good at it.


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-life legislation has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with murder. Pure and simple. The pro-life faction believes murder is always wrong. The pro-abortion crowd thinks it's okay to kill off the vulnerable and weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever crazy thoughts you feel you need to conjure up in that mind of yours to keep you from falling off your holier than thou perch Allie.
> 
> 
> You're not a big fan of debate, it's all about slinging mud and telling people you're better than them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'd say this exchange shows that you're the one slinging mud...
> 
> And I'm very good at debate. Very, very good at it.
Click to expand...


I went through a lot of debating in college and never did I see a grad student or a professor push the importance of childish name-calling and that's essentially your go to card in a "debate."

And I didn't say there's legislation out there shoving religion down people's throat (though I'm sure it exists, but that's not what I was saying) I'm saying that's what many pro-lifers want, such as the poster I responded too.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> At what age did what fundamental thing change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good question. I don't know the answer. I don't think it's 6 weeks, but I do have a problem with an abortion in the 9th month. Somewhere in between.
> 
> Would you prevent pregnant women from smoking or drinking?
Click to expand...


I don't see an answer to the OTHER part of his question, which was "what fundamental thing" changed.  Just coming up with some vague "I've decided it's bad somewhere around here, don't know when, don't know why" only serves to show how utterly vacuous your thinking on this subject actually is.

For the record, the law ALREADY penalizes women who harm their babies through ingesting dangerous substances during pregnancy, didn't you know?  Social Services, or whatever it's called where you live, can and will immediately take custody of a child born with drug addictions, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, etc. from the mother at birth, as evidence of abuse and neglect.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire post is based on hypothetical knee jerk emotional responses in an attempt to justify your position on abortion.
> 
> Its quite clear you never thought about the issue and are doing nothing more than regurgitating a notion that was programmed into your melon.
> 
> Its almost like you're blocking out what people are trying to tell you by reassuring yourself what you believe is right..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My position is that at the end of the day, I don't want to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Even if the effect of that leads to an abortion. But this right fades over time, and if a fetus is 40 weeks, I don't think an abortion should be performed.
Click to expand...


Perhaps instead of vomiting canned responses at us, you could try addressing the issues at hand.  No one is talking about the woman's body, and we never have been, and responding to "the fetus is a living, separate, distinct human being" with "I don't want to tell a woman what she can do with her body" makes every bit as much sense as if you responded with a remark about the price of coffee beans in Columbia.  _Capiche_?  Think for yourself.  If we wanted talking points, we could look those up for ourselves.

Perhaps you could start by telling us WHY "this right fades over time", in your inestimable opinion.  YOURS, not the Guttmacher Institute Bullet Points list, if you please.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good question. I don't know the answer. I don't think it's 6 weeks, but I do have a problem with an abortion in the 9th month. Somewhere in between.
> 
> Would you prevent pregnant women from smoking or drinking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking serious?
> 
> The "9th month" is when you have a problem with it???
> 
> You may as well not have a problem with putting those that are early in a blender then.
> 
> Hell, I was three weeks early - I suppose according to your logic aborting me would have been fine a week after I was actually born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, somewhere in between. Apparently your conclusion is that my magic number is 37 weeks.
> 
> And I don't think any abortion is 'fine'.
Click to expand...


Really?  Why not?  What's wrong with it?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position is that at the end of the day, I don't want to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Even if the effect of that leads to an abortion. But this right fades over time, and if a fetus is 40 weeks, I don't think an abortion should be performed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mother or potential mother is nothing more than a host for a PERSON WITH A BODY...
> 
> She has no right to take the life of another individual that has A BODY.
> 
> Its like a pandoras box - you understand that?
> 
> What the fuck is wrong with you?
> 
> You're so worried about the mothers "body" but you never even bothered to think about the fetuses body and the fetuses right to live.
> 
> Sorry to tell you that fetuses have the right to be born and live and grow into adults just like anyone else. The mother has ZERO right to say "its my body" because its NOT her body anymore its two bodies, two separate individuals - the mother and the fetus.
> 
> So its not her body anymore - its THEIR bodies....
> 
> Geez I almost feel like Lenard Nemoi from Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), "his body, her body"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Because if I check correctly, after 6 weeks, the mother can live without the fetus while the reverse isn't true. So it's not their bodies.
> 
> I mentioned earlier that I think a 40 week old fetus has rights. So I'm not sure how you conclude that I have not even bothered to think about that.
Click to expand...


I wasn't aware that sturdiness was a condition of life.  It's certainly helpful for CONTINUING life, but it's not part of the definition of life.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The sad thing in this debate is that everyone is one the same side. No one gets a blast out of women having abortions: not the women, not you and not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ.  You and I are not on the same side of this argument.
> 
> I am pro-life and that means I fully buy-into the proposition that ALL men are CREATED equal.
> 
> And you don&#8217;t because, otherwise, you would be on this thread advocating for the unalienable rights of ALL people (including those created but not yet born).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we're right back to what I say, the reason why people want pro-life legislation is so they can shove their religion down everyone elses throats.
Click to expand...


  Maybe you and I are using different versions of English, because for the life of me, I can't see a single place in his post that he mentioned religion.

"Unalienable rights" and "all men are created equal" are quotes from the US Declaration of Independence, FYI, not from the Bible.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Dr.Drock said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The sad thing in this debate is that everyone is one the same side. No one gets a blast out of women having abortions: not the women, not you and not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ.  You and I are not on the same side of this argument.
> 
> I am pro-life and that means I fully buy-into the proposition that ALL men are CREATED equal.
> 
> And you dont because, otherwise, you would be on this thread advocating for the unalienable rights of ALL people (including those created but not yet born).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we're right back to what I say, the reason why people want pro-life legislation is so they can shove their religion down everyone elses throats.
Click to expand...


Religion?  Where did I mention religion?  Are you taking about the word created?

If you are, you are the one bringing religion into the debate.

The words I chose were from Lincolns Gettysburg Address and I chose them because they speak directly to the civil rights issue surrounding treating people as property to be disposed of at the whim of somebody else.

As far as religion goes, I have a personal rule about posting on an abortion thread and that is I will not bring religion or religious views into the argument.

So I will thank you in advance to stick to the human rights, scientific and medical arguments when debating me on this topic and to please keep your religious views (and your views about religious people) out of it.


----------



## Avatar4321

Mr_Rockhead said:


> So I will thank you in advance to stick to the human rights, scientific and medical arguments when debating me on this topic and to please keep your religious views (and your views about religious people) out of it.



So you want us to leave out the best argument at all because you lose on it?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Avatar4321 said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I will thank you in advance to stick to the human rights, scientific and medical arguments when debating me on this topic and to please keep your religious views (and your views about religious people) out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want us to leave out the best argument at all because you lose on it?
Click to expand...


Uh, Avatar, Mr. R's arguing on OUR side of the debate.  And if YOU want to discuss religion vis a vis abortion with some pigheaded pro-abort, I'm sure he won't mind.  He's just saying that HE - like me, for that matter - refuses to debate abortion with the pro-aborts on religious grounds.


----------



## Avatar4321

Cecilie1200 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I will thank you in advance to stick to the human rights, scientific and medical arguments when debating me on this topic and to please keep your religious views (and your views about religious people) out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want us to leave out the best argument at all because you lose on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, Avatar, Mr. R's arguing on OUR side of the debate.  And if YOU want to discuss religion vis a vis abortion with some pigheaded pro-abort, I'm sure he won't mind.  He's just saying that HE - like me, for that matter - refuses to debate abortion with the pro-aborts on religious grounds.
Click to expand...


ah my bad. i need to follow more closely sometimes. Been in too many threads today


----------



## Cecilie1200

Avatar4321 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want us to leave out the best argument at all because you lose on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, Avatar, Mr. R's arguing on OUR side of the debate.  And if YOU want to discuss religion vis a vis abortion with some pigheaded pro-abort, I'm sure he won't mind.  He's just saying that HE - like me, for that matter - refuses to debate abortion with the pro-aborts on religious grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah my bad. i need to follow more closely sometimes. Been in too many threads today
Click to expand...


No problem.  That's what friends are for.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Avatar4321 said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I will thank you in advance to stick to the human rights, scientific and medical arguments when debating me on this topic and to please keep your religious views (and your views about religious people) out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want us to leave out the best argument at all because you lose on it?
Click to expand...


I tend to think this debate will never be won on religious terms so I see little benefit in bringing it into what I think is a civil rights issue.  However, that said, I have no problem with people being pro-life because of their religious views.

I simply choose to leave that out of my debate.


----------



## JBeukema

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-life legislation has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with murder. Pure and simple. The pro-life faction believes murder is always wrong. The pro-abortion crowd thinks it's okay to kill off the vulnerable and weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Founders, those you claim founded this nation on Christian principles, favored by a majority that abortion was legal.
> Accordingly, the Founders believed that murder was okayand were pro abortion.
> And that abortion was a Christian principle.
> You are not very smart Allie.
Click to expand...




> Prosecutions and even executions go back 800 years in England, establishing law that carried over to colonial America.


CAP - Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History


----------



## JBeukema

Even the feminists admit that colonial and common law generally forbid abortion past quickening


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Pro-life legislation has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with murder. Pure and simple. The pro-life faction believes murder is always wrong. The pro-abortion crowd thinks it's okay to kill off the vulnerable and weak.




You folks are about as stupid and dumb as a box of rocks. You do not even know shit about how the law works in your own state the fools you are. 
Ok, what pro life legislation do you advocate? Make abortion as murder in your state? Ok, let me educate you once again as to how the law works on criminal cases and the criminal code.
You claim abortion is murder so that is A STATE LAW LEGISLATED BY THE STATES
Is that too confusing for you so far? Your state, and every state, makes the laws on murder in their criminal code and all of the criminal code.
News flash to the uninformed dumasses here: Criminal code varies by state as to proof, motive, jury selection, sentencing and almost everything else.
WELL DUH.
And if each state makes their own criminal code on murder as it is now, WELL DUH, then this is WHAT YOU WILL HAVE IF ROE WAS OVERTURNED TODAY:
Some states will ban it outright. If you are raped tough shit. You have to have the baby. That is their right to do that as, DUH, state legislatures ALWAYS write their criminal code.
WELL DUH. Only a dumb ass doesn't know that.
Some states will ban it with some allowances for rape, 13 year olds getting pregnant, whatever. That is their right to do it as, DUH, state legislatures ALWAYS WRITE their criminal code.
WELL DUH. Only a dumb ass doesn't know that.
Some states will allow it with some restrictions. That is their right to do it.
Some states will allow it AT WILL. I oppose that but that IS A STATES' RIGHT TO WRITE THEIR OWN CRIMINAL CODE. If you did not know that then you are a DUMB ASS.
All of your posts do not address any of this.
So what do we end up with ROE being over turned today?
Each state writes their OWN CRIMINAL CODE on abortion.
If they have $$ and live in a state that BANS it out right then they simply get in their car or book a flight and fly to a state where it is LEGAL ON DEMAND, as I have once again schooled you fools on THE LAW OF STATES' RIGHT TO WRITE THEIR OWN CRIMINAL CODE, they get their abortion LEGALLY in the state that allows it.
If they have NO $$ and live in a state that bans it out right and they can not leave the state then they have the baby that THEY DO NOT WANT AND DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.


----------



## AllieBaba

More incoherent rambling by arguably one of the most ignorant posters on this site.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> More incoherent rambling by arguably one of the most ignorant posters on this site.



Tell me where I am wrong?
Tell me how murder is legislated differently than the facts I post.
You can't and you know it. That is why you offer nothing.
You know all you have are words,no facts. 
If you do not know that the state legislatures write their own criminal code then you are ignorant.
But we already know that. 
Tell me where I am wrong on any of the law. 
I do this for a living. 
Allie is just mad because she chicken shitted out of a bet. 
Chicken Shit.


----------



## JBeukema

Gadawg supports killing Mormons

After all, every state gets to make their own laws and SCOTUS should never intervene to protect the lives of those the member States fail to protect


----------



## AllieBaba

And more.
So where in that jumble did you establish that we were attempting to legislate religion?

Nowhere. 

It's just the usual disjointed and angry garbage from a loser.


----------



## AllieBaba

JBeukema said:


> Gadawg supports killing Mormons
> 
> After all, every state gets to make their own laws and COTUS should never intervene to protect the lives of those the member States fail to protect


 
People who promote the butchery of children generally aren't squeamish when it comes to killing anyone who stands in their way or poses an obstacle to their immediate desires.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> People who promote the butchery of children generally aren't squeamish when it comes to killing anyone who stands in their way or poses an obstacle to their immediate desires.


qft


----------



## Gadawg73

JBeukema said:


> Gadawg supports killing Mormons
> 
> After all, every state gets to make their own laws and COTUS should never intervene to protect the lives of those the member States fail to protect



An executive order is not law or in the criminal code.
DUMB ASS.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> And more.
> So where in that jumble did you establish that we were attempting to legislate religion?
> 
> Nowhere.
> 
> It's just the usual disjointed and angry garbage from a loser.



Where did I ever claim that?
Never.
DUMB ASS.


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more.
> So where in that jumble did you establish that we were attempting to legislate religion?
> 
> Nowhere.
> 
> It's just the usual disjointed and angry garbage from a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I ever claim that?
> Never.
> DUMB ASS.
Click to expand...

 
Well I assumed since you QUOTED that question, you were actually responding to it.

I should have known you were just on an incoherent spiel apropos of nothing.


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> And more.
> So where in that jumble did you establish that we were attempting to legislate religion?
> 
> Nowhere.
> 
> It's just the usual disjointed and angry garbage from a loser.



Lol there's those superb debating techniques again!



I think we all know what created implies.


----------



## AllieBaba

I don't debate insane spew. It's a waste of time.


----------



## JBeukema

Gadawg73 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg supports killing Mormons
> 
> After all, every state gets to make their own laws and COTUS should never intervene to protect the lives of those the member States fail to protect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An executive order is not law or in the criminal code.
> DUMB ASS.
Click to expand...




> An *executive order* in the United States is an order issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government. In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders-in-council. Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's Governor or at the local level by the city's Mayor.  U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789, usually to  help officers and agencies of the Executive branch manage the operations  within the Federal Government itself. Executive orders do have the full  force of law...


Executive order (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> I don't debate insane spew. It's a waste of time.



Alright I'll try to have an Allie-style point/counterpoint debate.

I'll get us started;


You're a lizard-lipped, duty-headed, poopoo-face.



Now your rebuttal;


----------



## AllieBaba

Link?


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> Link?



Link to you calling yourself a great debater and an instance of you name-calling?


Umm, you want me to link this particular thread we're posting on now?


----------



## Gadawg73

JBeukema said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg supports killing Mormons
> 
> After all, every state gets to make their own laws and COTUS should never intervene to protect the lives of those the member States fail to protect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An executive order is not law or in the criminal code.
> DUMB ASS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An *executive order* in the United States is an order issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government. In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders-in-council. Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's Governor or at the local level by the city's Mayor.  U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789, usually to  help officers and agencies of the Executive branch manage the operations  within the Federal Government itself. Executive orders do have the full  force of law...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Executive order (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Nope, sorry. 
Executive orders, JUST LIKE THE ONE YOU CITE, can be easily rescinded by the executive individually, or the next one in line as the one you cite and by legislative authority immediately, at any time.
NO LAW CAN HAVE THAT DONE.. 
Seperation of Powers you need to study.


----------



## JBeukema

You don't get your own facts, dude.

Abortionism is a religion. It is a matter of faith.


That's why they can never be honest.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Even the feminists admit that colonial and common law generally forbid abortion past quickening



And before (maybe) anyone gets any silly ideas about "Aha!  They thought that's when life started", let's just point out that that was simply the moment their much-more-rudimentary medical science could definitively identify a healthy pregnancy.  And even if they DID believe that was when life started . . . well, we don't refer back to the 18th century for definitive medical and scientific wisdom on anything else, so there's no reason this would be an exception.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Even the feminists admit that colonial and common law generally forbid abortion past quickening



SOME feminists.  Some of them are still clinging desperately to their outdated myths.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more.
> So where in that jumble did you establish that we were attempting to legislate religion?
> 
> Nowhere.
> 
> It's just the usual disjointed and angry garbage from a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I ever claim that?
> Never.
> DUMB ASS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I assumed since you QUOTED that question, you were actually responding to it.
> 
> I should have known you were just on an incoherent spiel apropos of nothing.
Click to expand...


I am, once again, profoundly grateful that I have Gadawg on ignore.  Just the occasional stray bit of post I get from others' quotes is more than enough to convince me I made the right decision.


----------



## AllieBaba

There's something wrong with him.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more.
> So where in that jumble did you establish that we were attempting to legislate religion?
> 
> Nowhere.
> 
> It's just the usual disjointed and angry garbage from a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol there's those superb debating techniques again!
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all know what created implies.
Click to expand...


No, WE all know what it MEANS.  Whatever connotations your fevered brain, rotted by the hatred and stupidity that marks ALL bigots, have assigned to the word are not our problem.

Create - To bring into existence

Don't blame any of us just because YOU can't bear to hear essential historical American documents quoted.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more.
> So where in that jumble did you establish that we were attempting to legislate religion?
> 
> Nowhere.
> 
> It's just the usual disjointed and angry garbage from a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol there's those superb debating techniques again!
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all know what created implies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, WE all know what it MEANS.  Whatever connotations your fevered brain, rotted by the hatred and stupidity that marks ALL bigots, have assigned to the word are not our problem.
> 
> Create - To bring into existence
> 
> Don't blame any of us just because YOU can't bear to hear essential historical American documents quoted.
Click to expand...


Me making note that christians are creationists shows I have a fevered brain rotted by hatred and a bigot?


Ok you win, that's a very rational assessment.  


That's the best attribute you pro-lifers have, you can debate the abortion issue with intellect and rational and you never just go off the deep end by letting your emotions get the best of you.


----------



## AllieBaba

Still waiting for a link to that religious legislation here.


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more.
> So where in that jumble did you establish that we were attempting to legislate religion?
> 
> Nowhere.
> 
> It's just the usual disjointed and angry garbage from a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol there's those superb debating techniques again!
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all know what created implies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, WE all know what it MEANS.  Whatever connotations your fevered brain, rotted by the hatred and stupidity that marks ALL bigots, have assigned to the word are not our problem.
> 
> Create - To bring into existence
> 
> Don't blame any of us just because YOU can't bear to hear essential historical American documents quoted.
Click to expand...

Why is he bitching about the language in the DoI?

What does that have to do with the subject at hand?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol there's those superb debating techniques again!
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all know what created implies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, WE all know what it MEANS.  Whatever connotations your fevered brain, rotted by the hatred and stupidity that marks ALL bigots, have assigned to the word are not our problem.
> 
> Create - To bring into existence
> 
> Don't blame any of us just because YOU can't bear to hear essential historical American documents quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me making note that christians are creationists shows I have a fevered brain rotted by hatred and a bigot?
> 
> 
> Ok you win, that's a very rational assessment.
> 
> 
> That's the best attribute you pro-lifers have, you can debate the abortion issue with intellect and rational and you never just go off the deep end by letting your emotions get the best of you.
Click to expand...


No, dumbfuck, you taking a quote from the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address as "Creationism" and "religion" is you being a fevered, hate-filled bigot.  And speaking of "letting your emotions get the best of you" . . .

Although the emotion that overwhelmed you might not have been hatred and bigotry.  It might just have been desperation to dismiss opponents before you ever had to actually DEBATE them.  Better to say, "Oh, you're just religious; I don't have to listen (thank God, because I have no arguments)" than to actually listen to his arguments and, perish forbid, think about them.  Right?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol there's those superb debating techniques again!
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all know what created implies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, WE all know what it MEANS.  Whatever connotations your fevered brain, rotted by the hatred and stupidity that marks ALL bigots, have assigned to the word are not our problem.
> 
> Create - To bring into existence
> 
> Don't blame any of us just because YOU can't bear to hear essential historical American documents quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is he bitching about the language in the DoI?
> 
> What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
Click to expand...


As I pointed out, any pretext on which to say, "Oh, he's religious, so that invalidates anything he says and I don't have to actually debate" is more than welcome to pro-aborts.  It's the political debate equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming as loudly as possible.


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, WE all know what it MEANS.  Whatever connotations your fevered brain, rotted by the hatred and stupidity that marks ALL bigots, have assigned to the word are not our problem.
> 
> Create - To bring into existence
> 
> Don't blame any of us just because YOU can't bear to hear essential historical American documents quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me making note that christians are creationists shows I have a fevered brain rotted by hatred and a bigot?
> 
> 
> Ok you win, that's a very rational assessment.
> 
> 
> That's the best attribute you pro-lifers have, you can debate the abortion issue with intellect and rational and you never just go off the deep end by letting your emotions get the best of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dumbfuck, you taking a quote from the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address as "Creationism" and "religion" is you being a fevered, hate-filled bigot.  And speaking of "letting your emotions get the best of you" . . .
> 
> Although the emotion that overwhelmed you might not have been hatred and bigotry.  It might just have been desperation to dismiss opponents before you ever had to actually DEBATE them.  Better to say, "Oh, you're just religious; I don't have to listen (thank God, because I have no arguments)" than to actually listen to his arguments and, perish forbid, think about them.  Right?
Click to expand...

What's he gonna do when someone points out that I'm an atheist?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me making note that christians are creationists shows I have a fevered brain rotted by hatred and a bigot?
> 
> 
> Ok you win, that's a very rational assessment.
> 
> 
> That's the best attribute you pro-lifers have, you can debate the abortion issue with intellect and rational and you never just go off the deep end by letting your emotions get the best of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, dumbfuck, you taking a quote from the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address as "Creationism" and "religion" is you being a fevered, hate-filled bigot.  And speaking of "letting your emotions get the best of you" . . .
> 
> Although the emotion that overwhelmed you might not have been hatred and bigotry.  It might just have been desperation to dismiss opponents before you ever had to actually DEBATE them.  Better to say, "Oh, you're just religious; I don't have to listen (thank God, because I have no arguments)" than to actually listen to his arguments and, perish forbid, think about them.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's he gonna do when someone points out that I'm an atheist?
Click to expand...


What makes you think facts play any part in his worldview . . . or his daily life in general, for that matter?


----------



## Varth Dader

Cecilie1200 said:


> Perhaps you could start by telling us WHY "this right fades over time", in your inestimable opinion.  YOURS, not the Guttmacher Institute Bullet Points list, if you please.



Because rights are never in a vacuum and are always dependent and affected by other rights. The right fades over time because the life form in the woman's body grows and acquires more rights. The bigger the fetus, the more likely it is viable, the more it acquires right.

I'm not sure how much more I can say. 

I wonder. If a woman is pregnant with twins, and reaches a point where she *likely *needs an abortion to save her life, do you think she should be forced to carry out the pregnancy? Or should she take her chances and go through with the pregnancy?


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> The bigger the fetus, the more likely it is viable, the more it acquires right.



So... fat kids have more rights than skinny kids?

What about underweight children?

Or is the target 'viability'? What the hell does that mean? You know we can save preemies today who were not 'viable' decades ago, right? 'Viability', then, is a moving and meaningless target. What about a child born on time at full size with a congenital heart defect or breathing problems? Left alone, the child will die - it is not 'viable'. 

Does that mean that, instead of providing emergency medical care, we should crush her skull?

What about old people on respirators? People having heart attacks? People on dialysis? 





> I'm not sure how much more I can say.



You haven't said anything at all.


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bigger the fetus, the more likely it is viable, the more it acquires right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... fat kids have more rights than skinny kids?
> 
> What about underweight children?
> 
> Or is the target 'viability'? What the hell does that mean? You know we can save preemies today who were not 'viable' decades ago, right? 'Viability', then, is a moving and meaningless target. What about a child born on time at full size with a congenital heart defect or breathing problems? Left alone, the child will die - it is not 'viable'.
> 
> Does that mean that, instead of providing emergency medical care, we should crush her skull?
> 
> What about old people on respirators? People having heart attacks? People on dialysis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how much more I can say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't said anything at all.
Click to expand...


So just to be clear, you are against all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. Life of the mother, rape, incest, no situation is not a murder that should be punished.


----------



## elvis

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bigger the fetus, the more likely it is viable, the more it acquires right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... fat kids have more rights than skinny kids?
> 
> What about underweight children?
> 
> Or is the target 'viability'? What the hell does that mean? You know we can save preemies today who were not 'viable' decades ago, right? 'Viability', then, is a moving and meaningless target. What about a child born on time at full size with a congenital heart defect or breathing problems? Left alone, the child will die - it is not 'viable'.
> 
> Does that mean that, instead of providing emergency medical care, we should crush her skull?
> 
> What about old people on respirators? People having heart attacks? People on dialysis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how much more I can say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't said anything at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, you are against all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. Life of the mother, rape, incest, no situation is not a murder that should be punished.
Click to expand...


if abortion is murder, what does the rape of the mother have to do with murder of the child?


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bigger the fetus, the more likely it is viable, the more it acquires right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... fat kids have more rights than skinny kids?
> 
> What about underweight children?
> 
> Or is the target 'viability'? What the hell does that mean? You know we can save preemies today who were not 'viable' decades ago, right? 'Viability', then, is a moving and meaningless target. What about a child born on time at full size with a congenital heart defect or breathing problems? Left alone, the child will die - it is not 'viable'.
> 
> Does that mean that, instead of providing emergency medical care, we should crush her skull?
> 
> What about old people on respirators? People having heart attacks? People on dialysis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how much more I can say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't said anything at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, you are against all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. Life of the mother, rape, incest, no situation is not a murder that should be punished.
Click to expand...


My views are in this thread and others- in great depth.

Why won't you answer the question?

At what point did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?

You said it had to do with size. At what length/weight does a person have a right to life that makes it not-okay to kill them for convenience?

93% of all abortions are out of convenience. Less than 1% involve rape. Stop exploiting the suffering of rape victims like the piece of shit you are and address the question.


----------



## Varth Dader

elvis said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, you are against all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. Life of the mother, rape, incest, no situation is not a murder that should be punished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if abortion is murder, what does the rape of the mother have to do with murder of the child?
Click to expand...


It has to do with the fact that I find it unfair to impose what could be a huge burden on the rape victim (carrying through a pregnancy).


----------



## elvis

Varth Dader said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, you are against all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. Life of the mother, rape, incest, no situation is not a murder that should be punished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if abortion is murder, what does the rape of the mother have to do with murder of the child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to do with the fact that I find it unfair to impose what could be a huge burden on the rape victim (carrying through a pregnancy).
Click to expand...


so it's only murder if the woman isn't raped?


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... fat kids have more rights than skinny kids?
> 
> What about underweight children?
> 
> Or is the target 'viability'? What the hell does that mean? You know we can save preemies today who were not 'viable' decades ago, right? 'Viability', then, is a moving and meaningless target. What about a child born on time at full size with a congenital heart defect or breathing problems? Left alone, the child will die - it is not 'viable'.
> 
> Does that mean that, instead of providing emergency medical care, we should crush her skull?
> 
> What about old people on respirators? People having heart attacks? People on dialysis? You haven't said anything at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, you are against all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. Life of the mother, rape, incest, no situation is not a murder that should be punished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My views are in this thread and others- in great depth.
> 
> Why won't you answer the question?
> 
> At what point did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> 
> You said it had to do with size. At what length/weight does a person have a right to life that makes it not-okay to kill them for convenience?
> 
> 93% of all abortions are out of convenience. Less than 1% involve rape. Stop exploiting the suffering of rape victims like the piece of shit you are and address the question.
Click to expand...


Apparently being polite, which I would find an easy goal to achieve, eludes you.

I find it impressive though that you are willing to carry on a conversation with a 'piece of ****'.

I'm not going to try to quantify the exact boundary because it's a futile exercise. But I can tell you that if it's 8 cells you are talking about, that is a cost society should be able to live with. 40 weeks? Then I would need a very compelling reason, and the only one I can think of is life of the mother.


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, you are against all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. Life of the mother, rape, incest, no situation is not a murder that should be punished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if abortion is murder, what does the rape of the mother have to do with murder of the child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to do with the fact that I find it unfair to impose what could be a huge burden on the rape victim (carrying through a pregnancy).
Click to expand...

Better to impose the death penalty on the child?

So you believe the right to convenience outweighs the right to life?


----------



## Varth Dader

elvis said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> if abortion is murder, what does the rape of the mother have to do with murder of the child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the fact that I find it unfair to impose what could be a huge burden on the rape victim (carrying through a pregnancy).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so it's only murder if the woman isn't raped?
Click to expand...


It's always killing, but if you mean murder in the legal/criminal sense, I don't think it is.


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> Apparently being polite, which I would find an easy goal to achieve, eludes you.



Want me to be polite? Stop being a dishonest fuckwit and exploiter of rape victims and answer the fucking question. It's not a hard question.

At what point did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?





> I'm not going to try to quantify the exact boundary because it's a futile exercise



So you can't tell me why killing one child is okay and killing another is not okay? You can't tell me why shooting you in the face is not okay but punching a hole in your head and vacuuming your brains out or ripping you limb from limb is





> ?
> 
> . But I can tell you that if it's 8 cells you are talking about, that is a cost society should be able to live with.


Why?





> 40 weeks?




Why not? What's the difference?


What changed?


> Then I would need a very compelling reason, and the only one I can think of is life of the mother.


What about halfway through birth? Or when crowning starts? Zor when her water breaks? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that...?

What changes?


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> if abortion is murder, what does the rape of the mother have to do with murder of the child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the fact that I find it unfair to impose what could be a huge burden on the rape victim (carrying through a pregnancy).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better to impose the death penalty on the child?
> 
> So you believe the right to convenience outweighs the right to life?
Click to expand...


Stop making this a black and white debate.

When we send a bomb on top of the house that we know contains one terrorist/enemy and his family, we are apparently able to find the nuances.

It's the right to control one's body outweighing the growing right to life, up to a point.


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the fact that I find it unfair to impose what could be a huge burden on the rape victim (carrying through a pregnancy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so it's only murder if the woman isn't raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always killing, but if you mean murder in the legal/criminal sense, I don't think it is.
Click to expand...

The whether killing you in cold blood is murder or not  depends on the relationship between your parents?

What if I kill someone whose parents are divorced? Or who's a bastard? Is that okay? Why or why not?

Should I be able to kill anyone whose family is 'abnormal'?

I sense eugenics territory ahead...


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the fact that I find it unfair to impose what could be a huge burden on the rape victim (carrying through a pregnancy).
> 
> 
> 
> Better to impose the death penalty on the child?
> 
> So you believe the right to convenience outweighs the right to life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making this a black and white debate.
Click to expand...


Stop evading. 

What changed? At what age did killing you in cold blood become not-okay and why?





> It's the right to control one's body outweighing the growing right to life, up to a point.


Nobody said she couldn't get a tattoo. We're not talking about her body. We're talking about killing another human being.

Now stop evading and answer the question.


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently being polite, which I would find an easy goal to achieve, eludes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want me to be polite? Stop being a dishonest fuckwit and exploiter of rape victims and answer the fucking question. It's not a hard question.
> 
> At what point did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to try to quantify the exact boundary because it's a futile exercise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't tell me why killing one child is okay and killing another is not okay? You can't tell me why shooting you in the face is not okay but punching a hole in your head and vacuuming your brains out or ripping you limb from limb is
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40 weeks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? What's the difference?
> 
> 
> What changed?
> 
> 
> 
> Then I would need a very compelling reason, and the only one I can think of is life of the mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about halfway through birth? Or when crowning starts? Zor when her water breaks? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that...?
> 
> What changes?
Click to expand...


8 cells is not a baby. 16 cells is not a baby. 32 cells is not a baby. etc. 

If embryos are destroyed in fertility clinics, are these abortions too?


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> 8 cells is not a baby. 16 cells is not a baby. 32 cells is not a baby. etc.




S: (n) *baby* (an unborn child; a human fetus) _"I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside"_
WordNet Search - 3.1



> If embryos are destroyed in fertility clinics, are these abortions too?


S: (n) *abortion* (termination of pregnancy) 
WordNet Search - 3.1


Why can't you people ever be honest?

At what age did you become a 'baby' by whatever definition makes you feel good about killing children?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Cecilie1200 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, WE all know what it MEANS.  Whatever connotations your fevered brain, rotted by the hatred and stupidity that marks ALL bigots, have assigned to the word are not our problem.
> 
> Create - To bring into existence
> 
> Don't blame any of us just because YOU can't bear to hear essential historical American documents quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is he bitching about the language in the DoI?
> 
> What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I pointed out, any pretext on which to say, "Oh, he's religious, so that invalidates anything he says and I don't have to actually debate" is more than welcome to pro-aborts.  It's the political debate equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming as loudly as possible.
Click to expand...



Good point, I'm mean it's not like I haven't posted dozens of times in this very thread.  Better to just assume I posted a couple times because I wanted to avoid debate.


Settle down, maybe hit a bong a few times, anything you need to do to be able to debate this issue like an adult.


It's clear it isn't just an isolated problem with Allie, the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers are completely incapable of debating the subject like rational adults, almost all of you sound like emotional children.


----------



## AllieBaba

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the fact that I find it unfair to impose what could be a huge burden on the rape victim (carrying through a pregnancy).
> 
> 
> 
> Better to impose the death penalty on the child?
> 
> So you believe the right to convenience outweighs the right to life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making this a black and white debate.
> 
> When we send a bomb on top of the house that we know contains one terrorist/enemy and his family, we are apparently able to find the nuances.
> 
> It's the right to control one's body outweighing the growing right to life, up to a point.
Click to expand...

 
The right to control one's life stops when it comes to using it to kill others. Prisons are full of people who use their bodies to harm others. The only difference is that there is a whole group of people who attach no importance to children. Particularly the children of the poor and minorities, and who think society is better off without them.

But it's still murder.


----------



## Dr.Drock

But I'll repeat my stance in summary because often times it seems what I want as a pro-choicer is the same as what pro-lifers want.

I want it to be a states issue, so I want Roe vs Wade overturned as it infringes on many state's rights.  Abortion isn't a big issue to me so if my state voted into act pro-life legislation it wouldn't be a big deal to me, my only concern would be the creation of an abortion black market where you're moving abortions from the doctors office to the back alley and having women self-perform them.


----------



## Gadawg73

Dr.Drock said:


> But I'll repeat my stance in summary because often times it seems what I want as a pro-choicer is the same as what pro-lifers want.
> 
> I want it to be a states issue, so I want Roe vs Wade overturned as it infringes on many state's rights.  Abortion isn't a big issue to me so if my state voted into act pro-life legislation it wouldn't be a big deal to me, my only concern would be the creation of an abortion black market where you're moving abortions from the doctors office to the back alley and having women self-perform them.



They will not address that Doc because you are posting fact.
Murder statutes ARE A STATES' Legislative action. 
No matter how long and sure you tell these loons that you are against Roe and want it to revert back to the states like it used to be they will still call you a supporter of killing babies.
Because that is all they have. Shock, babble and spittle. They know and care not to know anything about the law or how this great country passes legislation and what gives each state that individual authority.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Gadawg73 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'll repeat my stance in summary because often times it seems what I want as a pro-choicer is the same as what pro-lifers want.
> 
> I want it to be a states issue, so I want Roe vs Wade overturned as it infringes on many state's rights.  Abortion isn't a big issue to me so if my state voted into act pro-life legislation it wouldn't be a big deal to me, my only concern would be the creation of an abortion black market where you're moving abortions from the doctors office to the back alley and having women self-perform them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will not address that Doc because you are posting fact.
> Murder statutes ARE A STATES' Legislative action.
> No matter how long and sure you tell these loons that you are against Roe and want it to revert back to the states like it used to be they will still call you a supporter of killing babies.
> Because that is all they have. Shock, babble and spittle. They know and care not to know anything about the law or how this great country passes legislation and what gives each state that individual authority.
Click to expand...


I know, earlier in this very thread I told a pro-lifer I agreed with her on how government should handle it, and still the childish name-calling, petty insults and emotional tirades continued.

I can't even remember people I went to high school with stooping to the name-calling that I see routinely from the regular pro-life posters on here, i'd have to go back to middle school or elementary school.


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 cells is not a baby. 16 cells is not a baby. 32 cells is not a baby. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S: (n) *baby* (an unborn child; a human fetus) _"I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside"_
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If embryos are destroyed in fertility clinics, are these abortions too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> S: (n) *abortion* (termination of pregnancy)
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> At what age did you become a 'baby' by whatever definition makes you feel good about killing children?
Click to expand...


When does someone stop becoming a 'baby'?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could start by telling us WHY "this right fades over time", in your inestimable opinion.  YOURS, not the Guttmacher Institute Bullet Points list, if you please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because rights are never in a vacuum and are always dependent and affected by other rights. The right fades over time because the life form in the woman's body grows and acquires more rights. The bigger the fetus, the more likely it is viable, the more it acquires right.
> 
> I'm not sure how much more I can say.
> 
> I wonder. If a woman is pregnant with twins, and reaches a point where she *likely *needs an abortion to save her life, do you think she should be forced to carry out the pregnancy? Or should she take her chances and go through with the pregnancy?
Click to expand...


You can tell me why "bigger" equals "acquires more rights".  And what you really MEAN is "viable outside the womb", since the fetus is ALREADY viable in the environment for which nature has designed him for that part of his life.  So perhaps you could ALSO tell me why location equals "acquires more rights".

You could also explain to me why a woman would "need an abortion to save her life", Dr. Welby.  And no, I don't have a problem with aborting a baby who is already doomed (which, offhand, are the only situations I can think of where the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy itself).  If you want to cook up hypothetical scenarios, be more specific.  And DON'T think you're going to turn the abortion debate to "rape, incest, endangered mothers!"  I have little patience with people who want to hide a million dead babies a year behind the skirts of the hard cases.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bigger the fetus, the more likely it is viable, the more it acquires right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... fat kids have more rights than skinny kids?
> 
> What about underweight children?
> 
> Or is the target 'viability'? What the hell does that mean? You know we can save preemies today who were not 'viable' decades ago, right? 'Viability', then, is a moving and meaningless target. What about a child born on time at full size with a congenital heart defect or breathing problems? Left alone, the child will die - it is not 'viable'.
> 
> Does that mean that, instead of providing emergency medical care, we should crush her skull?
> 
> What about old people on respirators? People having heart attacks? People on dialysis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how much more I can say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't said anything at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, you are against all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. Life of the mother, rape, incest, no situation is not a murder that should be punished.
Click to expand...


What kind of sick fucker thinks of a baby as "punishment"?

By the way, JB isn't actually against abortion, if I remember correctly.  He just thinks your rationalizations are dishonest crap.  So do I, come to that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

elvis said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... fat kids have more rights than skinny kids?
> 
> What about underweight children?
> 
> Or is the target 'viability'? What the hell does that mean? You know we can save preemies today who were not 'viable' decades ago, right? 'Viability', then, is a moving and meaningless target. What about a child born on time at full size with a congenital heart defect or breathing problems? Left alone, the child will die - it is not 'viable'.
> 
> Does that mean that, instead of providing emergency medical care, we should crush her skull?
> 
> What about old people on respirators? People having heart attacks? People on dialysis?
> 
> You haven't said anything at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, you are against all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. Life of the mother, rape, incest, no situation is not a murder that should be punished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if abortion is murder, what does the rape of the mother have to do with murder of the child?
Click to expand...


It allows her to go from a sympathetic victim to a disgusting victimizer, just like her rapist.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, you are against all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. Life of the mother, rape, incest, no situation is not a murder that should be punished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if abortion is murder, what does the rape of the mother have to do with murder of the child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to do with the fact that I find it unfair to impose what could be a huge burden on the rape victim (carrying through a pregnancy).
Click to expand...


You didn't impose anything on her.  Her rapist did.  How does allowing her to victimize ANOTHER, even more innocent person make the situation better?

And what kind of sick, twisted asshole thinks of a baby as a "huge burden"?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, you are against all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. Life of the mother, rape, incest, no situation is not a murder that should be punished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My views are in this thread and others- in great depth.
> 
> Why won't you answer the question?
> 
> At what point did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> 
> You said it had to do with size. At what length/weight does a person have a right to life that makes it not-okay to kill them for convenience?
> 
> 93% of all abortions are out of convenience. Less than 1% involve rape. Stop exploiting the suffering of rape victims like the piece of shit you are and address the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently being polite, which I would find an easy goal to achieve, eludes you.
> 
> I find it impressive though that you are willing to carry on a conversation with a 'piece of ****'.
> 
> I'm not going to try to quantify the exact boundary because it's a futile exercise. But I can tell you that if it's 8 cells you are talking about, that is a cost society should be able to live with. 40 weeks? Then I would need a very compelling reason, and the only one I can think of is life of the mother.
Click to expand...


We kill over a million babies in this country every year, and you think it's a "futile exercise" to try to determine whether and when those lives ought to be saved?

Society "should be able to live with" the cost of killing someone if they're small enough?  Man, I hope you don't suddenly decide that you don't like midgets.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the fact that I find it unfair to impose what could be a huge burden on the rape victim (carrying through a pregnancy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so it's only murder if the woman isn't raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always killing, but if you mean murder in the legal/criminal sense, I don't think it is.
Click to expand...


Meaningless answer.  You know perfectly well he knows it's not illegal, and that he means "murder" in the sense of "killing another human being".

Don't start parsing the grammar now, because it's already hard enough to get to the bottom of what you really believe, aside from "I want women to think I'm a nice guy, so I say what they want to hear".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the fact that I find it unfair to impose what could be a huge burden on the rape victim (carrying through a pregnancy).
> 
> 
> 
> Better to impose the death penalty on the child?
> 
> So you believe the right to convenience outweighs the right to life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making this a black and white debate.
> 
> When we send a bomb on top of the house that we know contains one terrorist/enemy and his family, we are apparently able to find the nuances.
> 
> It's the right to control one's body outweighing the growing right to life, up to a point.
Click to expand...


Stop trying to make this a "shades of grey" debate.  Reality is pretty black and white:  either it's reality, or it's not.  So far, you refuse to talk about facts, and instead want to give us your vague impressions and opinions.

Who is this "we" who's finding nuances to killing terrorists?  What nuances?

No one's talking about the woman's body except you.  We're talking about the totally OTHER, separate body involved here.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently being polite, which I would find an easy goal to achieve, eludes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want me to be polite? Stop being a dishonest fuckwit and exploiter of rape victims and answer the fucking question. It's not a hard question.
> 
> At what point did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?
> 
> So you can't tell me why killing one child is okay and killing another is not okay? You can't tell me why shooting you in the face is not okay but punching a hole in your head and vacuuming your brains out or ripping you limb from limb is
> Why?
> 
> 
> Why not? What's the difference?
> 
> 
> What changed?
> 
> 
> 
> Then I would need a very compelling reason, and the only one I can think of is life of the mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about halfway through birth? Or when crowning starts? Zor when her water breaks? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that...?
> 
> What changes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 cells is not a baby. 16 cells is not a baby. 32 cells is not a baby. etc.
> 
> If embryos are destroyed in fertility clinics, are these abortions too?
Click to expand...


How are YOU defining "baby"?  Buy a dictionary, chum.

No, they aren't abortions, but yes, they are killing babies.  Why do you assume other people view the world the same way you do?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is he bitching about the language in the DoI?
> 
> What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out, any pretext on which to say, "Oh, he's religious, so that invalidates anything he says and I don't have to actually debate" is more than welcome to pro-aborts.  It's the political debate equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming as loudly as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, I'm mean it's not like I haven't posted dozens of times in this very thread.  Better to just assume I posted a couple times because I wanted to avoid debate.
> 
> 
> Settle down, maybe hit a bong a few times, anything you need to do to be able to debate this issue like an adult.
> 
> 
> It's clear it isn't just an isolated problem with Allie, the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers are completely incapable of debating the subject like rational adults, almost all of you sound like emotional children.
Click to expand...


Oh, you post a lot of shit.  Doesn't mean you listen to anyone else, or that a lot of your shit doesn't amount to "Oh, good, I found a reason to dismiss you instead of responding".

Judging by the source, I'll forego the drugs, thanks.  It's obvious that some people around here have already killed more brain cells than they can spare.

Are we defining "debate like an adult" as "looking for some pretext on which to run away from people's questions", the way you do?  Because believe me, doing ANYTHING the way you do is not and never will be a goal in my life.  I prefer intellectual honesty.

It's also clear this isn't just an isolated problem with you, but that the overwhelming majority of pro-baby killers are completely incapable of debating the subject like rational adults, rather than frantically searching for ways to demonize their opponents so they don't have to answer questions.  You sound like pathetic, lying cowards.


----------



## AllieBaba

Debating like an adult is code for "eschew facts" and "ignore the humanity of children".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> But I'll repeat my stance in summary because often times it seems what I want as a pro-choicer is the same as what pro-lifers want.
> 
> I want it to be a states issue, so I want Roe vs Wade overturned as it infringes on many state's rights.  Abortion isn't a big issue to me so if my state voted into act pro-life legislation it wouldn't be a big deal to me, my only concern would be the creation of an abortion black market where you're moving abortions from the doctors office to the back alley and having women self-perform them.



Yes, repeating your own position - as though anyone was confused by the nuances of "killing babies is good" - is definitely the equivalent of listening to other people and responding to them.  Oh, wait, it's not.  Here's what it is:  

If we ever want to hear a self-absorbed discourse on what you think, we'll ask you.  Of course, you won't be aware of it, since you have your fingers in your ears.  Poltroon.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 cells is not a baby. 16 cells is not a baby. 32 cells is not a baby. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S: (n) *baby* (an unborn child; a human fetus) _"I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside"_
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If embryos are destroyed in fertility clinics, are these abortions too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> S: (n) *abortion* (termination of pregnancy)
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> At what age did you become a 'baby' by whatever definition makes you feel good about killing children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When does someone stop becoming a 'baby'?
Click to expand...


The question is, more properly, when does someone stop BEING a baby, since you never "become" one.  You are one from the start of your existence.  And the answer is, when you move on to another stage of life.

Seriously, don't you own a dictionary?  These words all have definitions, y'know.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out, any pretext on which to say, "Oh, he's religious, so that invalidates anything he says and I don't have to actually debate" is more than welcome to pro-aborts.  It's the political debate equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming as loudly as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, I'm mean it's not like I haven't posted dozens of times in this very thread.  Better to just assume I posted a couple times because I wanted to avoid debate.
> 
> 
> Settle down, maybe hit a bong a few times, anything you need to do to be able to debate this issue like an adult.
> 
> 
> It's clear it isn't just an isolated problem with Allie, the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers are completely incapable of debating the subject like rational adults, almost all of you sound like emotional children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you post a lot of shit.  Doesn't mean you listen to anyone else, or that a lot of your shit doesn't amount to "Oh, good, I found a reason to dismiss you instead of responding".
> 
> Judging by the source, I'll forego the drugs, thanks.  It's obvious that some people around here have already killed more brain cells than they can spare.
> 
> Are we defining "debate like an adult" as "looking for some pretext on which to run away from people's questions", the way you do?  Because believe me, doing ANYTHING the way you do is not and never will be a goal in my life.  I prefer intellectual honesty.
> 
> It's also clear this isn't just an isolated problem with you, but that the overwhelming majority of pro-baby killers are completely incapable of debating the subject like rational adults, rather than frantically searching for ways to demonize their opponents so they don't have to answer questions.  You sound like pathetic, lying cowards.
Click to expand...


No I listen, why I listen I dunno, when half of your posts are childish 3rd grade insults.  Yes I can see how important intellectual honesty is to you, thus the name-calling, as the easiest way to tell in life if an adult is intellectual is to see how high of a quota for name-calls they have in a day is.

I see you evaded the question posed to you about what you think of abortions if the mom is going to die from birth, incest, etc, standard operating procedure for you guys again.

And, as happens almost everytime with pro-lifers, DESPITE agreeing with them on how gov't should handle abortions their #1 goal in "discussing" the issue is insults.  I could agree with them in every single way on how the issue should be handled, and yet still, the most important thing to them is relieving their daily insecurities through name-calling and tantrum-throwing.


----------



## American Legacy

Dr.Drock said:


> But I'll repeat my stance in summary because often times it seems what I want as a pro-choicer is the same as what pro-lifers want.
> 
> I want it to be a states issue, so I want Roe vs Wade overturned as it infringes on many state's rights.  Abortion isn't a big issue to me so if my state voted into act pro-life legislation it wouldn't be a big deal to me, my only concern would be the creation of an abortion black market where you're moving abortions from the doctors office to the back alley and having women self-perform them.


This is the equivalent of a lot of wrong-headed opinions in the 1840s and 1850s.  You're not a slave holder yourself so it doesn't really matter to you what the states decide to do.  Abortion is as much about a woman's choice to do with her body as slavery was an individual's choice what to do with his property.  Regardless of how dependent they are on others, _human beings are not property._  No one has the right to destroy an innocent human life.

If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she can keep her legs crossed.  If she is pregnant and doesn't want to raise the child once it's born, she given sign over her parental rights and give it up for adoption.  _That's the choice_ she has.


----------



## Gadawg73

Cecilie1200 said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> if abortion is murder, what does the rape of the mother have to do with murder of the child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the fact that I find it unfair to impose what could be a huge burden on the rape victim (carrying through a pregnancy).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't impose anything on her.  Her rapist did.  How does allowing her to victimize ANOTHER, even more innocent person make the situation better?
> 
> And what kind of sick, twisted asshole thinks of a baby as a "huge burden"?
Click to expand...


That is not the fact that was presented and you know it.
Rape victims are all burdened by being raped and having to carry that baby is a constant reminder of the rape.
Show me a rape victim not burdened by being raped and getting pregnant.
Where do you get these absurd talking points? Being raped and carrying that child not being a burden. You are bat shit crazy.


----------



## Gadawg73

American Legacy said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'll repeat my stance in summary because often times it seems what I want as a pro-choicer is the same as what pro-lifers want.
> 
> I want it to be a states issue, so I want Roe vs Wade overturned as it infringes on many state's rights.  Abortion isn't a big issue to me so if my state voted into act pro-life legislation it wouldn't be a big deal to me, my only concern would be the creation of an abortion black market where you're moving abortions from the doctors office to the back alley and having women self-perform them.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the equivalent of a lot of wrong-headed opinions in the 1840s and 1850s.  You're not a slave holder yourself so it doesn't really matter to you what the states decide to do.  Abortion is as much about a woman's choice to do with her body as slavery was an individual's choice what to do with his property.  Regardless of how dependent they are on others, _human beings are not property._  No one has the right to destroy an innocent human life.
> 
> If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she can keep her legs crossed.  If she is pregnant and doesn't want to raise the child once it's born, she given sign over her parental rights and give it up for adoption.  _That's the choice_ she has.
Click to expand...


OK, then what do we do about it?
We allow the states to each define what it is and make criminal code accordingly?
If you don't know that IS ALL THAT WILL HAPPEN if Roe was over turned today then you do not know any law.
What do we do? Specifics.


----------



## Gadawg73

Dr.Drock said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, I'm mean it's not like I haven't posted dozens of times in this very thread.  Better to just assume I posted a couple times because I wanted to avoid debate.
> 
> 
> Settle down, maybe hit a bong a few times, anything you need to do to be able to debate this issue like an adult.
> 
> 
> It's clear it isn't just an isolated problem with Allie, the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers are completely incapable of debating the subject like rational adults, almost all of you sound like emotional children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you post a lot of shit.  Doesn't mean you listen to anyone else, or that a lot of your shit doesn't amount to "Oh, good, I found a reason to dismiss you instead of responding".
> 
> Judging by the source, I'll forego the drugs, thanks.  It's obvious that some people around here have already killed more brain cells than they can spare.
> 
> Are we defining "debate like an adult" as "looking for some pretext on which to run away from people's questions", the way you do?  Because believe me, doing ANYTHING the way you do is not and never will be a goal in my life.  I prefer intellectual honesty.
> 
> It's also clear this isn't just an isolated problem with you, but that the overwhelming majority of pro-baby killers are completely incapable of debating the subject like rational adults, rather than frantically searching for ways to demonize their opponents so they don't have to answer questions.  You sound like pathetic, lying cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I listen, why I listen I dunno, when half of your posts are childish 3rd grade insults.  Yes I can see how important intellectual honesty is to you, thus the name-calling, as the easiest way to tell in life if an adult is intellectual is to see how high of a quota for name-calls they have in a day is.
> 
> I see you evaded the question posed to you about what you think of abortions if the mom is going to die from birth, incest, etc, standard operating procedure for you guys again.
> 
> And, as happens almost everytime with pro-lifers, DESPITE agreeing with them on how gov't should handle abortions their #1 goal in "discussing" the issue is insults.  I could agree with them in every single way on how the issue should be handled, and yet still, the most important thing to them is relieving their daily insecurities through name-calling and tantrum-throwing.
Click to expand...


Emotional drama queens rule in their homes so they assume they rule everywhere else they go.
When facts are absent all they have is drama and name calling. 
When I used to cross the lines for 4 quarters of battle I always knew when I had my man beat and defeated when the insults started.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Gadawg73 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you post a lot of shit.  Doesn't mean you listen to anyone else, or that a lot of your shit doesn't amount to "Oh, good, I found a reason to dismiss you instead of responding".
> 
> Judging by the source, I'll forego the drugs, thanks.  It's obvious that some people around here have already killed more brain cells than they can spare.
> 
> Are we defining "debate like an adult" as "looking for some pretext on which to run away from people's questions", the way you do?  Because believe me, doing ANYTHING the way you do is not and never will be a goal in my life.  I prefer intellectual honesty.
> 
> It's also clear this isn't just an isolated problem with you, but that the overwhelming majority of pro-baby killers are completely incapable of debating the subject like rational adults, rather than frantically searching for ways to demonize their opponents so they don't have to answer questions.  You sound like pathetic, lying cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I listen, why I listen I dunno, when half of your posts are childish 3rd grade insults.  Yes I can see how important intellectual honesty is to you, thus the name-calling, as the easiest way to tell in life if an adult is intellectual is to see how high of a quota for name-calls they have in a day is.
> 
> I see you evaded the question posed to you about what you think of abortions if the mom is going to die from birth, incest, etc, standard operating procedure for you guys again.
> 
> And, as happens almost everytime with pro-lifers, DESPITE agreeing with them on how gov't should handle abortions their #1 goal in "discussing" the issue is insults.  I could agree with them in every single way on how the issue should be handled, and yet still, the most important thing to them is relieving their daily insecurities through name-calling and tantrum-throwing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emotional drama queens rule in their homes so they assume they rule everywhere else they go.
> When facts are absent all they have is drama and name calling.
> When I used to cross the lines for 4 quarters of battle I always knew when I had my man beat and defeated when the insults started.
Click to expand...


I even spoke some truth to power with Allie, she admitted she doesn't stoop to this stuff in real life, it's all a message board schtick which is probably the same way Cecille is.  I'm really doubting she runs around calling people doo-doo heads in the real world, probably just on here.


----------



## Gadawg73

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> _My response to Jbeukema, post 1820_
> 
> (sorry for the delay responding, this is a big and busy forum)
> 
> My opinion is irrelevant, I simply note the legal status of the issue and the current thinking of the courts, providing documentation accordingly.
> 
> It doesnt mean I approve or disapprove, or believe its right or wrong  I do accept it as settled law and have moved on.
> 
> For those who are opposed to abortion and wish to see it banned/outlawed, however, youve got a long, hard road to negotiate. The best chance was lost with _Casey_ in 1992, that was almost 20 years ago. And _Roe_ and _Griswold _are well over 30 years decided. Im not saying overturning _Griswold/Roe/Casey_ cant be done, but eliminating the right to privacy is going to be a tough sell to most Americans, whether abortion is factored in or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep sidestepping me, pro-choicers.
> 
> It's all you CAN do...as you dont want to have a real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what exactly is there to debate?
> 
> The issue isnt really about abortion per se but how to end it. It could be argued simply banning it would be as effective as banning marijuana is now or alcohol during the 1920s, which wouldnt end it at all. Americans historically dont respond well being told what to do concerning things they consider private.
Click to expand...


The scary part is that most Americans these days can tell you who won American Idol and is leading with points on Dancing with the Stars but they have no clue as to how the legal system works and how laws are passed.
These are the same folks that state they want this and that law and do everything they can to avoid jury duty as they brag when they get out of it.
I always found it ironic how the Drug War was fought legally with the illegal drugs being called "Contolled Substances". 
There wasn't very much control over them if they had to be illegal. And time has shown there is absolutely NO control over any of them and never will be.
Abortion is a family decision and the government should stay out of it. NO LAW ever stops abortion and only damn fools believe there is one that would stop it.


----------



## Gadawg73

Dr.Drock said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I listen, why I listen I dunno, when half of your posts are childish 3rd grade insults.  Yes I can see how important intellectual honesty is to you, thus the name-calling, as the easiest way to tell in life if an adult is intellectual is to see how high of a quota for name-calls they have in a day is.
> 
> I see you evaded the question posed to you about what you think of abortions if the mom is going to die from birth, incest, etc, standard operating procedure for you guys again.
> 
> And, as happens almost everytime with pro-lifers, DESPITE agreeing with them on how gov't should handle abortions their #1 goal in "discussing" the issue is insults.  I could agree with them in every single way on how the issue should be handled, and yet still, the most important thing to them is relieving their daily insecurities through name-calling and tantrum-throwing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emotional drama queens rule in their homes so they assume they rule everywhere else they go.
> When facts are absent all they have is drama and name calling.
> When I used to cross the lines for 4 quarters of battle I always knew when I had my man beat and defeated when the insults started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I even spoke some truth to power with Allie, she admitted she doesn't stoop to this stuff in real life, it's all a message board schtick which is probably the same way Cecille is.  I'm really doubting she runs around calling people doo-doo heads in the real world, probably just on here.
Click to expand...


ALL political power comes from the barrell of either guns, pussy or opium pipes and people seem to like it that way. 
Here is no exception.


----------



## JBeukema

Dr.Drock said:


> the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers are completely incapable of debating the subject like rational adults.


True

Same with the pro-abortionists, such as yourself



DaGoose said:


> Because if they were they would admit that they  are in favor of government control over American citizens private  decisions. THEY are the real enemies of liberty and freedom.
> 
> Because unless you are the woman, her doctor or her God you need to stay the fuck out of her business.
> 
> .


​ *The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DaGoose For This Useful Post:* Cal (04-02-2011), Dr Grump (03-31-2011), High_Gravity (03-30-2011), Plasmaball (03-30-2011)



Avatar4321 said:


> Since when is taking the life of someone else a private decision?
> 
> I suppose we should decriminalize murder. After all, the government is punishing a person for their own private decision.
> 
> Of course, I don't expect you to actually recognize the inherent flaws  of your argument. But perhaps someone who is reading will and will see  how illogical your position is.


----------



## JBeukema

Dr.Drock said:


> I want it to be a states issue



States should decide for themselves whom it's okay to kill?

So reviving the Mormon Extermination Order would be okay with you? What if we say that, to bring down medicare costs, killing anyone over 65 is okay?





> Abortion isn't a big issue to me



Homicide's 'not a big issue'?


> so if my state voted into act pro-life legislation it wouldn't be a big deal to me, my only concern would be the creation of an abortion black market where you're moving abortions from the doctors office to the back alley and having women self-perform them.



Why can Democrats find a back-alley abortionist to kill their baby, but not a condom to use in the first place?


----------



## JBeukema

Gadawg73 said:


> They will not address that Doc because you are posting fact.
> Murder statutes ARE A STATES' Legislative action.



Unless they are unconstitutional because they do not provide equal protection under the law.

Why can't you people ever be honest?


----------



## Dr.Drock

JBeukema said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want it to be a states issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States should decide for themselves whom it's okay to kill?
> 
> So reviving the Mormon Extermination Order would be okay with you? What if we say that, to bring down medicare costs, killing anyone over 65 is okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion isn't a big issue to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homicide's 'not a big issue'?
> 
> 
> 
> so if my state voted into act pro-life legislation it wouldn't be a big deal to me, my only concern would be the creation of an abortion black market where you're moving abortions from the doctors office to the back alley and having women self-perform them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can Democrats find a back-alley abortionist to kill their baby, but not a condom to use in the first place?
Click to expand...


Ur other post that you said "such as yourself" you copy and pasted a post and thank yous that didn't include me, so that was confusing.

1.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
2.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
3.) Most pro-lifers I talk to want Roe v Wade overturned and have it turned into a state's issue, which is exactly what I want.
4.) I dunno how/why this became partisan, I've never voted for a democrat in my life, a condom should always be used when no pregnancy is desired but as we both know they aren't 100%.


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> You could also explain to me why a woman would "need an abortion to save her life", Dr. Welby.



~3% of abortions involve a perceived threat to the mother's life

That they exploit those women who have to make such a terrible decision to justify the convenience of abortion on demand and repeat business tells you all there is to know about their character.





> I have little patience with people who want to hide a million dead babies a year behind the skirts of the hard cases.



_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cecilie1200 again._
​


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> What kind of sick fucker thinks of a baby as "punishment"?


Think he'll ever tell his daughters what he thinks of them?



_Look, I got two  daughters - 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first  about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them  punished with a baby_
-Barrack H. Obama, President of the United States​


----------



## JBeukema

Dr.Drock said:


> 1.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 2.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.



It doesn't matter how you 'view it'. Earth is not flat, no matter how many times you say you don't see it as not flat.



S: (n) killing, *kill*, putting to death (the act of terminating a life)
WordNet Search - 3.1


Why can't you be honest?



> I dunno how/why this became partisan, I've never voted for a democrat in my life, a condom should always be used when no pregnancy is desired but as we both know they aren't 100%.


You know what is?

If you're not prepared to be responsible for your child, perhaps you should be fucking in the first place. If you really wanted anything but more dead babies, you'd be encouraging people to stop being fucking sluts.


----------



## Dr.Drock

JBeukema said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 2.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter how you 'view it'. Earth is not flat, no matter how many times you say you don't see it as not flat.
> 
> 
> 
> S: (n) killing, *kill*, putting to death (the act of terminating a life)
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> 
> Why can't you be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno how/why this became partisan, I've never voted for a democrat in my life, a condom should always be used when no pregnancy is desired but as we both know they aren't 100%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know what is?
> 
> If you're not prepared to be responsible for your child, perhaps you should be fucking in the first place. If you really wanted anything but more dead babies, you'd be encouraging people to stop being fucking sluts.
Click to expand...


You can make the point it doesn't matter how I view it, it matters how gov't views it, hence why abortion is legal to a point.

I'll bet 99% of americans have sex before they're able to handle the responsiblity of a child, and I am HUGE on encouraging the improvement of sex education, which is what I think would help the most in lowering the amount on unwanted pregnancies/abortions.

Like you, I want zero abortions, it'll never happen but I think the more effective way of lowering the number is through education rather than persecution.


----------



## JBeukema

Dr.Drock said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 2.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter how you 'view it'. Earth is not flat, no matter how many times you say you don't see it as not flat.
> 
> 
> 
> S: (n) killing, *kill*, putting to death (the act of terminating a life)
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> 
> Why can't you be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno how/why this became partisan, I've never voted for a democrat in my life, a condom should always be used when no pregnancy is desired but as we both know they aren't 100%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know what is?
> 
> If you're not prepared to be responsible for your child, perhaps you should be fucking in the first place. If you really wanted anything but more dead babies, you'd be encouraging people to stop being fucking sluts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can make the point it doesn't matter how I view it, it matters how gov't views it, hence why abortion is legal to a point.
Click to expand...


As was killing Mormons in Missouri. As was spousal rape in some places until 1993. As was slavery at one time. As was child pornography until thew 1970s. As was segregation at one point....
You _really_ want to try your little appeal to the Law, Statist?





> I'll bet 99% of americans have sex before they're able to handle the responsiblity of a child, and I am HUGE on encouraging the improvement of sex education



That hasn't worked. That's been proven to be code for encouraging premarital whoring around- and the effects have been more out-of-wedlock pregnancies and STDs.





> , which is what I think would help the most in lowering the amount on unwanted pregnancies/abortions.



The facts prove otherwise.

Sorry, but Earth isn't flat.


----------



## AllieBaba

If legalization of abortions reduced the numbers of abortions, they wouldn't have increased exponentially after the legalization of abortion.


----------



## Dr.Drock

JBeukema said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter how you 'view it'. Earth is not flat, no matter how many times you say you don't see it as not flat.
> 
> 
> 
> S: (n) killing, *kill*, putting to death (the act of terminating a life)
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> 
> Why can't you be honest?
> 
> You know what is?
> 
> If you're not prepared to be responsible for your child, perhaps you should be fucking in the first place. If you really wanted anything but more dead babies, you'd be encouraging people to stop being fucking sluts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the point it doesn't matter how I view it, it matters how gov't views it, hence why abortion is legal to a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was killing Mormons in Missouri. As was spousal rape in some places until 1993. As was slavery at one time. As was child pornography until thew 1970s. As was segregation at one point....
> You _really_ want to try your little appeal to the Law, Statist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet 99% of americans have sex before they're able to handle the responsiblity of a child, and I am HUGE on encouraging the improvement of sex education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That hasn't worked. That's been proven to be code for encouraging premarital whoring around- and the effects have been more out-of-wedlock pregnancies and STDs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , which is what I think would help the most in lowering the amount on unwanted pregnancies/abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts prove otherwise.
> 
> Sorry, but Earth isn't flat.
Click to expand...


1.) A fair point, but my guess is that the country likely isn't moving closer to a pro-life viewpoint, if the gov'ts viewpoint is the one you disagree with.
2.) We've never had good sex education, so we can't yet determine whether or not it's worked.  Connecting wanting good education and promoting whoring is a simply stunning connection to make.
3.) No they don't
4.) We were getting close to having an adult convo on the matter, you noticed we were getting close so you had to pull back on the maturity and throw in the childish insult, as to keep with the standard operating procedure of so many pro-lifers.


----------



## JBeukema

The only one being childish is you.

You appealed to Law; now you admit that's bullshit

You claimed that killing isn't killing because you can't accept that you advocate killing

You continue to deny basic facts, like the fact that the foetus is a living human being, the Earth that termination a life if killing by definition, and the fact that abortion- especially repeat business- has been skyrocketing since the cult of abortionism began advocating killing babies as a convenient alternative to personal responsibility, and the increase in STDs resulting from the glorification of whoring around.


When presented with these facts, you lie outright, you deny scientific reality,  and you accuse others of being mean you you.

This neoleftist movement, with its cult of abortionism, has the same results everywhere it's seen
Women having multiple abortions reaches record high - Times Online


----------



## Gadawg73

JBeukema said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will not address that Doc because you are posting fact.
> Murder statutes ARE A STATES' Legislative action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they are unconstitutional because they do not provide equal protection under the law.
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
Click to expand...


So you would be filing a challenge against a state that had a law banning abortion and base your argument that it is unconstitutional because that law does not provide equal protection under the law?
Dude, do you have a clue what you are talking about? I thought you are against abortion.
Don't you know that the laws would be BANNING ABORTION. There is NO state law now allowing it.
There would have to be state laws BANNING IT for your argument to make any sense.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Grace said:


> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.



You will have to answer to someone.... eventually.


----------



## JBeukema

Why can't you people admit that you support killing human children for convenience?

Abortionism is a religion

_ Once the renunciation has been made, the mind, instead of operating   freely, becomes the servant of a higher and unquestioned purpose. To   deny the truth is an act of service...Any genuine intellectual contact   which you have with him involves a challenge to his fundamental faith, a   struggle for his soul._
-Arthur Koestler​


----------



## JBeukema

Gadawg73 said:


> So you would be filing a challenge against a state that had a law banning abortion and base your argument that it is unconstitutional because that law does not provide equal protection under the law?



Fail.

Life > Convenience

If some persons are not given equal protection of their right to life under the law, then the law is unconstitutional.


> There would have to be state laws BANNING IT for your argument to make any sense.



You aren't very bright, are you?


----------



## Immanuel

Lonestar_logic said:


> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to answer to someone.... eventually.
Click to expand...


If you believe in the same God I do and I have always thought that you do, then forgiveness has long been extended.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

This is a little off topic, but I am going to have a hard time explaining some of the really awful things I've done in the past and sometimes it gives me pause..


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of sick fucker thinks of a baby as "punishment"?
> 
> 
> 
> Think he'll ever tell his daughters what he thinks of them?
> 
> 
> 
> _Look, I got two  daughters - 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first  about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them  punished with a baby_
> -Barrack H. Obama, President of the United States​
Click to expand...


Sadly, I think they'll figure it out on their own.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 2.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter how you 'view it'. Earth is not flat, no matter how many times you say you don't see it as not flat.
> 
> 
> 
> S: (n) killing, *kill*, putting to death (the act of terminating a life)
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> 
> Why can't you be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno how/why this became partisan, I've never voted for a democrat in my life, a condom should always be used when no pregnancy is desired but as we both know they aren't 100%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know what is?
> 
> If you're not prepared to be responsible for your child, perhaps you should be fucking in the first place. If you really wanted anything but more dead babies, you'd be encouraging people to stop being fucking sluts.
Click to expand...


See, I don't get why this is difficult.  As much as some people here look askance at me for my lifestyle choices, it's still a no-brainer to me - and to the people in my lifestyle community - that you don't do ANYTHING if you're not willing to live with any of the possible consequences.  And when it doesn't turn out the way you hoped and expected, YOU take the responsibility.

If I would not be willing to have a baby with someone, I don't have intercourse with them.  Simple.  Even if I'm using birth control.  Even now that my tubes have been tied.  Because  Murphy's a bastard, and he has LOUSY timing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Some of you remind me of Scalia in his _Casey _dissent. The Justice was hysterically apoplectic:

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Note the scarcity of case law and precedent  like some of you he blames politics and a kind of national peer pressure. He notes the issue of privacy only once and not in a directly legal context. 

Clearly there is no firm legal ground upon which a case against the right to privacy may be built. And consequently there is no legal argument that can made to compel the issue of abortion to be moved from under that Constitutional protection.


----------



## JBeukema

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Clearly there is no firm legal ground upon which a case against the right to privacy may be built.


When I kill you, I have no right to privacy regarding that act.

I fact, the records of the proceedings  are all a matter of public record.


There is no 'right to privacy' that justifies homicide.


----------



## PixieStix

JBeukema said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly there is no firm legal ground upon which a case against the right to privacy may be built.
> 
> 
> 
> When I kill you, I have no right to privacy regarding that act.
> 
> I fact, the records of the proceedings  are all a matter of public record.
> 
> 
> There is no 'right to privacy' that justifies homicide.
Click to expand...



Stop it JB....that makes too much sense


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> If legalization of abortions reduced the numbers of abortions, they wouldn't have increased exponentially after the legalization of abortion.



Can't imagine why anyone would think "The government says you can do this if you want" would somehow DISCOURAGE it.  What, then, is the purpose of the government ever OUTLAWING anything?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to answer to someone.... eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe in the same God I do and I have always thought that you do, then forgiveness has long been extended.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Forgiveness being extended is not the same as being forgiven.  For that, one must feel remorse, want forgiveness, and intend to change.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Some of you remind me of Scalia in his _Casey _dissent. The Justice was hysterically apoplectic:
> 
> Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
> 
> Note the scarcity of case law and precedent  like some of you he blames politics and a kind of national peer pressure. He notes the issue of privacy only once and not in a directly legal context.
> 
> Clearly there is no firm legal ground upon which a case against the right to privacy may be built. And consequently there is no legal argument that can made to compel the issue of abortion to be moved from under that Constitutional protection.



All that has ever been needed to argue against a general "right to privacy" is common sense:  crimes are usually committed in private, and obviously, we do not respect people's "privacy" when they are harming others.

Furthermore, nowhere in the Constitution - or any other law that I'm aware of - is there codified a generalized "privacy right".  Our laws protect SPECIFIC privacies, at specific times and under specific circumstances.


----------



## Dr Grump

Gadawg73 said:


> You are bat shit crazy.



Ya think?


----------



## Dr Grump

Lonestar_logic said:


> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to answer to someone.... eventually.
Click to expand...


only to herself...


----------



## JBeukema




----------



## JBeukema




----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 cells is not a baby. 16 cells is not a baby. 32 cells is not a baby. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S: (n) *baby* (an unborn child; a human fetus) _"I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside"_
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If embryos are destroyed in fertility clinics, are these abortions too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> S: (n) *abortion* (termination of pregnancy)
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> At what age did you become a 'baby' by whatever definition makes you feel good about killing children?
Click to expand...


Speaking of honesty. I checked the first link you provided. The first definition is:

S: (n) baby, babe, infant (a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk) "the baby began to cry again"; "she held the baby in her arms"; "it sounds simple, but when you have your own baby it is all so different"

Apparently you had to pick the 4th definition to find a definition to match with your argument.

I refuse to engage in a debate about the word baby. I personally wouldn't call 8 cells a baby, but it seems you do. Fine. Call that a baby. And indeed, when you abort, you are killing that entity, which according to you, is a baby.

So, what is the next step? Is there a next step? 

Tell us about under cases that relate to abortion. For example, I think I asked you before but did not recall an answer, do you think a mother that takes alcohol or smokes during a pregnancy should face consequences? How about the one that attempts to kill herself, fails but kills the fetus inside her tummy? Is that the same? Or how about the couple that uses fertility clinic services which kills embryos? Is that the same?


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of sick fucker thinks of a baby as "punishment"?
> 
> 
> 
> Think he'll ever tell his daughters what he thinks of them?
> 
> 
> 
> _Look, I got two  daughters - 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first  about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them  punished with a baby_
> -Barrack H. Obama, President of the United States​
Click to expand...


When Bristol Palin campaigns against teen pregnancies, is she saying that she regrets having her baby?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of sick fucker thinks of a baby as "punishment"?
> 
> 
> 
> Think he'll ever tell his daughters what he thinks of them?
> 
> 
> 
> _Look, I got two  daughters - 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first  about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them  punished with a baby_
> -Barrack H. Obama, President of the United States​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Bristol Palin campaigns against teen pregnancies, is she saying that she regrets having her baby?
Click to expand...


No, she's saying that the circumstances under which she got pregnant with him were not a good idea.  If she were campaigning for teenaged abortions, THAT would indicate that she regrets having her baby.


----------



## Varth Dader

Cecilie1200 said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think he'll ever tell his daughters what he thinks of them?
> 
> 
> 
> _Look, I got two  daughters - 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first  about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them  punished with a baby_
> -Barrack H. Obama, President of the United States​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Bristol Palin campaigns against teen pregnancies, is she saying that she regrets having her baby?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she's saying that the circumstances under which she got pregnant with him were not a good idea.  If she were campaigning for teenaged abortions, THAT would indicate that she regrets having her baby.
Click to expand...


Yeah right. Does she regret her decision? Would she do something different otherwise? If she has no regrets about having her baby, she should also have no regrets about what directly led to it.


----------



## JBeukema

I'll address your [idiotic] questions [that I've answered dozens of time] when you answer my question.

At what point did what change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 cells is not a baby. 16 cells is not a baby. 32 cells is not a baby. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S: (n) *baby* (an unborn child; a human fetus) _"I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside"_
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If embryos are destroyed in fertility clinics, are these abortions too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> S: (n) *abortion* (termination of pregnancy)
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> At what age did you become a 'baby' by whatever definition makes you feel good about killing children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of honesty. I checked the first link you provided. The first definition is:
> 
> S: (n) baby, babe, infant (a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk) "the baby began to cry again"; "she held the baby in her arms"; "it sounds simple, but when you have your own baby it is all so different"
> 
> Apparently you had to pick the 4th definition to find a definition to match with your argument.
> 
> I refuse to engage in a debate about the word baby. I personally wouldn't call 8 cells a baby, but it seems you do. Fine. Call that a baby. And indeed, when you abort, you are killing that entity, which according to you, is a baby.
> 
> So, what is the next step? Is there a next step?
> 
> Tell us about under cases that relate to abortion. For example, I think I asked you before but did not recall an answer, do you think a mother that takes alcohol or smokes during a pregnancy should face consequences? How about the one that attempts to kill herself, fails but kills the fetus inside her tummy? Is that the same? Or how about the couple that uses fertility clinic services which kills embryos? Is that the same?
Click to expand...


It's news to you that words have multiple meanings and usages?  Or it's somehow dishonest to you to point out one definition in particular?

Yes, baby is often used to specify a child after birth, usually by people like you who want to pretend that unborn children are not alive.  This is why certain dictionaries now make mention of this peculiarity.  Many don't even bother, however, and just stick to the much more common (and more established) usage.

Note, for example, that Merriam-Webster keeps the definitions for "baby" very general, as its usage also usually is:

_1 a (1): an extremely young child; especially: infant (2): an extremely young animal b: the youngest of a group 

2 a: one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b: something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest _

On the other hand, if you look at the more specific synonym, "infant", you find this:


_1 a (1): an extremely young child; especially: infant (2): an extremely young animal b: the youngest of a group 


2 a: one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b: something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest_ 

The words people mistakenly try to use to mean "something other than a baby", like "fetus" and "embryo", are really only medical terms for denoting specific stages of development, and all refer to "babies".


----------



## AllieBaba

Varth Dader said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Bristol Palin campaigns against teen pregnancies, is she saying that she regrets having her baby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's saying that the circumstances under which she got pregnant with him were not a good idea. If she were campaigning for teenaged abortions, THAT would indicate that she regrets having her baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Does she regret her decision? Would she do something different otherwise? If she has no regrets about having her baby, she should also have no regrets about what directly led to it.
Click to expand...

 
Well I just have to say that's a crock of shit. The world is FULL of women (and you bet I'm one and I know a lot more) who are perfectly happy with their child but regret the FUCK out of the actions that produced it. I adore my children and don't want them changed in any way but I hate their piece of shit father and wish he had never been born, wish I had never met him, wish I'd never wasted any time on him at all.

So your theory that someone can't love their child and regret making it at the same time is crappola.


----------



## AllieBaba

And in fact the whole world would be better off if the obnoxious shitheel would do everybody a favor and die like the animal he is.

Just saying.

Love our kids, though. Won't let him anywhere near them. Hope it makes him sleep badly at night.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Bristol Palin campaigns against teen pregnancies, is she saying that she regrets having her baby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's saying that the circumstances under which she got pregnant with him were not a good idea.  If she were campaigning for teenaged abortions, THAT would indicate that she regrets having her baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Does she regret her decision? Would she do something different otherwise? If she has no regrets about having her baby, she should also have no regrets about what directly led to it.
Click to expand...


Says who?  You?  Who elected YOU Supreme High Arbiter of How People Have To Feel?

A woman can regret making the decision to have sex (or many other decisions) without regretting the decision to give birth to the resultant baby.

Let me clarify for you, Sparky.  The circumstances under which I had my first child were VERY not optimal (No, you can't ask.  It's none of your business).  I regretted those circumstances quite a bit, but I NEVER regretted my child.  She was the silver lining on the dark cloud, the blessing that God generously granted me out of adversity.  She was also, in many ways, the main reason I regretted the circumstances so much:  because I loved her more than anyone in my entire life, and she deserved better.  But regretting that I didn't do better by her does NOT equate to regretting HER.


----------



## AllieBaba

No shit. Honestly, I know many women who have kids they love, but still rue the day they ever met that kid's dad. Pretty much every divorced woman with kids, lol.


----------



## Varth Dader

Cecilie1200 said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's saying that the circumstances under which she got pregnant with him were not a good idea.  If she were campaigning for teenaged abortions, THAT would indicate that she regrets having her baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Does she regret her decision? Would she do something different otherwise? If she has no regrets about having her baby, she should also have no regrets about what directly led to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who?  You?  Who elected YOU Supreme High Arbiter of How People Have To Feel?
> 
> A woman can regret making the decision to have sex (or many other decisions) without regretting the decision to give birth to the resultant baby.
> 
> Let me clarify for you, Sparky.  The circumstances under which I had my first child were VERY not optimal (No, you can't ask.  It's none of your business).  I regretted those circumstances quite a bit, but I NEVER regretted my child.  She was the silver lining on the dark cloud, the blessing that God generously granted me out of adversity.  She was also, in many ways, the main reason I regretted the circumstances so much:  because I loved her more than anyone in my entire life, and she deserved better.  But regretting that I didn't do better by her does NOT equate to regretting HER.
Click to expand...


What exactly is there to regret if not the kid? I fail to see any negative outcome for Bristol unless we are talking about here kid. Did she get an STD? Did she get raped? 
The baby could only come out of having unprotected sex with her boyfriend, which she did, and apparently it's bad enough she decided to appear in ads to discourage teens for having babies.

the candie's foundation

Anyways, this is to address the issue about Obama. When he said "punished" with a kid, he meant it in that very "not optimal" way you talk about.


----------



## Varth Dader

Cecilie1200 said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S: (n) *baby* (an unborn child; a human fetus) _"I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside"_
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> S: (n) *abortion* (termination of pregnancy)
> WordNet Search - 3.1
> 
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> At what age did you become a 'baby' by whatever definition makes you feel good about killing children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of honesty. I checked the first link you provided. The first definition is:
> 
> S: (n) baby, babe, infant (a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk) "the baby began to cry again"; "she held the baby in her arms"; "it sounds simple, but when you have your own baby it is all so different"
> 
> Apparently you had to pick the 4th definition to find a definition to match with your argument.
> 
> I refuse to engage in a debate about the word baby. I personally wouldn't call 8 cells a baby, but it seems you do. Fine. Call that a baby. And indeed, when you abort, you are killing that entity, which according to you, is a baby.
> 
> So, what is the next step? Is there a next step?
> 
> Tell us about under cases that relate to abortion. For example, I think I asked you before but did not recall an answer, do you think a mother that takes alcohol or smokes during a pregnancy should face consequences? How about the one that attempts to kill herself, fails but kills the fetus inside her tummy? Is that the same? Or how about the couple that uses fertility clinic services which kills embryos? Is that the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's news to you that words have multiple meanings and usages?  Or it's somehow dishonest to you to point out one definition in particular?
> 
> Yes, baby is often used to specify a child after birth, usually by people like you who want to pretend that unborn children are not alive.  This is why certain dictionaries now make mention of this peculiarity.  Many don't even bother, however, and just stick to the much more common (and more established) usage.
> 
> Note, for example, that Merriam-Webster keeps the definitions for "baby" very general, as its usage also usually is:
> 
> _1 a (1): an extremely young child; especially: infant (2): an extremely young animal b: the youngest of a group
> 
> 2 a: one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b: something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest _
> 
> On the other hand, if you look at the more specific synonym, "infant", you find this:
> 
> 
> _1 a (1): an extremely young child; especially: infant (2): an extremely young animal b: the youngest of a group
> 
> 
> 2 a: one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b: something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest_
> 
> The words people mistakenly try to use to mean "something other than a baby", like "fetus" and "embryo", are really only medical terms for denoting specific stages of development, and all refer to "babies".
Click to expand...


I told you, I refuse to engage on a debate on the meaning of the word baby because it is irrelevant. What matters is factually what is in the mother's womb, the right that entity has, the right the mother has, the right the father has, etc. You think that killing an embryo is the same as killing a born human. I don't.


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> I'll address your [idiotic] questions [that I've answered dozens of time] when you answer my question.
> 
> At what point did what change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?



There is no precise point. It's somewhere between when I was conceived to when I was born.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Does she regret her decision? Would she do something different otherwise? If she has no regrets about having her baby, she should also have no regrets about what directly led to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?  You?  Who elected YOU Supreme High Arbiter of How People Have To Feel?
> 
> A woman can regret making the decision to have sex (or many other decisions) without regretting the decision to give birth to the resultant baby.
> 
> Let me clarify for you, Sparky.  The circumstances under which I had my first child were VERY not optimal (No, you can't ask.  It's none of your business).  I regretted those circumstances quite a bit, but I NEVER regretted my child.  She was the silver lining on the dark cloud, the blessing that God generously granted me out of adversity.  She was also, in many ways, the main reason I regretted the circumstances so much:  because I loved her more than anyone in my entire life, and she deserved better.  But regretting that I didn't do better by her does NOT equate to regretting HER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly is there to regret if not the kid? I fail to see any negative outcome for Bristol unless we are talking about here kid. Did she get an STD? Did she get raped?
> The baby could only come out of having unprotected sex with her boyfriend, which she did, and apparently it's bad enough she decided to appear in ads to discourage teens for having babies.
> 
> the candie's foundation
> 
> Anyways, this is to address the issue about Obama. When he said "punished" with a kid, he meant it in that very "not optimal" way you talk about.
Click to expand...


Did you seriously just ask me what there is to regret about getting pregnant and having a baby as a teenager, aside from the baby's existence itself?  Really?!  Why not just ask me if water is wet?  I have no intention of wasting time answering such a boneheaded, painfully obvious question.  And if you really can't do any better than borderline retardation, I'm going to stop wasting time answering YOU.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Dr.Drock said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol there's those superb debating techniques again!
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all know what created implies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, WE all know what it MEANS.  Whatever connotations your fevered brain, rotted by the hatred and stupidity that marks ALL bigots, have assigned to the word are not our problem.
> 
> Create - To bring into existence
> 
> Don't blame any of us just because YOU can't bear to hear essential historical American documents quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me making note that christians are creationists shows I have a fevered brain rotted by hatred and a bigot?
> 
> 
> Ok you win, that's a very rational assessment.
> 
> 
> That's the best attribute you pro-lifers have, you can debate the abortion issue with intellect and rational and you never just go off the deep end by letting your emotions get the best of you.
Click to expand...


There you go again.  Trying to shut down the debate by bringing religion into it.

Creating something (like a person) is simple human biology and has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION!


----------



## Varth Dader

Cecilie1200 said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?  You?  Who elected YOU Supreme High Arbiter of How People Have To Feel?
> 
> A woman can regret making the decision to have sex (or many other decisions) without regretting the decision to give birth to the resultant baby.
> 
> Let me clarify for you, Sparky.  The circumstances under which I had my first child were VERY not optimal (No, you can't ask.  It's none of your business).  I regretted those circumstances quite a bit, but I NEVER regretted my child.  She was the silver lining on the dark cloud, the blessing that God generously granted me out of adversity.  She was also, in many ways, the main reason I regretted the circumstances so much:  because I loved her more than anyone in my entire life, and she deserved better.  But regretting that I didn't do better by her does NOT equate to regretting HER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is there to regret if not the kid? I fail to see any negative outcome for Bristol unless we are talking about here kid. Did she get an STD? Did she get raped?
> The baby could only come out of having unprotected sex with her boyfriend, which she did, and apparently it's bad enough she decided to appear in ads to discourage teens for having babies.
> 
> the candie's foundation
> 
> Anyways, this is to address the issue about Obama. When he said "punished" with a kid, he meant it in that very "not optimal" way you talk about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you seriously just ask me what there is to regret about getting pregnant and having a baby as a teenager, aside from the baby's existence itself?  Really?!  Why not just ask me if water is wet?  I have no intention of wasting time answering such a boneheaded, painfully obvious question.  And if you really can't do any better than borderline retardation, I'm going to stop wasting time answering YOU.
Click to expand...


I gave you other examples of (negative) consequences that could have occurred, but when Palin (or any one else for that matter) is in any of those ads, the message is clear to me. It says, don't be like me, don't have that baby.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

JBeukema said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me making note that christians are creationists shows I have a fevered brain rotted by hatred and a bigot?
> 
> 
> Ok you win, that's a very rational assessment.
> 
> 
> That's the best attribute you pro-lifers have, you can debate the abortion issue with intellect and rational and you never just go off the deep end by letting your emotions get the best of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, dumbfuck, you taking a quote from the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address as "Creationism" and "religion" is you being a fevered, hate-filled bigot.  And speaking of "letting your emotions get the best of you" . . .
> 
> Although the emotion that overwhelmed you might not have been hatred and bigotry.  It might just have been desperation to dismiss opponents before you ever had to actually DEBATE them.  Better to say, "Oh, you're just religious; I don't have to listen (thank God, because I have no arguments)" than to actually listen to his arguments and, perish forbid, think about them.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's he gonna do when someone points out that I'm an atheist?
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is there to regret if not the kid? I fail to see any negative outcome for Bristol unless we are talking about here kid. Did she get an STD? Did she get raped?
> The baby could only come out of having unprotected sex with her boyfriend, which she did, and apparently it's bad enough she decided to appear in ads to discourage teens for having babies.
> 
> the candie's foundation
> 
> Anyways, this is to address the issue about Obama. When he said "punished" with a kid, he meant it in that very "not optimal" way you talk about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you seriously just ask me what there is to regret about getting pregnant and having a baby as a teenager, aside from the baby's existence itself?  Really?!  Why not just ask me if water is wet?  I have no intention of wasting time answering such a boneheaded, painfully obvious question.  And if you really can't do any better than borderline retardation, I'm going to stop wasting time answering YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you other examples of (negative) consequences that could have occurred, but when Palin (or any one else for that matter) is in any of those ads, the message is clear to me. It says, don't be like me, don't have that baby.
Click to expand...


And you really can't imagine saying, "That was a bad life choice, even though something good came out of it" unless someone comes from a poor family, or gets raped, or gets an STD?  Christ, you're really dumb, if that's true.

Anyways, there's a WORLD of difference between "these are bad circumstances" and "punished with a baby".  Babies are NOT punishment.  Even bad circumstances are not "punishment".  They're just tough to live with.  And babies are wonderful little miracles.  Always.  I don't even want to IMAGINE being someone who could think otherwise.


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Bristol Palin campaigns against teen pregnancies, is she saying that she regrets having her baby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's saying that the circumstances under which she got pregnant with him were not a good idea.  If she were campaigning for teenaged abortions, THAT would indicate that she regrets having her baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Does she regret her decision? Would she do something different otherwise? If she has no regrets about having her baby, she should also have no regrets about what directly led to it.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute.

You're seriously claiming that those women who, after being assaulted or abused, chose to not kill their baby and do not regret giving that child up for adoption or who continue to love and be a mother to their child... must somehow retroactively have been all for being raped?

I see three possibilities:
-You really want to convince yourself women want to be raped

-You're a mentally retarded fuckwit who should've been aborted and can't begin to comprehend human emotions like love

-You're a sorry sack of shit and a troll who gets a kick out of threads like this

In any case, why don't you do the world a favour take a nap with your neck across the train tracks?


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently being polite, which I would find an easy goal to achieve, eludes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want me to be polite? Stop being a dishonest fuckwit and exploiter of rape victims and answer the fucking question. It's not a hard question.
> 
> At what point did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?
> 
> So you can't tell me why killing one child is okay and killing another is not okay? You can't tell me why shooting you in the face is not okay but punching a hole in your head and vacuuming your brains out or ripping you limb from limb is
> Why?
> 
> 
> Why not? What's the difference?
> 
> 
> What changed?
> 
> 
> 
> Then I would need a very compelling reason, and the only one I can think of is life of the mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about halfway through birth? Or when crowning starts? Zor when her water breaks? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that?...   ..?
> 
> What changes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 cells is not a baby. 16 cells is not a baby. 32 cells is not a baby. etc.
> 
> If embryos are destroyed in fertility clinics, are these abortions too?
Click to expand...


Embryos?  Cells?

All the definitions surrounding this subject (from Zygote to Senior-Citizen) are nothing more than a description of certain stages of a human beings development.

So, as far as Im concerned, the blob of cells argument is worthless because it ultimately boils down to Its okay to kill them because they dont look like us.


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> [
> What exactly is there to regret if not the kid?



-Things about the father

-Not being in a better situation to provide for one's child



> I fail to see any negative outcome for Bristol unless we are talking about here kid. Did she get an STD? Did she get raped?



It's none of your fucking business. If she wanted you to know, she'd tell you.





> The baby could only come out of having unprotected sex with her boyfriend, which she did



I see you don't know anything about birth control and prophylactics.



> , and apparently it's bad enough she decided to appear in ads to discourage teens for having babies.



No, she encouraged them to avoid unprotected sex until ready to have children. I've never heard of her encouraging girls to kill their unborn children.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's saying that the circumstances under which she got pregnant with him were not a good idea.  If she were campaigning for teenaged abortions, THAT would indicate that she regrets having her baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Does she regret her decision? Would she do something different otherwise? If she has no regrets about having her baby, she should also have no regrets about what directly led to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait a minute.
> 
> You're seriously claiming that those women who, after being assaulted or abused, chose to not kill their baby and do not regret giving that child up for adoption or who continue to love and be a mother to their child... must somehow retroactively have been all for being raped?
> 
> I see three possibilities:
> -You really want to convince yourself women want to be raped
> 
> -You're a mentally retarded fuckwit who should've been aborted and can't begin to comprehend human emotions like love
> 
> -You're a sorry sack of shit and a troll who gets a kick out of threads like this
> 
> In any case, why don't you do the world a favour take a nap with your neck across the train tracks?
Click to expand...


Harsh, but frankly, I think it's kinda justified.


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> I told you, I refuse to engage on a debate on the meaning of the word baby because it is irrelevant.



Your entire argument was that the child wasn't a 'baby' at the earliest stages of development.





> What matters is factually what is in the mother's womb


A living human being.


> , the right that entity has


All rights rest on the right to one's life





> , the right the mother has


To kill for convenience? At any age?





> You think that killing an embryo is the same as killing a born human. I don't.


Why? What changes when it moves three feet to the left during the birthing process?


What about when during crowning? One toe inside the mother? Halfway out? What about before the umbilical cord is cut? What about the afterbirth?

What changes when?


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll address your [idiotic] questions [that I've answered dozens of time] when you answer my question.
> 
> At what point did what change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no precise point. It's somewhere between when I was conceived to when I was born.
Click to expand...

So *nothing* changes? So you have no argument other than 'I want to kill babies'?


----------



## JBeukema

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want me to be polite? Stop being a dishonest fuckwit and exploiter of rape victims and answer the fucking question. It's not a hard question.
> 
> At what point did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?
> 
> So you can't tell me why killing one child is okay and killing another is not okay? You can't tell me why shooting you in the face is not okay but punching a hole in your head and vacuuming your brains out or ripping you limb from limb is
> Why?
> 
> 
> Why not? What's the difference?
> 
> 
> What changed?
> 
> What about halfway through birth? Or when crowning starts? Zor when her water breaks? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that? Or an hour before that?...   ..?
> 
> What changes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 cells is not a baby. 16 cells is not a baby. 32 cells is not a baby. etc.
> 
> If embryos are destroyed in fertility clinics, are these abortions too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Embryos?  Cells?
> 
> All the definitions surrounding this subject (from Zygote to Senior-Citizen) are nothing more than a description of certain stages of a human beings development.
> 
> So, as far as Im concerned, the blob of cells argument is worthless because it ultimately boils down to Its okay to kill them because they dont look like us.
Click to expand...

Which takes us to margaret sanger and the reason Planned Parenthood exists...


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Dr.Drock said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want it to be a states issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States should decide for themselves whom it's okay to kill?
> 
> So reviving the Mormon Extermination Order would be okay with you? What if we say that, to bring down medicare costs, killing anyone over 65 is okay?
> 
> Homicide's 'not a big issue'?
> 
> 
> 
> so if my state voted into act pro-life legislation it wouldn't be a big deal to me, my only concern would be the creation of an abortion black market where you're moving abortions from the doctors office to the back alley and having women self-perform them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can Democrats find a back-alley abortionist to kill their baby, but not a condom to use in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ur other post that you said "such as yourself" you copy and pasted a post and thank yous that didn't include me, so that was confusing.
> 
> 1.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 2.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 3.) Most pro-lifers I talk to want Roe v Wade overturned and have it turned into a state's issue, which is exactly what I want.
> 4.) I dunno how/why this became partisan, I've never voted for a democrat in my life, a condom should always be used when no pregnancy is desired but as we both know they aren't 100%.
Click to expand...


Dont you mean you dont view it as Murder until a certain time?

Isnt it always killing?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> States should decide for themselves whom it's okay to kill?
> 
> So reviving the Mormon Extermination Order would be okay with you? What if we say that, to bring down medicare costs, killing anyone over 65 is okay?
> 
> Homicide's 'not a big issue'?
> 
> 
> Why can Democrats find a back-alley abortionist to kill their baby, but not a condom to use in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ur other post that you said "such as yourself" you copy and pasted a post and thank yous that didn't include me, so that was confusing.
> 
> 1.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 2.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 3.) Most pro-lifers I talk to want Roe v Wade overturned and have it turned into a state's issue, which is exactly what I want.
> 4.) I dunno how/why this became partisan, I've never voted for a democrat in my life, a condom should always be used when no pregnancy is desired but as we both know they aren't 100%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont you mean you dont view it as Murder until a certain time?
> 
> Isnt it always killing?
Click to expand...


He's still laboring under the delusion that "alive" is a matter of opinion and preference.


----------



## JBeukema

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> States should decide for themselves whom it's okay to kill?
> 
> So reviving the Mormon Extermination Order would be okay with you? What if we say that, to bring down medicare costs, killing anyone over 65 is okay?
> 
> Homicide's 'not a big issue'?
> 
> 
> Why can Democrats find a back-alley abortionist to kill their baby, but not a condom to use in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ur other post that you said "such as yourself" you copy and pasted a post and thank yous that didn't include me, so that was confusing.
> 
> 1.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 2.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 3.) Most pro-lifers I talk to want Roe v Wade overturned and have it turned into a state's issue, which is exactly what I want.
> 4.) I dunno how/why this became partisan, I've never voted for a democrat in my life, a condom should always be used when no pregnancy is desired but as we both know they aren't 100%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont you mean you dont view it as Murder until a certain time?
> 
> Isnt it always killing?
Click to expand...



Admitting it was killing a human being would mean he'd have to face his conscience. That's why they can't be honest with themselves or others- their conscience tells them they're murderers.

Interesting, one of them here can't say rape and suicide bombings are wrong because admitting one's right to do what one wishes with/to one's body doesn't include acts which cause direct harm to another would be admitting her conscience is right and her rhetoric is bullshit.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ur other post that you said "such as yourself" you copy and pasted a post and thank yous that didn't include me, so that was confusing.
> 
> 1.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 2.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 3.) Most pro-lifers I talk to want Roe v Wade overturned and have it turned into a state's issue, which is exactly what I want.
> 4.) I dunno how/why this became partisan, I've never voted for a democrat in my life, a condom should always be used when no pregnancy is desired but as we both know they aren't 100%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont you mean you dont view it as Murder until a certain time?
> 
> Isnt it always killing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's still laboring under the delusion that "alive" is a matter of opinion and preference.
Click to expand...


Yes, that does seem to be the case.


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ur other post that you said "such as yourself" you copy and pasted a post and thank yous that didn't include me, so that was confusing.
> 
> 1.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 2.) I don't view it as killing until a certain time, you know that.
> 3.) Most pro-lifers I talk to want Roe v Wade overturned and have it turned into a state's issue, which is exactly what I want.
> 4.) I dunno how/why this became partisan, I've never voted for a democrat in my life, a condom should always be used when no pregnancy is desired but as we both know they aren't 100%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont you mean you dont view it as Murder until a certain time?
> 
> Isnt it always killing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's still laboring under the delusion that "alive" is a matter of opinion and preference.
Click to expand...

or of convenience


----------



## Gadawg73

JBeukema said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would be filing a challenge against a state that had a law banning abortion and base your argument that it is unconstitutional because that law does not provide equal protection under the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> Life > Convenience
> 
> If some persons are not given equal protection of their right to life under the law, then the law is unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> There would have to be state laws BANNING IT for your argument to make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't very bright, are you?
Click to expand...


A right to life argument? 
Show me some citations with that and crosses with equal protection under the law.
Where is it? Where is there any case law to support the nonsense you post?


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> [
> 
> Says who?  You?  Who elected YOU Supreme High Arbiter of How People Have To Feel



Yet another "Oh, the irony" posts from the Cesspit.

Tell me, you sanctimonious twat, do you EVER get sick of your own voice, and jaws yapping? It wouldn't surprise me one iota if some scientist discovered that the butterfly effect of you opening your fat jowls every five seconds is the cause of all those tornadoes happening stateside...


----------



## Gadawg73

Cecilie1200 said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think he'll ever tell his daughters what he thinks of them?
> 
> 
> 
> _Look, I got two  daughters - 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first  about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them  punished with a baby_
> -Barrack H. Obama, President of the United States​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Bristol Palin campaigns against teen pregnancies, is she saying that she regrets having her baby?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she's saying that the circumstances under which she got pregnant with him were not a good idea.  If she were campaigning for teenaged abortions, THAT would indicate that she regrets having her baby.
Click to expand...


So now you admit that "circumstances" are different with each and every pregnancy in America. It takes a while to get the truth out but I am used to that in my work.
And you folks want the GOVERNMENT to be judge and jury as to which set of "circumstances" merit an abortion and which do not.
Closet liberal. 
True patriots of liberty always FEAR THE GOVERNMENT and always want to LIMIT their power.


----------



## Immanuel

Cecilie1200 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to answer to someone.... eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in the same God I do and I have always thought that you do, then forgiveness has long been extended.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forgiveness being extended is not the same as being forgiven.  For that, one must feel remorse, want forgiveness, and intend to change.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree as this then takes the Grace of God out of the picture and puts salvation in the hands of the sinner, but this is off topic and should be discussed elsewhere.  If I have to repent to receive forgiveness, then repentance is a "work".  If I have to "accept" Jesus by some kind of magic prayer, then the Blood of Christ has no value at all.  My salvation depends upon my speaking some magic words.

Eph 2:8-9.

Immie


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Gadawg73 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Bristol Palin campaigns against teen pregnancies, is she saying that she regrets having her baby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's saying that the circumstances under which she got pregnant with him were not a good idea.  If she were campaigning for teenaged abortions, THAT would indicate that she regrets having her baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...And you folks want the GOVERNMENT to be judge and jury as to which set of "circumstances" merit an abortion and which do not.
> ...
Click to expand...


Ah, no, actually us folks only want the government to protect the people who just happen to be living in the womb the same as they protect everyone else.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in the same God I do and I have always thought that you do, then forgiveness has long been extended.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgiveness being extended is not the same as being forgiven.  For that, one must feel remorse, want forgiveness, and intend to change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to disagree as this then takes the Grace of God out of the picture and puts salvation in the hands of the sinner, but this is off topic and should be discussed elsewhere.  If I have to repent to receive forgiveness, then repentance is a "work".  If I have to "accept" Jesus by some kind of magic prayer, then the Blood of Christ has no value at all.  My salvation depends upon my speaking some magic words.
> 
> Eph 2:8-9.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Salvation depends on you grasping the hand attempting to pull your drowning butt into the boat, you're absolutely right about that.  Nowhere does the Bible indicate that you get to do any stupid, evil thing you want, and then God scoops you up and saves you against your will.

We can certainly continue this elsewhere if you like.


----------



## JBeukema

Gadawg73 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would be filing a challenge against a state that had a law banning abortion and base your argument that it is unconstitutional because that law does not provide equal protection under the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> Life > Convenience
> 
> If some persons are not given equal protection of their right to life under the law, then the law is unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> There would have to be state laws BANNING IT for your argument to make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't very bright, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A right to life argument?
Click to expand...


All rights rest on the right to one's life. If there is no right to life itself- to even exist- then there are no rights at all.





> Show me some citations with that



You mean you didn't know homicide is criminal in many cases? You've never heard of wrongful death suits?


----------



## JBeukema

Gadawg73 said:


> True patriots of liberty always FEAR THE GOVERNMENT


Wrong, retard.

They make the government fear the People.

Get your own rhetoric right, at least.


----------



## Chris

Half of all women in America will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime.

Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused.

Therefore abortion opponents are pro child abuse.


----------



## elvis

Chris said:


> Half of all women in America will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime.
> 
> Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused.
> 
> Therefore abortion opponents are pro child abuse.



You are the poster child for abortion.


----------



## Cecilie1200

elvis said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Half of all women in America will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime.
> 
> Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused.
> 
> Therefore abortion opponents are pro child abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the poster child for abortion.
Click to expand...


Chris is incapable of saying anything that isn't a load of hogwash.

If widespread abortion on demand is a cure for child abuse, why is it that child abuse rates haven't decreased drastically since we started killing over a million babies a year?  (Leaving aside the fact that killing them is about as extreme a form of child abuse as I can imagine.)

And how the fuck are we defining "unwanted"?  I assume with a ludicrous number like "half of all women", we aren't talking about a strict, "Oh my GOD, I just gave birth to Chris!  Aaaaggghhh!!!" scenario.


----------



## AllieBaba

Chris said:


> Half of all women in America will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime.
> 
> Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused.
> 
> Therefore abortion opponents are pro child abuse.


 
Logical fallacy.

Besides being untrue. There are absolutely no statistics which support that ridiculous statement. And, in fact, the stats show an INCREASE in child abuse since the advent of legalized abortion.

Therefore abortion advocates want not only to kill children, but to abuse them as well.


----------



## JBeukema

Chris said:


> Half of all women in America will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime.



Maybe more of them should have kept their legs closed?


> Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused.


As are black babies..


> Therefore abortion opponents are pro child abuse.


And anyone who opposes sterilization of blacks 

Using Chris's reasoning, blacks, poor people, anyone with a history of depression... _must_ be sterilized!

For the children


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> stats show an INCREASE in child abuse since the advent of legalized abortion.


If it's okay to kill her, why not to hit her?


----------



## Gadawg73

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's saying that the circumstances under which she got pregnant with him were not a good idea.  If she were campaigning for teenaged abortions, THAT would indicate that she regrets having her baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...And you folks want the GOVERNMENT to be judge and jury as to which set of "circumstances" merit an abortion and which do not.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, no, actually us folks only want the government to protect the people who just happen to be living in the womb the same as they protect everyone else.
Click to expand...


With what, your words?
You have yet to state ONE EXAMPLE of how you would legislate abortion.
Give us how it would be set up and how it would work anyway OTHER THAN individual states with their individual criminal codes.
Or is it the fact that since you have not addressed that you have no clue as to how any of that works?
So all we end up with is your words and no substance as to how the laws would differ in each state.


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> Admitting it was killing a human being would mean he'd have to face his conscience. That's why they can't be honest with themselves or others- their conscience tells them they're murderers.



I doubt many people having abortions walk away from the experience with a pristine conscience.


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admitting it was killing a human being would mean he'd have to face his conscience. That's why they can't be honest with themselves or others- their conscience tells them they're murderers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many people having abortions walk away from the experience with a pristine conscience.
Click to expand...

Why? You people insist it's not a baby, it's not human, it's not alive... So why the troubled conscience?

Why can't you even be honest with yourselves?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admitting it was killing a human being would mean he'd have to face his conscience. That's why they can't be honest with themselves or others- their conscience tells them they're murderers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many people having abortions walk away from the experience with a pristine conscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You people insist it's not a baby, it's not human, it's not alive... So why the troubled conscience?
> 
> Why can't you even be honest with yourselves?
Click to expand...


I'm still trying to figure out why they keep saying that "No one's in favor of abortion" and "We want it to be rare" if there's nothing wrong with it.  And if there's something so wrong with it that "No one supports it", why are they so against inhibiting it?  Is abortion a bad, undesirable thing, or isn't it?  And if it is, why are we allowing it virtually unfettered?


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admitting it was killing a human being would mean he'd have to face his conscience. That's why they can't be honest with themselves or others- their conscience tells them they're murderers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many people having abortions walk away from the experience with a pristine conscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You people insist it's not a baby, it's not human, it's not alive... So why the troubled conscience?
> 
> Why can't you even be honest with yourselves?
Click to expand...


It's a human in the making, stopped in its track.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many people having abortions walk away from the experience with a pristine conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You people insist it's not a baby, it's not human, it's not alive... So why the troubled conscience?
> 
> Why can't you even be honest with yourselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a human in the making, stopped in its track.
Click to expand...


So if it's just "a human in the making" rather than an actual human (not that any single scrap of medical science supports that assertion), why is that a bad thing?  As pro-aborts keep telling us, that's comparable to an appendix or one's tonsils:  human tissue, but not a _person_.  And who has a troubled conscience over having their appendix out, right?

What's the problem here?


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> It's a human in the making, stopped in its track.


Why can't you people ever be honest?

Human: An organism that is a member of the species _homo sapiens sapien_s

Are you claiming that you used to be a different species and then you slowly changed species? Is that what changed? At what age does your DNA change from (Salmon? canine familiaris? Liberus Retardus?) to human DNA?

Biology For Dummies, 2nd Edition:Book Information - For Dummies

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/1416037063"]Amazon.com: The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology With STUDENT CONSULT Online Access (9781416037064): Keith L. Moore MSc PhD FIAC FRSM FAAA, T. V. N. Persaud MD PhD DSc FRCPath (Lond.) FAAA: Books[/ame]


----------



## Varth Dader

Cecilie1200 said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You people insist it's not a baby, it's not human, it's not alive... So why the troubled conscience?
> 
> Why can't you even be honest with yourselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a human in the making, stopped in its track.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if it's just "a human in the making" rather than an actual human (not that any single scrap of medical science supports that assertion), why is that a bad thing?  As pro-aborts keep telling us, that's comparable to an appendix or one's tonsils:  human tissue, but not a _person_.  And who has a troubled conscience over having their appendix out, right?
> 
> What's the problem here?
Click to expand...


I don't want to speak for others. I think a embryo or fetus is human life. I really don't understand what you are thinking. It seems that you think that when an abortion is done I think it's nothing. I don't. I would rather never see an abortion take place. 

Maybe you can answer this question: would you ban pregnant mothers from drinking or smoking?


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> I think a embryo or fetus is human life.



There's no 'think' about it.

Whether Earth is flat or [roughly] spherical is not a matter of opinion. 

Now... at what point did you DNA change from [?!?!?!?!] to human and at what point did killing you in cold blood become not-okay?


----------



## Varth Dader

JBeukema said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a embryo or fetus is human life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'think' about it.
> 
> Whether Earth is flat or [roughly] spherical is not a matter of opinion.
> 
> Now... at what point did you DNA change from [?!?!?!?!] to human and at what point did killing you in cold blood become not-okay?
Click to expand...


Who said DNA changes at any point?

I think I answered second question many times. I said I am not willing to give you a point. Any point I would give you would be rejected by you.


----------



## JBeukema

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a embryo or fetus is human life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'think' about it.
> 
> Whether Earth is flat or [roughly] spherical is not a matter of opinion.
> 
> Now... at what point did you DNA change from [?!?!?!?!] to human and at what point did killing you in cold blood become not-okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said DNA changes at any point?
Click to expand...


You did. You said you used to not be human but then became human.

Can't even follow your own bullshit?





> I think I answered second question many times


You've refused to answer any question.





> . I said I am not willing to give you a point


So you can't tell me why killing a child one day is okay but not the next?

Would it be okay to shoot you in the head in cold blood?





> Any point I would give you would be rejected by you.



Not if it weren't bullshit.

Now answer the questions
-At one point did you DNA change so you became human

-At what age, and for what reason, did killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not okay thing?


----------



## snjmom

JBeukema said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a embryo or fetus is human life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'think' about it.
> 
> Whether Earth is flat or [roughly] spherical is not a matter of opinion.
> 
> Now... at what point did you DNA change from [?!?!?!?!] to human and *at what point did killing you in cold blood become not-okay?*
Click to expand...



After I was born.

If I accidently unthaw a frozen embryo, have I committed murder?


----------



## JBeukema

snjmom said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a embryo or fetus is human life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'think' about it.
> 
> Whether Earth is flat or [roughly] spherical is not a matter of opinion.
> 
> Now... at what point did you DNA change from [?!?!?!?!] to human and *at what point did killing you in cold blood become not-okay?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After I was born.
Click to expand...

Why? What fundamental thing about your nature changes when you moved three feet to the left that made it no longer okay to swing you buy the legs and smash your skull against a wall, vacuum out your brain, rip you limb from limb, poison you, suffocate or drown you, or otherwise kill you?

What about when you had one toe in? When you were halfway out? When you were crowning? What changes? 

Do I have to wait 'til the umbilical cord is cut? What about the afterbirth?


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Gadawg73 said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And you folks want the GOVERNMENT to be judge and jury as to which set of "circumstances" merit an abortion and which do not.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, no, actually us folks only want the government to protect the people who just happen to be living in the womb the same as they protect everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With what, your words?
> You have yet to state ONE EXAMPLE of how you would legislate abortion.
> Give us how it would be set up and how it would work anyway OTHER THAN individual states with their individual criminal codes.
> Or is it the fact that since you have not addressed that you have no clue as to how any of that works?
> So all we end up with is your words and no substance as to how the laws would differ in each state.
Click to expand...


I am not sure why you think I want new laws because I thought I was fairly clear in my post when I said I only want the same protection for people who are living in the womb as the people who are old enough to be born have.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Varth Dader said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many people having abortions walk away from the experience with a pristine conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You people insist it's not a baby, it's not human, it's not alive... So why the troubled conscience?
> 
> Why can't you even be honest with yourselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a human in the making, stopped in its track.
Click to expand...


Give me a break.

It is a human being (pure and simple).  And just because it happens to look a little different then you and I at these early stages of development does not give us the right to treat it as property to be disposed of at the owners whim.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Varth Dader said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a human in the making, stopped in its track.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if it's just "a human in the making" rather than an actual human (not that any single scrap of medical science supports that assertion), why is that a bad thing?  As pro-aborts keep telling us, that's comparable to an appendix or one's tonsils:  human tissue, but not a _person_.  And who has a troubled conscience over having their appendix out, right?
> 
> What's the problem here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to speak for others. I think a embryo or fetus is human life. I really don't understand what you are thinking. It seems that you think that when an abortion is done I think it's nothing. I don't. I would rather never see an abortion take place.
> 
> Maybe you can answer this question: would you ban pregnant mothers from drinking or smoking?
Click to expand...



So maybe YOU can answer this question: If you agree that abortion is taking a human life, why are you on this tread defending it?

Do you really think one more abortion advocate is going to make any difference?

I got some news for you; the people who need your advocacy are the ones who (by your own admission) are being killed.  Killed!  They are being killed in our free country without any of the due process afforded all others because they just happen to be very young and look different.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

snjmom said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a embryo or fetus is human life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'think' about it.
> 
> Whether Earth is flat or [roughly] spherical is not a matter of opinion.
> 
> Now... at what point did you DNA change from [?!?!?!?!] to human and *at what point did killing you in cold blood become not-okay?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After I was born.
> 
> *If I accidently unthaw a frozen embryo, have I committed murder?*
Click to expand...


Since our current law does not extend human rights to embryonic humans, the answer is, of course, no.  But that does not mean you have not killed a person (albeit a very small one).


----------



## snjmom

JBeukema said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'think' about it.
> 
> Whether Earth is flat or [roughly] spherical is not a matter of opinion.
> 
> Now... at what point did you DNA change from [?!?!?!?!] to human and *at what point did killing you in cold blood become not-okay?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After I was born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? What fundamental thing about your nature changes when you moved three feet to the left that made it no longer okay to swing you buy the legs and smash your skull against a wall, vacuum out your brain, rip you limb from limb, poison you, suffocate or drown you, or otherwise kill you?
> 
> What about when you had one toe in? When you were halfway out? When you were crowning? What changes?
> 
> Do I have to wait 'til the umbilical cord is cut? What about the afterbirth?
Click to expand...



Everything changes. Have you never experienced pregnancy and had a child?

Everything changes after delivery. Do we produce death certificates for miscarriages? 

If you can't see the fundamental difference between being in the womb and out of the womb, you won't ever get it. When I fry an egg, am I killing a chicken?


----------



## AllieBaba

I've experienced pregnancy and had children, including miscarriages.

My babies weren't *non-babies* until birth.


----------



## snjmom

AllieBaba said:


> I've experienced pregnancy and had children, including miscarriages.
> 
> My babies weren't *non-babies* until birth.



Did you find there to be a difference between them when they were in the womb and after delivery?

Or were they exactly alike? Did you get investigated on your miscarriages to make sure they weren't suspicious deaths? Were you issued death certificates for the miscarriages? Did you collect an insurance policy to pay for the funeral?

Would you expect these things to happen if the child had been delivered?

If so, what is the difference?


----------



## HUGGY

*Why Can't The Anti Abortion People Be Honest?*

First of all none of you give a rats ass what happens here on earth unless it relates to your stupid fantasy of pleasing your invisible friend God and going to never never land AKA heaven.

You all piss and moan about how a zigot is a life ..but what you REALLY mean is it is a life with a SOUL that has a right to go to heaven.

News flash!  There is no such thing as a SOUL.  That is just another one of your stupid fantasies founded in your fear of death and the apparent uselessness of your existence.  AKA There *MUST* be more to it all...THEREFORE there *IS* MORE to it all. It is astonishing how you all leapfrog over the obvious obstructions to your logic to arrive at your shaky conclusions.

The real truth is that you do not cry for unborn babies for them..you do it for your make believe God.

If all of you worthless fucks woke up tomorrow and figured out that there was no God you wouldn't give abortion a second thought.  You would see another human life as another drain on already stretched resources.  You would rightly ask yourself where are the tens of thousands of pounds of food ...hundreds of thousands of gallons of potable water...tens of thousands of gallons of gasoline.. tens of millions of watts of electricity going to come from to sustain this new life? 

Truth is that better advice on the future of humanity could be better located within the walls of a mental institution.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Cecilie1200

snjmom said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a embryo or fetus is human life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'think' about it.
> 
> Whether Earth is flat or [roughly] spherical is not a matter of opinion.
> 
> Now... at what point did you DNA change from [?!?!?!?!] to human and *at what point did killing you in cold blood become not-okay?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After I was born.
> 
> If I accidently unthaw a frozen embryo, have I committed murder?
Click to expand...


Murder?  No, because it's not illegal.  Did you just kill a human being?  Yes.


----------



## Cecilie1200

snjmom said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> After I was born.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What fundamental thing about your nature changes when you moved three feet to the left that made it no longer okay to swing you buy the legs and smash your skull against a wall, vacuum out your brain, rip you limb from limb, poison you, suffocate or drown you, or otherwise kill you?
> 
> What about when you had one toe in? When you were halfway out? When you were crowning? What changes?
> 
> Do I have to wait 'til the umbilical cord is cut? What about the afterbirth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everything changes. Have you never experienced pregnancy and had a child?
Click to expand...


I have, three times, and I'd like to hear a REAL answer to his question, rather than "I have a vagina, so I know more".



snjmom said:


> Everything changes after delivery. Do we produce death certificates for miscarriages?



So if someone doesn't have a birth certificate, he isn't alive and not a person?  What the fuck does a legal document have to do with the question OR the issue?

Oh, wait, I know.  It's because pro-aborts believe that humanity is conveyed by OTHER people wanting you around.



snjmom said:


> If you can't see the fundamental difference between being in the womb and out of the womb, you won't ever get it. When I fry an egg, am I killing a chicken?



Are humans birds?  Because last time I checked, we weren't even biologically or taxonomically CLOSE to birds.  Why not compare us to trees, while you're at it?  Why even stay in the animal kingdom while reaching for insane comparisons?


----------



## Cecilie1200

snjmom said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've experienced pregnancy and had children, including miscarriages.
> 
> My babies weren't *non-babies* until birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you find there to be a difference between them when they were in the womb and after delivery?
Click to expand...


Yeah.  The difference was location.



snjmom said:


> Or were they exactly alike? Did you get investigated on your miscarriages to make sure they weren't suspicious deaths? Were you issued death certificates for the miscarriages? Did you collect an insurance policy to pay for the funeral?



What IS it with you and this whole "it's legal, so that settles it" riff?  What kind of lame ditz thinks that the answer to the question of "Should abortion be legal?" is "Yes, because it's legal."

This takes "life is all about how convenient you are to other people" to a level of stupidity that is just breathtaking.



snjmom said:


> Would you expect these things to happen if the child had been delivered?
> 
> If so, what is the difference?



Baby-killers like you control the courts and through them, the law.  Amazingly enough, though, "it's legal" means nothing to SANE, INTELLIGENT people whose entire goal is to CHANGE the law.

For someone who likes to claim her vagina makes her arguments superior, you sure make women look bad.


----------



## JBeukema

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, no, actually us folks only want the government to protect the people who just happen to be living in the womb the same as they protect everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With what, your words?
> You have yet to state ONE EXAMPLE of how you would legislate abortion.
> Give us how it would be set up and how it would work anyway OTHER THAN individual states with their individual criminal codes.
> Or is it the fact that since you have not addressed that you have no clue as to how any of that works?
> So all we end up with is your words and no substance as to how the laws would differ in each state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure why you think I want new laws because I thought I was fairly clear in my post when I said I only want the same protection for people who are living in the womb as the people who are old enough to be born have.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that some are born further along than others, so an older child might not yet be born though a younger child is.


----------



## JBeukema

snjmom said:


> Everything changes after delivery.


What, exactly, changes?





> Do we produce death certificates for miscarriages?



Did we issue one for OBL? Did we issue them for blacks who were lynched?

Are you supposed to have some sort of point?





> If you can't see the fundamental difference between being in the womb and out of the womb, you won't ever get it


You've moved three feet to the left. What, exactly, has changed about the fundamental nature of what you are?


> When I fry an egg, am I killing a chicken?



As if we needle more proof you're retarded 

Answers.com - Are chicken eggs you eat fertilized or unfertilized


----------



## JBeukema

snjmom said:


> Did you collect an insurance policy to pay for the funeral?



So the poor [who can't afford life insurance] aren't human and have no right live?

And we're back to the reason Planned Parenthood exists in the first place...


----------



## JBeukema

HUGGY said:


> *Why Can't The Anti Abortion People Be Honest?*
> 
> First of all none of you give a rats ass what happens here on earth unless it relates to your stupid fantasy of pleasing your invisible friend God and going to never never land AKA heaven.










> You all piss and moan about how a zigot is a life


What's a zigot?





> ..but what you REALLY mean is it is a life with a SOUL that has a right to go to heaven.










> News flash!  There is no such thing as a SOUL.








> That is just another one of your stupid fantasies founded in your fear of death and the apparent uselessness of your existence.  AKA There *MUST* be more to it all...THEREFORE there *IS* MORE to it all.








> It is astonishing how you all leapfrog over the obvious obstructions to your logic to arrive at your shaky conclusions.





> The real truth is that you do not cry for unborn babies for them..you do it for your make believe God.








> If all of you worthless fucks woke up tomorrow and figured out that there was no God you wouldn't give abortion a second thought


http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/01sally_girl_throw_tantrum_hg_clr1.gif?w=350&h=292


> .  You would see another human life as another drain on already stretched resources






> .  You would rightly ask yourself where are the tens of thousands of pounds of food ...hundreds of thousands of gallons of potable water...tens of thousands of gallons of gasoline.. tens of millions of watts of electricity going to come from to sustain this new life?









> Truth is that better advice on the future of humanity could be better located within the walls of a mental institution.


You would know



> Have a nice day.


You done with your tantrum now, little girl?


----------



## JBeukema

It was legal to Kill Mormons in Missouri, too...


----------



## Zoom-boing

snjmom said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've experienced pregnancy and had children, including miscarriages.
> 
> My babies weren't *non-babies* until birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you find there to be a difference between them when they were in the womb and after delivery?*
> 
> Or were they exactly alike? Did you get investigated on your miscarriages to make sure they weren't suspicious deaths? Were you issued death certificates for the miscarriages? Did you collect an insurance policy to pay for the funeral?
> 
> Would you expect these things to happen if the child had been delivered?
> 
> If so, what is the difference?
Click to expand...


Aside from location, their stage of development.

They are human beings from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg.  Once implanted into the womb, they can continue on their development journey.  Just because a 2 month old fetus looks different and is not as developed as a 2 month old born baby _doesn't make it any less of a human being_.  

Why is it ok to take the life of a 2 month old unborn human but not ok to take the life of a 2 month old born human? (hint:  because it's legal isn't an answer)


----------



## smartdonkey

Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception? 

How about banning alcohol since pregnant drinkers endanger the fetus? Or banning fatty food, same argument?


----------



## Zoom-boing

smartdonkey said:


> Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception?



Peachy.  Until one fertilizes the other a human being has not been created.  



> How about banning alcohol since pregnant drinkers endanger the fetus? Or banning fatty food, same argument?



How about answering questions already asked.


----------



## JBeukema

Zoom-boing said:


> Why is it ok to take the life of a 2 month old unborn human


Because they don't look like us. Same reason it's okay to kill blacks.

Which brings us once again to Margaret Sanger and the reason Planned Parenthood exists...


----------



## Cecilie1200

smartdonkey said:


> Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception?
> 
> How about banning alcohol since pregnant drinkers endanger the fetus? Or banning fatty food, same argument?



My God, were all of you out smoking behind the same gym together during high school biology?

Let's try the Socratic method here, see if you can actually produce something that sounds vaguely educated.  What is the difference between sperm and ova and an embryo?  I promise you, they DID cover this in school.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

snjmom said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> After I was born.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What fundamental thing about your nature changes when you moved three feet to the left that made it no longer okay to swing you buy the legs and smash your skull against a wall, vacuum out your brain, rip you limb from limb, poison you, suffocate or drown you, or otherwise kill you?
> 
> What about when you had one toe in? When you were halfway out? When you were crowning? What changes?
> 
> Do I have to wait 'til the umbilical cord is cut? What about the afterbirth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...If you can't see the fundamental difference between being in the womb and out of the womb, you won't ever get it. When I fry an egg, am I killing a chicken?
Click to expand...


I&#8217;m afraid you&#8217;re the one who does not get it.

I agree that a mother&#8217;s egg belongs to the mother because a comparison between her DNA and the egg&#8217;s will prove it.

However, that same comparison done with her fertilized egg will not match.  Nope, instead, it will reveal the brand new DNA of her offspring.

And you really have to be willing to accept this fundamental fact of biology to truly understand the argument.

Nobody is arguing that a person cannot do as they wish with their own cells; the argument is about what they are doing with someone else&#8217;s cells.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

snjmom said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've experienced pregnancy and had children, including miscarriages.
> 
> My babies weren't *non-babies* until birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you find there to be a difference between them when they were in the womb and after delivery?
> 
> Or were they exactly alike? Did you get investigated on your miscarriages to make sure they weren't suspicious deaths? Were you issued death certificates for the miscarriages? Did you collect an insurance policy to pay for the funeral?
> 
> Would you expect these things to happen if the child had been delivered?
> 
> If so, what is the difference?
Click to expand...


As I&#8217;ve already noted on this thread, this argument boils down to &#8211; &#8220;it&#8217;s okay to kill them because they don&#8217;t look like us&#8221;.

Well, I&#8217;m sorry, but I simply can&#8217;t buy-into that particular line of thinking.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

smartdonkey said:


> Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception?
> 
> ...



<Sigh>

At the risk of repeating myself, sperm and ova cells belong to the parents and this can be proven with a simple DNA comparison between these cells and the parent&#8217;s DNA.  So the parent is free to do with those cells as they please.

However, once the sperm fertilizes the ova, a brand new cell is created (not in the biblical sense) whose DNA does not match the parent&#8217;s DNA.  So this new cell belongs to someone else and others should not be free to treat it as their personal property.


----------



## HUGGY

JBeukema said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Can't The Anti Abortion People Be Honest?*
> 
> First of all none of you give a rats ass what happens here on earth unless it relates to your stupid fantasy of pleasing your invisible friend God and going to never never land AKA heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You all piss and moan about how a zigot is a life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's a zigot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/01sally_girl_throw_tantrum_hg_clr1.gif?w=350&h=292
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is that better advice on the future of humanity could be better located within the walls of a mental institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You would know*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You done with your tantrum now, little girl?*
Click to expand...


That's all you got?  Weak.


----------



## snjmom

Mr_Rockhead said:


> smartdonkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception?
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <Sigh>
> 
> At the risk of repeating myself, sperm and ova cells belong to the parents and this can be proven with a simple DNA comparison between these cells and the parents DNA.  So the parent is free to do with those cells as they please.
> 
> However, once the sperm fertilizes the ova, a brand new cell is created (not in the biblical sense) whose DNA does not match the parents DNA.  So this new cell belongs to someone else and others should not be free to treat it as their personal property.
Click to expand...


So, if the new cell belongs to someone else, shouldn't it have explicit permission to use the womb to continue it's existence?


----------



## Cecilie1200

snjmom said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smartdonkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception?
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <Sigh>
> 
> At the risk of repeating myself, sperm and ova cells belong to the parents and this can be proven with a simple DNA comparison between these cells and the parent&#8217;s DNA.  So the parent is free to do with those cells as they please.
> 
> However, once the sperm fertilizes the ova, a brand new cell is created (not in the biblical sense) whose DNA does not match the parent&#8217;s DNA.  So this new cell belongs to someone else and others should not be free to treat it as their personal property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if the new cell belongs to someone else, shouldn't it have explicit permission to use the womb to continue it's existence?
Click to expand...


YOU created that person.  HE didn't ASK you to go out and fuck and make him.  It's fucking stupid and juvenile for you to come up and pout because HE didn't ask permission to be in your womb, like you're some sort of passive, helpless bystander while HE is the active, malicious actor in all of this.

Cripes.  Is there ANY point in the process where you stop blaming everyone else for your fucking around and take responsibility for it yourself?


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

snjmom said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smartdonkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception?
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <Sigh>
> 
> At the risk of repeating myself, sperm and ova cells belong to the parents and this can be proven with a simple DNA comparison between these cells and the parents DNA.  So the parent is free to do with those cells as they please.
> 
> However, once the sperm fertilizes the ova, a brand new cell is created (not in the biblical sense) whose DNA does not match the parents DNA.  So this new cell belongs to someone else and others should not be free to treat it as their personal property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if the new cell belongs to someone else, shouldn't it have explicit permission to use the womb to continue it's existence?
Click to expand...


If there were any question about those cells belonging to someone else, I would not be arguing for its life.

As far as the permission goes, it would seem that mother nature has already extended that permission simply by the way we are put together.

And, personally, I think the government should extend the same basic permission to live to the unborn as they currently extend to those who are already born.


----------



## mudwhistle

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



Some folks don't care if it's moral or right. It just has to be legal.


----------



## Dr.Drock

A few points

1.) I miss Immanuel, the only person who I can have a grown up discussion about the abortion issue on here .
2.) There's a reason society doesn't view an early miscarriage as they do a baby dying, funerals/obituaries/etc, providing an example of it happening once won't prove me wrong either.
3.) Sure would be nice if the pro-lifers would spend more time speaking positively about adoption after going through the pregnancy, rather than using 99% of their time and effort to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their exact same views.

Let's see what kind of insults that post brings, anything new?


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr.Drock said:


> A few points
> 
> 1.) I miss Immanuel, the only person who I can have a grown up discussion about the abortion issue on here .
> 2.) There's a reason society doesn't view an early miscarriage as they do a baby dying, funerals/obituaries/etc, providing an example of it happening once won't prove me wrong either.
> 3.) Sure would be nice if the pro-lifers would spend more time speaking positively about adoption after going through the pregnancy, rather than using 99% of their time and effort to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their exact same views.
> 
> Let's see what kind of insults that post brings, anything new?


 
Why would it bring anything else, since it is, in essence, a post that insults everybody of the opposition?

Essentially you say in that post that everybody (except Immie) who disagrees with you is stupid, and none of their arguments will work cuz you said so.

Completely worthless as far as arguments go. And you like to discuss it with Immie because Immie agrees with you. No big mystery there.


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few points
> 
> 1.) I miss Immanuel, the only person who I can have a grown up discussion about the abortion issue on here .
> 2.) There's a reason society doesn't view an early miscarriage as they do a baby dying, funerals/obituaries/etc, providing an example of it happening once won't prove me wrong either.
> 3.) Sure would be nice if the pro-lifers would spend more time speaking positively about adoption after going through the pregnancy, rather than using 99% of their time and effort to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their exact same views.
> 
> Let's see what kind of insults that post brings, anything new?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it bring anything else, since it is, in essence, a post that insults everybody of the opposition?
> 
> Essentially you say in that post that everybody (except Immie) who disagrees with you is stupid, and none of their arguments will work cuz you said so.
> 
> Completely worthless as far as arguments go. And you like to discuss it with Immie because Immie agrees with you. No big mystery there.
Click to expand...


1.) Because if all you can post is insults, why post?
2.) No that's just the story you have going on in your head, I don't think you or JB or Cecillie are stupid, you just can't control your emotions very well and that's why you go on emotional outbursts rather than discussing/debating the issue.  It's hard to filter through "arguments" when they include calling people poopyfaces and ninny muggins.
3.) Immie is pro-life, I'm pro-choice, so no of course we don't agree on the morality of early term abortion.  I want Roe vs Wade overturned and want it to become a state's rights issue, that's what I see MOST pro-lifers advocate so I agree with them politically more often than I agree with pro-choicers.


----------



## Vanquish

I've still not gotten a decent answer for my simple question to pro-abortionists/pro-choicers:

If there's a chance you could be wrong about babies being alive...why chance it?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Vanquish said:


> I've still not gotten a decent answer for my simple question to pro-abortionists/pro-choicers:
> 
> If there's a chance you could be wrong about babies being alive...why chance it?



Cuz it's a loaded question.


We've made the assessment that we don't find it to be a living baby until a certain point, so you're asking a question with an assessment that we don't agree with.


If you know it's not a living baby..........why not have an early abortion if you want?

That's not an actual question, just giving you a comparison to what you're asking, as you and the pro-life crowd have made the assessment that it is a living baby.


----------



## AllieBaba

IT IS LIVING.

Sheesh.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> A few points
> 
> 1.) I miss Immanuel, the only person who I can have a grown up discussion about the abortion issue on here .
> 2.) There's a reason society doesn't view an early miscarriage as they do a baby dying, funerals/obituaries/etc, providing an example of it happening once won't prove me wrong either.
> 3.) Sure would be nice if the pro-lifers would spend more time speaking positively about adoption after going through the pregnancy, rather than using 99% of their time and effort to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their exact same views.
> 
> Let's see what kind of insults that post brings, anything new?



1)  "Grown-up discussion" apparently means "treats my crap with respect it doesn't deserve and can't earn on its merits".

2)  If you can define that "reason" as anything that constitutes actual proof that unborn babies are not living humans, I'd like to hear that, rather than just a vague implication that it MUST mean you're right.

3)  Sure would be nice if pro-aborts would spend more time sharing arguments based on reality, rather than the perception they WISH was reality.  "Pro-lifers need to speak positively about adoption."  Oh, really?  And now you're going to show us some evidence besides your desire to believe it that pro-lifers have no interest in adoption, right?  And no, the fact that THIS THREAD - a thread on abortion, not on adoption - is focusing on its topic is not proof.


----------



## JBeukema

JBeukema said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it ok to take the life of a 2 month old unborn human
> 
> 
> 
> Because they don't look like us. Same reason it's okay to kill blacks.
> 
> Which brings us once again to Margaret Sanger and the reason Planned Parenthood exists...
Click to expand...




			
				Grace said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -147 reputation points from Grace.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Fucktard
> 
> Regards,
> Grace
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.




What's wrong Grace?


Once again the pro-abortion crowd proves the really, _really_, *really* hate facts.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few points
> 
> 1.) I miss Immanuel, the only person who I can have a grown up discussion about the abortion issue on here .
> 2.) There's a reason society doesn't view an early miscarriage as they do a baby dying, funerals/obituaries/etc, providing an example of it happening once won't prove me wrong either.
> 3.) Sure would be nice if the pro-lifers would spend more time speaking positively about adoption after going through the pregnancy, rather than using 99% of their time and effort to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their exact same views.
> 
> Let's see what kind of insults that post brings, anything new?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  "Grown-up discussion" apparently means "treats my crap with respect it doesn't deserve and can't earn on its merits".
> 
> 2)  If you can define that "reason" as anything that constitutes actual proof that unborn babies are not living humans, I'd like to hear that, rather than just a vague implication that it MUST mean you're right.
> 
> 3)  Sure would be nice if pro-aborts would spend more time sharing arguments based on reality, rather than the perception they WISH was reality.  "Pro-lifers need to speak positively about adoption."  Oh, really?  And now you're going to show us some evidence besides your desire to believe it that pro-lifers have no interest in adoption, right?  And no, the fact that THIS THREAD - a thread on abortion, not on adoption - is focusing on its topic is not proof.
Click to expand...


I would think the positives of adoption would be the first thing someone speaking out against abortion would go to, sadly that's not the case.  Seems like to me positively enforcing the idea of adoption would work better than negatively attacking through holier than thou proclamations.


----------



## AllieBaba

Proponents of abortion do support adoption, in a HUGE way.


----------



## AllieBaba

They also fund homes for pregnant women.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Dr.Drock said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've still not gotten a decent answer for my simple question to pro-abortionists/pro-choicers:
> 
> If there's a chance you could be wrong about babies being alive...why chance it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuz it's a loaded question.
> 
> 
> We've made the assessment that we don't find it to be a living baby until a certain point, so you're asking a question with an assessment that we don't agree with.
> 
> 
> *If you know it's not a living baby*..........why not have an early abortion if you want?
> 
> That's not an actual question, just giving you a comparison to what you're asking, as you and the pro-life crowd have made the assessment that it is a living baby.
Click to expand...


Of course it's a living human.  Otherwise, why would one seek an abortion?

a·bor·tion:  the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. 

preg·nan·cy:  1.  the state or condition of being pregnant; 2. 	the period from *conception to childbirth 
*

If one is pro-choice then be pro-choice.  Just be aware that _the choice of abortion terminates/ends/destroys/kills a human being_ that is in the early stages of development.  No way around it . . . . _regardless_ of the multitude of excuses and rationalizations that have been posted.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Zoom-boing said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've still not gotten a decent answer for my simple question to pro-abortionists/pro-choicers:
> 
> If there's a chance you could be wrong about babies being alive...why chance it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuz it's a loaded question.
> 
> 
> We've made the assessment that we don't find it to be a living baby until a certain point, so you're asking a question with an assessment that we don't agree with.
> 
> 
> *If you know it's not a living baby*..........why not have an early abortion if you want?
> 
> That's not an actual question, just giving you a comparison to what you're asking, as you and the pro-life crowd have made the assessment that it is a living baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it's a living human.  Otherwise, why would one seek an abortion?
> 
> a·bor·tion:  the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
> 
> preg·nan·cy:  1.  the state or condition of being pregnant; 2. 	the period from *conception to childbirth
> *
> 
> If one is pro-choice then be pro-choice.  Just be aware that _the choice of abortion terminates/ends/destroys/kills a human being_ that is in the early stages of development.  No way around it . . . . _regardless_ of the multitude of excuses and rationalizations that have been posted.
Click to expand...


I'm not overly worried about the wording, just about everyone agrees with some abortions or some version of timing whether it's the morning after pill or within the first month, 2 months, etc.

Truth is I want the same number of abortions the pro-life crowd wants, the same legislation done away with the pro-life crowd wants, I'm not sure why ONLY focusing on the differences is what has to be done.

The differences would have zero impact legislatively anyways.


----------



## R.D.

> 1.) I miss Immanuel, the only person who I can have a grown up discussion about the abortion issue on here  .
> 2.) There's a reason society doesn't view an early miscarriage as they do a baby dying, funerals/obituaries/etc, providing an example of it happening once won't prove me wrong either.
> 3.) Sure would be nice if the pro-lifers would spend more time speaking positively about adoption after going through the pregnancy, rather than using 99% of their time and effort to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their exact same views.
> 
> *Let's see what kind of insults that post brings, *anything new?



Shouldn't that read....let's see what kind of insults that posts invites?  Considering your insulting start

2)Society does view a lost wanted child miscarried as a death.
3)They do.  Sharing the view that killing is not a worthy trait bothers you that much?


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few points
> 
> 1.) I miss Immanuel, the only person who I can have a grown up discussion about the abortion issue on here .
> 2.) There's a reason society doesn't view an early miscarriage as they do a baby dying, funerals/obituaries/etc, providing an example of it happening once won't prove me wrong either.
> 3.) Sure would be nice if the pro-lifers would spend more time speaking positively about adoption after going through the pregnancy, rather than using 99% of their time and effort to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their exact same views.
> 
> Let's see what kind of insults that post brings, anything new?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it bring anything else, since it is, in essence, a post that insults everybody of the opposition?
> 
> Essentially you say in that post that everybody (except Immie) who disagrees with you is stupid, and none of their arguments will work cuz you said so.
> 
> Completely worthless as far as arguments go. And you like to discuss it with Immie because Immie agrees with you. No big mystery there.
Click to expand...


I agree with him?  Hardly.  But there is a difference between you and me.  You think calling everyone who disagrees with you murderers is the way to making changes.  I think all that does is piss them off and make bringing about change less likely to happen.

I would rather open the channels of communication and maybe help bring about a consensus than to continue the idiotic name calling while more babies die.  

Immie

PS love the new avatar.  But then I have always love a tigress.


----------



## AllieBaba

I don't think calling everyone murderers changes things.

I think people who kill babies in the womb are committing murder. And I won't gloss over that because it's *easier*. You will.


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> I don't think calling everyone murderers changes things.
> 
> I think people who kill babies in the womb are committing murder. And I won't gloss over that because it's *easier*. You will.



I view the warmongering of the United States as baby-killing, innocent human killing, etc etc.  

Others don't view it that way, but I won't stoop to calling people who approve of our wars and/or want more war as pro baby-killing or pro innocent-people killing because they don't view it the same way as I do.  I'm confident if they did view it as baby killing, they'd be against it as strongly as I am, but they don't.


----------



## AllieBaba

Wtf does that have to do with this thread?

?????


----------



## MarcATL

Dr.Drock said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think calling everyone murderers changes things.
> 
> I think people who kill babies in the womb are committing murder. And I won't gloss over that because it's *easier*. You will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I view the warmongering of the United States as baby-killing, innocent human killing, etc etc.
> 
> Others don't view it that way, but I won't stoop to calling people who approve of our wars and/or want more war as pro baby-killing or pro innocent-people killing because they don't view it the same way as I do.  I'm confident if they did view it as baby killing, they'd be against it as strongly as I am, but they don't.
Click to expand...


That's the difference between radicals like AllieBaba, and the more thinking individuals like yourself.

Thinking people realize that others don't necessary view things as they do, and adjust, even their own communication to that reality.

Radicals believe every does or SHOULD think like them, and if not they are crazy and should be treated as such...hence you AllieBaba, The.T, CaliforniaGirl types.


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> Wtf does that have to do with this thread?
> 
> ?????



To open your eyes to see 2 sides of the coin.

You view early abortion as baby-killing, I and others don't, you call us pro baby-killing.

I view our warmongering as baby-killing, you and others don't, I won't stoop to calling you a baby-killer because you don't have the same view even though there's zero argument in the scientific community about whether our wars result in dead babies.


----------



## manifold

Just in case you missed it...


The author of the OP, JBeukema, insists that he is pro-choice.

If the irony of this fact doesn't smack you square in the face, then go back and re-read the OP.

If the irony is still lost on you, you're not very bright.

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## Immanuel

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few points
> 
> 1.) I miss Immanuel, the only person who I can have a grown up discussion about the abortion issue on here .
> 2.) There's a reason society doesn't view an early miscarriage as they do a baby dying, funerals/obituaries/etc, providing an example of it happening once won't prove me wrong either.
> 3.) Sure would be nice if the pro-lifers would spend more time speaking positively about adoption after going through the pregnancy, rather than using 99% of their time and effort to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their exact same views.
> 
> Let's see what kind of insults that post brings, anything new?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  "Grown-up discussion" apparently means *"treats my crap with respect it doesn't deserve and can't earn on its merits".*
> 
> 2)  If you can define that "reason" as anything that constitutes actual proof that unborn babies are not living humans, I'd like to hear that, rather than just a vague implication that it MUST mean you're right.
> 
> 3)  Sure would be nice if pro-aborts would spend more time sharing arguments based on reality, rather than the perception they WISH was reality.  "Pro-lifers need to speak positively about adoption."  Oh, really?  And now you're going to show us some evidence besides your desire to believe it that pro-lifers have no interest in adoption, right?  And no, the fact that THIS THREAD - a thread on abortion, not on adoption - is focusing on its topic is not proof.
Click to expand...


So that is what I do and it is not grown up because I try to be respectful of other people?

I can be very disrespectful when I want to be.  However, in this instance, I think the line in the sand between what I as a Pro-lifer want and what the vast majority of the pro-choice people want is a lot thinner than most of us realize.  If other people come to realize that then this tragedy comes closer to ending.  What is wrong with that?  What is wrong we being respectful of people with whom you disagree?

Immie


----------



## Dr.Drock

manifold said:


> Just in case you missed it...
> 
> 
> The author of the OP, JBeukema, insists that he is pro-choice.
> 
> If the irony of this fact doesn't smack you square in the face, then go back and re-read the OP.
> 
> If the irony is still lost on you, you're not very bright.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?



Insists he's pro-choice?

Huh?


----------



## MarcATL

Dr.Drock said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf does that have to do with this thread?
> 
> ?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To open your eyes to see 2 sides of the coin.
> 
> You view early abortion as baby-killing, I and others don't, you call us pro baby-killing.
> 
> I view our warmongering as baby-killing, you and others don't, I won't stoop to calling you a baby-killer because you don't have the same view even though there's zero argument in the scientific community about whether our wars result in dead babies.
Click to expand...


The mere fact that AllieBaba cannot see your point, and he will never get, exemplifies how radical and extreme he is.


----------



## AnonymousIV

I am honest, the spirit enters the body when it is being born, my God would not allow the murder of innocent children.  And being honest again, when they sucked out that little bit of tissue in my womb, I felt great, life back on track, everything was good.  How dare you take stabs at recovering individuals.  I guess your motto would be "kick them while their down".  Seems to me you're just being nosey and playing "God".  To me people like you screw the issue around in order to insult others.  I don't like people like you.


----------



## manifold

Dr.Drock said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you missed it...
> 
> 
> The author of the OP, JBeukema, insists that he is pro-choice.
> 
> If the irony of this fact doesn't smack you square in the face, then go back and re-read the OP.
> 
> If the irony is still lost on you, you're not very bright.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insists he's pro-choice?
> 
> Huh?
Click to expand...


Don't take my word for it, ask him yourself.


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> I don't think calling everyone murderers changes things.
> 
> I think people who kill babies in the womb are committing murder. And I won't gloss over that because it's *easier*. You will.



And in doing so you allow more babies to die because you are not willing to make things easier.

What good is your attitude if 40 million more babies die because you insist on calling everyone who disagrees with you murderers?

You told me much earlier in this thread that you were more concerned with fewer abortions than winning a political point.  The post I am quoting here and that point seem to be extremely contradictory.

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

AnonymousIV said:


> I am honest, the spirit enters the body when it is being born, my God would not allow the murder of innocent children.  And being honest again, when they sucked out that little bit of tissue in my womb, I felt great, life back on track, everything was good.  *How dare you take stabs at recovering individuals.*  I guess your motto would be "kick them while their down".  *Seems to me you're just being nosey and playing "God". * To me people like you screw the issue around in order to insult others.  I don't like people like you.



That 'little bit of tissue' they sucked out of you?  That was an individual human being in the early stages of development and your abortion killed/ended/destroyed that individual life.  

You played God when you had that developing human being sucked out.  

It was your _choice_ to have an abortion.  Stop bitching and whining because others are pointing out that your abortion ended a human life.  _That's what abortion does_.


----------



## AnonymousIV

Personally, I don't have to read the thread it's the same ole same ole, name calling, quotes from the bible to prove ends, shaming, and being nosey.


----------



## AnonymousIV

Well I'm glad you believe your religion.  And please respect that others might believe different and stay outta their lives and quit kicking people when their down.  The tissue that was sucked from me, did not have a spirit from God in it.  You're just stubborn and stupid.


----------



## JBeukema

Dr.Drock said:


> If you know it's not a living baby?



If you 'know' Earth is flat, you're a lying fucking retard

Why can't the pro-abortion crowd ever be honest?


----------



## Zoom-boing

AnonymousIV said:


> Personally, I don't have to read the thread it's the same ole same ole, name calling, quotes from the bible to prove ends, shaming, and being nosey.



How's it being nosy when _you_ offered up your personal information in the first place?  What . . . no one is suppose to comment on your posts?  Did you just discover the interwebz?


----------



## Zoom-boing

AnonymousIV said:


> Well I'm glad you believe your religion.  And please respect that others might believe different and stay outta their lives and quit kicking people when their down.  The tissue that was sucked from me, did not have a spirit from God in it.  You're just stubborn and stupid.



Um, you're the only one I see talking about God.  

Spirit from God or not . . . that tissue you had sucked out was a living human being, separate from yourself.  Your _choice_ ended that life.  Thems the fact.


----------



## JBeukema

AnonymousIV said:


> I am honest, the spirit enters the body when it is being born, my God would not allow the murder of innocent children.


What gawd is that?

*Kill Sons of Sinners*
_Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of  their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the  world with tyrants._  (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

*God Will Kill Children*
_The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for  your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be  conceived.  Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from  you.  It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone.  I have  watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre.  But now Israel will  bring out her children to be slaughtered."  O LORD, what should I request for  your people?  I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give  no milk.  The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to  hate them.  I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions.  I  will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels.  The people of  Israel are stricken.  Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit.   And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children."_   (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

*Kill Men, Women, and Children*
_"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow  him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked.  Show no  mercy; have no pity!  Kill them all  old and young, girls and women and little  children.  But do not touch anyone with the mark.  Begin your task right here at  the Temple."  So they began by killing the seventy leaders.  "Defile the  Temple!" the LORD commanded.  "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you  kill!  Go!"  So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." _ (Ezekiel  9:5-7 NLT)

*God Kills all the First Born of Egypt*
_And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn  sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the  throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn  of their livestock were killed.  Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of  Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land  of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. _ (Exodus  12:29-30 NLT)

*Kill Old Men and Young Women*
_"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD.   "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms.  With you I will  shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer.   With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and  maidens.  With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen,  captains and rulers.  "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of  Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the  LORD.  "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth!  I am your enemy," says  the LORD.  "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights.   When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble.  You will be  desolate forever.  Even your stones will never again be used for building.  You  will be completely wiped out," says the LORD._  (Jeremiah 51:20-26)
      (Note that after God promises the  Israelites a victory against Babylon, the Israelites actually get their butts  kicked by them in the next chapter.  So much for an all-knowing and all-powerful  God.)

God Will Kill  the Children of Sinners
 _If even then you remain  hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more  disasters for your sins.  I will release wild animals that will kill your  children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads  will be deserted. _ (Leviticus  26:21-22 NLT)

*More Rape and Baby Killing*
_Anyone who is captured will be run through with a  sword.  Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.   Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I  will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy  them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.   They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the  children._  (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)



Murder in the Bible


> And being honest again, when they sucked out that little bit of tissue in my womb, I felt great



And some feel good when they crush that dark-skinned tissue or some tissue wearing a Star of David under their boots...


> .  How dare you take stabs at recovering individuals.


Recovering? You love killing your children

You just admitted as much

Women having multiple abortions reaches record high - Times Online


----------



## JBeukema

Zoom-boing said:


> AnonymousIV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm glad you believe your religion.  And please respect that others might believe different and stay outta their lives and quit kicking people when their down.  The tissue that was sucked from me, did not have a spirit from God in it.  You're just stubborn and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, you're the only one I see talking about God.
> 
> Spirit from God or not . . . that tissue you had sucked out was a living human being, separate from yourself.  Your _choice_ ended that life.  Thems the fact.
Click to expand...

I guess (s)he forgot to sign into a different account before replying to its own post...


----------



## Dr.Drock

I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.


----------



## AllieBaba

Make it illegal, as all murder is illegal. It would do more to limit the number of abortions than anything else.


----------



## Immanuel

Dr.Drock said:


> I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.



I do as well and I think most people, whether pro-choice or pro-life, do as well.  Unfortunately, the parties won't let us because they *want* this issue to create a wedge in this country.

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

JB --- are you pro-choice?


----------



## AllieBaba

JB is pro-life. Period.

I see that Immie won't comment on the fact that if abortion were illegal, there would be less of it.

So what it comes down to is that the pro-abortion crowd would like to see abortion numbers reduced....but not if that means making it illegal. Gotta keep that door open to kill babies if *needed*...even though there is no true need.


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> Make it illegal, as all murder is illegal. It would do more to limit the number of abortions than anything else.



I think all that would do is create a black market, same way it did with drug use.  If someone wants to have an abortion, just like if someone wants to smoke weed, they'll do it regardless of law.

The past statistics I know you have on hand I don't find as an accurate portrayel, as before abortion was legal I'm doubting those who had it done went out of their way to report it.

I think the idea of education to keep people from getting pregnant, educating people (women especially) on the responsiblity a child entails, along with education on what to do/how to cope once pregnant is the best way to go.


----------



## Zoom-boing

AllieBaba said:


> *JB is pro-life. Period.*
> 
> I see that Immie won't comment on the fact that if abortion were illegal, there would be less of it.
> 
> So what it comes down to is that the pro-abortion crowd would like to see abortion numbers reduced....but not if that means making it illegal. Gotta keep that door open to kill babies if *needed*...even though there is no true need.



Why is Mani yapping that he's pro-choice?


----------



## AllieBaba

You know, people who break the law take risks. It's a risky thing to break the law. Particularly when you're breaking the law in order to kill another human being.

The idea of a huge abortion black market opening up and suddenly millions of women dying because they are just THAT DESPERATE to kill their babies is a myth. There are absolutely no statistics or facts that support it.

There are, however, stats and facts which show definitively that child abuse has increased since the advent of legalized abortion. There are stats and facts that definitively show that abortions have increased EXPONENTIALLY since the advent of legalized abortion. There are stats which show that women are CURRENTLY dying thanks to slipshod practices at LEGAL abortion clinics.

Why don't we try to confine ourselves to the facts, instead of getting all wrapped up in the myths propagated by the baby-killing industry?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Immanuel said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do as well and I think most people, whether pro-choice or pro-life, do as well.  Unfortunately, the parties won't let us because they *want* this issue to create a wedge in this country.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Spot on, per usual.


----------



## JBeukema

Dr.Drock said:


> I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.


Step One: Tell your daughters to keep their legs shut and your sons to keep their dicks in their pants if they're not ready to be responsible for a baby.

That would end 93% of all abortions.


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> JB is pro-life. Period.
> 
> I see that Immie won't comment on the fact that if abortion were illegal, there would be less of it.
> 
> So what it comes down to is that the pro-abortion crowd would like to see abortion numbers reduced....but not if that means making it illegal. Gotta keep that door open to kill babies if *needed*...even though there is no true need.



I commented on that many many pages ago.  You simply are unreasonable on the reality of this issue.  Edit: the question was not addressed to me and since you and I had that very discussion earlier in this thread, I saw no reason to go back and cover that again.

Also, I happened to have been reading other threads along with this one.

Immie


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> You know, people who break the law take risks. It's a risky thing to break the law. Particularly when you're breaking the law in order to kill another human being.
> 
> The idea of a huge abortion black market opening up and suddenly millions of women dying because they are just THAT DESPERATE to kill their babies is a myth. There are absolutely no statistics or facts that support it.
> 
> There are, however, stats and facts which show definitively that child abuse has increased since the advent of legalized abortion. There are stats and facts that definitively show that abortions have increased EXPONENTIALLY since the advent of legalized abortion. There are stats which show that women are CURRENTLY dying thanks to slipshod practices at LEGAL abortion clinics.
> 
> Why don't we try to confine ourselves to the facts, instead of getting all wrapped up in the myths propagated by the baby-killing industry?



Already stated why I think those old stats on # of abortions is faulty, not going to get into it again.

I'm saying making it illegal would just cause women to go online and figure out how to do it at home, those websites would skyrocket, as well as doctors and "doctors" offering to do that service off the books and that would be a very difficult thing to prove without catching in the act.


----------



## Dr.Drock

JBeukema said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Step One: Tell your daughters to keep their legs shut and your sons to keep their dicks in their pants if they're not ready to be responsible for a baby.
> 
> That would end 93% of all abortions.
Click to expand...


I don't agree, you're going against basic human instinct to tell people age 15-20 something (or whatever age) to not want to have sex, completely unrealistic.


----------



## AllieBaba

Immanuel said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB is pro-life. Period.
> 
> I see that Immie won't comment on the fact that if abortion were illegal, there would be less of it.
> 
> So what it comes down to is that the pro-abortion crowd would like to see abortion numbers reduced....but not if that means making it illegal. Gotta keep that door open to kill babies if *needed*...even though there is no true need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I commented on that many many pages ago. You simply are unreasonable on the reality of this issue.
> 
> Also, I happened to have been reading other threads along with this one.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
Er, no, I know the reality. I know the numbers and the facts.

You are the one who keeps saying "but but but" with a complete absence of any supporting documentation. You are basing your entire argument upon the belief that the facts mean nothing, and your gut feeling is correct.

And your gut feeling has been placed there directly by pro-abortion marketing.


----------



## JBeukema

Zoom-boing said:


> JB --- are you pro-choice?



http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...o-abortion-crowd-be-honest-6.html#post3477722


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr.Drock said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Step One: Tell your daughters to keep their legs shut and your sons to keep their dicks in their pants if they're not ready to be responsible for a baby.
> 
> That would end 93% of all abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree, you're going against basic human instinct to tell people age 15-20 something (or whatever age) to not want to have sex, completely unrealistic.
Click to expand...

 
Yeah, cuz we all know that 15-20 year old kids must be allowed to do anything they want, and a good parent just accepts the fact that they will engage in dangerous behavior...

This is why we turn over our bank accounts and car keys to them as soon as they turn 15! Cuz after all, it's against basic human instinct to tell a kid "no! That's dangerous!"


----------



## JBeukema

Dr.Drock said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make it illegal, as all murder is illegal. It would do more to limit the number of abortions than anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think all that would do is create a black market, same way it did with drug use.  If someone wants to have an abortion, just like if someone wants to smoke weed, they'll do it regardless of law.
Click to expand...


And yet murder, rape, and theft are all illegal.

You would prefer an anarchist eutopia?


----------



## manifold

Zoom-boing said:


> JB --- are you pro-choice?



He said so here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/165154-chrissy-polis-to-sue-mcdonalds-over-beating-6.html#post3582539


----------



## AllieBaba

manifold said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB --- are you pro-choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said so here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...sue-mcdonalds-over-beating-6.html#post3582539
Click to expand...

 
I don't see him claiming to be pro choice there?


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB is pro-life. Period.
> 
> I see that Immie won't comment on the fact that if abortion were illegal, there would be less of it.
> 
> So what it comes down to is that the pro-abortion crowd would like to see abortion numbers reduced....but not if that means making it illegal. Gotta keep that door open to kill babies if *needed*...even though there is no true need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I commented on that many many pages ago. You simply are unreasonable on the reality of this issue.
> 
> Also, I happened to have been reading other threads along with this one.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er, no, I know the reality. I know the numbers and the facts.
> 
> You are the one who keeps saying "but but but" with a complete absence of any supporting documentation. You are basing your entire argument upon the belief that the facts mean nothing, and your gut feeling is correct.
> 
> And your gut feeling has been placed there directly by pro-abortion marketing.
Click to expand...


And you seem to forget that there is 40 years of promotion of abortion to over come.  Simply going back ain't gonna happen.

The fact is since you pie in the sky assumption that going backwards would give us the exact opposite effects of passing Roe v. Wade hasn't happened, neither one of us can "prove" our beliefs.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

No, I can prove mine.


----------



## JBeukema

Dr.Drock said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Step One: Tell your daughters to keep their legs shut and your sons to keep their dicks in their pants if they're not ready to be responsible for a baby.
> 
> That would end 93% of all abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree
Click to expand...


93% of abortions are done for simple convenience- according to the abortion industry. Them's the facts



> , you're going against basic human instinct to tell people age 15-20 something (or whatever age) to not want to have sex, completely unrealistic.


We also tell men to not rape attractive young girls

We also tell people to not bash eachother's skulls in with rocks when angry

We also tell people to not simple _take_ their neighbor's car if they want it
We also tell people to not kill their children out of pure convenience because they don't want stretch marks


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Step One: Tell your daughters to keep their legs shut and your sons to keep their dicks in their pants if they're not ready to be responsible for a baby.
> 
> That would end 93% of all abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree, you're going against basic human instinct to tell people age 15-20 something (or whatever age) to not want to have sex, completely unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cuz we all know that 15-20 year old kids must be allowed to do anything they want, and a good parent just accepts the fact that they will engage in dangerous behavior...
> 
> This is why we turn over our bank accounts and car keys to them as soon as they turn 15! Cuz after all, it's against basic human instinct to tell a kid "no! That's dangerous!"
Click to expand...


I see, so in your mind telling a kid no=it won't happen?

My point is 95%+ of people have sex or want to have sex and the chance doesn't come up before they're able to have kids and that's not changing, so a realistic idea is a little better.


----------



## manifold

AllieBaba said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB --- are you pro-choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said so here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...sue-mcdonalds-over-beating-6.html#post3582539
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see him claiming to be pro choice there?
Click to expand...


Then your comprehension sucks.

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## Dr.Drock

JBeukema said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Step One: Tell your daughters to keep their legs shut and your sons to keep their dicks in their pants if they're not ready to be responsible for a baby.
> 
> That would end 93% of all abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree, you're going against basic human instinct to tell people age 15-20 something (or whatever age) to not want to have sex, completely unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also tell men to not rape attractive young girls
> 
> We also tell people to not bash eachother's skulls in with rocks when angry
> 
> We also tell people to not simple _take_ their neighbor's car if they want it
> We also tell people to not kill their children out of pure convenience because they don't want stretch marks
Click to expand...


Call me crazy, but I guess I don't equate all those things to the simple act of sex.

I respect my father more than any man and love him to death, if he told me not to have sex when I was in h-s, and a young hot woman told me to have sex when I was in h-s, it was going to happen and most people who are honest with themselves would agree.


----------



## Zoom-boing

JBeukema said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB --- are you pro-choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...o-abortion-crowd-be-honest-6.html#post3477722
Click to expand...


I'm reading that as until the mind begins to form in the fetus, you believe that abortion kills/destroys a human being (human life) but does not kill/destroys a person.  Your cutoff point is when the fetus becomes 'aware' and that you're ok with abortion prior to that point?


----------



## AllieBaba

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States


----------



## JBeukema

Dr.Drock said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree, you're going against basic human instinct to tell people age 15-20 something (or whatever age) to not want to have sex, completely unrealistic.
> 
> 
> 
> We also tell men to not rape attractive young girls
> 
> We also tell people to not bash eachother's skulls in with rocks when angry
> 
> We also tell people to not simple _take_ their neighbor's car if they want it
> We also tell people to not kill their children out of pure convenience because they don't want stretch marks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, but I guess I don't equate all those things to the simple act of sex.
Click to expand...


Yes, you do. They're all simple instincts- and that is your entire argument for advocating the killing of one's children out of simple convenience because you don't want to grow up and be responsible for your actions and decisions in life.


----------



## AllieBaba

"
Official abortion statistics are often low due to incomplete reporting. In the United States, for example, not all states mandate such reporting. Even in those states that require or encourage reporting of abortion statistics, this reporting is incomplete (as demonstrated by higher numbers reported to abortion advocacy organizations). From 1988 to 1997, the total number of U.S. abortions reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control was 11.3% lower than the total number reported to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research branch of Planned Parenthood). *In 1998 four states discontinued state-level gathering of abortion statistics, contributing to the 25.4% drop in CDC figures from 1997 to 1998.* "

Abortion statistics and other data


----------



## manifold

manifold said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said so here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...sue-mcdonalds-over-beating-6.html#post3582539
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see him claiming to be pro choice there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then your comprehension sucks.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
Click to expand...


But since I'm in a charitable mood, I'll explain.

1. JB called someone a statist
2. I commented on the irony saying that 100% of JB's positions are statist.
3. JB challenged me to provide an example
4. I said his position on abortion (assuming of course based on his diatribe in the OP here that he is pro-life).
5. JB replied, "pro-choice" is statist? 

Now, if you cannot follow this well enough to understand that JB is claiming to be pro-choice, then you're really really really fuck'n retarded.  No offense.


----------



## AllieBaba

"Currently, the Alan Guttmacher Institute is an important source for estimates of both legal and illegal abortions worldwide. AGI is an extension of an organization engaged in intense political lobbying for the completely unrestrained practice of abortion. High abortion rates are in their political (and financial) interests for a number of reasons. For example, high numbers of illegal abortions are an element of their rationalization for legalized abortion. 
*Thus, when AGI estimates high rates of illegal abortions in the developing world these estimates bear scrutiny.* *Many such estimates are based on limited surveys.* Some such surveys are limited to urban areas, which are not representative of rural areas. Other studies use compound assumptions to develop a figure for illegal abortions from data on hospitalizations for miscarriages."
Abortion statistics and other data


----------



## JBeukema

Zoom-boing said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB --- are you pro-choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...o-abortion-crowd-be-honest-6.html#post3477722
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm reading that as until the mind begins to form in the fetus, you believe that abortion kills/destroys a human being (human life) but does not kill/destroys a person.  Your cutoff point is when the fetus becomes 'aware' and that you're ok with abortion prior to that point?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, yeah.

This principle is even enshrined in our laws elsewhere. It is illegal to throw a puppy against the wall because it is sentient. To end the its existence or to willfully inflict pain and suffering upon it is forbidden. Ants are not seen as as having sentient minds and self-awareness, so we don't think anything of wiping them out or stepping on them.


----------



## AllieBaba

manifold said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see him claiming to be pro choice there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then your comprehension sucks.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But since I'm in a charitable mood, I'll explain.
> 
> 1. JB called someone a statist
> 2. I commented on the irony saying that 100% of JB's positions are statist.
> 3. JB challenged me to provide an example
> 4. I said his position on abortion (assuming of course based on his diatribe in the OP here that he is pro-life).
> 5. JB replied, "pro-choice" is statist?
> 
> Now, if you cannot follow this well enough to understand that JB is claiming to be pro-choice, then you're really really really fuck'n retarded. No offense.
Click to expand...

 

Asking if "pro-choice" is statist is not an admission of being pro choice, mantard.

Basic English skills, mantard. No offense.


----------



## Dr.Drock

JBeukema said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also tell men to not rape attractive young girls
> 
> We also tell people to not bash eachother's skulls in with rocks when angry
> 
> We also tell people to not simple _take_ their neighbor's car if they want it
> We also tell people to not kill their children out of pure convenience because they don't want stretch marks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, but I guess I don't equate all those things to the simple act of sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you do. They're all simple instincts- and that is your entire argument for advocating the killing of one's children out of simple convenience because you don't want to grow up and be responsible for your actions and decisions in life.
Click to expand...


I've never had the instinct to want to bash someone's head in, get laid?  I've had that instinct many-a-time.


----------



## manifold

AllieBaba said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then your comprehension sucks.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But since I'm in a charitable mood, I'll explain.
> 
> 1. JB called someone a statist
> 2. I commented on the irony saying that 100% of JB's positions are statist.
> 3. JB challenged me to provide an example
> 4. I said his position on abortion (assuming of course based on his diatribe in the OP here that he is pro-life).
> 5. JB replied, "pro-choice" is statist?
> 
> Now, if you cannot follow this well enough to understand that JB is claiming to be pro-choice, then you're really really really fuck'n retarded. No offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Asking if "pro-choice" is statist is not an admission of being pro choice
Click to expand...




I couldn't possibly make you look any dumber than you do yourself.  So I'm not even gonna try.


----------



## AllieBaba

I have a good grasp of the English language.

"Pro-choice is statist?" is not the same as "I am pro-choice".

But carry on, I find it amusing as well.


----------



## manifold

JBeukema said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reading that as until the mind begins to form in the fetus, you believe that *abortion* kills/destroys a human being (human life) but *does not kill/destroys a person*.  Your cutoff point is when the fetus becomes 'aware' and that you're ok with abortion prior to that point?
> 
> 
> 
> *Pretty much, yeah.*
Click to expand...


For the dimwitted, this is a 'pro-choice' (also politically spun as 'pro-abortion') position.

The only question now is whether JB is being honest with himself.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Allie, whether you agreed with it or not, did you see my point when I was talking about why I don't call people who approve of wars that I don't approve of baby killers?


----------



## AllieBaba

It's completely unrelated to this topic. I understand your point, but it's not a valid one.


----------



## manifold

Dr.Drock said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you missed it...
> 
> 
> The author of the OP, JBeukema, insists that he is pro-choice.
> 
> If the irony of this fact doesn't smack you square in the face, then go back and re-read the OP.
> 
> If the irony is still lost on you, you're not very bright.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insists he's pro-choice?
> 
> Huh?
Click to expand...


Are you satisfied now?

And more importantly, how fuck'n funny is that OP given this revelation?


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> It's completely unrelated to this topic. I understand your point, but it's not a valid one.



Of course it's a diff topic, the principle of understanding diff views was the point.


----------



## AllieBaba

manifold said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you missed it...
> 
> 
> The author of the OP, JBeukema, insists that he is pro-choice.
> 
> If the irony of this fact doesn't smack you square in the face, then go back and re-read the OP.
> 
> If the irony is still lost on you, you're not very bright.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insists he's pro-choice?
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you satisfied now?
> 
> And more importantly, how fuck'n funny is that OP given this revelation?
Click to expand...

 
The OP isn't particularly funny, but you certainly are.

JB has always been pro-life. It sucks because I think he's a lunatic, but he's quite articulate and fairly consistent on this subject. Your posturing is just silly.


----------



## manifold

AllieBaba said:


> JB has always been pro-life. It sucks because I think he's a lunatic, but he's quite articulate and fairly consistent on this subject. Your posturing is just silly.



Scroll up a few posts retard.  JB admitted to supporting abortion "up to a certain point" in the pregnancy.

That's pro-choice twatstick.


----------



## Dr.Drock

manifold said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reading that as until the mind begins to form in the fetus, you believe that *abortion* kills/destroys a human being (human life) but *does not kill/destroys a person*.  Your cutoff point is when the fetus becomes 'aware' and that you're ok with abortion prior to that point?
> 
> 
> 
> *Pretty much, yeah.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the dimwitted, this is a 'pro-choice' (also politically spun as 'pro-abortion') position.
> 
> The only question now is whether JB is being honest with himself.
Click to expand...


Where was this said?  In this thread or the other one you linked and if so can you give me the particular page?


----------



## AllieBaba

manifold said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB has always been pro-life. It sucks because I think he's a lunatic, but he's quite articulate and fairly consistent on this subject. Your posturing is just silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scroll up a few posts retard. JB admitted to supporting abortion "up to a certain point" in the pregnancy.
> 
> That's pro-choice twatstick.
Click to expand...

 
Oh, was that the post you linked to?

Nope. I suggest you are limited by your recent lobotomy, and get well soon.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Dr.Drock said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pretty much, yeah.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the dimwitted, this is a 'pro-choice' (also politically spun as 'pro-abortion') position.
> 
> The only question now is whether JB is being honest with himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where was this said?  In this thread or the other one you linked and if so can you give me the particular page?
Click to expand...


In this thread just a few pages back.

Mani said JB was pro-choice and Allie was saying he is pro-life.

From his answer to my question



JBeukema said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reading that as until the mind begins to form in the fetus, you believe that abortion kills/destroys a human being (human life) but does not kill/destroys a person.  Your cutoff point is when the fetus becomes 'aware' and that you're ok with abortion prior to that point?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much, yeah.
> 
> This principle is even enshrined in our laws elsewhere. It is illegal to throw a puppy against the wall because it is sentient. To end the its existence or to willfully inflict pain and suffering upon it is forbidden. Ants are not seen as as having sentient minds and self-awareness, so we don't think anything of wiping them out or stepping on them.
Click to expand...


JB is ok with abortion up until a fetus becomes sentient or self-aware.

He's calling out other pro-choice people for being dishonest because he readily admits that abortion takes a human life but (for him) it does not take the life of a_ person_.  i.e., because the fetus has not yet become 'aware' they are not yet 'persons' in their own right.  That's his 'threshold', if you will, of abortion.  

He's asked the following questions many times of the pro-choice crowd but no one has answered.  JB has. .. what changes is that the fetus becomes self-aware.  He's just asking why others haven't answered.  



JBeukema said:


> Why? What fundamental thing about your nature changes when you moved three feet to the left that made it no longer okay to swing you buy the legs and smash your skull against a wall, vacuum out your brain, rip you limb from limb, poison you, suffocate or drown you, or otherwise kill you?
> 
> What about when you had one toe in? When you were halfway out? When you were crowning? What changes?
> 
> Do I have to wait 'til the umbilical cord is cut? What about the afterbirth?



Although from reading all of JB's posts in this thread I get the impression that even though his pov is firmly in the 'self-aware' camp, he is still against abortion because it destroys a human life -- although to him not a person.

JB, if I'm wrong please correct me.


----------



## manifold

Zoom-boing said:


> JB is ok with abortion up until a fetus becomes sentient or self-aware.



And unless he believes that this occurs at conception, he is pro-choice.

Fact, not opinion.


----------



## Zoom-boing

manifold said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB is ok with abortion up until a fetus becomes sentient or self-aware.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And unless he believes that this occurs at conception, he is pro-choice.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
Click to expand...


And?  He's answered the questions he's asked.  Other haven't . . . that was the point of the thread.


----------



## manifold

Zoom-boing said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB is ok with abortion up until a fetus becomes sentient or self-aware.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And unless he believes that this occurs at conception, he is pro-choice.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?  He's answered the questions he's asked.  Other haven't . . . that was the point of the thread.
Click to expand...


I answered his question.  He was annoyed that I blew the premise of his OP out of the water so he threw a tantrum and refused to acknowledge that his challenge was met.

Imagine how funny it was to find out later that he claims to be pro-choice.


----------



## Zoom-boing

manifold said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> And unless he believes that this occurs at conception, he is pro-choice.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?  He's answered the questions he's asked.  Other haven't . . . that was the point of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered his question.  He was annoyed that I blew the premise of his OP out of the water so he threw a tantrum and refused to acknowledge that his challenge was met.
> 
> Imagine how funny it was to find out later that he claims to be pro-choice.
Click to expand...


I didn't see your exchange with him.

Your last sentence . . . . I'm still not sure which side he falls on.  Despite his 'self-aware' threshold, his responses and posts in here certainly seem as if he is pro-life rather than pro-choice.     Only JB can answer that though.


----------



## manifold

Zoom-boing said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?  He's answered the questions he's asked.  Other haven't . . . that was the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered his question.  He was annoyed that I blew the premise of his OP out of the water so he threw a tantrum and refused to acknowledge that his challenge was met.
> 
> Imagine how funny it was to find out later that he claims to be pro-choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see your exchange with him.
> 
> Your last sentence . . . . I'm still not sure which side he falls on.  Despite his 'self-aware' threshold, his responses and posts in here certainly seem as if he is pro-life rather than pro-choice.     Only JB can answer that though.
Click to expand...


Which of course speaks to his lack of balls.  In the other thread, he questioned how his being 'pro-choice' is statist.  In this thread, he's been tap-dancing around it like a bitch.

But again, there may be strong differences of opinion from one pro-choicer to another, but anyone that believes in an 'acceptable' window of time within which a pregnant woman should be allowed to abort a living, viable fetus, that person is pro-choice.  I mean shit, they're certainly not pro-life.


----------



## AllieBaba

manifold said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB is ok with abortion up until a fetus becomes sentient or self-aware.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And unless he believes that this occurs at conception, he is pro-choice.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
Click to expand...

 
Hmmm....

So...if you believe sentience begins at conception, you are pro-choice?

Where is that in the definition?

"(pr&#333;-chois')
_adj._
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term

Read more: pro-choice: Definition from Answers.com"

English. It's a good thing.


----------



## manifold

AllieBaba said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB is ok with abortion up until a fetus becomes sentient or self-aware.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And unless he believes that this occurs at conception, he is pro-choice.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> So...if you believe sentience begins at conception, you are pro-choice?
Click to expand...


Not at all what I said.  In fact, I said almost the exact opposite.

Seriously, learn to fuck'n read you stupid twat.


----------



## AllieBaba

I have no problem reading. You seem to have some difficulty with communication, however.

Like I said, I hope you get well soon. I've heard that frontal lobe damage is permanent but there is always a chance that could change in time for you to benefit.


----------



## Valerie

I'm sure manifold has always been sentient...


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> No, I can prove mine.



No, you can prove what happened 37 years ago.  You cannot prove your predictions that the reverse will happen if Roe were overturned.  But, go ahead and pretend you can.  No one will be able to pull you out of your fantasy world.

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've still not gotten a decent answer for my simple question to pro-abortionists/pro-choicers:
> 
> If there's a chance you could be wrong about babies being alive...why chance it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuz it's a loaded question.
> 
> 
> We've made the assessment that we don't find it to be a living baby until a certain point, so you're asking a question with an assessment that we don't agree with.
> 
> 
> If you know it's not a living baby..........why not have an early abortion if you want?
> 
> That's not an actual question, just giving you a comparison to what you're asking, as you and the pro-life crowd have made the assessment that it is a living baby.
Click to expand...


It just flabbergasts me that a group of people who like to pride themselves on being about the "science" rather than "emotion" or "faith" are somehow perfectly comfortable believing that "living" is a matter of "making an assessment" or taking a vote.

And who the hell is this "we" who somehow acquired the ability to vote on scientific fact and arbitrarily hand their decision down to everyone else?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it ok to take the life of a 2 month old unborn human
> 
> 
> 
> Because they don't look like us. Same reason it's okay to kill blacks.
> 
> Which brings us once again to Margaret Sanger and the reason Planned Parenthood exists...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -147 reputation points from Grace.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Fucktard
> 
> Regards,
> Grace
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong Grace?
> 
> 
> Once again the pro-abortion crowd proves the really, _really_, *really* hate facts.
Click to expand...


Remember me telling you a while back that trauma tends to stop a person's mental and emotional development at the age when the trauma occurred?  Grace's pathetically adolescent behavior just continues to bear that assessment out.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few points
> 
> 1.) I miss Immanuel, the only person who I can have a grown up discussion about the abortion issue on here .
> 2.) There's a reason society doesn't view an early miscarriage as they do a baby dying, funerals/obituaries/etc, providing an example of it happening once won't prove me wrong either.
> 3.) Sure would be nice if the pro-lifers would spend more time speaking positively about adoption after going through the pregnancy, rather than using 99% of their time and effort to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their exact same views.
> 
> Let's see what kind of insults that post brings, anything new?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  "Grown-up discussion" apparently means "treats my crap with respect it doesn't deserve and can't earn on its merits".
> 
> 2)  If you can define that "reason" as anything that constitutes actual proof that unborn babies are not living humans, I'd like to hear that, rather than just a vague implication that it MUST mean you're right.
> 
> 3)  Sure would be nice if pro-aborts would spend more time sharing arguments based on reality, rather than the perception they WISH was reality.  "Pro-lifers need to speak positively about adoption."  Oh, really?  And now you're going to show us some evidence besides your desire to believe it that pro-lifers have no interest in adoption, right?  And no, the fact that THIS THREAD - a thread on abortion, not on adoption - is focusing on its topic is not proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think the positives of adoption would be the first thing someone speaking out against abortion would go to, sadly that's not the case.  Seems like to me positively enforcing the idea of adoption would work better than negatively attacking through holier than thou proclamations.
Click to expand...


. . . And I wait in vain for Dr. Dreck to offer evidence that his worldview is correct, rather than repeated assertions that it just is.  I wish I could say I was surprised, but frankly, he continues to hit my lowest expectations of him.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuz it's a loaded question.
> 
> 
> We've made the assessment that we don't find it to be a living baby until a certain point, so you're asking a question with an assessment that we don't agree with.
> 
> 
> *If you know it's not a living baby*..........why not have an early abortion if you want?
> 
> That's not an actual question, just giving you a comparison to what you're asking, as you and the pro-life crowd have made the assessment that it is a living baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's a living human.  Otherwise, why would one seek an abortion?
> 
> a·bor·tion:  the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
> 
> preg·nan·cy:  1.  the state or condition of being pregnant; 2. 	the period from *conception to childbirth
> *
> 
> If one is pro-choice then be pro-choice.  Just be aware that _the choice of abortion terminates/ends/destroys/kills a human being_ that is in the early stages of development.  No way around it . . . . _regardless_ of the multitude of excuses and rationalizations that have been posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not overly worried about the wording, just about everyone agrees with some abortions or some version of timing whether it's the morning after pill or within the first month, 2 months, etc.
> 
> Truth is I want the same number of abortions the pro-life crowd wants, the same legislation done away with the pro-life crowd wants, I'm not sure why ONLY focusing on the differences is what has to be done.
> 
> The differences would have zero impact legislatively anyways.
Click to expand...


And the question remains, WHY do you want zero abortions?  What possible reason could you have for thinking there SHOULD be no one having abortions, that ALSO allows you to believe they should be completely unrestricted and unprohibited?


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Wtf does that have to do with this thread?
> 
> ?????



The two Ds of liberal debate:  diversion and deflection.


----------



## JBeukema

Zoom-boing said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?  He's answered the questions he's asked.  Other haven't . . . that was the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered his question.  He was annoyed that I blew the premise of his OP out of the water so he threw a tantrum and refused to acknowledge that his challenge was met.
> 
> Imagine how funny it was to find out later that he claims to be pro-choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see your exchange with him.
> 
> Your last sentence . . . . I'm still not sure which side he falls on.  Despite his 'self-aware' threshold, his responses and posts in here certainly seem as if he is pro-life rather than pro-choice.     Only JB can answer that though.
Click to expand...


I don't approve of using Meth and support programs to help people get and stay clean, but insomuch as you harm no other person, the State can stay the fuck out of it. Shadow box all you want; that's your business. Start walking up and hitting strangers in the face, and now it's _everyone's_ business and the collective have every right to take action to stop you from harming other people.

Same thing here. Pierce, tattoo, cut, paint, and whatever else your own body all you want. Use it to rape or punch another person and you've discovered where your rights to do as you wish with/to your own body stops.

Pregnancy doesn't just deal with your own body. It deals, by definition, with another living human being. Yet the adepts of abortionism can't admit that. Time and again they prove incapable of honesty. I just want to know why they can't be honest and now I've my answer. They can't be honest with _themselves_ because abortionism is a matter of faith- a religion of sorts, in which denying the truth is an act of service in the name of some higher calling- usually radical fourth-wave neofemin[az]ism.



manifold said:


> Which of course speaks to his lack of balls.



Your your lack of reading comprehension skills. See my post on page six  of this very thread or see my posts on just about any thread on this  topic. It's really not that complicated.

Page six:


JBeukema said:


> Human life isn't important



I don't know how to make it any clearer.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've  still not gotten a decent answer for my simple question to  pro-abortionists/pro-choicers:
> 
> If there's a chance you could be wrong about babies being alive...why chance it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuz it's a loaded question.
> 
> 
> We've made the assessment that we don't find it to be a living baby  until a certain point, so you're asking a question with an assessment  that we don't agree with.
> 
> 
> If you know it's not a living baby..........why not have an early abortion if you want?
> 
> That's not an actual question, just giving you a comparison to what  you're asking, as you and the pro-life crowd have made the assessment  that it is a living baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just flabbergasts me that a group of people who like to pride  themselves on being about the "science" rather than "emotion" or "faith"  are somehow perfectly comfortable believing that "living" is a matter  of "making an assessment" or taking a vote.
> 
> And who the hell is this "we" who somehow acquired the ability to vote  on scientific fact and arbitrarily hand their decision down to everyone  else?
Click to expand...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161359-why-cant-the-pro-abortion-crowd-be-honest.html


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.



As long as it doesn't involve prohibiting it, talking to people about why they shouldn't, acknowledging any of the medical science around it, or really inhibiting abortion in any way.


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as it doesn't involve prohibiting it, talking to people about why they shouldn't, acknowledging any of the medical science around it, or really inhibiting abortion in any way.
Click to expand...

There was a time in America when we didn't let people like Drock reproduce...


----------



## Dr Grump

JBeukema said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as it doesn't involve prohibiting it, talking to people about why they shouldn't, acknowledging any of the medical science around it, or really inhibiting abortion in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was a time in America when we didn't let people like Drock reproduce...
Click to expand...


So you are in favour of sterilising folk? hmmmm


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> JB is pro-life. Period.
> 
> I see that Immie won't comment on the fact that if abortion were illegal, there would be less of it.
> 
> So what it comes down to is that the pro-abortion crowd would like to see abortion numbers reduced....but not if that means making it illegal. Gotta keep that door open to kill babies if *needed*...even though there is no true need.



Pro-aborts are always talking about how they want abortion to be "rare", how they want to "come together and compromise to lower the number of abortions", but for the life of me, I have NEVER heard one of them tell us any real, substantive way they intend to do that.  The closest they come is prattling on and on about "sex education", like they honestly believe a majority of adolescents and young adults in 21st-century America have no idea how babies are made, or how one prevents it.


----------



## rdean

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB is pro-life. Period.
> 
> I see that Immie won't comment on the fact that if abortion were illegal, there would be less of it.
> 
> So what it comes down to is that the pro-abortion crowd would like to see abortion numbers reduced....but not if that means making it illegal. Gotta keep that door open to kill babies if *needed*...even though there is no true need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-aborts are always talking about how they want abortion to be "rare", how they want to "come together and compromise to lower the number of abortions", but for the life of me, I have NEVER heard one of them tell us any real, substantive way they intend to do that.  The closest they come is prattling on and on about "sex education", like they honestly believe a majority of adolescents and young adults in 21st-century America have no idea how babies are made, or how one prevents it.
Click to expand...


That's because the right wing fights "sex education" and wants to stop contraceptive use.  But the worst thing they do is let children starve to make tax cuts for millionaires.  Now we are talking "disgraceful".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-r...ake-tax-cuts-for-millionaires-is-working.html


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make it illegal, as all murder is illegal. It would do more to limit the number of abortions than anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think all that would do is create a black market, same way it did with drug use.  If someone wants to have an abortion, just like if someone wants to smoke weed, they'll do it regardless of law.
Click to expand...


So you honestly think that the amount of drug usage in this country wouldn't change at all if it were legal and more widely-available?  You don't think legally prohibiting behavior inhibits it?  



Dr.Drock said:


> The past statistics I know you have on hand I don't find as an accurate portrayel, as before abortion was legal I'm doubting those who had it done went out of their way to report it.



Ahhh, more personal opinion, _sans _facts or proof, that we're just supposed to accept at face value.

By all means, show us SOMETHING to support your airy assertion that over a million babies were killed every year prior to _Roe v. Wade_, without anyone ever noticing anything about it.



Dr.Drock said:


> I think the idea of education to keep people from getting pregnant, educating people (women especially) on the responsiblity a child entails, along with education on what to do/how to cope once pregnant is the best way to go.



So you really DO believe that millions of young adults in 21st-century America have no idea where babies come from or how to stop it, or that babies take a lot of work?  Really?  You really believe that's the whole problem here, that our society just doesn't talk about sex enough?!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Step One: Tell your daughters to keep their legs shut and your sons to keep their dicks in their pants if they're not ready to be responsible for a baby.
> 
> That would end 93% of all abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree, you're going against basic human instinct to tell people age 15-20 something (or whatever age) to not want to have sex, completely unrealistic.
Click to expand...


So your whole big plan to reduce abortions to zero is more talk and education about sex, how babies are made, how much work they are, but it's not going to EVER involve saying, "Don't make babies"?

THIS is what you want us to "come together" with you on:  fucking makes babies, but it's unreasonable to expect you to avoid it, abortion is a bad thing, but you can do it any time you want, as many times as you want, for any reason.


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Step One: Tell your daughters to keep their legs shut and your sons to keep their dicks in their pants if they're not ready to be responsible for a baby.
> 
> That would end 93% of all abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree, you're going against basic human instinct to tell people age 15-20 something (or whatever age) to not want to have sex, completely unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your whole big plan to reduce abortions to zero is more talk and education about sex, how babies are made, how much work they are, but it's not going to EVER involve saying, "Don't make babies"?
> 
> THIS is what you want us to "come together" with you on:  fucking makes babies, but it's unreasonable to expect you to avoid it, abortion is a bad thing, but you can do it any time you want, as many times as you want, for any reason.
Click to expand...


And your solution is.....?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree, you're going against basic human instinct to tell people age 15-20 something (or whatever age) to not want to have sex, completely unrealistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cuz we all know that 15-20 year old kids must be allowed to do anything they want, and a good parent just accepts the fact that they will engage in dangerous behavior...
> 
> This is why we turn over our bank accounts and car keys to them as soon as they turn 15! Cuz after all, it's against basic human instinct to tell a kid "no! That's dangerous!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so in your mind telling a kid no=it won't happen?
> 
> My point is 95%+ of people have sex or want to have sex and the chance doesn't come up before they're able to have kids and that's not changing, so a realistic idea is a little better.
Click to expand...


YOU seem to think telling them "Sex makes babies, but do it anyway" is going to help, so how realistic is THAT?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Immanuel said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I can prove mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can prove what happened 37 years ago.  You cannot prove your predictions that the reverse will happen if Roe were overturned.  But, go ahead and pretend you can.  No one will be able to pull you out of your fantasy world.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Well, um, history is generally where one looks for indications of how people are going to behave in a certain type of situation, as opposed to . . . oh, I'm sorry, WHAT is the evidence the whole "people will have millions of black market abortions" argument is based on?  I'm still waiting to hear what that is.


----------



## manifold

So JB, which better describes your position on the abortion issue:

A. pro-choice

B. pro-life


----------



## Immanuel

Cecilie1200 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I can prove mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can prove what happened 37 years ago.  You cannot prove your predictions that the reverse will happen if Roe were overturned.  But, go ahead and pretend you can.  No one will be able to pull you out of your fantasy world.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, um, history is generally where one looks for indications of how people are going to behave in a certain type of situation, as opposed to . . . oh, I'm sorry, WHAT is the evidence the whole "people will have millions of black market abortions" argument is based on?  I'm still waiting to hear what that is.
Click to expand...


We have lived through nearly 40 years of this country promoting abortion.  We have drugs like RU-486.  We have a nation of people who have been taught that there is nothing at all wrong with having an abortion.  Things have changed in the last 40 years.

Not only that but it is a leap of faith (a very large leap) to believe that the number of abortions as a percentage of the number of pregnancies skyrocketed in 1973.  What really happened is that abortions became legal and it no longer became a crime to have an abortion.  Abortions began to be reported rather than hidden.

There is no proof of what Allie keeps preaching.  If Roe were overturned the exact opposite of that is what would happen.  Women would go right on having abortions.  They would not report them and the number of reported abortions would fall... in the meantime, the same number of children would die.

And the pro-life movement loses, because the number of deaths doesn't change, but at least we won the frigging debate!  Abortions are now illegal, babies still die, but hot damn we win the debate.  Big frigging deal.

Immie


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> So JB, which better describes your position on the abortion issue:
> 
> A. pro-choice
> 
> B. pro-life



I should suspect both, with everyone else.  




> There is no proof of what Allie keeps preaching. If Roe were overturned the exact opposite of that is what would happen. Women would go right on having abortions. They would not report them and the number of reported abortions would fall... in the meantime, the same number of children would die.



Correct.


----------



## poet

RetiredGySgt said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. All people have a right to have an opinion about the ending prematurely of a human life. I will grant that currently it is totally legal to do so. But that does not change the basic facts. A human life was ended prematurely by design of another Human.
> 
> I and others find that unacceptable and believe it should not be legal to simply kill another human because it may be inconvenient to the mother of the child. Technically it is not homicide since that definition includes that the act is illegal. It is murder though. Just legal murder.
Click to expand...


It is not a human "being", which means a viable personage, with rights and consideration afforded human beings until it is born. A fetus doesn't have a right to life. A baby does. Morons.


----------



## Immanuel

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> So JB, which better describes your position on the abortion issue:
> 
> A. pro-choice
> 
> B. pro-life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should suspect both, with everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof of what Allie keeps preaching. If Roe were overturned the exact opposite of that is what would happen. Women would go right on having abortions. They would not report them and the number of reported abortions would fall... in the meantime, the same number of children would die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Correct.*
Click to expand...


But, by God, Pro-lifers like myself would have won the debate and the rest o' you can just go on sucking golf balls because we win and when everything is said and done, that IS all that matters.  Ain't it?   Oh wait, are there not kids lives involved?

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> So JB, which better describes your position on the abortion issue:
> 
> A. pro-choice
> 
> B. pro-life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should suspect both, with everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof of what Allie keeps preaching. If Roe were overturned the exact opposite of that is what would happen. Women would go right on having abortions. They would not report them and the number of reported abortions would fall... in the meantime, the same number of children would die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.
Click to expand...

 
Really? Where's the proof of THAT? At least I can provide a semblance of real information and numbers that arguably support my theory...that legalized abortion actually puts children at HIGHER risk of 1. Being aborted or 2. Abuse/neglect if they're not.

There is absolutely NO evidence of any kind, not even the most negligible, that legalized abortion REDUCES abortion numbers, or that if abortion were illegal there would be the same number of abortions, except illegal and medically fraught with danger. 

In fact, that theory is so ridiculous, even the most rabid pro-abortion proponents...Guttmacher and PP, don't put voice to it. They can't; even their ridiculously incomplete and pretend numbers can't be twisted to prove it.

So tell me,  how can you sleep at night knowing you are completely fabricating a story in order to justify legalized slaughter of our most vulnerable population? Doesn't it give you pause when you dismiss the evidence which points to the polar opposite of what you claim? Do you dismiss all evidence in other areas of your life, if the facts don't jibe with your world view? How can a person live that way?


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> So tell me,  how can you sleep at night knowing you are completely fabricating a story in order to justify legalized slaughter of our most vulnerable population? Doesn't it give you pause when you dismiss the evidence which points to the polar opposite of what you claim? Do you dismiss all evidence in other areas of your life, if the facts don't jibe with your world view? How can a person live that way?



At the end of the day, you see these foetus's as human being, while others don't. That's the bottom line. I consider the US part of the civilised world, yet they are the only country in that spectrum that has this debate. The rest of us have moved on, albeit with a very small minority in most countries objecting to abortions.

The reason the US is on a different plain to the rest of us is due mainly to the religious zealotry of the Fundie Christians. I'm not saying that all people who are anti abortion are Christians, or even fundie Christians, but the vast majority are. And once you start with that argument - and you do fit that bill Allie - then you lose. Keep your religious beliefs out of other peoples' business.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

And who/what exactly is the Pro-Abortion Crowd? What evidence is there theyre not being honest? About what? Life begins at conception? Abortion is wrong? 

As far as I know everyones opposed to abortion. Some, however, understand the Constitution prohibits the state from banning abortion as its a violation of privacy rights. Acknowledging and accepting that fact doesnt mitigate opposition to the procedure.


----------



## JBeukema

poet said:


> It is not a human "being"



Says the chattle 

Margaret Sanger, anyone?


> &#8194; noun 1.any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.





> , which means a viable personage




Bo, it doesn't

&#8194; noun 1.any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.








> with rights



Says the chattel...


You heard it hear, folks: poet insists ******* weren't human beings until the 1960s


----------



## Mr.Nick

Does a woman knowingly murder a child when she goes to a doctor and asks him to stick a forecepts in his or her skull??

Yes..

Is that motherfucking first degree murder??? absolutely fucking yes....

The pro-abortion croweds argument may be that of some fucking lunatic that is on one of one of those judge shows thats on TV where some retard says; "yes yo honna I threw the TV through hiz windowh but only because he has my DVD playah."

Abortion is worse than that because a female is not only thinking about herself (DVD "playah") but is throwing the TV through the window (abortion) and the car is the victim (fetus)...

Only way I can put it for peons..


----------



## JBeukema

Dr Grump said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me,  how can you sleep at night knowing you are completely fabricating a story in order to justify legalized slaughter of our most vulnerable population? Doesn't it give you pause when you dismiss the evidence which points to the polar opposite of what you claim? Do you dismiss all evidence in other areas of your life, if the facts don't jibe with your world view? How can a person live that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, you see these foetus's as human being, while others don't
Click to expand...


Sorry, Earth is not flat. There is no room for opinion, only for facts.

You don't get to have a flat earth, creationism in science class, or non-human babies begotten by humans whose DNA mutates at birth, causing them to become human


Why can't you people ever be honest?


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr.Nick said:


> Does a woman knowingly murder a child when she goes to a doctor and asks him to stick a forecepts in his or her skull??
> 
> Yes..
> 
> Is that motherfucking first degree murder??? absolutely fucking yes....
> 
> The pro-abortion croweds argument may be that of some fucking lunatic that is on one of one of those judge shows thats on TV where some retard says; "yes yo honna I threw the TV through hiz windowh but only because he has my DVD playah."
> 
> Abortion is worse than that because a female is not only thinking about herself (DVD "playah") but is throwing the TV through the window (abortion) and the car is the victim (fetus)...
> 
> Only way I can put it for peons..



The law in most rational countries disagree with your premise. There is a reason for that....


----------



## Mr.Nick

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does a woman knowingly murder a child when she goes to a doctor and asks him to stick a forecepts in his or her skull??
> 
> Yes..
> 
> Is that motherfucking first degree murder??? absolutely fucking yes....
> 
> The pro-abortion croweds argument may be that of some fucking lunatic that is on one of one of those judge shows thats on TV where some retard says; "yes yo honna I threw the TV through hiz windowh but only because he has my DVD playah."
> 
> Abortion is worse than that because a female is not only thinking about herself (DVD "playah") but is throwing the TV through the window (abortion) and the car is the victim (fetus)...
> 
> Only way I can put it for peons..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law in most rational countries disagree with your premise. There is a reason for that....
Click to expand...


In what universe is any law rational??

BTW its not _most_ countries...

Don't even try me...


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr Grump said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, how can you sleep at night knowing you are completely fabricating a story in order to justify legalized slaughter of our most vulnerable population? Doesn't it give you pause when you dismiss the evidence which points to the polar opposite of what you claim? Do you dismiss all evidence in other areas of your life, if the facts don't jibe with your world view? How can a person live that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, you see these foetus's as human being, while others don't. That's the bottom line. I consider the US part of the civilised world, yet they are the only country in that spectrum that has this debate. The rest of us have moved on, albeit with a very small minority in most countries objecting to abortions.
> 
> The reason the US is on a different plain to the rest of us is due mainly to the religious zealotry of the Fundie Christians. I'm not saying that all people who are anti abortion are Christians, or even fundie Christians, but the vast majority are. And once you start with that argument - and you do fit that bill Allie - then you lose. Keep your religious beliefs out of other peoples' business.
Click to expand...

 
I didn't mention God. You did. So I think perhaps you're more preoccupied with religion than I am.

The definition of murder has nothing to do with religion. 

 What you would like to do is re-define murder, as you've re-defined sexuality, marriage, and truth...so that people are released to legally prune society...i.e., kill off "parasites" like the unborn of poor and minority women, like mental defectives, and old people who can't take care of themselves.

The fact that I find this repugnant really doesn't have a lot to do with religion. Recognizing and abhorring murder is not forcing religion down anyone's throat, not by any stretch of the (sane) imagination.


----------



## Mr.Nick

There is an old saying - it goes: its not what you believe (or whats rational) its what you can prove.

Well, libfucks have turned that into a circus...

Republicans too for that matter..


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does a woman knowingly murder a child when she goes to a doctor and asks him to stick a forecepts in his or her skull??
> 
> Yes..
> 
> Is that motherfucking first degree murder??? absolutely fucking yes....
> 
> The pro-abortion croweds argument may be that of some fucking lunatic that is on one of one of those judge shows thats on TV where some retard says; "yes yo honna I threw the TV through hiz windowh but only because he has my DVD playah."
> 
> Abortion is worse than that because a female is not only thinking about herself (DVD "playah") but is throwing the TV through the window (abortion) and the car is the victim (fetus)...
> 
> Only way I can put it for peons..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law in most rational countries disagree with your premise. There is a reason for that....
Click to expand...

 
What the hell is a *rational* country?

What is an *irrational* country? Names, please.


----------



## Dr Grump

JBeukema said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me,  how can you sleep at night knowing you are completely fabricating a story in order to justify legalized slaughter of our most vulnerable population? Doesn't it give you pause when you dismiss the evidence which points to the polar opposite of what you claim? Do you dismiss all evidence in other areas of your life, if the facts don't jibe with your world view? How can a person live that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, you see these foetus's as human being, while others don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Earth is not flat. There is no room for opinion, only for facts.
> 
> You don't get to have a flat earth, creationism in science class, or non-human babies begotten by humans whose DNA mutates at birth, causing them to become human
> 
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
Click to expand...


What part is dishonest. I am not for abortions, and in my lifetime, when asked for an opinion by a pregnant woman if they should have one, I've said give it up for adoption.

I have a very pragmatic opinion on those that do abort in the sense of what it actually entails and who/what is involved.

IMO there are already too many humans on this earth. The place is struggling to breath at the best of times - visit any major city in Asia if you don't believe me, or even some places in Europe and even your country.

As far as I can see the foetus has never been a living, breathing entity, however, once it gets past a certain stage - six months say - the decision should have already been made. 

At the end of the day, where the anti-abortionist lose their argument (IMO), is that they make the main plank as being about late term abortions, when in fact, they are a miniscule amount of the overall abortion rate, and an even smaller amount of that miniscule amount are done for 'convenience'....

At the end of the day, the likes of yourselves and the dominantrix and the Baba use emotive issues, and you somehow think your argument makes you more human/humane than those that don't


----------



## AllieBaba

So your support of abortion really has nothing to do with what's best for the mother and existing childre...it's part and parcel of your desire to reduce the population on this earth.

And of course you recognize that one of the most effective ways to do that is to maintain legalized infanticide.....

Imagine that.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Dr Grump said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, you see these foetus's as human being, while others don't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Earth is not flat. There is no room for opinion, only for facts.
> 
> You don't get to have a flat earth, creationism in science class, or non-human babies begotten by humans whose DNA mutates at birth, causing them to become human
> 
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part is dishonest. I am not for abortions, an in my lifetime, when asked for an opinion by a pregnant woman if they should have one, I've said give it up for adoption.
> 
> I have a very pragmatic opinion on those that do abort in the sense of what it actually entails and who/what is involved.
> 
> IMO there are already too many humans on this earth. The place is struggling to breath at the best of times - visit any major city in Asia if you don't believe me, or even some places in Europe and even your country.
> 
> As far as I can see the foetus has never been a living, breathing entity, however, once it gets past a certain stage - six months say - the decision should have already been made.
> 
> At the end of the day, where the anti-abortionist lose their argument (IMO), si that they make the main plank of their argument about late term abortions, when in fact, they are a miniscule amount of the overall abortion rate, and an even smaller amount of that miniscule amount are done for 'convenience'....
> 
> At the end of the day, the likes of yourselves and the dominantrix and the Baba use emotive issues, and you somehow think your argument makes you more human/humane than those that don't
Click to expand...


oh fuck off...

I love the libfuck backtrack.

I suppose ignorance is bliss and getting asshatted is embarrassing?


----------



## AllieBaba

Yes, it's extremely emotive to use the pro-abortion stats against them. 

Emotive for the yahoos who can't reconcile their ridiculous dreamworld justifications with the reality of the data collected by their own gurus.


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> So your support of abortion really has nothing to do with what's best for the mother and existing childre...it's part and parcel of your desire to reduce the population on this earth.
> 
> And of course you recognize that one of the most effective ways to do that is to maintain legalized infanticide.....
> 
> Imagine that.



As I said it is a pragmatic problem. Millions of women get knocked up every year who don't want a baby - they don't want to go through with it. They don't want to give it up for adoption or whatever.

As stated you see it as murder, I don't. You are entitled to your opinion.

If you get knocked up, don't have an abortion...

You are using emotive words to describe a procedure that western countries have come to accept as a practical solution to an issue where there are no winners.

And you may not have mentioned religion, but please don't tell me that is not part of YOUR equation. I have been on this board long enough, and know you well enough, to know that comes into your thinking...


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr.Nick said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Earth is not flat. There is no room for opinion, only for facts.
> 
> You don't get to have a flat earth, creationism in science class, or non-human babies begotten by humans whose DNA mutates at birth, causing them to become human
> 
> 
> Why can't you people ever be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part is dishonest. I am not for abortions, an in my lifetime, when asked for an opinion by a pregnant woman if they should have one, I've said give it up for adoption.
> 
> I have a very pragmatic opinion on those that do abort in the sense of what it actually entails and who/what is involved.
> 
> IMO there are already too many humans on this earth. The place is struggling to breath at the best of times - visit any major city in Asia if you don't believe me, or even some places in Europe and even your country.
> 
> As far as I can see the foetus has never been a living, breathing entity, however, once it gets past a certain stage - six months say - the decision should have already been made.
> 
> At the end of the day, where the anti-abortionist lose their argument (IMO), si that they make the main plank of their argument about late term abortions, when in fact, they are a miniscule amount of the overall abortion rate, and an even smaller amount of that miniscule amount are done for 'convenience'....
> 
> At the end of the day, the likes of yourselves and the dominantrix and the Baba use emotive issues, and you somehow think your argument makes you more human/humane than those that don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh fuck off...
> 
> I love the libfuck backtrack.
> 
> I suppose ignorance is bliss and getting asshatted is embarrassing?
Click to expand...


Great argument. I can see why Roe vs Wade never passed muster. Oh, that's right it did - must have had such elequent and well-thought out arguments that you expouse on the side of the anti-abortionists as to why you didn't 'win'...

The only embarrassment is you, to your side of the argument..hardly surprsiing...


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr Grump said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your support of abortion really has nothing to do with what's best for the mother and existing childre...it's part and parcel of your desire to reduce the population on this earth.
> 
> And of course you recognize that one of the most effective ways to do that is to maintain legalized infanticide.....
> 
> Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said it is a pragmatic problem. Millions of women get knocked up every year who don't want a baby - they don't want to go through with it. They don't want to give it up for adoption or whatever.
> 
> As stated you see it as murder, I don't. You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> If you get knocked up, don't have an abortion...
> 
> You are using emotive words to describe a procedure that western countries have come to accept as a practical solution to an issue where there are no winners.
> 
> And you may not have mentioned religion, but please don't tell me that is not part of YOUR equation. I have been on this board long enough, and know you well enough, to know that comes into your thinking...
Click to expand...

 
It doesn't matter if it's practical or not. Forcible sterilization was practical. Slavery was practical. Child marriage is practical. So what? Killing children, no matter what their age, is wrong. Murder is murder, regardless of whether it's practical.


----------



## AllieBaba

And no, you haven't been on this board long enough nor do you know me well enough to understand my thinking. Spare me your self-aggrandizing silliness.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Dr Grump said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your support of abortion really has nothing to do with what's best for the mother and existing childre...it's part and parcel of your desire to reduce the population on this earth.
> 
> And of course you recognize that one of the most effective ways to do that is to maintain legalized infanticide.....
> 
> Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said it is a pragmatic problem. Millions of women get knocked up every year who don't want a baby - they don't want to go through with it. They don't want to give it up for adoption or whatever.
> 
> As stated you see it as murder, I don't. You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> If you get knocked up, don't have an abortion...
> 
> You are using emotive words to describe a procedure that western countries have come to accept as a practical solution to an issue where there are no winners.
> 
> And you may not have mentioned religion, but please don't tell me that is not part of YOUR equation. I have been on this board long enough, and know you well enough, to know that comes into your thinking...
Click to expand...


Yeah of course you don't see it as murder, because its been brainwashed into your head that its not murder..

Then you cite law....

Do you realize that if a man shoots a pregnant woman and kills her fetus he will be charged with 2 counts of homicide?? one for the fetus and one for the "human" as you would call them...

So not only is abortion murder its cruel and unusual punishment... Convicted criminals get better treatment than those poor innocent children being aborted do. They get stabbed in the head and criminals get put to sleep..


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your support of abortion really has nothing to do with what's best for the mother and existing childre...it's part and parcel of your desire to reduce the population on this earth.
> 
> And of course you recognize that one of the most effective ways to do that is to maintain legalized infanticide.....
> 
> Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said it is a pragmatic problem. Millions of women get knocked up every year who don't want a baby - they don't want to go through with it. They don't want to give it up for adoption or whatever.
> 
> As stated you see it as murder, I don't. You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> If you get knocked up, don't have an abortion...
> 
> You are using emotive words to describe a procedure that western countries have come to accept as a practical solution to an issue where there are no winners.
> 
> And you may not have mentioned religion, but please don't tell me that is not part of YOUR equation. I have been on this board long enough, and know you well enough, to know that comes into your thinking...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if it's practical or not. Forcible sterilization was practical. Slavery was practical. Child marriage is practical. So what? Killing children, no matter what their age, is wrong. Murder is murder, regardless of whether it's practical.
Click to expand...


As I stated, you see them as 'children' as is your right. But they are not...and least in the first 6-12 weeks when the vast majority of abortions occur. 

If you want to talk about forced sterilisation or slavery in regards to abortion, then you would have to talk about abortion in the same manner - ie people being forced to have an abortion. I disagree with that too. Abortion should be the choice of the person having the procedure.

Civilised countries do not believe in children being married. We have an age limit for a reason. Your argument in that regard is superfluous and flawed.


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr.Nick said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your support of abortion really has nothing to do with what's best for the mother and existing childre...it's part and parcel of your desire to reduce the population on this earth.
> 
> And of course you recognize that one of the most effective ways to do that is to maintain legalized infanticide.....
> 
> Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said it is a pragmatic problem. Millions of women get knocked up every year who don't want a baby - they don't want to go through with it. They don't want to give it up for adoption or whatever.
> 
> As stated you see it as murder, I don't. You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> If you get knocked up, don't have an abortion...
> 
> You are using emotive words to describe a procedure that western countries have come to accept as a practical solution to an issue where there are no winners.
> 
> And you may not have mentioned religion, but please don't tell me that is not part of YOUR equation. I have been on this board long enough, and know you well enough, to know that comes into your thinking...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah of course you don't see it as murder, because its been brainwashed into your head that its not murder..
> 
> Then you cite law....
> 
> Do you realize that if a man shoots a pregnant woman and kills her fetus he will be charged with 2 counts of homicide?? one for the fetus and one for the "human" as you would call them...
> 
> So not only is abortion murder its cruel and unusual punishment... Convicted criminals get better treatment than those poor innocent children being aborted do. They get stabbed in the head and criminals get put to sleep..
Click to expand...


Save your emotive hyperbole for the picket line and your local aboriton clinic. 

I would suggest a couple of things: 1) In the case you cite, if the woman wanted the baby, then of course that has to be taken into consideration when a charge is being laid.


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr Grump said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said it is a pragmatic problem. Millions of women get knocked up every year who don't want a baby - they don't want to go through with it. They don't want to give it up for adoption or whatever.
> 
> As stated you see it as murder, I don't. You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> If you get knocked up, don't have an abortion...
> 
> You are using emotive words to describe a procedure that western countries have come to accept as a practical solution to an issue where there are no winners.
> 
> And you may not have mentioned religion, but please don't tell me that is not part of YOUR equation. I have been on this board long enough, and know you well enough, to know that comes into your thinking...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if it's practical or not. Forcible sterilization was practical. Slavery was practical. Child marriage is practical. So what? Killing children, no matter what their age, is wrong. Murder is murder, regardless of whether it's practical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I stated, you see them as 'children' as is your right. But they are not...and least in the first 6-12 weeks when the vast majority of abortions occur.
> 
> If you want to talk about forced sterilisation or slavery in regards to abortion, then you would have to talk about abortion in the same manner - ie people being forced to have an abortion. I disagree with that too. Abortion should be the choice of the person having the procedure.
> 
> Civilised countries do not believe in children being married. We have an age limit for a reason. Your argument in that regard is superfluous and flawed.
Click to expand...

 
Based on your say so? Lol..what evidence have you provided?

None. 

My theory, flawed as it may be, still blows your own (do you even have one? Other than it's okay to kill children?) out of the water.


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if it's practical or not. Forcible sterilization was practical. Slavery was practical. Child marriage is practical. So what? Killing children, no matter what their age, is wrong. Murder is murder, regardless of whether it's practical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated, you see them as 'children' as is your right. But they are not...and least in the first 6-12 weeks when the vast majority of abortions occur.
> 
> If you want to talk about forced sterilisation or slavery in regards to abortion, then you would have to talk about abortion in the same manner - ie people being forced to have an abortion. I disagree with that too. Abortion should be the choice of the person having the procedure.
> 
> Civilised countries do not believe in children being married. We have an age limit for a reason. Your argument in that regard is superfluous and flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on your say so? Lol..what evidence have you provided?
> 
> None.
> 
> My theory, flawed as it may be, still blows your own (do you even have one? Other than it's okay to kill children?) out of the water.
Click to expand...


You don't even have a theory. You have an opinion, which everyone is entitled to.

It is not ok to kill children, and when a feotus becomes one, then your argument kicks in. Until then, your opinion is hot air - and your USSC agrees with me. Go figure....


----------



## Mr.Nick

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part is dishonest. I am not for abortions, an in my lifetime, when asked for an opinion by a pregnant woman if they should have one, I've said give it up for adoption.
> 
> I have a very pragmatic opinion on those that do abort in the sense of what it actually entails and who/what is involved.
> 
> IMO there are already too many humans on this earth. The place is struggling to breath at the best of times - visit any major city in Asia if you don't believe me, or even some places in Europe and even your country.
> 
> As far as I can see the foetus has never been a living, breathing entity, however, once it gets past a certain stage - six months say - the decision should have already been made.
> 
> At the end of the day, where the anti-abortionist lose their argument (IMO), si that they make the main plank of their argument about late term abortions, when in fact, they are a miniscule amount of the overall abortion rate, and an even smaller amount of that miniscule amount are done for 'convenience'....
> 
> At the end of the day, the likes of yourselves and the dominantrix and the Baba use emotive issues, and you somehow think your argument makes you more human/humane than those that don't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh fuck off...
> 
> I love the libfuck backtrack.
> 
> I suppose ignorance is bliss and getting asshatted is embarrassing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great argument. I can see why Roe vs Wade never passed muster. Oh, that's right it did - must have had such elequent and well-thought out arguments that you expouse on the side of the anti-abortionists as to why you didn't 'win'...
> 
> The only embarrassment is you, to your side of the argument..hardly surprsiing...
Click to expand...


Yeah kinda like prop 8.

The supreme court has been a joke since day one - as a libertarian I find the whole thing a farce and guilty of massive tyranny.


----------



## AllieBaba

You know the courts didn't used to consider it murder to kill slaves, either.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Don't forget the 3 SCOTUS clowns voted to ban the Second Amendment as well..

Thats what you call a progressive society tho -one that forgets their roots..


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr.Nick said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh fuck off...
> 
> I love the libfuck backtrack.
> 
> I suppose ignorance is bliss and getting asshatted is embarrassing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great argument. I can see why Roe vs Wade never passed muster. Oh, that's right it did - must have had such elequent and well-thought out arguments that you expouse on the side of the anti-abortionists as to why you didn't 'win'...
> 
> The only embarrassment is you, to your side of the argument..hardly surprsiing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah kinda like prop 8.
> 
> The supreme court has been a joke since day one - as a libertarian I find the whole thing a farce and guilty of massive tyranny.
Click to expand...


As a libertarian you'd be happy for people to make up their own minds about abortion, wouldn't you?


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> You know the courts didn't used to consider it murder to kill slaves, either.



Times change...


----------



## elvis

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great argument. I can see why Roe vs Wade never passed muster. Oh, that's right it did - must have had such elequent and well-thought out arguments that you expouse on the side of the anti-abortionists as to why you didn't 'win'...
> 
> The only embarrassment is you, to your side of the argument..hardly surprsiing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah kinda like prop 8.
> 
> The supreme court has been a joke since day one - as a libertarian I find the whole thing a farce and guilty of massive tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a libertarian you'd be happy for people to make up their own minds about abortion, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...


not all libertarians are in favor of abortion.


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr.Nick said:


> Don't forget the 3 SCOTUS clowns voted to ban the Second Amendment as well..
> 
> Thats what you call a progressive society tho -one that forgets their roots..



Nothing wrong with a progressive society. Without progression you get stagnation. You want stagnation, go live in one of the ME arab countries. You'll find a lack of progression in spades...


----------



## Dr Grump

elvis said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah kinda like prop 8.
> 
> The supreme court has been a joke since day one - as a libertarian I find the whole thing a farce and guilty of massive tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a libertarian you'd be happy for people to make up their own minds about abortion, wouldn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not all libertarians are in favor of abortion.
Click to expand...


It's a rhetorical question. I have read enough of Nick's responses to know where he stands on the issue....


----------



## Mr.Nick

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said it is a pragmatic problem. Millions of women get knocked up every year who don't want a baby - they don't want to go through with it. They don't want to give it up for adoption or whatever.
> 
> As stated you see it as murder, I don't. You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> If you get knocked up, don't have an abortion...
> 
> You are using emotive words to describe a procedure that western countries have come to accept as a practical solution to an issue where there are no winners.
> 
> And you may not have mentioned religion, but please don't tell me that is not part of YOUR equation. I have been on this board long enough, and know you well enough, to know that comes into your thinking...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah of course you don't see it as murder, because its been brainwashed into your head that its not murder..
> 
> Then you cite law....
> 
> Do you realize that if a man shoots a pregnant woman and kills her fetus he will be charged with 2 counts of homicide?? one for the fetus and one for the "human" as you would call them...
> 
> So not only is abortion murder its cruel and unusual punishment... Convicted criminals get better treatment than those poor innocent children being aborted do. They get stabbed in the head and criminals get put to sleep..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save your emotive hyperbole for the picket line and your local aboriton clinic.
> 
> I would suggest a couple of things: 1) In the case you cite, if the woman wanted the baby, then of course that has to be taken into consideration when a charge is being laid.
Click to expand...


Oh so the woman wanted the baby? so if she didn't it makes the baby less human????

You fucking retarded or just evil?


----------



## elvis

Dr Grump said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a libertarian you'd be happy for people to make up their own minds about abortion, wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not all libertarians are in favor of abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a rhetorical question. I have read enough of Nick's responses to know where he stands on the issue....
Click to expand...


aside from that, you really think he's a libertarian?


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr.Nick said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah of course you don't see it as murder, because its been brainwashed into your head that its not murder..
> 
> Then you cite law....
> 
> Do you realize that if a man shoots a pregnant woman and kills her fetus he will be charged with 2 counts of homicide?? one for the fetus and one for the "human" as you would call them...
> 
> So not only is abortion murder its cruel and unusual punishment... Convicted criminals get better treatment than those poor innocent children being aborted do. They get stabbed in the head and criminals get put to sleep..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Save your emotive hyperbole for the picket line and your local aboriton clinic.
> 
> I would suggest a couple of things: 1) In the case you cite, if the woman wanted the baby, then of course that has to be taken into consideration when a charge is being laid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so the woman wanted the baby? so if she didn't it makes the baby less human????
> 
> You fucking retarded or just evil?
Click to expand...


Well, now we are getting into points of law and definitions, which is a whole different territory. Also, if she was only 4 weeks pregnant and perp didn't know she was pregnant, good luck on getting a conviction for murder....


----------



## Dr Grump

elvis said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> not all libertarians are in favor of abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a rhetorical question. I have read enough of Nick's responses to know where he stands on the issue....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> aside from that, you really think he's a libertarian?
Click to expand...


Not too sure. "Rabid" and "batshit crazy" are the adjectives that come to mind...


----------



## Mr.Nick

BTW grump, I'd knock your ___ if you ever had the audacity to assert that to me in real life...

You're basically saying the "woman" has the choice to define a human being then decide to terminate..???

Its people like you that fuck society up and destroy what little is good...

You're a fucking horrible confused person that needs to do some soul searchin'


----------



## elvis

Mr.Nick said:


> BTW grump, I'd knock your ___ if you ever had the audacity to assert that to me in real life...
> 
> You're basically saying the "woman" has the choice to define a human being then decide to terminate..???
> 
> Its people like you that fuck society up and destroy what little is good...
> 
> You're a fucking horrible confused person that needs to do some soul searchin'



assert what?


----------



## Mr.Nick

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your emotive hyperbole for the picket line and your local aboriton clinic.
> 
> I would suggest a couple of things: 1) In the case you cite, if the woman wanted the baby, then of course that has to be taken into consideration when a charge is being laid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so the woman wanted the baby? so if she didn't it makes the baby less human????
> 
> You fucking retarded or just evil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, now we are getting into points of law and definitions, which is a whole different territory. Also, if she was only 4 weeks pregnant and perp didn't know she was pregnant, good luck on getting a conviction for murder....
Click to expand...


Oh fuck off..

I know your murdering anti-human progressive perspective already.

Yeah, you believe a woman has the right to murder a fetus if she wants to... END OF STORY..

I have heard enough of your advocation of murdering children for one night.. I'm going outside for a smoke and when I get back if you havent said something remorseful about your position I'm going to ignore your ass.


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr Grump said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a libertarian you'd be happy for people to make up their own minds about abortion, wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not all libertarians are in favor of abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a rhetorical question. I have read enough of Nick's responses to know where he stands on the issue....
Click to expand...

 
Sure you know. Cuz you're so smart and intuitive and stuff.


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr.Nick said:


> BTW grump, I'd knock your ___ if you ever had the audacity to assert that to me in real life...
> 
> You're basically saying the "woman" has the choice to define a human being then decide to terminate..???
> 
> Its people like you that fuck society up and destroy what little is good...
> 
> You're a fucking horrible confused person that needs to do some soul searchin'



And you're more likely that not a sock puppet, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Well, let's see. Do I interfere in other peoples' lives? No. Rape, steal, murder, burgle, assault, drive drunk? No, no, no, no, no and no. Pay my taxes? Yes. Verbally abuse people for no good reason while walking around in every day life? No. What exactly am I doing to fuck up society?

I don't believe in souls, but my conscience is pretty clear...

Well, no, your USSC has decided when a woman can terminate...


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr.Nick said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so the woman wanted the baby? so if she didn't it makes the baby less human????
> 
> You fucking retarded or just evil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now we are getting into points of law and definitions, which is a whole different territory. Also, if she was only 4 weeks pregnant and perp didn't know she was pregnant, good luck on getting a conviction for murder....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh fuck off..
> 
> I know your murdering anti-human progressive perspective already.
> 
> Yeah, you believe a woman has the right to murder a fetus if she wants to... END OF STORY..
> 
> I have heard enough of your advocation of murdering children for one night.. I'm going outside for a smoke and when I get back if you havent said something remorseful about your position I'm going to ignore your ass.
Click to expand...


Finish your beer at the same time ya mook...

...and please, feel free to ignore me. I get a tad annoyed at having to educate ignoramous's arses all the time...


----------



## Mr.Nick

Dr Grump said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a rhetorical question. I have read enough of Nick's responses to know where he stands on the issue....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aside from that, you really think he's a libertarian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not too sure. "Rabid" and "batshit crazy" are the adjectives that come to mind...
Click to expand...


How about  knowingly evil?


----------



## AllieBaba

Well who knows if you murder people, given your flexible definition of person and murder.


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> not all libertarians are in favor of abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a rhetorical question. I have read enough of Nick's responses to know where he stands on the issue....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you know. Cuz you're so smart and intuitive and stuff.
Click to expand...


Well, I am, but in this case it is kinda self evident. He has on several occassions - on this page alone - equated abortion to murder. So my logical conclusion is that he is anti-abortion.

You have a different take? Pray tell....


----------



## Mr.Nick

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now we are getting into points of law and definitions, which is a whole different territory. Also, if she was only 4 weeks pregnant and perp didn't know she was pregnant, good luck on getting a conviction for murder....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh fuck off..
> 
> I know your murdering anti-human progressive perspective already.
> 
> Yeah, you believe a woman has the right to murder a fetus if she wants to... END OF STORY..
> 
> I have heard enough of your advocation of murdering children for one night.. I'm going outside for a smoke and when I get back if you havent said something remorseful about your position I'm going to ignore your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finish your beer at the same time ya mook...
> 
> ...and please, feel free to ignore me. I get a tad annoyed at having to educate ignoramous's arses all the time...
Click to expand...


Oh thats a joke..

Bye...


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now we are getting into points of law and definitions, which is a whole different territory. Also, if she was only 4 weeks pregnant and perp didn't know she was pregnant, good luck on getting a conviction for murder....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh fuck off..
> 
> I know your murdering anti-human progressive perspective already.
> 
> Yeah, you believe a woman has the right to murder a fetus if she wants to... END OF STORY..
> 
> I have heard enough of your advocation of murdering children for one night.. I'm going outside for a smoke and when I get back if you havent said something remorseful about your position I'm going to ignore your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finish your beer at the same time ya mook...
> 
> ...and please, feel free to ignore me. I get a tad annoyed at having to educate ignoramous's arses all the time...
Click to expand...

 
And when that actually happens, I'm sure somebody will let you know.


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr.Nick said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh fuck off..
> 
> I know your murdering anti-human progressive perspective already.
> 
> Yeah, you believe a woman has the right to murder a fetus if she wants to... END OF STORY..
> 
> I have heard enough of your advocation of murdering children for one night.. I'm going outside for a smoke and when I get back if you havent said something remorseful about your position I'm going to ignore your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finish your beer at the same time ya mook...
> 
> ...and please, feel free to ignore me. I get a tad annoyed at having to educate ignoramous's arses all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh thats a joke..
> 
> Bye...
Click to expand...


Caio...


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh fuck off..
> 
> I know your murdering anti-human progressive perspective already.
> 
> Yeah, you believe a woman has the right to murder a fetus if she wants to... END OF STORY..
> 
> I have heard enough of your advocation of murdering children for one night.. I'm going outside for a smoke and when I get back if you havent said something remorseful about your position I'm going to ignore your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finish your beer at the same time ya mook...
> 
> ...and please, feel free to ignore me. I get a tad annoyed at having to educate ignoramous's arses all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when that actually happens, I'm sure somebody will let you know.
Click to expand...


Happens all the time...gets tedious, but that's life I guess....


----------



## AllieBaba

I've been on here long enough and I know you well enough to know..

that's just not true. I've never seen you educate anyone.


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> I've been on here long enough and I know you well enough to know..
> 
> that's just not true. I've never seen you educate anyone.



Your opinion is noted....


----------



## Dr Grump

bOING


----------



## Dr Grump

Hhhmmm, whole lot of posts gone....


----------



## Zoom-boing

Dr Grump said:


> bOING


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Dr Grump said:


> Hhhmmm, whole lot of posts gone....



There's probably a couple of hundered posts missing from this thread since I left it about 12 hours ago.  Does anyone know what happened to them?


----------



## AllieBaba

I think they went towards the light.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Dr.Drock said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've still not gotten a decent answer for my simple question to pro-abortionists/pro-choicers:
> 
> If there's a chance you could be wrong about babies being alive...why chance it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuz it's a loaded question.
> 
> 
> We've made the assessment that we don't find it to be a living baby until a certain point, so you're asking a question with an assessment that we don't agree with.
> 
> 
> If you know it's not a living baby..........why not have an early abortion if you want?
> 
> That's not an actual question, just giving you a comparison to what you're asking, as you and the pro-life crowd have made the assessment that it is a living baby.
Click to expand...


I have a slight case of déjà vu after going back in time on this thread but I wanted to regain my train of thought on how this argument was developing by responding to some of these posts once again.

Anyway, heres my test to find out whether these babies (not my word) are alive: Simply trace back the thread of your own life to the earliest point when you could have been killed.  Since you cant kill something that is not alive to begin with, this test will reveal when you first became alive.

And it seems fairly obvious that point in time came as soon as you were created (not in the biblical sense).

This test works if you are honest about it.  Indeed, it actually helped flipped me from pro-choice to pro-life.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

AnonymousIV said:


> I am honest, the spirit enters the body when it is being born, my God would not allow the murder of innocent children.  And being honest again, when they sucked out that little bit of tissue in my womb, I felt great, life back on track, everything was good.  How dare you take stabs at recovering individuals.  I guess your motto would be "kick them while their down".  Seems to me you're just being nosey and playing "God".  To me people like you screw the issue around in order to insult others.  I don't like people like you.



This post is much to religious for me to bother with but, if you care to present your civil rights views on this issue, I will do my best to try and counter them.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

poet said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.
> 
> Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. All people have a right to have an opinion about the ending prematurely of a human life. I will grant that currently it is totally legal to do so. But that does not change the basic facts. A human life was ended prematurely by design of another Human.
> 
> I and others find that unacceptable and believe it should not be legal to simply kill another human because it may be inconvenient to the mother of the child. Technically it is not homicide since that definition includes that the act is illegal. It is murder though. Just legal murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a human "being", which means a viable personage, with rights and consideration afforded human beings until it is born. A fetus doesn't have a right to life. A baby does. Morons.
Click to expand...


Hence the need for the Pro Life Movement.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Dr Grump said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me,  how can you sleep at night knowing you are completely fabricating a story in order to justify legalized slaughter of our most vulnerable population? Doesn't it give you pause when you dismiss the evidence which points to the polar opposite of what you claim? Do you dismiss all evidence in other areas of your life, if the facts don't jibe with your world view? How can a person live that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, you see these foetus's as human being, while others don't. That's the bottom line. I consider the US part of the civilised world, yet they are the only country in that spectrum that has this debate. The rest of us have moved on, albeit with a very small minority in most countries objecting to abortions.
> 
> The reason the US is on a different plain to the rest of us is due mainly to the religious zealotry of the Fundie Christians. I'm not saying that all people who are anti abortion are Christians, or even fundie Christians, but the vast majority are. And once you start with that argument - and you do fit that bill Allie - then you lose. Keep your religious beliefs out of other peoples' business.
Click to expand...


Yup, and a lot of us would like you to do the same.  So, please, leave your religious beliefs (and your beliefs about religious people) out of this argument.  It gets us nowhere.


----------



## grunt11b

There should be no such thing as a Christian Democrat, being that the majority of Democrats support abortion, how in the hell can they call themselves Christians if they support the murder of innocent life? Maybe they are not really Christians, maybe they are posing as Christians but are really atheists like the Nazis who did not believe in a god, almost like our president posing as a christian when we all know he is not. They are all fake Americans, pretending to do the right thing, talking out of one side of their mouths while doing the opposite, and anyone who votes for them are damning their own children and grandchildren to a life of hardship paying for all the "Free stuff". 
 Now I am not saying 100% of Democrats support it, but some on here who vote Democrat and support it, how can you call yourselves a Christian, how can you go to church and fake the funk as a christian and live with yourself for voting these murderers into office to carry out the laws of the devil? 
 You yourself will be judged one day, you can bet your ass on it. The fires of hell are stoking extra hot waiting on your asses to get there, and you can bet your ass I will be sitting way up above you with a long enough stick with a hot-dog at the end of it and a beer in the other hand laughing my ass off.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your emotive hyperbole for the picket line and your local aboriton clinic.
> 
> I would suggest a couple of things: 1) In the case you cite, if the woman wanted the baby, then of course that has to be taken into consideration when a charge is being laid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so the woman wanted the baby? so if she didn't it makes the baby less human????
> 
> You fucking retarded or just evil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, now we are getting into points of law and definitions, which is a whole different territory. Also, if she was only 4 weeks pregnant and perp didn't know she was pregnant, good luck on getting a conviction for murder....
Click to expand...



If abortion were illegal, in many ways, the woman would also be a victim, so I think we would be looking at whether the abortionist knew she was pregnant when looking for a conviction?


----------



## grunt11b

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so the woman wanted the baby? so if she didn't it makes the baby less human????
> 
> You fucking retarded or just evil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now we are getting into points of law and definitions, which is a whole different territory. Also, if she was only 4 weeks pregnant and perp didn't know she was pregnant, good luck on getting a conviction for murder....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion were illegal, in many ways, the woman would also be a victim, so I think we would be looking at whether the abortionist knew she was pregnant when looking for a conviction?
Click to expand...


 If she walked in on her own recognizance and hopped up on a table and spread her legs, does that still make her a victim?


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

grunt11b said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now we are getting into points of law and definitions, which is a whole different territory. Also, if she was only 4 weeks pregnant and perp didn't know she was pregnant, good luck on getting a conviction for murder....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion were illegal, in many ways, the woman would also be a victim, so I think we would be looking at whether the abortionist knew she was pregnant when looking for a conviction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If she walked in on her own recognizance and hopped up on a table and spread her legs, does that still make her a victim?
Click to expand...


If we are supposing abortion is illegal, and she was told it was okay to get the abortion (in the privacy of her consultation with the abortionist), yes, I think a very good argument can be made that she is also a victim.


----------



## grunt11b

Mr_Rockhead said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion were illegal, in many ways, the woman would also be a victim, so I think we would be looking at whether the abortionist knew she was pregnant when looking for a conviction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If she walked in on her own recognizance and hopped up on a table and spread her legs, does that still make her a victim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are supposing abortion is illegal, and she was told it was okay to get the abortion (in the privacy of her consultation with the abortionist), yes, I think a very good argument can be made that she is also a victim.
Click to expand...


But abortion apparently is not illegal in any state because it happens everyday and is supported by most Democrats. So how is she a victim by willingly walking in and doing the devils deed? She is not a victim, if anyone is the victim it is the child because it's mother was too big of a piece of shit to take responsibility for spreading her legs, and there is no way you can justify what you are saying so knock it off already. 
If a female was made to bear her child, she might feel an obligation to love and raise it, which would create a family environment and prosperity, and we all know that progressive liberals hate a family environment because it symbolizes liberty and free will without government intrusion, it basically lets families know "Hey, we love each other enough to weather any type of storm and as long as we have faith in god we can do this and not have to rely on government", and also  "Because a child is seen as a gift from god" which we all know liberals dont believe in a god. 
 You go ahead and prepare for hell, that or let hell stoke the fires hot for you, either way your friends will be toasting to you while you stay there....for eternity.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

grunt11b said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> If she walked in on her own recognizance and hopped up on a table and spread her legs, does that still make her a victim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are supposing abortion is illegal, and she was told it was okay to get the abortion (in the privacy of her consultation with the abortionist), yes, I think a very good argument can be made that she is also a victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But abortion apparently is not illegal in any state because it happens everyday and is supported by most Democrats. So how is she a victim by willingly walking in and doing the devils deed? She is not a victim, if anyone is the victim it is the child because it's mother was too big of a piece of shit to take responsibility for spreading her legs, and there is no way you can justify what you are saying so knock it off already.
> If a female was made to bear her child, she might feel an obligation to love and raise it, which would create a family environment and prosperity, and we all know that progressive liberals hate a family environment because it symbolizes liberty and free will without government intrusion, it basically lets families know "Hey, we love each other enough to weather any type of storm and as long as we have faith in god we can do this and not have to rely on government", and also  "Because a child is seen as a gift from god" which we all know liberals dont believe in a god.
> You go ahead and prepare for hell, that or let hell stoke the fires hot for you, either way your friends will be toasting to you while you stay there....for eternity.
Click to expand...


My reply to Grumps remark about Good luck on getting a conviction started with the phrase If abortion were illegal, so it was a hypothetical.

My point is, should abortion ever become illegal, it will the the abortionist breaking the law and not necessarily the woman seeking the abortion.

I say this because, if abortion ever does become illegal on grounds that it is the taking of a human life, it would be the person doing the actual killing who commits the crime.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've still not gotten a decent answer for my simple question to pro-abortionists/pro-choicers:
> 
> If there's a chance you could be wrong about babies being alive...why chance it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuz it's a loaded question.
> 
> 
> We've made the assessment that we don't find it to be a living baby until a certain point, so you're asking a question with an assessment that we don't agree with.
> 
> 
> If you know it's not a living baby..........why not have an early abortion if you want?
> 
> That's not an actual question, just giving you a comparison to what you're asking, as you and the pro-life crowd have made the assessment that it is a living baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a slight case of déjà vu after going back in time on this thread but I wanted to regain my train of thought on how this argument was developing by responding to some of these posts once again.
> 
> Anyway, heres my test to find out whether these babies (not my word) are alive: Simply trace back the thread of your own life to the earliest point when you could have been killed.  Since you cant kill something that is not alive to begin with, this test will reveal when you first became alive.
> 
> And it seems fairly obvious that point in time came as soon as you were created (not in the biblical sense).
> 
> This test works if you are honest about it.  Indeed, it actually helped flipped me from pro-choice to pro-life.
Click to expand...


Humans BEGET humans.  It doesn't 'become' a human being 'at some point'; it is a human being from the get go.  Conception is the very, very beginning of the start of a human being. That's when they come into 'being'.  That's when that individual human being's developmental journey starts.  All the 'points' or 'milestones' it reaches are phases in that developmental journey but it isn't 'more' or 'less' a human being at any point -- it is a human being from the moment it is created (conception).  The only difference between a 2 month old unborn fetus and a 2 month old born baby is that the born baby has traveled further along in the developemental journey to be able to live outside the womb.


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so the woman wanted the baby? so if she didn't it makes the baby less human????
> 
> You fucking retarded or just evil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now we are getting into points of law and definitions, which is a whole different territory. Also, if she was only 4 weeks pregnant and perp didn't know she was pregnant, good luck on getting a conviction for murder....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion were illegal...
Click to expand...


But it's not, so your point is moot...


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr_Rockhead said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we are supposing abortion is illegal, and she was told it was okay to get the abortion (in the privacy of her consultation with the abortionist), yes, I think a very good argument can be made that she is also a victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But abortion apparently is not illegal in any state because it happens everyday and is supported by most Democrats. So how is she a victim by willingly walking in and doing the devils deed? She is not a victim, if anyone is the victim it is the child because it's mother was too big of a piece of shit to take responsibility for spreading her legs, and there is no way you can justify what you are saying so knock it off already.
> If a female was made to bear her child, she might feel an obligation to love and raise it, which would create a family environment and prosperity, and we all know that progressive liberals hate a family environment because it symbolizes liberty and free will without government intrusion, it basically lets families know "Hey, we love each other enough to weather any type of storm and as long as we have faith in god we can do this and not have to rely on government", and also  "Because a child is seen as a gift from god" which we all know liberals dont believe in a god.
> You go ahead and prepare for hell, that or let hell stoke the fires hot for you, either way your friends will be toasting to you while you stay there....for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reply to Grumps remark about Good luck on getting a conviction started with the phrase If abortion were illegal, so it was a hypothetical.
> 
> My point is, should abortion ever become illegal, it will the the abortionist breaking the law and not necessarily the woman seeking the abortion.
> 
> I say this because, if abortion ever does become illegal on grounds that it is the taking of a human life, it would be the person doing the actual killing who commits the crime.
Click to expand...


In some places there is "being an accessory" which carries the same penalty..

That aside, abortion is not, nor ever should be, illegal....Bad choice to made IMO, but a choice nonetheless..


----------



## Immanuel

Dr Grump said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me,  how can you sleep at night knowing you are completely fabricating a story in order to justify legalized slaughter of our most vulnerable population? Doesn't it give you pause when you dismiss the evidence which points to the polar opposite of what you claim? Do you dismiss all evidence in other areas of your life, if the facts don't jibe with your world view? How can a person live that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, you see these foetus's as human being, while others don't. That's the bottom line. I consider the US part of the civilised world, yet they are the only country in that spectrum that has this debate. The rest of us have moved on, albeit with a very small minority in most countries objecting to abortions.
> 
> *The reason the US is on a different plain to the rest of us is due mainly to the religious zealotry of the Fundie Christians. I'm not saying that all people who are anti abortion are Christians, or even fundie Christians, but the vast majority are. And once you start with that argument - and you do fit that bill Allie - then you lose. Keep your religious beliefs out of other peoples' business.*
Click to expand...


Missed this post earlier.  I think you are very wrong as to the reason the U.S. still debates this as vigorously as we do.

My belief is that the reason this goes on as it does is because of our political system and the two parties that govern us.  Because of the obscurity of our current laws in this regard and the fact that it is such a heated topic, Both parties use this topic as a wedge between the voters.  If Roe had not been so poorly decided and so frigging vague, things would be different here.  We could have come to some sort of common ground and common sense solutions long ago.  Instead the parties and the extremists on both sides don't want that.  They have the voters right where they want them... at each others throats.  The party that wins is the party that gets the most voters on their side.  

May the parties rot in hell!

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Naw, it's because it's a question of values.

Do you value life and cherish it? Or do you think it's expendable, and give no more thought to other beings than a pebble in your shoe?


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> Naw, it's because it's a question of values.
> 
> Do you value life and cherish it? Or do you think it's expendable, and give no more thought to other beings than a pebble in your shoe?



Thanks for saying this Allie, now I've found someone who's going to help me spread the anti-war message.


----------



## AllieBaba

So Drock, what is the basis of your belief in abortion? Why do we need it?


----------



## AllieBaba

And do you believe in the abortion of babies that have medical issues, genetic abnormalities or limited capacity?


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> And do you believe in the abortion of babies that have medical issues, genetic abnormalities or limited capacity?



Whether or not it's needed is up to the mother and whether she feels she needs it done.  

I still see you're stuck on the eugenics thing, I don't know how many times I can tell you it has nothing to do with it.

Should an abortion be done because of medical issues/genetic abnormalities/limited capacity?  Of course not.


Since you've taken the position that you cherish life, you stick with that principle when it has to do with your position on wars, correct?


----------



## AllieBaba

So still refusing to answer.

Thanks!


----------



## AllieBaba

And of course we only have your word that it's unrelated to eugenics, since you won't answer the simple question..do you believe in aborting abnormal fetuses?


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> And of course we only have your word that it's unrelated to eugenics, since you won't answer the simple question..do you believe in aborting abnormal fetuses?



I am answering your question, they just aren't the answers you have programmed responses to.



AGAIN, no of course I don't think fetuses should be aborted because they're abnormal.



Ask a new question please, this is already getting old.


----------



## AllieBaba

So why don't you think fetuses should be aborted if they're abnormal?

I thought that was one of the justifications for abortion. So people could get rid of abnormal babies. Isn't it? Do you think people shouldn't be able to get rid of abnormal babies?


----------



## AllieBaba

And thank you for illustrating the dishonesty of the pro abortion crowd.


----------



## AllieBaba

If you don't think your abnormal babies should be aborted, but you're okay with OTHER people's babies being aborted, why is that? Do you think the babies of poor minority women are less valuable?


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> So why don't you think fetuses should be aborted if they're abnormal?
> 
> I thought that was one of the justifications for abortion. So people could get rid of abnormal babies. Isn't it? Do you think people shouldn't be able to get rid of abnormal babies?



No, and I've never heard anyone say that and yet again no I don't.

Who's the dishonest one?  I remember hearing someone lie that being pro-choice equaled wanting eugenics put into play, who was that liar who said that?

And, yet yet again, no abortions shouldn't be performed based on income level.

Any other boogeyman stories you need me to squash?


----------



## Skynet

why are you so worried about what another person does or doesnt do to their body? this is technically a medical decision, why do you feel that you should be able to have a say in what an individual does with their doctor? 

if youre argument is simply because there is a "life" involved, its a bad argument, as your life is not affected and a fetus is dependent on its mother for life for up to 9 months. Again your defiinition of life is thin as well, seeing as how the youngest premature baby to ever survive was 22 weeks, and i believe (you can correct me if im wrong) abortion in most states is illegal after 20 weeks. 

another question i ask, refers to what happens to that child if they are born and the parent does not want the child? the child goes into the system and becomes a ward of the state. now you may say that well there are many people who want to adopt children, to which i would say there are currently over 500,000 children waiting to be adopted in the US who sit in foster care, why arent people who want families adopting these children? 

personally, i do not care if a women chooses to have an abortion, or chooses to have a child as this is none of my business and most notably does not affect my personal well being. 

what gives you the right to tell anyone anywhere what to do?


----------



## AllieBaba

I don't care what people do with their own bodies.

I am however, concerned about what they do to children. If you don't want to take care of your own baby, other people are going to intercede for it. That's the way this works. People who victimize vulnerable populations tend to come under unfavorable scrutiny.


----------



## JBeukema

Don't bother, AB.  Sky smells like a sock


----------



## Skynet

AllieBaba said:


> I don't care what people do with their own bodies.
> 
> I am however, concerned about what they do to children. If you don't want to take care of your own baby, other people are going to intercede for it. That's the way this works. People who victimize vulnerable populations tend to come under unfavorable scrutiny.




this difference is that pro lifers and pro choicers have a differing opinion on when life begins whether it is at conception, or at birth and i do not think this will ever change.

in regards to what other people do to their children, i surely hope that you are involved in every child advocacy group available to you, volunteer your time at schools and churches and after school programs. so that you can be involved and make changes in the lives of all children. because it seems to me honestly that your child advocacy starts and stops with birth.  

should you not be pushing for more parental responsibility? making sure the children are taught values and get a good education? are you adopting children? are you a foster parent? what exact impact are you having on the children of america?

@JBuekema - do you have any real opinions on the matter, or are you simply too ignorant to come up with anything beside insults? btw which any loon behind a computer can do, it wont get you anywhere in life and i suspect it hasnt yet.


----------



## AllieBaba

I think parental responsibility starts with not killing your children.


----------



## AllieBaba

And sorry, I don't take lib directives on how to spend my spare time, based upon my views of abortion.

I work in human services. I've worked with the most dangerous of children and adults in various scenarios. So you toddle along and tell someone else what to do with their life. I see it as the responsibility of every adult to protect all children. I don't believe in determining people shouldn't advocate for children if they don't work and volunteer in particular fields.


----------



## Skynet

AllieBaba said:


> I think parental responsibility starts with not killing your children.



like i said your definition of children and the pro choicer definition of children is different and will never change. 

i do enjoy how have ignored 90% of my argument, it seems to me like you have a very narrow focus of solely advocating for fetuses and not actual living breathing children. 

a child is not a child until it can live and breathe on its own, not while it is still dependent on its mother for life.

im not telling you what to do with your life, im simply stating that you claim to be such an advocate for unborn children, why are you not an advocate for living children? i dont see you crusading for parental responsibility.....


----------



## AllieBaba

I don't care about your so-called argument. All I need to know is that you think it's okay to kill infants and support their butchery. I addressed what I felt like addressing. I'll ignore the rest like the garbage it is.


----------



## Skynet

AllieBaba said:


> I don't care about your so-called argument. All I need to know is that you think it's okay to kill infants and support their butchery. I addressed what I felt like addressing. I'll ignore the rest like the garbage it is.



great to see you can actually have a real conversation and stand on your principles.  

at no point in time did i ever use the words "kill", "infants" or "butchery", nice if you to embellish and make things up to suit your side once again. 

your argument is garbage, to use your own words as you simply ignore everything except what suits your side.


----------



## JBeukema

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBIfaZyL8JU]YouTube - &#x202a;Sock Puppet Fight!&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## AllieBaba

You don't even have an argument. Is telling me I should be involved in child advocacy an "argument"?


----------



## Skynet

AllieBaba said:


> You don't even have an argument. Is telling me I should be involved in child advocacy an "argument"?



no i asked the question as to if you care as much about living children as unborn children and you simply failed to answer. if you care as much about living children, i asked if you were involved in child advocacy? do you volunteer at school, and after school programs. do you promote parental responsibility and have children removed from unfit parents. 

it seems to me that all you do is campaign against abortion, but you dont follow that same passion when it comes to actually affecting the lives of children. 



AllieBaba said:


> "I am however, concerned about what they do to children."



those are your exact words. if that is really your concern, what else are you doing to help the children beside campaigning against abortion?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even have an argument. Is telling me I should be involved in child advocacy an "argument"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i asked the question as to if you care as much about living children as unborn children and you simply failed to answer. if you care as much about living children, i asked if you were involved in child advocacy? do you volunteer at school, and after school programs. do you promote parental responsibility and have children removed from unfit parents.
> 
> it seems to me that all you do is campaign against abortion, but you dont follow that same passion when it comes to actually affecting the lives of children.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am however, concerned about what they do to children."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those are your exact words. if that is really your concern, what else are you doing to help the children beside campaigning against abortion?
Click to expand...


The best way to find out if a pro-lifer is actually pro-life in principle is ask them their views on wars that aren't imminent to the defense of the United States.


----------



## Skynet

i always find it hard to believe that all these pro-lifers talk about the "children" and wanting them to have a voice, but you rarely find one of them that is actually involved in child advocacy (except for their own) on any level. they seem so enamored in abortion argument, they forget all about them once they are actually born.


----------



## JBeukema

Skynet said:


> this difference is that pro lifers and pro choicers have a differing opinion on when life begins



So you readily admit that  the difference is that you're a lying sack of shit?

Earth is not flat. There is no room for 'what you think' when it comes to matters of scientifically verifiable facts about the universe.





> whether it is at conception, or at birth and i do not think this will ever change.



So you freely admit that you will never stop lying or even consider the possibility of being honest because abortionism is a religion and it is a matter of faith to you?

Sorry, but evolution has been observed and creationism is not science. There is no rrom for your 'opinion' [religion] when it comes to matters of science

Have you been drinking that California water again?


----------



## Skynet

JBeukema said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> this difference is that pro lifers and pro choicers have a differing opinion on when life begins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you readily admit that  the difference is that you're a lying sack of shit?
> 
> Earth is not flat. There is no room for 'what you think' when it comes to matters of scientifically verifiable facts about the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whether it is at conception, or at birth and i do not think this will ever change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you freely admit that you will never stop lying or even consider the possibility of being honest because abortionism is a religion and it is a matter of faith to you?
> 
> Sorry, but evolution has been observed and creationism is not science. There is no rrom for your 'opinion' [religion] when it comes to matters of science
> 
> Have you been drinking that California water again?
Click to expand...


are you ready to admit that your dumbest piece of shit on planet? what they hell are you talking about? your mindless rant about the earth being flat, or abortion being a religion is about what?  

you obviously cant comprehend english as im a pro choicer not a pro lifer, which hence mean for me life begins at birth (whether that is 20 weeks, 30 weeks or full term) not conception. every the courts still debate this.


----------



## AllieBaba

I love the "your a big fat idiot that don't know english" argument...


----------



## grunt11b

Article 15 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can assume that you are in favor of social programs in place to assist poor families and single mothers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.. they are called voluntary CHARITIES... feel free to VOLUNTARILY donate to them...
> 
> As for forced government entitlements, that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are fine with the government forcing women to birth their babies but are against the government helping them out after they are born.
> 
> At least someone admits it.
Click to expand...


 I am for someone being responsible enough to be able to support a child before they decide to spread their legs and place the responsibility off on the tax payer. 
 Not being able to afford a child is no reason to murder it, and lets be honest, that's no excuse anyways because like you said, the government will help right?


----------



## AllieBaba

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even have an argument. Is telling me I should be involved in child advocacy an "argument"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i asked the question as to if you care as much about living children as unborn children and you simply failed to answer. if you care as much about living children, i asked if you were involved in child advocacy? do you volunteer at school, and after school programs. do you promote parental responsibility and have children removed from unfit parents.
> 
> it seems to me that all you do is campaign against abortion, but you dont follow that same passion when it comes to actually affecting the lives of children.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am however, concerned about what they do to children."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those are your exact words. if that is really your concern, what else are you doing to help the children beside campaigning against abortion?
Click to expand...

 
Campaigning to save their lives isn't enough?


----------



## Skynet

AllieBaba said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even have an argument. Is telling me I should be involved in child advocacy an "argument"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i asked the question as to if you care as much about living children as unborn children and you simply failed to answer. if you care as much about living children, i asked if you were involved in child advocacy? do you volunteer at school, and after school programs. do you promote parental responsibility and have children removed from unfit parents.
> 
> it seems to me that all you do is campaign against abortion, but you dont follow that same passion when it comes to actually affecting the lives of children.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am however, concerned about what they do to children."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those are your exact words. if that is really your concern, what else are you doing to help the children beside campaigning against abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Campaigning to save their lives isn't enough?
Click to expand...


what if their quality of life is in the gutter? are you gonna take care of that child when a parent cant? what if they are neglected or abused? what if they die from poverty? what are you doing about that?


----------



## traveler52

AllieBaba said:


> pro-abortion .



No person is "*Pro-Abortion*", they are simply supporting the Right of A Woman to choose for herself, what medical treatment she wants.

You however support the "*Right of The Government to decide Medical Care*".  

You want the "*Government in the Doctor's Office*".  

You want the "*Government in The Operating Room*".  

You want the "*Government to get inbetween Doctor and the Patient*".  

You want "*The Government To Make Decisions best decided by the Doctor and the Patient*".

You support Big Government.

Not Me.  I respect the right of a Woman to choose for herself, absent any Governmental Involvement in a decision that the Government has no right to decide.


----------



## Immanuel

traveler52 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> pro-abortion .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person is "*Pro-Abortion*", they are simply supporting the Right of A Woman to choose for herself, what medical treatment she wants. With reservations, I disagree here.  There are few people who are pro-abortion.  But there are some.  The vast majority of Pro-choice people are not pro-abortion.  They believe rather that the government should stay out of the decision.  That is different than being "pro"-abortion. Those who are would be the kind of people bent on creating a "master" race and unfortunately, they do still exist although they have been relegated to the corners of obscurity... may they rot there forever.
> 
> You however support the "*Right of The Government to decide Medical Care*".  It is the liberals that forced Health Care Reform down our throats last year, not conservatives.
> 
> You want the "*Government in the Doctor's Office*".  Health Care Reform?
> 
> You want the "*Government in The Operating Room*".   Health Care Reform?
> 
> You want the "*Government to get inbetween Doctor and the Patient*".   Health Care Reform?
> 
> You want "*The Government To Make Decisions best decided by the Doctor and the Patient*". Health Care Reform?
> 
> You support Big Government.  Health Care Reform?
> 
> Not Me.  I respect the right of a Woman to choose for herself, absent any Governmental Involvement in a decision that the Government has no right to decide. So as long as it is something you approve of you want the government to stay out, but in all other health related decisions, the government should decide?
Click to expand...


It seems to be that both parties are pulling for big government and bureaucratic control of our health decisions.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> no i asked the question as to if you care as much about living children as unborn children and you simply failed to answer. if you care as much about living children, i asked if you were involved in child advocacy? do you volunteer at school, and after school programs. do you promote parental responsibility and have children removed from unfit parents.
> 
> it seems to me that all you do is campaign against abortion, but you dont follow that same passion when it comes to actually affecting the lives of children.
> 
> 
> 
> those are your exact words. if that is really your concern, what else are you doing to help the children beside campaigning against abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campaigning to save their lives isn't enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what if their quality of life is in the gutter? are you gonna take care of that child when a parent cant? what if they are neglected or abused? what if they die from poverty? what are you doing about that?
Click to expand...

 
Die of poverty?

How does one *die of poverty*?

And why do I have to volunteer to take care of the children you want dead? 

There is no justification for killing children. You don't kill children because you don't like the life you think they might eventually live. You don't kill children because you don't have the job you always dreamed of. You don't kill children because you have 2.3 other children already, and don't want anymore. You don't kill children because you want their money, and you don't kill children to protect your own money.

Because it still is just killing children. Murder is murder. Lots of murderers have justification, in their own minds, for the murder. So what? It's still murder.


----------



## AllieBaba

Hey my avie is back.

This is sort of fun..I don't know from one minute to the next what my avie or siggy is going to be....


----------



## Skynet

AllieBaba said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Campaigning to save their lives isn't enough?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what if their quality of life is in the gutter? are you gonna take care of that child when a parent cant? what if they are neglected or abused? what if they die from poverty? what are you doing about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Die of poverty?
> 
> How does one *die of poverty*?
> 
> And why do I have to volunteer to take care of the children you want dead?
> 
> There is no justification for killing children. You don't kill children because you don't like the life you think they might eventually live. You don't kill children because you don't have the job you always dreamed of. You don't kill children because you have 2.3 other children already, and don't want anymore. You don't kill children because you want their money, and you don't kill children to protect your own money.
> 
> Because it still is just killing children. Murder is murder. Lots of murderers have justification, in their own minds, for the murder. So what? It's still murder.
Click to expand...


You can die of poverty yes, its called affects of malnutrition or access to basic services such as shelter, clothing and medical care. 

you should also read the definition of murder... since you probably havent here it is:

Murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

since not part of abortion meets this definition, abortion does not equal murder. you may think so in your mind, but in legal world and world in which we live they are not one in the same. 

any what point during this entire discussion did i say i wanted children "dead?" cause id love to see where i used those actual words. you simply making things up to suit your argument once again. this whole time i have been simply pro choice. leaving the decision of abortion to the mother, not you, not the government, not the church no one else but the mother. i do not condone murder of anyone, and especially not children. you think because someone advocate for a womans right to choose that equals advocating for murder? you are sorely mistaken. i see this as a decision that only a woman and her doctor should discuss and have control over. 

what gives you the right to tell a woman what to do with her body?


----------



## Skynet

Immanuel said:


> traveler52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> pro-abortion .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person is "*Pro-Abortion*", they are simply supporting the Right of A Woman to choose for herself, what medical treatment she wants. With reservations, I disagree here.  There are few people who are pro-abortion.  But there are some.  The vast majority of Pro-choice people are not pro-abortion.  They believe rather that the government should stay out of the decision.  That is different than being "pro"-abortion. Those who are would be the kind of people bent on creating a "master" race and unfortunately, they do still exist although they have been relegated to the corners of obscurity... may they rot there forever.
> 
> You however support the "*Right of The Government to decide Medical Care*".  It is the liberals that forced Health Care Reform down our throats last year, not conservatives.
> 
> You want the "*Government in the Doctor's Office*".  Health Care Reform?
> 
> You want the "*Government in The Operating Room*".   Health Care Reform?
> 
> You want the "*Government to get inbetween Doctor and the Patient*".   Health Care Reform?
> 
> You want "*The Government To Make Decisions best decided by the Doctor and the Patient*". Health Care Reform?
> 
> You support Big Government.  Health Care Reform?
> 
> Not Me.  I respect the right of a Woman to choose for herself, absent any Governmental Involvement in a decision that the Government has no right to decide. So as long as it is something you approve of you want the government to stay out, but in all other health related decisions, the government should decide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to be that both parties are pulling for big government and bureaucratic control of our health decisions.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Can you please cite and reference specific sections of the health care bill that will back up your claims?

Because i have read the bill and no where in the bill is does it state the government will have control over doctor patient decisions.


----------



## Immanuel

Skynet said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> traveler52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No person is "*Pro-Abortion*", they are simply supporting the Right of A Woman to choose for herself, what medical treatment she wants. With reservations, I disagree here.  There are few people who are pro-abortion.  But there are some.  The vast majority of Pro-choice people are not pro-abortion.  They believe rather that the government should stay out of the decision.  That is different than being "pro"-abortion. Those who are would be the kind of people bent on creating a "master" race and unfortunately, they do still exist although they have been relegated to the corners of obscurity... may they rot there forever.
> 
> You however support the "*Right of The Government to decide Medical Care*".  It is the liberals that forced Health Care Reform down our throats last year, not conservatives.
> 
> You want the "*Government in the Doctor's Office*".  Health Care Reform?
> 
> You want the "*Government in The Operating Room*".   Health Care Reform?
> 
> You want the "*Government to get inbetween Doctor and the Patient*".   Health Care Reform?
> 
> You want "*The Government To Make Decisions best decided by the Doctor and the Patient*". Health Care Reform?
> 
> You support Big Government.  Health Care Reform?
> 
> Not Me.  I respect the right of a Woman to choose for herself, absent any Governmental Involvement in a decision that the Government has no right to decide. So as long as it is something you approve of you want the government to stay out, but in all other health related decisions, the government should decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to be that both parties are pulling for big government and bureaucratic control of our health decisions.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you please cite and reference specific sections of the health care bill that will back up your claims?
> 
> Because i have read the bill and no where in the bill is does it state the government will have control over doctor patient decisions.
Click to expand...


You have read the entire bill?

Somehow I doubt this.

Health Care Reform is the first step in the direction of Single Payer Health Insurance.  Our beloved President informed us that the goal was SPHI in 15 to 20 years.  SPHI is governmental interference to the max.

Thank God that the Republicans won the house in 2010, maybe having done so will end (or at least hinder) this idiotic attempt to put us all at the mercy of bureaucrats.

Edit: Although, the Republicans are no less interested in such a plan as the Democrats.  The Republicans would be just as happy to let the Dems take responsibility for that removal of our rights as the Dems were when Bush and Co. squandered our civil rights with the Patriot Act.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> what if their quality of life is in the gutter? are you gonna take care of that child when a parent cant? what if they are neglected or abused? what if they die from poverty? what are you doing about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Die of poverty?
> 
> How does one *die of poverty*?
> 
> And why do I have to volunteer to take care of the children you want dead?
> 
> There is no justification for killing children. You don't kill children because you don't like the life you think they might eventually live. You don't kill children because you don't have the job you always dreamed of. You don't kill children because you have 2.3 other children already, and don't want anymore. You don't kill children because you want their money, and you don't kill children to protect your own money.
> 
> Because it still is just killing children. Murder is murder. Lots of murderers have justification, in their own minds, for the murder. So what? It's still murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can die of poverty yes, its called affects of malnutrition or access to basic services such as shelter, clothing and medical care.
> 
> you should also read the definition of murder... since you probably havent here it is:
> 
> Murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
> 
> since not part of abortion meets this definition, abortion does not equal murder. you may think so in your mind, but in legal world and world in which we live they are not one in the same.
> 
> any what point during this entire discussion did i say i wanted children "dead?" cause id love to see where i used those actual words. you simply making things up to suit your argument once again. this whole time i have been simply pro choice. leaving the decision of abortion to the mother, not you, not the government, not the church no one else but the mother. i do not condone murder of anyone, and especially not children. you think because someone advocate for a womans right to choose that equals advocating for murder? you are sorely mistaken. i see this as a decision that only a woman and her doctor should discuss and have control over.
> 
> what gives you the right to tell a woman what to do with her body?
Click to expand...

 
I reserve the right to tell women they should not kill children, even their own.


----------



## Skynet

AllieBaba said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Die of poverty?
> 
> How does one *die of poverty*?
> 
> And why do I have to volunteer to take care of the children you want dead?
> 
> There is no justification for killing children. You don't kill children because you don't like the life you think they might eventually live. You don't kill children because you don't have the job you always dreamed of. You don't kill children because you have 2.3 other children already, and don't want anymore. You don't kill children because you want their money, and you don't kill children to protect your own money.
> 
> Because it still is just killing children. Murder is murder. Lots of murderers have justification, in their own minds, for the murder. So what? It's still murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can die of poverty yes, its called affects of malnutrition or access to basic services such as shelter, clothing and medical care.
> 
> you should also read the definition of murder... since you probably havent here it is:
> 
> Murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
> 
> since not part of abortion meets this definition, abortion does not equal murder. you may think so in your mind, but in legal world and world in which we live they are not one in the same.
> 
> any what point during this entire discussion did i say i wanted children "dead?" cause id love to see where i used those actual words. you simply making things up to suit your argument once again. this whole time i have been simply pro choice. leaving the decision of abortion to the mother, not you, not the government, not the church no one else but the mother. i do not condone murder of anyone, and especially not children. you think because someone advocate for a womans right to choose that equals advocating for murder? you are sorely mistaken. i see this as a decision that only a woman and her doctor should discuss and have control over.
> 
> what gives you the right to tell a woman what to do with her body?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reserve the right to tell women they should not kill children, even their own.
Click to expand...


again, thank you for ignoring 90% of my argument again. but anyways....

since abortion is not "illegal" it is still not equal to say "murder", "kill", "butcher" or whatever other moniker you want to use. 

and yes you can tell a woman she shouldnt have an abortion, but you dont have the legal standing to stop her, nor should you. you have no right to tell a woman how to make a medical decision. that is for her an her doctor, you just fail to see this.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Immanuel said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me,  how can you sleep at night knowing you are completely fabricating a story in order to justify legalized slaughter of our most vulnerable population? Doesn't it give you pause when you dismiss the evidence which points to the polar opposite of what you claim? Do you dismiss all evidence in other areas of your life, if the facts don't jibe with your world view? How can a person live that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, you see these foetus's as human being, while others don't. That's the bottom line. I consider the US part of the civilised world, yet they are the only country in that spectrum that has this debate. The rest of us have moved on, albeit with a very small minority in most countries objecting to abortions.
> 
> *The reason the US is on a different plain to the rest of us is due mainly to the religious zealotry of the Fundie Christians. I'm not saying that all people who are anti abortion are Christians, or even fundie Christians, but the vast majority are. And once you start with that argument - and you do fit that bill Allie - then you lose. Keep your religious beliefs out of other peoples' business.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Missed this post earlier.  I think you are very wrong as to the reason the U.S. still debates this as vigorously as we do.
> 
> My belief is that the reason this goes on as it does is because of our political system and the two parties that govern us.  Because of the obscurity of our current laws in this regard and the fact that it is such a heated topic, Both parties use this topic as a wedge between the voters.  If Roe had not been so poorly decided and so frigging vague, things would be different here.  We could have come to some sort of common ground and common sense solutions long ago.  Instead the parties and the extremists on both sides don't want that.  They have the voters right where they want them... at each others throats.  The party that wins is the party that gets the most voters on their side.
> 
> May the parties rot in hell!
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


The debate goes on because the people were never given a say in the issue, and for the most part, this is not a country that takes well to being handed _fait accompli _from The Powers On High.  Had this been decided by the people and/or their elected representatives, there would still be disagreement and attempts to change things, but I doubt it would have this level of vitriol.


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> I think parental responsibility starts with not killing your children.



People who kill their children on purpose, if caught, go to prison..


----------



## AllieBaba

It's not a medical decision. In fact, it carries medical risks with it, aside from the certainty of death for one person involved.

I never said I would physically stop women from getting abortions, whether legal or illegal. And murder is murder, whether legal or illegal. The murders of the Jews by the Nazis was perfectly legal. It's still murder. Likewise the murder of babies is murder whether it's legal or not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JBeukema said:


> Don't bother, AB.  Sky smells like a sock



I have noticed that as soon as you slap down one talking-point parrot with this bullshit, outdated, debunked argument, another one mysteriously decides to join the debate and spout THE SAME DAMNED ARGUMENT, so you have to start all over again slapping it down.  If I didn't know better, I'd think it was a deliberately coordinated rotation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what people do with their own bodies.
> 
> I am however, concerned about what they do to children. If you don't want to take care of your own baby, other people are going to intercede for it. That's the way this works. People who victimize vulnerable populations tend to come under unfavorable scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this difference is that pro lifers and pro choicers have a differing opinion on when life begins whether it is at conception, or at birth and i do not think this will ever change.
> 
> in regards to what other people do to their children, i surely hope that you are involved in every child advocacy group available to you, volunteer your time at schools and churches and after school programs. so that you can be involved and make changes in the lives of all children. because it seems to me honestly that your child advocacy starts and stops with birth.
> 
> *should you not be pushing for more parental responsibility? making sure the children are taught values and get a good education? are you adopting children? are you a foster parent? what exact impact are you having on the children of america?*
> 
> @JBuekema - do you have any real opinions on the matter, or are you simply too ignorant to come up with anything beside insults? btw which any loon behind a computer can do, it wont get you anywhere in life and i suspect it hasnt yet.
Click to expand...


Whereas you can just shrug and say, "Not my problem.  I TOLD them to kill the kid right away, so my job here is done."

I can't say for sure, but I really doubt Allie feels any more need for moral guidance on how to care about the lives of children from someone who's too pig-stupid to know the difference between an appendix and a fetus, and too amoral to care about learning.

If any of us need lessons on how to be unjustifiably supercilious and arrogant, though, we'll call you.


----------



## Skynet

AllieBaba said:


> It's not a medical decision. In fact, it carries medical risks with it, aside from the certainty of death for one person involved.
> 
> I never said I would physically stop women from getting abortions, whether legal or illegal. And murder is murder, whether legal or illegal. The murders of the Jews by the Nazis was perfectly legal. It's still murder. Likewise the murder of babies is murder whether it's legal or not.



if its not a medical decision why does a doctor have to perform it? oh thats right, because its a medical decision, not something you can buy a kit for and do at home. and a fetus under current law is not a person and has no legal rights unlike the mother. just because you fail to accept this fact, does not make it untrue. 

again, read the definition of murder..... your logic on this simple fact is lacking as usual. 

whats your next argument going to be? birth control is murder too because it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus? because by your argument that fertilized egg is technically a child.....


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think parental responsibility starts with not killing your children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like i said your definition of children and the pro choicer definition of children is different and will never change.
Click to expand...


Not until you twits lose the dogma and learn some science, anyway.



Skynet said:


> i do enjoy how have ignored 90% of my argument, it seems to me like you have a very narrow focus of solely advocating for fetuses and not actual living breathing children.



In case you didn't notice, Mensa Boy, this is a thread about abortion.  The only people who NEED to be all over the board on every other topic are the ones who can't make a valid, coherent argument on THAT topic.

Start a thread about family services, and I'm sure Allie will be there . . . provided you first detail to us YOUR great qualifications for preaching to others about what they "should" be doing.



Skynet said:


> a child is not a child until it can live and breathe on its own, not while it is still dependent on its mother for life.



And exactly what medical, biological, or even grammatical authority did you get THAT definition from?  Or did you, like all your cohorts before you, just pull it out of your ass, because that's what you "feel" the word means?  



Skynet said:


> im not telling you what to do with your life, im simply stating that you claim to be such an advocate for unborn children, why are you not an advocate for living children? i dont see you crusading for parental responsibility.....



You don't SEE her at all, dumbass.  You have no idea who she is, or what she does with the vast majority of her time in which she isn't on this message board, so why don't you spare us the Miss Cleo act and stop trying to lecture other people on a morality you yourself abdicated the moment you came out as pro-abortion?


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> You don't even have an argument. Is telling me I should be involved in child advocacy an "argument"?



If you consider "deflect, divert, then attack" to be an argument.


----------



## Skynet

Cecilie1200 said:


> Whereas you can just shrug and say, "Not my problem.  I TOLD them to kill the kid right away, so my job here is done."



i have no right to tell a parent how to raise their child, and neither do you. i also have no right to tell a woman what she can and cant do with her body, as that is her choice. that is the underlying argument here. 

if you want to have the moral argument, that is a separate issue, as obviously your morals and my morals differ. thats not to say yours are better or worse than mine, they are just different.

the major difference between us is that i can take the anger and emotion out of my argument and stick to the legal facts, as you can not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even have an argument. Is telling me I should be involved in child advocacy an "argument"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i asked the question as to if you care as much about living children as unborn children and you simply failed to answer. if you care as much about living children, i asked if you were involved in child advocacy? do you volunteer at school, and after school programs. do you promote parental responsibility and have children removed from unfit parents.
> 
> it seems to me that all you do is campaign against abortion, but you dont follow that same passion when it comes to actually affecting the lives of children.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am however, concerned about what they do to children."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those are your exact words. if that is really your concern, what else are you doing to help the children beside campaigning against abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Campaigning to save their lives isn't enough?
Click to expand...


Beats campaigning to kill them, at least in my book, but then, _I'm _not an amoral hypocrite.


----------



## AllieBaba

Honestly, I have no idea what she thinks I didn't respond to.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> no i asked the question as to if you care as much about living children as unborn children and you simply failed to answer. if you care as much about living children, i asked if you were involved in child advocacy? do you volunteer at school, and after school programs. do you promote parental responsibility and have children removed from unfit parents.
> 
> it seems to me that all you do is campaign against abortion, but you dont follow that same passion when it comes to actually affecting the lives of children.
> 
> 
> 
> those are your exact words. if that is really your concern, what else are you doing to help the children beside campaigning against abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campaigning to save their lives isn't enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what if their quality of life is in the gutter? are you gonna take care of that child when a parent cant? what if they are neglected or abused? what if they die from poverty? what are you doing about that?
Click to expand...


Aaaand here comes the "merciful death" argument.  God, you could set your watch by these people and their canned talking points.

JB, I have the answer to your OP question.  The pro-abortion crowd can't be honest because they don't have an entire, functioning brain among all of them.


----------



## AllieBaba

Skynet said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas you can just shrug and say, "Not my problem. I TOLD them to kill the kid right away, so my job here is done."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i have no right to tell a parent how to raise their child, and neither do you. i also have no right to tell a woman what she can and cant do with her body, as that is her choice. that is the underlying argument here.
> 
> if you want to have the moral argument, that is a separate issue, as obviously your morals and my morals differ. thats not to say yours are better or worse than mine, they are just different.
> 
> the major difference between us is that i can take the anger and emotion out of my argument and stick to the legal facts, as you can not.
Click to expand...

 
You have no RIGHT to prevent a parent from hurting his or her child?

Really? So if you heard your neighbor abusing his kid, you would just ignore it?

Never mind, I know the answer.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> It's not a medical decision. In fact, it carries medical risks with it, aside from the certainty of death for one person involved.
> 
> I never said I would physically stop women from getting abortions, whether legal or illegal. And murder is murder, whether legal or illegal. The murders of the Jews by the Nazis was perfectly legal. It's still murder. Likewise the murder of babies is murder whether it's legal or not.



There are lots of less-portentious medical decisions I don't get to make.  I can't just la-di-da into a doctor's office and have him remove my appendix or my tonsils because "I feel like it".  Those actually ARE parts of my body, and parts I can easily live without, but no one seems bothered by the fact that I'm not allowed to do whatever I wish with them.

I don't get to take any medication I please whenever I please.  Hell, I can't even take some OTC medications however I want, like allergy meds, because I'm only allowed to buy one box at a time.  No one's bothered by THAT, either.

The only time people get up in arms about "a woman's body, a woman's choice" is when they aren't actually talking about HER body at all, but someone else's.  It's perfectly okay to restrict my access to elective surgeries to protect the doctor's medical license, or restrict my access to drugs on the off-chance that I'm planning to start a meth lab with them, but restrict killing other human beings?  Outrageous!


----------



## Skynet

AllieBaba said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas you can just shrug and say, "Not my problem. I TOLD them to kill the kid right away, so my job here is done."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i have no right to tell a parent how to raise their child, and neither do you. i also have no right to tell a woman what she can and cant do with her body, as that is her choice. that is the underlying argument here.
> 
> if you want to have the moral argument, that is a separate issue, as obviously your morals and my morals differ. thats not to say yours are better or worse than mine, they are just different.
> 
> the major difference between us is that i can take the anger and emotion out of my argument and stick to the legal facts, as you can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no RIGHT to prevent a parent from hurting his or her child?
> 
> Really? So if you heard your neighbor abusing his kid, you would just ignore it?
> 
> Never mind, I know the answer.
Click to expand...


a fetus is not a child, sorry if you fail to accept that, and that is the basis of your argument


----------



## AllieBaba

I do fail to accept it. Of course it is a child, and abortion is murder.

It doesn't matter that the law was illegally changed to make infanticide legal. It's still murder, and I continue to object.

I would have objected to the killing of Indians, Jews and slaves as well...regardless of the law.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skynet said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas you can just shrug and say, "Not my problem.  I TOLD them to kill the kid right away, so my job here is done."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i have no right to tell a parent how to raise their child, and neither do you. i also have no right to tell a woman what she can and cant do with her body, as that is her choice. that is the underlying argument here.
> 
> if you want to have the moral argument, that is a separate issue, as obviously your morals and my morals differ. thats not to say yours are better or worse than mine, they are just different.
> 
> the major difference between us is that i can take the anger and emotion out of my argument and stick to the legal facts, as you can not.
Click to expand...


What fucking rock do you live under, anyway?  The state has ALL KINDS of power to tell parents how to raise their children!  They do it all the time!  Whatever state your rock happens to be in, I guarantee you have Social Services, Child Protective Services, some damned type of Services with an ungodly amount of power to barge into a person's home and start issuing directives about how they live their lives, lest their children be taken away.  Wake up and smell the fucking coffee, dingbat.

And no one's talking about the woman's body here, Gregor Mendel.  Just how many biology classes did you play hookey from in high school, anyway?

If you don't want to have a morality argument, I suggest you lose that "on my high horse, lecturing the peons" tone of voice.  It's only going to get you laughed at and ignored as a hypocrite.  You're advocating abortion.  You have no claim to ANY moral high ground, so don't kid yourself that you do or ever will.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Honestly, I have no idea what she thinks I didn't respond to.



Beats me.  They all think they're scoring some deep, insightful points, and for the life of me, I have no idea what those might be.


----------



## AllieBaba

The point is that children aren't human. And it always fails.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have no right to tell a parent how to raise their child, and neither do you. i also have no right to tell a woman what she can and cant do with her body, as that is her choice. that is the underlying argument here.
> 
> if you want to have the moral argument, that is a separate issue, as obviously your morals and my morals differ. thats not to say yours are better or worse than mine, they are just different.
> 
> the major difference between us is that i can take the anger and emotion out of my argument and stick to the legal facts, as you can not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no RIGHT to prevent a parent from hurting his or her child?
> 
> Really? So if you heard your neighbor abusing his kid, you would just ignore it?
> 
> Never mind, I know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a fetus is not a child, sorry if you fail to accept that, and that is the basis of your argument
Click to expand...


Why SHOULDN'T she fail to accept a medical and biological fallacy?  What kind of dumbass WANTS to make arguments based on incorrect information?

Oh, I'm talking to one.  Never mind.


----------



## AllieBaba

Or it's that they are human, but they aren't as important as other humans, and it's okay to kill them. Most people who are okay with killing infants are also ok with killing other *defectives* and burdens upon society as well.


----------



## AllieBaba

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no RIGHT to prevent a parent from hurting his or her child?
> 
> Really? So if you heard your neighbor abusing his kid, you would just ignore it?
> 
> Never mind, I know the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a fetus is not a child, sorry if you fail to accept that, and that is the basis of your argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why SHOULDN'T she fail to accept a medical and biological fallacy? What kind of dumbass WANTS to make arguments based on incorrect information?
> 
> Oh, I'm talking to one. Never mind.
Click to expand...


----------



## Skynet

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a medical decision. In fact, it carries medical risks with it, aside from the certainty of death for one person involved.
> 
> I never said I would physically stop women from getting abortions, whether legal or illegal. And murder is murder, whether legal or illegal. The murders of the Jews by the Nazis was perfectly legal. It's still murder. Likewise the murder of babies is murder whether it's legal or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of less-portentious medical decisions I don't get to make.  I can't just la-di-da into a doctor's office and have him remove my appendix or my tonsils because "I feel like it".  Those actually ARE parts of my body, and parts I can easily live without, but no one seems bothered by the fact that I'm not allowed to do whatever I wish with them.
> 
> I don't get to take any medication I please whenever I please.  Hell, I can't even take some OTC medications however I want, like allergy meds, because I'm only allowed to buy one box at a time.  No one's bothered by THAT, either.
> 
> The only time people get up in arms about "a woman's body, a woman's choice" is when they aren't actually talking about HER body at all, but someone else's.  It's perfectly okay to restrict my access to elective surgeries to protect the doctor's medical license, or restrict my access to drugs on the off-chance that I'm planning to start a meth lab with them, but restrict killing other human beings?  Outrageous!
Click to expand...


actually if you can find a doctor to remove that from you body, you have that choice. there are many elective procedures that some doctors will perform and others will not. and again, if you can find a doctor to prescribe you the requested medication its perfectly legal. just like a doctor does not have to elect to perform an abortion, but there are those that do. 

your argument is based on the idea that you believe a fetus has legal rights. as far as the courts are concerned, they currently do no. thus you can argue until you are blue in the face, but it wont change the facts.

and you all like to throw the "pro abortion" word out there, where that is not the fact at all, we are simply pro choice, as in giving the woman the right to choose whether or not she can elect to have an abortion.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Or it's that they are human, but they aren't as important as other humans, and it's okay to kill them. Most people who are okay with killing infants are also ok with killing other *defectives* and burdens upon society as well.



At least THAT argument doesn't make a person sound like a gabbling, illogical moron.  A coldblooded sociopath, maybe, but not a gabbling moron.


----------



## AllieBaba

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or it's that they are human, but they aren't as important as other humans, and it's okay to kill them. Most people who are okay with killing infants are also ok with killing other *defectives* and burdens upon society as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least THAT argument doesn't make a person sound like a gabbling, illogical moron. A coldblooded sociopath, maybe, but not a gabbling moron.
Click to expand...

 
Well the other possibility, and probability, is that they realize they are, of course, human, that they do have life....but it doesn't matter, because it's okay to kill those that you deem worthless.


----------



## Skynet

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no RIGHT to prevent a parent from hurting his or her child?
> 
> Really? So if you heard your neighbor abusing his kid, you would just ignore it?
> 
> Never mind, I know the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a fetus is not a child, sorry if you fail to accept that, and that is the basis of your argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why SHOULDN'T she fail to accept a medical and biological fallacy?  What kind of dumbass WANTS to make arguments based on incorrect information?
> 
> Oh, I'm talking to one.  Never mind.
Click to expand...


where is your logic in this? you just said medical and biological science and a fallacy? 

what are you claiming next, theres no such thing as evolution, the earth is only 6000 years old and global warming is a myth?


----------



## AllieBaba

Skynet said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a medical decision. In fact, it carries medical risks with it, aside from the certainty of death for one person involved.
> 
> I never said I would physically stop women from getting abortions, whether legal or illegal. And murder is murder, whether legal or illegal. The murders of the Jews by the Nazis was perfectly legal. It's still murder. Likewise the murder of babies is murder whether it's legal or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of less-portentious medical decisions I don't get to make. I can't just la-di-da into a doctor's office and have him remove my appendix or my tonsils because "I feel like it". Those actually ARE parts of my body, and parts I can easily live without, but no one seems bothered by the fact that I'm not allowed to do whatever I wish with them.
> 
> I don't get to take any medication I please whenever I please. Hell, I can't even take some OTC medications however I want, like allergy meds, because I'm only allowed to buy one box at a time. No one's bothered by THAT, either.
> 
> The only time people get up in arms about "a woman's body, a woman's choice" is when they aren't actually talking about HER body at all, but someone else's. It's perfectly okay to restrict my access to elective surgeries to protect the doctor's medical license, or restrict my access to drugs on the off-chance that I'm planning to start a meth lab with them, but restrict killing other human beings? Outrageous!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually if you can find a doctor to remove that from you body, you have that choice. there are many elective procedures that some doctors will perform and others will not. and again, if you can find a doctor to prescribe you the requested medication its perfectly legal. just like a doctor does not have to elect to perform an abortion, but there are those that do.
> 
> your argument is based on the idea that you believe a fetus has legal rights. as far as the courts are concerned, they currently do no. thus you can argue until you are blue in the face, but it wont change the facts.
> 
> and you all like to throw the "pro abortion" word out there, where that is not the fact at all, we are simply pro choice, as in giving the woman the right to choose whether or not she can elect to have an abortion.
Click to expand...

 
Are you pro choice about whether or not parents can elect to dunk their children in scalding water, too?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skynet said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a medical decision. In fact, it carries medical risks with it, aside from the certainty of death for one person involved.
> 
> I never said I would physically stop women from getting abortions, whether legal or illegal. And murder is murder, whether legal or illegal. The murders of the Jews by the Nazis was perfectly legal. It's still murder. Likewise the murder of babies is murder whether it's legal or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of less-portentious medical decisions I don't get to make.  I can't just la-di-da into a doctor's office and have him remove my appendix or my tonsils because "I feel like it".  Those actually ARE parts of my body, and parts I can easily live without, but no one seems bothered by the fact that I'm not allowed to do whatever I wish with them.
> 
> I don't get to take any medication I please whenever I please.  Hell, I can't even take some OTC medications however I want, like allergy meds, because I'm only allowed to buy one box at a time.  No one's bothered by THAT, either.
> 
> The only time people get up in arms about "a woman's body, a woman's choice" is when they aren't actually talking about HER body at all, but someone else's.  It's perfectly okay to restrict my access to elective surgeries to protect the doctor's medical license, or restrict my access to drugs on the off-chance that I'm planning to start a meth lab with them, but restrict killing other human beings?  Outrageous!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually if you can find a doctor to remove that from you body, you have that choice. there are many elective procedures that some doctors will perform and others will not. and again, if you can find a doctor to prescribe you the requested medication its perfectly legal. just like a doctor does not have to elect to perform an abortion, but there are those that do.
> 
> your argument is based on the idea that you believe a fetus has legal rights. as far as the courts are concerned, they currently do no. thus you can argue until you are blue in the face, but it wont change the facts.
> 
> and you all like to throw the "pro abortion" word out there, where that is not the fact at all, we are simply pro choice, as in giving the woman the right to choose whether or not she can elect to have an abortion.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's NOT your choice, because you can't find a doctor who would do it.  It's called "malpractice", dumbass.  That's like saying, "If you can find flower fairies to come and spirit the fetus out of your wombin a puff of glitter, THAT'S not an abortion."  Can we please stick to reality, insofar as you can identify reality?

And no, you silly twat, my argument is NOT based on a belief that a fetus has legal rights.  I know perfectly well that he doesn't.  THAT'S why I'm arguing.  If he had legal rights, I wouldn't have to fight for them.  

Next time, try ASKING me what I think, rather than assuming you already know.  I'm not sure you know what YOU think, so I'm damned sure you don't know about me.

You're damned right I call you "pro-abort".  If you're looking for PC accomplices to help you guild that turd of an argument you're peddling, you have the wrong woman.  The day you people ever actually OPPOSE abortion in any way, shape, or form, other than to say, "Of course I don't like abortion . . . I just don't want them prohibited!" you can talk about the appellation.  Until then, _you _pissed the bed, so _you _can lie in it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or it's that they are human, but they aren't as important as other humans, and it's okay to kill them. Most people who are okay with killing infants are also ok with killing other *defectives* and burdens upon society as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least THAT argument doesn't make a person sound like a gabbling, illogical moron. A coldblooded sociopath, maybe, but not a gabbling moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the other possibility, and probability, is that they realize they are, of course, human, that they do have life....but it doesn't matter, because it's okay to kill those that you deem worthless.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  But you don't expect them to ADMIT that, do you, to themselves or anyone else?  If they did, then they'd have to accept the reality that they're not the nice people they want to believe they are; that they are, in fact, bad people.

I guess it's better to just sound like an uneducated dimwit, as long as one is a NICE uneducated dimwit.


----------



## Skynet

AllieBaba said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of less-portentious medical decisions I don't get to make. I can't just la-di-da into a doctor's office and have him remove my appendix or my tonsils because "I feel like it". Those actually ARE parts of my body, and parts I can easily live without, but no one seems bothered by the fact that I'm not allowed to do whatever I wish with them.
> 
> I don't get to take any medication I please whenever I please. Hell, I can't even take some OTC medications however I want, like allergy meds, because I'm only allowed to buy one box at a time. No one's bothered by THAT, either.
> 
> The only time people get up in arms about "a woman's body, a woman's choice" is when they aren't actually talking about HER body at all, but someone else's. It's perfectly okay to restrict my access to elective surgeries to protect the doctor's medical license, or restrict my access to drugs on the off-chance that I'm planning to start a meth lab with them, but restrict killing other human beings? Outrageous!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually if you can find a doctor to remove that from you body, you have that choice. there are many elective procedures that some doctors will perform and others will not. and again, if you can find a doctor to prescribe you the requested medication its perfectly legal. just like a doctor does not have to elect to perform an abortion, but there are those that do.
> 
> your argument is based on the idea that you believe a fetus has legal rights. as far as the courts are concerned, they currently do no. thus you can argue until you are blue in the face, but it wont change the facts.
> 
> and you all like to throw the "pro abortion" word out there, where that is not the fact at all, we are simply pro choice, as in giving the woman the right to choose whether or not she can elect to have an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you pro choice about whether or not parents can elect to dunk their children in scalding water, too?
Click to expand...


can you look up the legal definition of when a child has rights under the constitution and restate your argument?


----------



## AllieBaba

I already told you, I don't care what the law says about whether a baby can be killed or not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skynet said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fetus is not a child, sorry if you fail to accept that, and that is the basis of your argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why SHOULDN'T she fail to accept a medical and biological fallacy?  What kind of dumbass WANTS to make arguments based on incorrect information?
> 
> Oh, I'm talking to one.  Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is your logic in this? you just said medical and biological science and a fallacy?
> 
> what are you claiming next, theres no such thing as evolution, the earth is only 6000 years old and global warming is a myth?
Click to expand...


The word "science" appeared nowhere in my post.  Are you sure you can read?

I said that what you're peddling is a medical and biological fallacy, and it is.  The insistence that a fetus is not a living human being is a fallacy, right up there with spontaneous generation (that was also covered in those high school biology classes you skipped).  Biology has long since answered the question of when a human being meets the scientific definition of life, and it is at conception.  Period.  End of discussion.  No amount of talking, or wishing, or clapping your hands and believing in fairies is going to make it otherwise.  

The fact that WE are talking about what is, and YOU are talking about what you think and believe, as though this were a debate about religious doctrine, demonstrates just how badly you have lost this argument.  If you want to claim to be the logical, scientific one around here, you might try actually incorporating some actual science into your discussion.  I'm just saying . . .


----------



## Zoom-boing

Skynet said:


> again, thank you for ignoring 90% of my argument again. but anyways....
> 
> *since abortion is not "illegal" it is still not equal to say "murder", "kill", "butcher" or whatever other moniker you want to use. *
> 
> and yes you can tell a woman she shouldnt have an abortion, but you dont have the legal standing to stop her, nor should you. you have no right to tell a woman how to make a medical decision. that is for her an her doctor, you just fail to see this.



What exactly do you thing an abortion does?  

abortion:  the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. 

pregnancy:  1. the state or condition of being pregnant; 2. *the period from conception to childbirth *

Abortion ends/terminates/destroys the individual human being that is growing inside of a woman's womb.  No ifs ands or buts about it.  Just because it's legal doesn't change this fact, Jack.  Just because it's legal and therefore can't _really _be called 'murder' doesn't mean squat.  Abortion ends a human life.  If you're going to be pro-choice be honest enough to own what it is you believe in.



Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a medical decision. In fact, it carries medical risks with it, aside from the certainty of death for one person involved.
> 
> I never said I would physically stop women from getting abortions, whether legal or illegal. And murder is murder, whether legal or illegal. The murders of the Jews by the Nazis was perfectly legal. It's still murder. Likewise the murder of babies is murder whether it's legal or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if its not a medical decision why does a doctor have to perform it? oh thats right, because its a medical decision, not something you can buy a kit for and do at home. *and a fetus under current law is not a person and has no legal rights unlike the mother.* just because you fail to accept this fact, does not make it untrue.
> 
> again, read the definition of murder..... your logic on this simple fact is lacking as usual.
> 
> whats your next argument going to be? birth control is murder too because it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus? because by your argument that fertilized egg is technically a child.....
Click to expand...


Which is exactly why there is a pro-life movement.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually if you can find a doctor to remove that from you body, you have that choice. there are many elective procedures that some doctors will perform and others will not. and again, if you can find a doctor to prescribe you the requested medication its perfectly legal. just like a doctor does not have to elect to perform an abortion, but there are those that do.
> 
> your argument is based on the idea that you believe a fetus has legal rights. as far as the courts are concerned, they currently do no. thus you can argue until you are blue in the face, but it wont change the facts.
> 
> and you all like to throw the "pro abortion" word out there, where that is not the fact at all, we are simply pro choice, as in giving the woman the right to choose whether or not she can elect to have an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pro choice about whether or not parents can elect to dunk their children in scalding water, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you look up the legal definition of when a child has rights under the constitution and restate your argument?
Click to expand...


And there's the ever-popular "abortion should be legal because it's legal" circle-jerk argument.  I should just write up a list of pro-abort mindless talking points, so that I can check them off as the parrot _du jour _spouts them.  When I hit the bottom of the list, I know it's time for him to mysteriously disappear, and be replaced by another parrot who'll start back at the top of the list.  We could get this down to a really efficient debating machine here.


----------



## Skynet

Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, it's NOT your choice, because you can't find a doctor who would do it.  It's called "malpractice", dumbass.  That's like saying, "If you can find flower fairies to come and spirit the fetus out of your wombin a puff of glitter, THAT'S not an abortion."  Can we please stick to reality, insofar as you can identify reality?
> 
> And no, you silly twat, my argument is NOT based on a belief that a fetus has legal rights.  I know perfectly well that he doesn't.  THAT'S why I'm arguing.  If he had legal rights, I wouldn't have to fight for them.
> 
> Next time, try ASKING me what I think, rather than assuming you already know.  I'm not sure you know what YOU think, so I'm damned sure you don't know about me.
> 
> You're damned right I call you "pro-abort".  If you're looking for PC accomplices to help you guild that turd of an argument you're peddling, you have the wrong woman.  The day you people ever actually OPPOSE abortion in any way, shape, or form, other than to say, "Of course I don't like abortion . . . I just don't want them prohibited!" you can talk about the appellation.  Until then, _you _pissed the bed, so _you _can lie in it.



im pretty sure you can find a doctor to take out your appendix or tonsils if you actually tried. 

if a fetus doesnt have legal rights then how can it be murder? (answer that one genuis) because you cant kill something that is legally not a person....... or can you.......

i already know what you think, you can believe all you want, but the legal precedent is on my side and has been since '73. 

youre extremely uneducated on the english language if your think pro-choice = pro-abortion. so if im anti-marriage should i campaign to outlaw marriage? if im pro-earth, should i campaign to eliminate everything that pollutes? youre really dense arent you?

that right get angry, call me names, are you red in the face yet? is your blood pressure up? glad to see you wasted all this energy getting angry when the law is on my side.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> I already told you, I don't care what the law says about whether a baby can be killed or not.



Inasmuch as our goal is to change the law, I can't imagine why it SHOULD matter.


----------



## Skynet

AllieBaba said:


> I already told you, I don't care what the law says about whether a baby can be killed or not.



glad to see you care about the law


----------



## Skynet

im out, enjoy the shortned life due to the high blood pressure and stress


----------



## AllieBaba

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you, I don't care what the law says about whether a baby can be killed or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> glad to see you care about the law
Click to expand...

 
I guess you are among those who, if the law tells you it's legal to marry a child at 9, maintain a slave, or conduct medical experiments upon a Jew, would not say anything.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Skynet said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's NOT your choice, because you can't find a doctor who would do it.  It's called "malpractice", dumbass.  That's like saying, "If you can find flower fairies to come and spirit the fetus out of your wombin a puff of glitter, THAT'S not an abortion."  Can we please stick to reality, insofar as you can identify reality?
> 
> And no, you silly twat, my argument is NOT based on a belief that a fetus has legal rights.  I know perfectly well that he doesn't.  THAT'S why I'm arguing.  If he had legal rights, I wouldn't have to fight for them.
> 
> Next time, try ASKING me what I think, rather than assuming you already know.  I'm not sure you know what YOU think, so I'm damned sure you don't know about me.
> 
> You're damned right I call you "pro-abort".  If you're looking for PC accomplices to help you guild that turd of an argument you're peddling, you have the wrong woman.  The day you people ever actually OPPOSE abortion in any way, shape, or form, other than to say, "Of course I don't like abortion . . . I just don't want them prohibited!" you can talk about the appellation.  Until then, _you _pissed the bed, so _you _can lie in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> im pretty sure you can find a doctor to take out your appendix or tonsils if you actually tried.
> 
> if a fetus doesnt have legal rights then how can it be murder? (answer that one genuis) *because you cant kill something that is legally not a person*....... or can you.......
> 
> i already know what you think, you can believe all you want, but the legal precedent is on my side and has been since '73.
> 
> youre extremely uneducated on the english language if your think pro-choice = pro-abortion. so if im anti-marriage should i campaign to outlaw marriage? if im pro-earth, should i campaign to eliminate everything that pollutes? youre really dense arent you?
> 
> that right get angry, call me names, are you red in the face yet? is your blood pressure up? glad to see you wasted all this energy getting angry when the law is on my side.
Click to expand...


OMG you're a complete idiot.

kill:  to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.  2.  to destroy; do away with; extinguish.

Abortion ends/destroys/terminates/kills a human life.  And it's legal.  That right there is some fucked up shit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skynet said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's NOT your choice, because you can't find a doctor who would do it.  It's called "malpractice", dumbass.  That's like saying, "If you can find flower fairies to come and spirit the fetus out of your wombin a puff of glitter, THAT'S not an abortion."  Can we please stick to reality, insofar as you can identify reality?
> 
> And no, you silly twat, my argument is NOT based on a belief that a fetus has legal rights.  I know perfectly well that he doesn't.  THAT'S why I'm arguing.  If he had legal rights, I wouldn't have to fight for them.
> 
> Next time, try ASKING me what I think, rather than assuming you already know.  I'm not sure you know what YOU think, so I'm damned sure you don't know about me.
> 
> You're damned right I call you "pro-abort".  If you're looking for PC accomplices to help you guild that turd of an argument you're peddling, you have the wrong woman.  The day you people ever actually OPPOSE abortion in any way, shape, or form, other than to say, "Of course I don't like abortion . . . I just don't want them prohibited!" you can talk about the appellation.  Until then, _you _pissed the bed, so _you _can lie in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> im pretty sure you can find a doctor to take out your appendix or tonsils if you actually tried.
Click to expand...


Unless it is medically indicated, it is malpractice, ie. it's illegal.  Can you find a doctor to break the law?  Possibly, but not one you'd want operating on you.  And it doesn't change the fact that that choice over my body IS legally prohibited.  I doubt very much that you wish to argue that it shouldn't be.



Skynet said:


> if a fetus doesnt have legal rights then how can it be murder? (answer that one genuis) because you cant kill something that is legally not a person....... or can you.......



I realize that this endless - and pointless - semantic hairsplitting is making you feel very clever, but you might want to save it for someone who has actually USED the word "murder".  Truly clever people can differentiate between arguments and the people using them.  See if you can produce an argument that has some relation to something I'VE actually said.



Skynet said:


> i already know what you think, you can believe all you want, but the legal precedent is on my side and has been since '73.



Clearly, you DON'T know what I think, since you just proudly argued against the use of a word I'VE never applied to abortion.  Dumbass.

Furthermore, the argument is not and never has been whether abortion IS legal, but kudos for your stunning ability to convincingly argue in favor of facts not in dispute.  The argument is whether it SHOULD BE legal, and "it's legal" is only an argument in THAT debate to dumbfucks and people who don't have a REAL argument.  Which are you?



Skynet said:


> youre extremely uneducated on the english language if your think pro-choice = pro-abortion. so if im anti-marriage should i campaign to outlaw marriage? if im pro-earth, should i campaign to eliminate everything that pollutes? youre really dense arent you?



First of all, being called "uneducated on the english [sic] language" by the likes of you is hilarious.  You can't even figure out capitaliization OR apostrophes OR the rudiments of proper sentence construction, and you want to lecture me on word choices?!  

Second of all, yes, if you're anti-marriage, that means you oppose it.  If you're pro-marriage, that means you promote it.  If you don't do either, you're indifferent.  People who like to bill themselves "pro-earth" certainly DO campaign to bust humans back to the pre-Industrial Age.  How dense are YOU, that you don't know any of this?

I know that pro-choice equals pro-abortion by the simple fact that everyone who tries to hide behind the title "pro-choice" in practice does everything they possibly can to promote abortion.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating.



Skynet said:


> that right get angry, call me names, are you red in the face yet? is your blood pressure up? glad to see you wasted all this energy getting angry when the law is on my side.



Oh, newbie, you really DO flatter yourself.  I'm not calling you names because I'm mad at you, you imbecile.  I'm calling you names because I find you beneath contempt.  Do you really think answering your inane, boilerplate posts costs me EFFORT?  That I even have to think very hard about it?  I hate to break it to you, but during this conversation that you erroneously think is so important and upsetting to me, I've changed and fed the baby, done two loads of laundry, and started dinner.  You're a finger exercise to me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you, I don't care what the law says about whether a baby can be killed or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> glad to see you care about the law
Click to expand...


More than your side does, since WE respect the proper, LEGAL way of changing laws, rather than imposing our will by illegal judicial fiat.

What I've never understood is how you hypocrites can have so little concern for laws you don't want to listen to, and can turn around and think that laws you DO like can take the place of a moral standard.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skynet said:


> im out, enjoy the shortned life due to the high blood pressure and stress



And right on schedule, the talking-point troll blows through the last one on the list and runs away, to be replaced by the next troll on the rotation.

I wonder if they're at least getting minimum wage for this.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> More than your side does, since WE respect the proper, LEGAL way of changing laws



One of the many advantages of a Constitutional Republic is that we are subject to the rule of law, not the rule of men; because, per the evidence in this thread, men are incapable of ruling justly. Reading your posts and those of your ilk, I am very thankful for this. 



> rather than imposing our will by illegal judicial fiat.



A subjective and ignorant statement  per _Marbury v Madison_ (1803), the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means; it is quite legal and appropriate in the context of the rule of law. 

Your only response to this may be you citing a case decided by the Supreme Court overturning _Marbury_.


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> im out, enjoy the shortned life due to the high blood pressure and stress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right on schedule, the talking-point troll blows through the last one on the list and runs away, to be replaced by the next troll on the rotation.
> 
> I wonder if they're at least getting minimum wage for this.
Click to expand...


Pot meet kettle....


----------



## Dr Grump

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> More than your side does, since WE respect the proper, LEGAL way of changing laws
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many advantages of a Constitutional Republic is that we are subject to the rule of law, not the rule of men; because, per the evidence in this thread, men are incapable of ruling justly. Reading your posts and those of your ilk, I am very thankful for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rather than imposing our will by illegal judicial fiat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A subjective and ignorant statement  per _Marbury v Madison_ (1803), the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means; it is quite legal and appropriate in the context of the rule of law.
> 
> Your only response to this may be you citing a case decided by the Supreme Court overturning _Marbury_.
Click to expand...


You don't get it do you? Cesspit is the be-all and end-all of the law. She thinks she is the law when all she is just another poster flapping her gums on the internet....offering not much but a foul mouth, insipid 'insights' and trolling one liners that aren't even funny.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> More than your side does, since WE respect the proper, LEGAL way of changing laws
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many advantages of a Constitutional Republic is that we are subject to the rule of law, not the rule of men; because, per the evidence in this thread, men are incapable of ruling justly. Reading your posts and those of your ilk, I am very thankful for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rather than imposing our will by illegal judicial fiat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A subjective and ignorant statement  per _Marbury v Madison_ (1803), the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means; it is quite legal and appropriate in the context of the rule of law.
> 
> Your only response to this may be you citing a case decided by the Supreme Court overturning _Marbury_.
Click to expand...


  I'm sorry, it's just . . . the irony . . .   ::cough::  Can't breathe . . .   Back when I can stop . . .


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than your side does, since WE respect the proper, LEGAL way of changing laws
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many advantages of a Constitutional Republic is that we are subject to the rule of law, not the rule of men; because, per the evidence in this thread, men are incapable of ruling justly. Reading your posts and those of your ilk, I am very thankful for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rather than imposing our will by illegal judicial fiat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A subjective and ignorant statement  per _Marbury v Madison_ (1803), the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means; it is quite legal and appropriate in the context of the rule of law.
> 
> Your only response to this may be you citing a case decided by the Supreme Court overturning _Marbury_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, it's just . . . the irony . . .   ::cough::  Can't breathe . . .   Back when I can stop . . .
Click to expand...


Translation: I've just been handed my arse to me on a plate so I'll back out while I can...


----------



## AllieBaba

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> im out, enjoy the shortned life due to the high blood pressure and stress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right on schedule, the talking-point troll blows through the last one on the list and runs away, to be replaced by the next troll on the rotation.
> 
> I wonder if they're at least getting minimum wage for this.
Click to expand...

 
It depends...do you count the $$ their pimps let them keep?


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Dr Grump said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> But abortion apparently is not illegal in any state because it happens everyday and is supported by most Democrats. So how is she a victim by willingly walking in and doing the devils deed? She is not a victim, if anyone is the victim it is the child because it's mother was too big of a piece of shit to take responsibility for spreading her legs, and there is no way you can justify what you are saying so knock it off already.
> If a female was made to bear her child, she might feel an obligation to love and raise it, which would create a family environment and prosperity, and we all know that progressive liberals hate a family environment because it symbolizes liberty and free will without government intrusion, it basically lets families know "Hey, we love each other enough to weather any type of storm and as long as we have faith in god we can do this and not have to rely on government", and also  "Because a child is seen as a gift from god" which we all know liberals dont believe in a god.
> You go ahead and prepare for hell, that or let hell stoke the fires hot for you, either way your friends will be toasting to you while you stay there....for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My reply to Grumps remark about Good luck on getting a conviction started with the phrase If abortion were illegal, so it was a hypothetical.
> 
> My point is, should abortion ever become illegal, it will the the abortionist breaking the law and not necessarily the woman seeking the abortion.
> 
> I say this because, if abortion ever does become illegal on grounds that it is the taking of a human life, it would be the person doing the actual killing who commits the crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some places there is "being an accessory" which carries the same penalty..
> 
> That aside, abortion is not, nor ever should be, illegal....Bad choice to made IMO, but a choice nonetheless..
Click to expand...


Your remark about being an accessory helps advance the conversation about how abortion may be treated should/when it becomes illegal but I cant see any scenerio where we would make anyone but the abortionist actually pay for the crime.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Dr.Drock said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And do you believe in the abortion of babies that have medical issues, genetic abnormalities or limited capacity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not it's needed is up to the mother and whether she feels she needs it done.
> 
> *I still see you're stuck on the eugenics thing, I don't know how many times I can tell you it has nothing to do with it.*
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


I will take your word, Dr. Drock, that eugenics has nothing to do with your personal views on this issue but I think you are dreaming if you believe eugenics does not play any role at all in this matter.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Skynet said:


> why are you so worried about what another person does or doesnt do to their body? this is technically a medical decision, why do you feel that you should be able to have a say in what an individual does with their doctor?
> 
> if youre argument is simply because there is a "life" involved, its a bad argument, as your life is not affected and a fetus is dependent on its mother for life for up to 9 months. Again your defiinition of life is thin as well, seeing as how the youngest premature baby to ever survive was 22 weeks, and i believe (you can correct me if im wrong) abortion in most states is illegal after 20 weeks.
> 
> another question i ask, refers to what happens to that child if they are born and the parent does not want the child? the child goes into the system and becomes a ward of the state. now you may say that well there are many people who want to adopt children, to which i would say there are currently over 500,000 children waiting to be adopted in the US who sit in foster care, why arent people who want families adopting these children?
> 
> personally, i do not care if a women chooses to have an abortion, or chooses to have a child as this is none of my business and most notably does not affect my personal well being.
> 
> what gives you the right to tell anyone anywhere what to do?




You are correct about the fetus being dependent on its mother but so isn&#8217;t a born baby (so trying to make &#8220;dependence&#8221; a justification for abortion really doesn&#8217;t work).

And the pro-life definition of &#8220;life&#8221; is not &#8220;thin&#8221; and it's really not even subject to debate because someone is either alive or they are not.  There is really no middle ground.

Also, Pro-Lifers don&#8217;t approach this issue as having a right to tell a woman what to do, nope, we simply believe we have the right to petition our government to come up with a remedy for what we view to be a flagrant civil rights violation.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what people do with their own bodies.
> 
> I am however, concerned about what they do to children. If you don't want to take care of your own baby, other people are going to intercede for it. That's the way this works. People who victimize vulnerable populations tend to come under unfavorable scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this difference is that pro lifers and pro choicers have a differing opinion on when life begins whether it is at conception, or at birth and i do not think this will ever change.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


It is much better to stick to scientifically-provable facts when defining things like when life begins.  Using personal beliefs and opinions only adds confusion to the debate.

Also, just in case you really dont know the answer to that question, heres a good test to determine when you first became alive:

Since you cant kill something that is not alive to begin with, simply trace back the thread of your own life to the earliest point when you could have been killed.

And, if you are honest about this, it should be obvious that, as soon as you were created (not in the biblical sense), you were doomed to eventually die.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think parental responsibility starts with not killing your children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like i said your definition of children and the pro choicer definition of children is different and will never change.
> 
> i do enjoy how *have ignored 90% of my argument*, it seems to me like you have a very narrow focus of solely advocating for fetuses and not actual living breathing children.
> 
> a child is not a child until it can live and breathe on its own, not while it is still dependent on its mother for life.
> 
> im not telling you what to do with your life, im simply stating that you claim to be such an advocate for unborn children, why are you not an advocate for living children? i dont see you crusading for parental responsibility.....
Click to expand...


Are you even reading this thread?

As far as I can tell, AllieBaba  responded to all your arguments even going as far as to mention he/she actually works in human services.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Dr.Drock said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even have an argument. Is telling me I should be involved in child advocacy an "argument"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no...
> 
> it seems to me that all you do is campaign against abortion, but you dont follow that same passion when it comes to actually affecting the lives of children.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am however, concerned about what they do to children."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those are your exact words. if that is really your concern, what else are you doing to help the children beside campaigning against abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The best way to find out if a pro-lifer is actually pro-life in principle is ask them their views on wars that aren't imminent to the defense of the United States.
Click to expand...


Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.

That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Skynet said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> this difference is that pro lifers and pro choicers have a differing opinion on when life begins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...There is no room for 'what you think' when it comes to matters of scientifically verifiable facts about the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whether it is at conception, or at birth and i do not think this will ever change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you freely admit that you will never stop lying or even consider the possibility of being honest because abortionism is a religion and it is a matter of faith to you?
> 
> Sorry, but evolution has been observed and creationism is not science. There is no rrom for your 'opinion' [religion] when it comes to matters of science
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...obviously cant comprehend english as im a pro choicer not a pro lifer, which hence mean for me life begins at birth...
Click to expand...


The word life is an absolute and its definition is not subject to anyones personal belief system.  You are either alive or you are not.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> those are your exact words. if that is really your concern, what else are you doing to help the children beside campaigning against abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campaigning to save their lives isn't enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what if their quality of life is in the gutter? are you gonna take care of that child when a parent cant? what if they are neglected or abused? what if they die from poverty? what are you doing about that?
Click to expand...


Contrary to what you believe, I have actually done volunteer work with battered and abused children and I can recall no case where one of them would have chosen death over the life they were born into.

Nope, they were all just kids and fairly happy to-boot and all they really wanted was for their home life to be like everyone elses.

Also, there are some on this thread that dont think abortion has anything to do with eugenics but, every time I see one of these poverty or quality of life arguments, I just gotta wonder.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Skynet said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> what if their quality of life is in the gutter?...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> And why do I have to volunteer to take care of the children you want dead?
> 
> There is no justification for killing children. You don't kill children because you don't like the life you think they might eventually live. You don't kill children because you don't have the job you always dreamed of. You don't kill children because you have 2.3 other children already, and don't want anymore. You don't kill children because you want their money, and you don't kill children to protect your own money.
> 
> Because it still is just killing children. Murder is murder. Lots of murderers have justification, in their own minds, for the murder. So what? It's still murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can die of poverty yes, its called affects of malnutrition or access to basic services such as shelter, clothing and medical care.
> 
> you should also read the definition of murder... since you probably havent here it is:
> 
> Murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
> 
> since not part of abortion meets this definition, abortion does not equal murder. you may think so in your mind, but in legal world and world in which we live they are not one in the same.
> 
> ...
> 
> what gives you the right to tell a woman what to do with her body?
Click to expand...


The discussion about murder and killing (and whatever) is not really about what a woman does with her body, it is about what an abortionist does to the other, smaller body growing inside it.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> im out, enjoy the shortned life due to the high blood pressure and stress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right on schedule, the talking-point troll blows through the last one on the list and runs away, to be replaced by the next troll on the rotation.
> 
> I wonder if they're at least getting minimum wage for this.
Click to expand...


Sounds like youve been down this path before.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> no...
> 
> it seems to me that all you do is campaign against abortion, but you dont follow that same passion when it comes to actually affecting the lives of children.
> 
> 
> 
> those are your exact words. if that is really your concern, what else are you doing to help the children beside campaigning against abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best way to find out if a pro-lifer is actually pro-life in principle is ask them their views on wars that aren't imminent to the defense of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.
> 
> That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.
Click to expand...


But Allie said she cherished life and many of the pro-lifers say the same thing, if someone supposedly has that principle than it should extend to all issues.  

But more often than not the supposed pro-life people are the ones beating the war drum the loudest, which makes you think the only reason they're pro life is because either their bureacrats and talking heads tell them to be or because of their religion.


----------



## manifold

Dr.Drock said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best way to find out if a pro-lifer is actually pro-life in principle is ask them their views on wars that aren't imminent to the defense of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.
> 
> That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Allie said she cherished life and many of the pro-lifers say the same thing, if someone supposedly has that principle than it should extend to all issues.
> 
> But more often than not the supposed pro-life people are the ones beating the war drum the loudest, which makes you think the only reason they're pro *choice* is because either their bureacrats and talking heads tell them to be or because of their religion.
Click to expand...


I'll go ahead and delete this post once you've corrected the typo/freudian slip.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Dr.Drock said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best way to find out if a pro-lifer is actually pro-life in principle is ask them their views on wars that aren't imminent to the defense of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.
> 
> That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Allie said she cherished life and many of the pro-lifers say the same thing, if someone supposedly has that principle than it should extend to all issues.
> 
> But more often than not the supposed pro-life people are the ones beating the war drum the loudest,* which makes you think the only reason they're pro choice is because either their bureacrats and talking heads tell them to be or because of their religion*.
Click to expand...


??  

Or perhaps, _just maybe_, the reason pro-lifers are so vocal is because the unborn can't speak for themselves.


----------



## manifold

Zoom-boing said:


> the reason pro-lifers are so vocal is because the unborn can't speak for themselves.



I can't argue with that.  Rightwingnuts sure are fond of speaking for others.


----------



## Immanuel

Dr.Drock said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best way to find out if a pro-lifer is actually pro-life in principle is ask them their views on wars that aren't imminent to the defense of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.
> 
> That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Allie said she cherished life and many of the pro-lifers say the same thing, if someone supposedly has that principle than it should extend to all issues.
> 
> But more often than not the supposed pro-life people are the ones beating the war drum the loudest, which makes you think the only reason they're pro choice is because either their bureacrats and talking heads tell them to be or because of their religion.
Click to expand...


I don't see a lot of Pro-lifers beating the drums of war.  Can you name some, please?  I know I loosely supported the war in Iraq up to and only as far as the capture of Saddam Hussein.  That was where my support (above and beyond the support of our troops who are doing their jobs) ended.

On this site and others I have participated in, I saw a lot of Republicans hoot and holler for Bush's wars, but how many of those would I consider to be pro-life for any other reason than that it is part of the Republican platform?  That number would be pretty close to zero.

Immie


----------



## Dr.Drock

Immanuel said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.
> 
> That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Allie said she cherished life and many of the pro-lifers say the same thing, if someone supposedly has that principle than it should extend to all issues.
> 
> But more often than not the supposed pro-life people are the ones beating the war drum the loudest, which makes you think the only reason they're pro choice is because either their bureacrats and talking heads tell them to be or because of their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see a lot of Pro-lifers beating the drums of war.  Can you name some, please?  I know I loosely supported the war in Iraq up to and only as far as the capture of Saddam Hussein.  That was where my support (above and beyond the support of our troops who are doing their jobs) ended.
> 
> On this site and others I have participated in, I saw a lot of Republicans hoot and holler for Bush's wars, but how many of those would I consider to be pro-life for any other reason than that it is part of the Republican platform?  That number would be pretty close to zero.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Immie.  In my interaction I'd say about 90-95% of those looking favorably on the Iraq War, those wanting war with Iran, those wanting war with North Korea and others tend to be pro-life on the abortion issue.

Which is stunning to me to say out of one side of your mouth that you cherish the life of the unborn, but you're demanding an action that you know will result in thousands upon thousands of dead born babies and children.


----------



## Immanuel

Dr.Drock said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Allie said she cherished life and many of the pro-lifers say the same thing, if someone supposedly has that principle than it should extend to all issues.
> 
> But more often than not the supposed pro-life people are the ones beating the war drum the loudest, which makes you think the only reason they're pro choice is because either their bureacrats and talking heads tell them to be or because of their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a lot of Pro-lifers beating the drums of war.  Can you name some, please?  I know I loosely supported the war in Iraq up to and only as far as the capture of Saddam Hussein.  That was where my support (above and beyond the support of our troops who are doing their jobs) ended.
> 
> On this site and others I have participated in, I saw a lot of Republicans hoot and holler for Bush's wars, but how many of those would I consider to be pro-life for any other reason than that it is part of the Republican platform?  That number would be pretty close to zero.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Immie.  In my interaction I'd say about 90-95% of those looking favorably on the Iraq War, those wanting war with Iran, those wanting war with North Korea and others tend to be pro-life on the abortion issue.
> 
> Which is stunning to me to say out of one side of your mouth that you cherish the life of the unborn, but you're demanding an action that you know will result in thousands upon thousands of dead born babies and children.
Click to expand...


My point being that there is pro-life and then there is pro-life because of the Republican platform.  Just as there are people who are pro-choice and then their are people who are devoutly pro-choice almost to the point of appearing pro-abortion.  I'll name some or at least ID as I don't care to look up at least one of their names:  Patricia Ireland, the founder of Emily's List, Kate Michelman? one time President of NARAL - pro-choice America, Margaret Sanger.  These people are devoutly pro-choice.  And then there are people such as yourself who are pro-choice because you want the government out of the lives of women.

Just because someone is against abortion because the Republican platform is opposed to abortion does not mean that they are "pro-life".  Unless of course you want to put yourself in line with Margaret Sanger or Kate Michelman and admit that Pro-choice really means Pro-abortion.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Pro-choice is pro-abortion.

We already established that, which caused the pro-abortion crowd to jump ship pre-board meltdown.


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Pro-choice is pro-abortion.
> 
> We already established that, which caused the pro-abortion crowd to jump ship pre-board meltdown.



Well, I am sure in your own mind that has been established.  

It seems that you are of the assumption that when you say something, that makes it to be true.  

Unfortunately, I have seen not one person who is pro-choice "jump ship pre-board meltdown".

For the record, I do not recognize you as some kind of ultimate authority on this or any subject.  

Immie


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Dr.Drock said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best way to find out if a pro-lifer is actually pro-life in principle is ask them their views on wars that aren't imminent to the defense of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.
> 
> That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Allie said she cherished life and many of the pro-lifers say the same thing, if someone supposedly has that principle than it should extend to all issues.
> 
> But more often than not the supposed pro-life people are the ones beating the war drum the loudest, which makes you think the only reason they're pro life is because either their bureacrats and talking heads tell them to be or because of their religion.
Click to expand...


The only people I see trying to extend the meaning of the term (to include things like war or the death penalty) are people who are not pro-life and who do not have a clue what it means to be pro-life.

The term applies to one thing and one thing only  advocacy for the life of those who are killed during an abortion.


----------



## AllieBaba

I know, you don't recognize facts pretty much straight down the line.

Still, it's true. I posted the definitions of pro-choice and pro-abortion, and there was no doubt. At that time, Drock and GT determined there was no point to discussing the issue and announced they would not be discussing it anymore. Primarily because they couldn't answer simple questions without demonstrating their pro-abortion status.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

manifold said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.
> 
> That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Allie said she cherished life and many of the pro-lifers say the same thing, if someone supposedly has that principle than it should extend to all issues.
> 
> But more often than not the supposed pro-life people are the ones beating the war drum the loudest, which makes you think the only reason they're pro *choice* is because either their bureacrats and talking heads tell them to be or because of their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll go ahead and delete this post once you've corrected the typo/freudian slip.
Click to expand...


I knew there was something confusing about this reply but I never saw it.

Good pick up.


----------



## AllieBaba

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.
> 
> That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Allie said she cherished life and many of the pro-lifers say the same thing, if someone supposedly has that principle than it should extend to all issues.
> 
> But more often than not the supposed pro-life people are the ones beating the war drum the loudest, which makes you think the only reason they're pro life is because either their bureacrats and talking heads tell them to be or because of their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only people I see trying to extend the meaning of the term (to include things like war or the death penalty) are people who are not pro-life and who do not have a clue what it means to be pro-life.
> 
> The term applies to one thing and one thing only  advocacy for the life of those who are killed during an abortion.
Click to expand...

 
Logical fallacy.


----------



## Zoom-boing

manifold said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> the reason pro-lifers are so vocal is because the unborn can't speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't argue with that.  Rightwingnuts sure are fond of speaking for others.
Click to expand...


Wow, that was


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Zoom-boing said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.
> 
> That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Allie said she cherished life and many of the pro-lifers say the same thing, if someone supposedly has that principle than it should extend to all issues.
> 
> But more often than not the supposed pro-life people are the ones beating the war drum the loudest,* which makes you think the only reason they're pro choice is because either their bureacrats and talking heads tell them to be or because of their religion*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??
> 
> Or perhaps, _just maybe_, the reason pro-lifers are so vocal is because the unborn can't speak for themselves.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is one of the main reasons I speak up for them.

Since they cant look back at us and beg for their lives, I feel they need an advocate who can.

And I just wish I knew how to better get that message across.


----------



## AllieBaba

The best way to advocate is to stick to the facts; the pro-abortionists can't argue them, and won't. Instead they revert to personal attack, lies, and attempts to change term definitions. Just keep coming back to the truth.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

AllieBaba said:


> The best way to advocate is to stick to the facts; the pro-abortionists can't argue them, and won't. Instead they revert to personal attack, lies, and attempts to change term definitions. Just keep coming back to the truth.



I started out as a pro-choice, sixties liberal but, through a long process of self-examination that lasted almost two decades, I finally had to swallow my pride and admit that the ones who truly needed my advocacy in this matter were the actual victims in the procedure.

So, until someone can provide me some cold, hard, scientific data that proves we are not dealing with a new, unique, human being, I will continue to come back for as long as it takes because I have a lot of making-up to do.


----------



## AllieBaba

I also feel differently than I did when I was younger. And (as I told RH privately) I have tremendous empathy for the women in this situation. I don't judge them, it's a legal procedure. I'm not naive enough to think that women won't get abortions anyway...they will find ways both illegal and illegal to do it (they do that now). But ultimately, it's still about a life. That can't be negotiated away, and the law absolutely shouldn't tell us specifically that it's a life that it's okay to take. 

I think it's a mistake, as a society, to condone the killing of our own children, at whatever stage of development, at whatever state of sentience, at whatever shape, color or size. I think it's a hallmark of a civilization's death.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skynet said:
> 
> 
> 
> im out, enjoy the shortned life due to the high blood pressure and stress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right on schedule, the talking-point troll blows through the last one on the list and runs away, to be replaced by the next troll on the rotation.
> 
> I wonder if they're at least getting minimum wage for this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like youve been down this path before.
Click to expand...


Did you have a chance to read the entire thread (I realize it's kinda long)?  Right off the bat, some troll or other started out with this EXACT SAME spiel, almost word for word.  We slapped him down with the EXACT SAME argument, and he ran off.  Couple of pages later, BAM!  There was another troll, spewing the same garbage, also in nearly the exact wording, as though it was something new and original and clever that he just thought up.  We ran through the same debate, got to this point, and away he ran.  Couple of pages later, voila!  New troll, same argument, same air of "I'll bet you've never looked at it THIS way before".  This one is at least the fourth or fifth, possibly more, JUST IN THIS THREAD, to present the same argument, in the same words, as though they're on some sort of hellish recording loop.  And it happens every damned time this topic comes up.


----------



## AllieBaba

Yup.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best way to find out if a pro-lifer is actually pro-life in principle is ask them their views on wars that aren't imminent to the defense of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.
> 
> That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Allie said she cherished life and many of the pro-lifers say the same thing, if someone supposedly has that principle than it should extend to all issues.
> 
> But more often than not the supposed pro-life people are the ones beating the war drum the loudest, which makes you think the only reason they're pro life is because either their bureacrats and talking heads tell them to be or because of their religion.
Click to expand...


Here's a thought, Dreck.  Why don't you stick to articulating YOUR principles (if one can even call them that) and making THEM sound coherent (you have your work cut out for you), rather than trying to tell other people how they should articulate and practice THEIR principles?  When I need a pro-abort to tell me how to be pro-life . . . well, I shall never need that, so stop wasting my time trying to pretend to a moral high ground you're light-years away from deserving.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> The best way to advocate is to stick to the facts; the pro-abortionists can't argue them, and won't. Instead they revert to personal attack, lies, and attempts to change term definitions. Just keep coming back to the truth.



And rotating trolls to try to batter us down with inane, mindless repetitions of the same debunked arguments over and over.  Don't forget that.


----------



## Vanquish

Not one person on the pro-abortion side has debunked ANYTHING I've said. Not one.


----------



## AllieBaba

They can't debunk anything, and they can't justify the killing of babies. The only thing they can do is cling to debunked talking points (you should adopt kids before you voice an opposing opinion! If you don't protest war you don't get to protest abortion! If we don't abort the monsters, they'll grow up to be criminal/abused/neglected!)


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-choice is pro-abortion.
> 
> We already established that, which caused the pro-abortion crowd to jump ship pre-board meltdown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am sure in your own mind that has been established.
> 
> It seems that you are of the assumption that when you say something, that makes it to be true.
> 
> Unfortunately, I have seen not one person who is pro-choice "jump ship pre-board meltdown".
> 
> *For the record, I do not recognize you as some kind of ultimate authority on this or any subject.*
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I hope you don't go to hell for that.


----------



## manifold

Vanquish said:


> Not one person on the pro-abortion side has debunked ANYTHING I've said. Not one.



^All caps emphasis ALWAYS means it's true.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And right on schedule, the talking-point troll blows through the last one on the list and runs away, to be replaced by the next troll on the rotation.
> 
> I wonder if they're at least getting minimum wage for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like youve been down this path before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you have a chance to read the entire thread (I realize it's kinda long)?  Right off the bat, some troll or other started out with this EXACT SAME spiel, almost word for word.  We slapped him down with the EXACT SAME argument, and he ran off.  Couple of pages later, BAM!  There was another troll, spewing the same garbage, also in nearly the exact wording, as though it was something new and original and clever that he just thought up.  We ran through the same debate, got to this point, and away he ran.  Couple of pages later, voila!  New troll, same argument, same air of "I'll bet you've never looked at it THIS way before".  This one is at least the fourth or fifth, possibly more, JUST IN THIS THREAD, to present the same argument, in the same words, as though they're on some sort of hellish recording loop.  And it happens every damned time this topic comes up.
Click to expand...


I have been lurking on this thread for awhile but, admittedly, I have not read the entire thing.  Indeed, this thread was so long that I could never get got caught up so I was reluctant to join.  But, eventually, I just jumped in because abortion is one of the topics I like to debate.

As far as the trolls and sock puppets go, I treat their posts as an opportunity to re-state my points but I do have to admit that it does get a little tiring after awhile.


----------



## Father Time

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support.



Demonstrate that it's acceptable? What is morally acceptable is subjective so how would you suggest it be demonstrated?


----------



## Father Time

AllieBaba said:


> I know, you don't recognize facts pretty much straight down the line.
> 
> Still, it's true. I posted the definitions of pro-choice and pro-abortion, and there was no doubt.



I think smoking cigarettes should be legal but I cannot stand the smell of the smoke and generally avoid people when they smoke. So am I pro cigarettes in your view?


----------



## Vanquish

manifold said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person on the pro-abortion side has debunked ANYTHING I've said. Not one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^All caps emphasis ALWAYS means it's true.
Click to expand...


Sarcasm duly noted. I never said caps = true. It is true though.

I've yet to hear a good answer to the simple question:
If you'll never know which answer is "right" - and one answer could be DREADFULLY wrong ending in death - why chance it?


----------



## Father Time

Mr_Rockhead said:


> But, eventually, I just jumped in because abortion is one of the topics I like to debate.



May I ask *why?*

It's filled with over dramatic shmoes who will call you evil for disagreeing with them.

And really it all boils down to "Do you think a human life is valuable all the time or just when they're sentient/capable of pain/whatever"

There's no possible way to answer that question objectively.

All I ever see is stupid slippery slopes and yelling.


----------



## manifold

Vanquish said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person on the pro-abortion side has debunked ANYTHING I've said. Not one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^All caps emphasis ALWAYS means it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sarcasm duly noted. I never said caps = true. It is true though.
> 
> I've yet to hear a good answer to the simple question:
> If you'll never know which answer is "right" - and one answer could be DREADFULLY wrong ending in death - why chance it?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't.

Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, pro-choice isn't about thinking abortion is morally ok.  It's about thinking that completely denying women the choice is NOT ok.


----------



## wolf_22

I am more than a fetus. I am more than a blastocryst. I am more than an embryo.

if you are not, thats on you.

those pre-life forms are not my equal.

and even if they were - no one has the right to use my body or anyone else's. no one has the right to feed off of another or intrude on their rights.

you can't have fetal rights and have women still be treated as autonomous, dignified people


----------



## amhealy

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> more sex offenders work in the education system than in ANY OTHER PROFESSION .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you source that, please?
Click to expand...


I thought that the profession that employed the most sex offenders was the catholic church.


----------



## Cecilie1200

amhealy said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> more sex offenders work in the education system than in ANY OTHER PROFESSION .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you source that, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought that the profession that employed the most sex offenders was the catholic church.
Click to expand...


Well, then, obviously thinking is not an activity for which you are properly equipped.  Perhaps an information source other than pop culture might be of assistance.

A synthesis report prepared for the US Department of Education says that the study with the most accurate data puts the percentage of students experiencing sexual misconduct from teachers to be about 9.6%.  Simple math will tell us that that's a lot more kids than have experienced sexual misconduct from priests, since the vast majority of children in this country attend school of some sort, but nothing like a majority of children are even Catholic, let alone in any sort of regular contact with priests.


----------



## Gadawg73

A woman becomes pregnant and her doctor states that because of her health she should have an abortion. She could die with child birth. The local district attorney has a mandate from his constituents and local churches NOT to allow such abortions.
Who makes the decision? The local district attorney or the family with their doctor?
Conservatives want less government and believe in family.
Liberals want big government, do not want the family making that decision as that is a government decision and liberals want government to take action.


----------



## amhealy

Gadawg73 said:


> A woman becomes pregnant and her doctor states that because of her health she should have an abortion. She could die with child birth. The local district attorney has a mandate from his constituents and local churches NOT to allow such abortions.
> Who makes the decision? The local district attorney or the family with their doctor?
> Conservatives want less government and believe in family.
> Liberals want big government, do not want the family making that decision as that is a government decision and liberals want government to take action.



The problem with using this as an example is that only 5% of abortions are performed because of health reasons.  I don't think anyone would have a problem with performing an abortion to save the mother's life.


----------



## Gadawg73

amhealy said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A woman becomes pregnant and her doctor states that because of her health she should have an abortion. She could die with child birth. The local district attorney has a mandate from his constituents and local churches NOT to allow such abortions.
> Who makes the decision? The local district attorney or the family with their doctor?
> Conservatives want less government and believe in family.
> Liberals want big government, do not want the family making that decision as that is a government decision and liberals want government to take action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with using this as an example is that only 5% of abortions are performed because of health reasons.  I don't think anyone would have a problem with performing an abortion to save the mother's life.
Click to expand...


Respectfully, you completely missed the point and it was most likely my fault.
The example I gave can be obtained in ANY SCENARIO.
Doctors will answer to the needs of the family and one can find NUMEROUS doctors to claim that it was a "medical emergency" no matter what.
Real world. Respectfully, please recognize this fact and join us conservatives against big government and allowing them to make the decision.


----------



## amhealy

Gadawg73 said:


> amhealy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A woman becomes pregnant and her doctor states that because of her health she should have an abortion. She could die with child birth. The local district attorney has a mandate from his constituents and local churches NOT to allow such abortions.
> Who makes the decision? The local district attorney or the family with their doctor?
> Conservatives want less government and believe in family.
> Liberals want big government, do not want the family making that decision as that is a government decision and liberals want government to take action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with using this as an example is that only 5% of abortions are performed because of health reasons.  I don't think anyone would have a problem with performing an abortion to save the mother's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Respectfully, you completely missed the point and it was most likely my fault.
> The example I gave can be obtained in ANY SCENARIO.
> Doctors will answer to the needs of the family and one can find NUMEROUS doctors to claim that it was a "medical emergency" no matter what.
> Real world. Respectfully, please recognize this fact and join us conservatives against big government and allowing them to make the decision.
Click to expand...


I get your point.  Excuse me for being obtuse.

I personally would not have an abortion.  But I support the individual's right to have one.  Government and everyone else should stay out of it.  I'm for less government, absolutely.


----------



## wolf_22

Cecilie1200 said:


> wolf_22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am more than a fetus. I am more than a blastocryst. I am more than an embryo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you aren't (unless by "more", you're referring to mass.  In which case, Michael Moore is, presumably, "more" than you).  You're just different than they are, the same as you are different from an infant or a toddler (again, we're probably just talking about mass, since this post didn't impress me with your difference in intelligence from your average toddler).
> no we are talking about feelings, intellect, thoughts, sensations...everything that makes us alive and human. everything we use to describe the human experience.
> 
> 
> wolf_22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you are not, thats on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In much the same way I feel no need to declare my superiority to others based on my skin pigment, I feel no need to declare my superiority to others based on size and chronology.  But then, unlike some people, I have something REAL in my life to be proud of.
> what pride in not respecting women as full people who control their bodies?
> 
> 
> wolf_22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> those pre-life forms are not my equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Pre-life"?  Well, now we know WHY you have nothing to be proud of other than "Look how many cells I've managed to acquire!"  Scientific acumen is clearly out of the realm of possibility for you.
> 
> Congratulations on your outstanding cellular production, though.  We're very proud of you.  :at, pat::
> 
> 
> 
> wolf_22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and even if they were - no one has the right to use my body or anyone else's. no one has the right to feed off of another or intrude on their rights.
> 
> you can't have fetal rights and have women still be treated as autonomous, dignified people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of dumb **** discusses nature and biology in terms of "rights", as though there's some sort of Supreme Court of the Universe to which one can appeal the "unfairness" of one's anatomy?  Oh, yeah, the kind of dumb **** who fucks around without protections and NEEDS to be able to kill her own child.
> 
> I find it very, very amusing that YOU are concerned about being treated as "dignified", though.
Click to expand...


sorry you have no self respect and lash out against your own.

from any angle you cut it, a woman is a person and if she wants to end a pregnancy its her right and her choice.


----------



## Cecilie1200

amhealy said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A woman becomes pregnant and her doctor states that because of her health she should have an abortion. She could die with child birth. The local district attorney has a mandate from his constituents and local churches NOT to allow such abortions.
> Who makes the decision? The local district attorney or the family with their doctor?
> Conservatives want less government and believe in family.
> Liberals want big government, do not want the family making that decision as that is a government decision and liberals want government to take action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with using this as an example is that only 5% of abortions are performed because of health reasons.  I don't think anyone would have a problem with performing an abortion to save the mother's life.
Click to expand...


There's another problem with that scenario.  I can't think of a single person on the pro-life side who is advocating outlawing abortion in the case of the mother's life being in danger.  There ARE one or two, I believe, but they're such a statistically insignificant group, they're not even worth mentioning.


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> A woman becomes pregnant and her doctor states that because of her health she should have an abortion. She could die with child birth. The local district attorney has a mandate from his constituents and local churches NOT to allow such abortions.
> Who makes the decision? The local district attorney or the family with their doctor?
> Conservatives want less government and believe in family.
> Liberals want big government, do not want the family making that decision as that is a government decision and liberals want government to take action.


 
Lie, false premise.

Please show me proposed legislation that would require women who are in danger would be denied a D&C.

You won't, because it doesn't exist. Pro lifers have never proposed that women who need to abort for medical reasons be prevented from doing so. It happens very, very rarely, but when it happens, it usually happens suddenly and even before abortion was legal, there was no problem in treatment to save the mother's life. 

Nobody has ever been forced to have a baby that would kill her as a result of abortion law. Never.

But continue to pretend this is an issue. Just like you pretend that the existence of the evolution theory proves ... something....about the creation of the world, life, and the existence of God.


----------



## AllieBaba

wolf_22 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wolf_22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am more than a fetus. I am more than a blastocryst. I am more than an embryo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you aren't (unless by "more", you're referring to mass. In which case, Michael Moore is, presumably, "more" than you). You're just different than they are, the same as you are different from an infant or a toddler (again, we're probably just talking about mass, since this post didn't impress me with your difference in intelligence from your average toddler).
> no we are talking about feelings, intellect, thoughts, sensations...everything that makes us alive and human. everything we use to describe the human experience.
> 
> 
> In much the same way I feel no need to declare my superiority to others based on my skin pigment, I feel no need to declare my superiority to others based on size and chronology. But then, unlike some people, I have something REAL in my life to be proud of.
> what pride in not respecting women as full people who control their bodies?
> 
> 
> "Pre-life"? Well, now we know WHY you have nothing to be proud of other than "Look how many cells I've managed to acquire!" Scientific acumen is clearly out of the realm of possibility for you.
> 
> Congratulations on your outstanding cellular production, though. We're very proud of you. :at, pat::
> 
> 
> 
> wolf_22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and even if they were - no one has the right to use my body or anyone else's. no one has the right to feed off of another or intrude on their rights.
> 
> you can't have fetal rights and have women still be treated as autonomous, dignified people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of dumb **** discusses nature and biology in terms of "rights", as though there's some sort of Supreme Court of the Universe to which one can appeal the "unfairness" of one's anatomy? Oh, yeah, the kind of dumb **** who fucks around without protections and NEEDS to be able to kill her own child.
> 
> I find it very, very amusing that YOU are concerned about being treated as "dignified", though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry you have no self respect and lash out against your own.
> 
> from any angle you cut it, a woman is a person and if she wants to end a pregnancy its her right and her choice.
Click to expand...

 
Not when she kills another person, the baby, in ending the pregnancy.

Nobody has the right to kill another. Not for any reason.


----------



## Vanquish

I've still never heard a good response to the question...

Why, if abortion could be murder...would you take the chance.
At best you have a 50/50 chance of murdering someone if you perform abortions.
If you dont, then you know for sure that you're not murdering someone.

There's never been a decent reply to that. Not here in this thread...or in any abortion discussion I've ever had.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Father Time said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, eventually, I just jumped in because abortion is one of the topics I like to debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask *why?*
> 
> It's filled with over dramatic shmoes who will call you evil for disagreeing with them.
> 
> And really it all boils down to "Do you think a human life is valuable all the time or just when they're sentient/capable of pain/whatever"
> 
> There's no possible way to answer that question objectively.
> 
> All I ever see is stupid slippery slopes and yelling.
Click to expand...



I guess I like the topic because there is very little middle ground.

And, I agree, that it does boil down to &#8220;what point we choose to place a value on another human&#8217;s life&#8221;.

Also, I think an objective answer to the question might be: since another person&#8217;s life always has value to them, it should always have value to me.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

wolf_22 said:


> I am more than a fetus. I am more than a blastocryst. I am more than an embryo.
> 
> if you are not, thats on you.
> 
> those pre-life forms are not my equal.
> 
> and even if they were - no one has the right to use my body or anyone else's. no one has the right to feed off of another or intrude on their rights.
> 
> you can't have fetal rights and have women still be treated as autonomous, dignified people



In your mind, a fetus might be all the things you say but, legally, it is, indeed, your equal (even during some of the &#8220;feeding off another&#8221; stages you mentioned).

And, by the way, the only person &#8220;using&#8221; your body during this time is mother nature.  The fetal person had absolutely no say say in the matter.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A woman becomes pregnant and her doctor states that because of her health she should have an abortion. She could die with child birth. The local district attorney has a mandate from his constituents and local churches NOT to allow such abortions.
> Who makes the decision? The local district attorney or the family with their doctor?
> Conservatives want less government and believe in family.
> Liberals want big government, do not want the family making that decision as that is a government decision and liberals want government to take action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lie, false premise.
> 
> Please show me proposed legislation that would require women who are in danger would be denied a D&C.
> 
> You won't, because it doesn't exist. Pro lifers have never proposed that women who need to abort for medical reasons be prevented from doing so. It happens very, very rarely, but when it happens, it usually happens suddenly and even before abortion was legal, there was no problem in treatment to save the mother's life.
> 
> Nobody has ever been forced to have a baby that would kill her as a result of abortion law. Never.
> 
> But continue to pretend this is an issue. Just like you pretend that the existence of the evolution theory proves ... something....about the creation of the world, life, and the existence of God.
Click to expand...


You also do not understand reality and this also went 20 feet over your head.
Imagine that.
WHO makes the decision that the doctor was right with his diagnosis?
If you do not know that anyone can find a doctor to write whatever they want as a diagnosis you are naive, gullibe, stupid, or in your case Allie; all 3.
I have worked worker's comp and disability cases for 30 years.
Claimant's doctor: "The patient is 90% disabled with x, y, z cindition and can not work at all."
Insurance company doctor: "The patient was hurt and is now 100% recovered and can work full time for the rest of his life.'
You folks live in LAH LAH land. Real world situations you ignore.
Doctors can be PAID CASH to write whatever you want. 
Unbelievable you folks do not know this. This is the way IT WAS when abortion was illegal. 
But you folks are too young to know any better.


----------



## logical4u

The number of unborn babies murdered in the human sacrifice rite (abortion) is approximately 50,000,000 and counting.  The "pro-choice" supporters must be so proud.


----------



## traveler52

Why Can't  The "Pro-Life" Be Honest and Admit That They  Believe In "*Big Government*"?

They want "*The Government*" to decide who does and does not get Certain Medical Procedures.

They want "*The Government*" in the Doctor's Office.

They want "*The Government*" in the Operating Room.

They want "*The Government*" to Women What Medical Procedures They Can/Cannot Receive.

They want "*The Government*" to Decide Medical Care.


----------



## Chris

logical4u said:


> The number of unborn babies murdered in the human sacrifice rite (abortion) is approximately 50,000,000 and counting.  The "pro-choice" supporters must be so proud.



I am extremely proud.

An embryo is NOT A HUMAN BEING. If it was, all the frozen embryos in labs around the country would have the right to carry guns.

Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused. So you are pro child abuse.

War, guns, pollution, child abuse...is there no evil the Republican Party won't support?


----------



## Gadawg73

traveler52 said:


> Why Can't  The "Pro-Life" Be Honest and Admit That They  Believe In "*Big Government*"?
> 
> They want "*The Government*" to decide who does and does not get Certain Medical Procedures.
> 
> They want "*The Government*" in the Doctor's Office.
> 
> They want "*The Government*" in the Operating Room.
> 
> They want "*The Government*" to Women What Medical Procedures They Can/Cannot Receive.
> 
> They want "*The Government*" to Decide Medical Care.



They are closet socialist liberals every one. 
Sheeple too weak to know any better.


----------



## Vanquish

Gadawg73 said:


> traveler52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Can't  The "Pro-Life" Be Honest and Admit That They  Believe In "*Big Government*"?
> 
> They want "*The Government*" to decide who does and does not get Certain Medical Procedures.
> 
> They want "*The Government*" in the Doctor's Office.
> 
> They want "*The Government*" in the Operating Room.
> 
> They want "*The Government*" to Women What Medical Procedures They Can/Cannot Receive.
> 
> They want "*The Government*" to Decide Medical Care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are closet socialist liberals every one.
> Sheeple too weak to know any better.
Click to expand...


Thanks to both posts. Exactly on point.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Chris said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number of unborn babies murdered in the human sacrifice rite (abortion) is approximately 50,000,000 and counting.  The "pro-choice" supporters must be so proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am extremely proud.
> 
> An embryo is NOT A HUMAN BEING. If it was, all the frozen embryos in labs around the country would have the right to carry guns.
> 
> Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused. So you are pro child abuse.
> 
> War, guns, pollution, child abuse...is there no evil the Republican Party won't support?
Click to expand...



A (human) embryo may not look like what you, personally, think a human being should look like, but that does not mean it is not a human being.   Sure, it may not be a baby yet, but it is just as human as the rest of us (it just happens to look a little different).

Also, once that human embryo grows old enough, it will have the right to carry a gun just like everyone else who is fortunate enough to live that long.

And, speaking of evil, do you honestly feel unwanted children would be better off dead simply because they might be abused?  (This argument always amazes me every time I see it.)


----------



## AllieBaba

It's not just that...they want to kill off all POTENTIAL criminals before birth.

So based on the off chance that a poor child born to a young, unwed mother could turn into a criminal, it's perfectly okay to kill that child.


----------



## AllieBaba

While at the same time, they will bend over backwards to excuse and justify criminal behavior of their brethren....lib politicians, teachers, you name it.

THOSE criminals are perfectly justified.


----------



## traveler52

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number of unborn babies murdered in the human sacrifice rite (abortion) is approximately 50,000,000 and counting.  The "pro-choice" supporters must be so proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am extremely proud.
> 
> An embryo is NOT A HUMAN BEING. If it was, all the frozen embryos in labs around the country would have the right to carry guns.
> 
> Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused. So you are pro child abuse.
> 
> War, guns, pollution, child abuse...is there no evil the Republican Party won't support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A (human) embryo may not look like what you, personally, think a human being should look like, but that does not mean it is not a human being.   Sure, it may not be a baby yet, but it is just as human as the rest of us (it just happens to look a little different).
> 
> Also, once that human embryo grows old enough, it will have the right to carry a gun just like everyone else who is fortunate enough to live that long.
> 
> And, speaking of evil, do you honestly feel unwanted children would be better off dead simply because they might be abused?  (This argument always amazes me every time I see it.)
Click to expand...



The ConJobsRepug/Teabaggers love to talk to death about "*The Right To Life*".  "*The Right To Life*" ends at birth.  

After being born, children don't school  Childen do not need food.  Children do not a roof over their head.  

ConJobsRepugs/Teabaggers want only one thing.  An under educated, easily led and poorly paid workforce.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

traveler52 said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am extremely proud.
> 
> An embryo is NOT A HUMAN BEING. If it was, all the frozen embryos in labs around the country would have the right to carry guns.
> 
> Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused. So you are pro child abuse.
> 
> War, guns, pollution, child abuse...is there no evil the Republican Party won't support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A (human) embryo may not look like what you, personally, think a human being should look like, but that does not mean it is not a human being.   Sure, it may not be a baby yet, but it is just as human as the rest of us (it just happens to look a little different).
> 
> Also, once that human embryo grows old enough, it will have the right to carry a gun just like everyone else who is fortunate enough to live that long.
> 
> And, speaking of evil, do you honestly feel unwanted children would be better off dead simply because they might be abused?  (This argument always amazes me every time I see it.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The ConJobsRepug/Teabaggers love to talk to death about "*The Right To Life*".  "*The Right To Life*" ends at birth.
> 
> After being born, children don't school  Childen do not need food.  Children do not a roof over their head.
> 
> ConJobsRepugs/Teabaggers want only one thing.  An under educated, easily led and poorly paid workforce.
Click to expand...


Admittedly, I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I think you are hinting it is better to have these children dead rather than burden us with the need to feed and educate them.

Well, I guess times really have changed because, back when I was pro-choice, I could never have bought-into that particular line of thinking.  Nope, never, ever.

Just curious, if the unborn people could somehow look back at you and beg for their lives, would you still feel the same way about them?

Also, rather than just making broad, unproven accusations about the pro-life movement, why not try to counter some of the pro-life arguments posted here with some good, well-thought-out arguments of your own?


----------



## Patrick2

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Admittedly, I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I think you are hinting it is better to have these children dead rather than burden us with the need to feed and educate them.




That's exactly what he's trying to say.  Leftwingers advocate death as a solution for a number of problems:

1. Don't want to have a baby now?  Get in there with the scalpels and vaccuum.

2. Relative been comotose too long?  Pull the plug.

And coming soon:

3. Old people taking up too much of the obamacare budget?  Crank up the death panel.


----------



## Gadawg73

Patrick2 said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admittedly, I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I think you are hinting it is better to have these children dead rather than burden us with the need to feed and educate them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what he's trying to say.  Leftwingers advocate death as a solution for a number of problems:
> 
> 1. Don't want to have a baby now?  Get in there with the scalpels and vaccuum.
> 
> 2. Relative been comotose too long?  Pull the plug.
> 
> And coming soon:
> 
> 3. Old people taking up too much of the obamacare budget?  Crank up the death panel.
Click to expand...


There are death panels now. INSURANCE COMPANIES.


----------



## Chris

Why can't the anti abortion crowd be honest?

You want to bring MILLIONS OF UNWANTED CHILDREN into the world. Unwanted children are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be abused. 

You are pro child abuse.

Is there no evil in the world that the Republican Party won't support?


----------



## Chris

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number of unborn babies murdered in the human sacrifice rite (abortion) is approximately 50,000,000 and counting.  The "pro-choice" supporters must be so proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am extremely proud.
> 
> An embryo is NOT A HUMAN BEING. If it was, all the frozen embryos in labs around the country would have the right to carry guns.
> 
> Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused. So you are pro child abuse.
> 
> War, guns, pollution, child abuse...is there no evil the Republican Party won't support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A (human) embryo may not look like what you, personally, think a human being should look like, but that does not mean it is not a human being.   Sure, it may not be a baby yet, but it is just as human as the rest of us (it just happens to look a little different).
> 
> Also, once that human embryo grows old enough, it will have the right to carry a gun just like everyone else who is fortunate enough to live that long.
> 
> And, speaking of evil, do you honestly feel unwanted children would be better off dead simply because they might be abused?  (This argument always amazes me every time I see it.)
Click to expand...


An embryo is NOT A HUMAN BEING.

If it were all the thousands of frozen embryos in labs in this country would have the right to own guns.


----------



## Gadawg73

Chris said:


> Why can't the anti abortion crowd be honest?
> 
> You want to bring MILLIONS OF UNWANTED CHILDREN into the world. Unwanted children are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be abused.
> 
> You are pro child abuse.
> 
> Is there no evil in the world that the Republican Party won't support?



I do not know of anyone that is "pro abortion". I am anti abortion. 
But I am anti government being the judge of who can legally receive one and who can't. 
Abortion is a family decision that no law ever stops.


----------



## AllieBaba

Chris said:


> Why can't the anti abortion crowd be honest?
> 
> You want to bring MILLIONS OF UNWANTED CHILDREN into the world. Unwanted children are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be abused.
> 
> You are pro child abuse.
> 
> Is there no evil in the world that the Republican Party won't support?


 
Well at least they don't support infanticide.

And please provide the evidence that abortion increases the likelihood of child abuse. As you know, child abuse incidence has increased astronomically with the advent of legalized baby killing.


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't the anti abortion crowd be honest?
> 
> You want to bring MILLIONS OF UNWANTED CHILDREN into the world. Unwanted children are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be abused.
> 
> You are pro child abuse.
> 
> Is there no evil in the world that the Republican Party won't support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know of anyone that is "pro abortion". I am anti abortion.
> But I am anti government being the judge of who can legally receive one and who can't.
> Abortion is a family decision that no law ever stops.
Click to expand...

 
So you're pro abortion.

And yes, the law does stop it. Or are you saying that not only are the dead babies criminals, but all their mothers are also criminals in waiting?


----------



## AllieBaba

traveler52 said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am extremely proud.
> 
> An embryo is NOT A HUMAN BEING. If it was, all the frozen embryos in labs around the country would have the right to carry guns.
> 
> Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused. So you are pro child abuse.
> 
> War, guns, pollution, child abuse...is there no evil the Republican Party won't support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A (human) embryo may not look like what you, personally, think a human being should look like, but that does not mean it is not a human being. Sure, it may not be a baby yet, but it is just as human as the rest of us (it just happens to look a little different).
> 
> Also, once that human embryo grows old enough, it will have the right to carry a gun just like everyone else who is fortunate enough to live that long.
> 
> And, speaking of evil, do you honestly feel unwanted children would be better off dead simply because they might be abused? (This argument always amazes me every time I see it.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The ConJobsRepug/Teabaggers love to talk to death about "*The Right To Life*". "*The Right To Life*" ends at birth.
> 
> After being born, children don't school Childen do not need food. Children do not a roof over their head.
> 
> ConJobsRepugs/Teabaggers want only one thing. An under educated, easily led and poorly paid workforce.
Click to expand...

 
And the baby killers want a dead minority population.

See how easy it is to play that game?


----------



## Moonglow

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



  I kill my sperm daily!


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't the anti abortion crowd be honest?
> 
> You want to bring MILLIONS OF UNWANTED CHILDREN into the world. Unwanted children are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be abused.
> 
> You are pro child abuse.
> 
> Is there no evil in the world that the Republican Party won't support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know of anyone that is "pro abortion". I am anti abortion.
> But I am anti government being the judge of who can legally receive one and who can't.
> Abortion is a family decision that no law ever stops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're pro abortion.
> 
> And yes, the law does stop it. Or are you saying that not only are the dead babies criminals, but all their mothers are also criminals in waiting?
Click to expand...


What law stops it? 
When?
You are not old enough to know any better. Quit while you are ahead.


----------



## AllieBaba

I'm 47, you idiot.

So were there MORE abortions when abortion was illegal?

Nope, there weren't.

Are there more abortions now?

Yup, there are.

Would every woman who gets a legal abortion get an illegal one if there was no legal option?

Nope.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> I'm 47, you idiot.
> 
> So were there MORE abortions when abortion was illegal?
> 
> Nope, there weren't.
> 
> Are there more abortions now?
> 
> Yup, there are.
> 
> Would every woman who gets a legal abortion get an illegal one if there was no legal option?
> 
> Nope.



Allie believes the accounting of abortions was the same as then when it was "illegal".
That everyone that went and had one under the table for CASH called the government and gave them their name to be counted.
Some folks live in the real world and others live in an imaginary one where the government and their laws solves everything.


----------



## AllieBaba

So you have some numbers to support what you say?

I have numbers. Want me to dig them up from the CDC?


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> I'm 47, you idiot.
> 
> So were there MORE abortions when abortion was illegal?
> 
> Nope, there weren't.
> 
> Are there more abortions now?
> 
> Yup, there are.
> 
> Would every woman who gets a legal abortion get an illegal one if there was no legal option?
> 
> Nope.



So you were 8 years old when abortion was "illegal".
And you knew everything that went on for any women to get one then that had cash when you were 8 years old.
Sure Allie. Gotcha.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> So you have some numbers to support what you say?
> 
> I have numbers. Want me to dig them up from the CDC?



So every women that had an abortion where it was illegal reported it to the CDC?

So they could be prosecuted for it.


----------



## AllieBaba

What on earth does age have to do with anything?

Are you female? Then you have absolutely no inkling of the issue, either.

Again, see how easy it is to be completely irrelevant?


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have some numbers to support what you say?
> 
> I have numbers. Want me to dig them up from the CDC?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So every women that had an abortion where it was illegal reported it to the CDC?
> 
> So they could be prosecuted for it.
Click to expand...

 
So where's your evidence?
And thanks for admitting the CDC numbers are worthless, I believe so too. But worthless as they are, their numbers still support me because even the CDC knows how ludicrous it would be to make any other sort of claim. They know what the numbers are, even if they don't share them. And they know very well that there are far, far more abortions today than ever in the past. And that isn't just in actual numbers, but in rate of occurrence over the population.


----------



## Chris

Moonglow said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kill my sperm daily!
Click to expand...


You murderer!


----------



## Patrick2

Gadawg73 said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admittedly, I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I think you are hinting it is better to have these children dead rather than burden us with the need to feed and educate them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what he's trying to say.  Leftwingers advocate death as a solution for a number of problems:
> 
> 1. Don't want to have a baby now?  Get in there with the scalpels and vaccuum.
> 
> 2. Relative been comotose too long?  Pull the plug.
> 
> And coming soon:
> 
> 3. Old people taking up too much of the obamacare budget?  Crank up the death panel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are death panels now. INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  When you buy an insurance policy, it specifies what they cover.  If they don't provide it, you sue them.  Not at all like obamacare.


----------



## Patrick2

Gadawg73 said:


> I do not know of anyone that is "pro abortion". I am anti abortion.



The whole feminist leadership is without question *PRO*-abortion.  They see the most significant difference between men and women, that women can bear children, as the biggest impediment to their vision of equality between the genders. To them, the only bad abortion is the one that doesn't happen.


----------



## Chris

AllieBaba said:


> traveler52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> A (human) embryo may not look like what you, personally, think a human being should look like, but that does not mean it is not a human being. Sure, it may not be a baby yet, but it is just as human as the rest of us (it just happens to look a little different).
> 
> Also, once that human embryo grows old enough, it will have the right to carry a gun just like everyone else who is fortunate enough to live that long.
> 
> And, speaking of evil, do you honestly feel unwanted children would be better off dead simply because they might be abused? (This argument always amazes me every time I see it.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ConJobsRepug/Teabaggers love to talk to death about "*The Right To Life*". "*The Right To Life*" ends at birth.
> 
> After being born, children don't school Childen do not need food. Children do not a roof over their head.
> 
> ConJobsRepugs/Teabaggers want only one thing. An under educated, easily led and poorly paid workforce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the baby killers want a dead minority population.
> 
> See how easy it is to play that game?
Click to expand...


An embryo is NOT a "baby."

If it were, the thousands of frozen embryos in labs around the country would be inheriting their donors property.


----------



## AllieBaba

Ok, the pro-abortionists want all the minority EMBRYOS dead, to eliminate the minority population.

Better?


----------



## Patrick2

Grace said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body.
> 
> 
> 
> The child is not your body. Biology 101. Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> Its nobodies business why I had it done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.
> 
> When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think what you will, as it is beyond my control. What IS in my control is MY BODY. Nobody elses. And until you are impregnated with a life you didnt ask for growing in it, you have no say.
Click to expand...


It's not just YOUR BODY.  If it were just YOUR BODY, you could drop it off a cliff for anyone cares.  In fact, I'll be happy to give you a push if you want.  The fetus is ANOTHER body, a DIFFERENT life.  NOBODY should have the power of life and death over another innocent human being.


----------



## Gadawg73

Patrick2 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what he's trying to say.  Leftwingers advocate death as a solution for a number of problems:
> 
> 1. Don't want to have a baby now?  Get in there with the scalpels and vaccuum.
> 
> 2. Relative been comotose too long?  Pull the plug.
> 
> And coming soon:
> 
> 3. Old people taking up too much of the obamacare budget?  Crank up the death panel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are death panels now. INSURANCE COMPANIES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  When you buy an insurance policy, it specifies what they cover.  If they don't provide it, you sue them.  Not at all like obamacare.
Click to expand...


Not the same as Obamacare for sure. I oppose the Obama plan also but there are NO death panels in it and try to sue an insurance company and see how far that goes.
The death panel myth was proven fraud and Republican Congressman and Senators stated there are none in it. 
Take a look at UnitedHealthCare, the largest health insurer in the US and see the tens of millions in fines yearly for non payment of claims.
Insurance is the worst possible model ever for health care. They are a 3rd party to the doctor/patient relationship. When the customer is not paying the bill prices rise rapidly. WE pay 3 times more than any other industrialized nation and receive bad health care.
Of course we do have the best DISEASE care in the world. We should. We spend 60% of all health care dollars on it to treat 4% of the population. And 7 out of 8 of the top diseases treated are PREVENTABLE.
Group health insurance model has ruined American health care. Does your auto policy pay for new tires and a brake job? Does your homeowners pay for new paint and new carpet?
Health "insurance" is a joke and has resulted in creating a health care model in Americat that has little, if any, free market forces at work. Of course government has also corrupted this model with Medicare but that is a another story.


----------



## Patrick2

Gadawg73 said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same as Obamacare for sure. I oppose the Obama plan also but there are NO death panels in it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yes there is - the Independent Payment Advisory Board - read up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and try to sue an insurance company and see how far that goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How it will "go" is that if their contract with me promised something, and they renege, I'll sue and they'll lose for breach of contract.  That people sue all the time because they didn't get services that weren't in the contract is neither here nor there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a look at UnitedHealthCare, the largest health insurer in the US and see the tens of millions in fines yearly for non payment of claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have such a bad business reputation, why do so many people do business with them?  Must be stupid I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance is the worst possible model ever for health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are a 3rd party to the doctor/patient relationship. When the customer is not paying the bill prices rise rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually what you say IS true when the insurance is employer provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE pay 3 times more than any other industrialized nation and receive bad health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense - go to canada or the UK, and ask yourself if you're getting "good health care" if the doctor orders an MRI for you, and you get on an eight month waiting list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health "insurance" is a joke and has resulted in creating a health care model in Americat that has little, if any, free market forces at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is truth in that, and the causes are all due to GOVERNMENT.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ravi

Damn, Buttemia has been reincarnated?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Patrick2 said:


> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The child is not your body. Biology 101. Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as  harmful.
> Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.
> 
> When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you will, as it is beyond my control. What IS in my control is MY BODY. Nobody elses. And until you are impregnated with a life you didnt ask for growing in it, you have no say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just YOUR BODY.  If it were just YOUR BODY, you could drop it off a cliff for anyone cares.  In fact, I'll be happy to give you a push if you want.  The fetus is ANOTHER body, a DIFFERENT life.  NOBODY should have the power of life and death over another innocent human being.
Click to expand...


You know, pro-aborts are always wailing about how what we REALLY need to reduce the number of abortions is just more education.  Yet we've been teaching biology in schools for how many years, and they STILL don't know that a fetus is not part of his mother's body.  So much for THAT plan.


----------



## AllieBaba

And regardless of the fact we have increased education, increased accessibility to birth control, increased availability of abortion....the rate keeps climbing. The child abuse rate, the child neglect rates, abortion rates....

And yet they continue to say more abortion will lower all those numbers.

It's just a lie, and a provable one at that.


----------



## IndependntLogic

I'm not a scientist so I won't argue from that point. I'm just a guy. I know that I don't call an egg a chicken - even the fertilized ones. 
I am also a Christian and I used to volunteer at The StoreFront in San Diego. It's a teen crisis center. I left with very different views than I arrived with.
One of the first girls I met was fourteen. Her dad had been prostituting her to his friends for a couple years and using her himself, when he felt like it. 
Another one was thirteen and had been gang-raped by her brother and three of friends from his gang who thought she was cute.
Both those girls got abortions. Who am I to judge? 
Lots of girls came in after being slipped rufi's in their coke or 7-up. Others had tried alcohol. In any case, they were drugged and then raped.
Being raped is a horrible trauma. Having the government or someone else tell you God will hate you unless you carry a guarantee that you will never forget, never heal, never live a normal life, for nine months, seems like inflicting cruel & unusual punishment on an innocent, to me now.
Of course, before then it was easy to sit on my high and mighty throne of self-righteousness and judge others. Now, not so much.

But then, I was taught not to judge another.
I was taught to have compassion for all.
I was taught my sins are no better than that of another.

Oh, and I was taught that using God to influence politics was about as bad and low as it gets. Of course, I'm referring to the Pharisees and Sadducees.


----------



## AllieBaba

Who asked you to judge?

Did you report the men who got them pregnant? Did you refer the girls to child welfare?


----------



## Cecilie1200

IndependntLogic said:


> I'm not a scientist so I won't argue from that point. I'm just a guy. I know that I don't call an egg a chicken - even the fertilized ones.



But do you know that a bird isn't a mammal, so their respective reproductive systems have nothing whatsoever to do with each other?

One of the defining traits of mammals - one of the major things that differentiates them from other animals, in other words - is the fact that they give birth to LIVE YOUNG, as opposed to, for example, laying eggs.

You don't have to be a scientist to know that.  Just a junior high graduate.



IndependntLogic said:


> I am also a Christian and I used to volunteer at The StoreFront in San Diego. It's a teen crisis center. I left with very different views than I arrived with.
> One of the first girls I met was fourteen. Her dad had been prostituting her to his friends for a couple years and using her himself, when he felt like it.
> Another one was thirteen and had been gang-raped by her brother and three of friends from his gang who thought she was cute.
> Both those girls got abortions. Who am I to judge?



One would hope - but possibly in vain - you are a moral, decent, intelligent human being.  I cannot imagine what about Christianity taught you that you are supposed to stand back from acts and shrug and say, "Who am I to say what's right and wrong?"



IndependntLogic said:


> Lots of girls came in after being slipped rufi's in their coke or 7-up. Others had tried alcohol. In any case, they were drugged and then raped.
> Being raped is a horrible trauma. Having the government or someone else tell you God will hate you unless you carry a guarantee that you will never forget, never heal, never live a normal life, for nine months, seems like inflicting cruel & unusual punishment on an innocent, to me now.



Hysterical sob stories about extreme circumstances and straw-man arguments do nothing whatsoever to advance the real discussion.  Off the top of my head, I know of no one who is suggesting that the goal here is to "have the government or someone tell you that God will hate you", so it would be more productive if you didn't waste our time inserting such nonsensical garbage into the debate as though we're expected to take it seriously and discuss it as meaningful.

Is your theory is that people can't be reminded often enough that most abortions are performed on teenagers who've been raped by their own dads?  If not, why are you bringing it up in a discussion of abortion in general?



IndependntLogic said:


> Of course, before then it was easy to sit on my high and mighty throne of self-righteousness and judge others. Now, not so much.



On the contrary, it sounds to me like you just shifted the targets of your self-righteous judgementalism, apparently in tandem with shifting your thinking functions from your brains to your glands.



IndependntLogic said:


> But then, I was taught not to judge another.



Unless you can make yourself feel morally superior and warm and fuzzy non-judgemental while you're doing it.  You didn't notice that your whole riff on this is really just you saying, "You pro-lifers are such heartless, mean bastards, and you should become kind and enlightened like I did", aka judging those who still have the moral fortitude to see that "life sucks" is not an excuse for infanticide?



IndependntLogic said:


> I was taught to have compassion for all.



Except for helpless infants being dismembered and thrown in the trash, apparently, because they were unlucky enough to be out or your sight, and therefore out of your mind.



IndependntLogic said:


> I was taught my sins are no better than that of another.



Make up your mind.  Either you're utterly incapable of making any judgements about the moral value of people's actions, in which case there's no such thing in your lexicon as "sin", or not.  Arguing both sides at once just sounds ludicrous.



IndependntLogic said:


> Oh, and I was taught that using God to influence politics was about as bad and low as it gets. Of course, I'm referring to the Pharisees and Sadducees.



I'm not sure what I find more nauseatingly revolting about this post:  the fact that you sanctimoniously lectured us on how your superior understanding of Christianity required you to support massive, ongoing infanticide under the tattered, moldering disguise of "compassion", or the fact that you THEN have the unbelievable _chutzpah _to turn around and tell OTHERS how "low" THEY are for daring to let Christianity influence THEIR positions on abortion, simply because they chose a different position from yours.

Speaking of your Pharisees and Sadducees . . . Wasn't hypocrisy THEIR big problem, too?


----------



## Gadawg73

Patrick2 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same as Obamacare for sure. I oppose the Obama plan also but there are NO death panels in it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yes there is - the Independent Payment Advisory Board - read up.
> 
> 
> 
> How it will "go" is that if their contract with me promised something, and they renege, I'll sue and they'll lose for breach of contract.  That people sue all the time because they didn't get services that weren't in the contract is neither here nor there.
> 
> 
> 
> If they have such a bad business reputation, why do so many people do business with them?  Must be stupid I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what you say IS true when the insurance is employer provided.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense - go to canada or the UK, and ask yourself if you're getting "good health care" if the doctor orders an MRI for you, and you get on an eight month waiting list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health "insurance" is a joke and has resulted in creating a health care model in Americat that has little, if any, free market forces at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is truth in that, and the causes are all due to GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all you need to understand contract law, what constitutes breach of contract and how a health insurance policy defines decleration of benefits.
> Insurance companies own America. Their lobbyists wrote ERISA which LIMITS and in many cases eliminates breach of contract for bad faith behavior by an insurance company.
> NO penalties whatsoever.
> So you sue, take your insurance company to court over $50,000 in denied insurance claims.
> 18 months later and $40,000 in legal bills later you win! You win $50,000 PERIOD.
> In the real world who in their right mind sues insurance companies?
> Fact is insurance companies run the show. They pay what they want and define their dec sheets as they see fit.
> Real world.
> And I have relatives in Canada. They are healthier than we are because they have health care, not disease care. Do not believe all the myths you hear about Canadian health care. It is true, it takes longer to get a specialist. Why? Unlike us, they do not spend 60 cents on the dollar for 4% of the population.
> Canada is not socialized medicine. Each doctor runs their own business. I have a good friend of mine that is a doctor here. He has to employ TWO women just to handle the over 1000 different insurance companies with their different rules, regs and forms for his practice alone. Single payer is better.
> Some wait times in Canada ARE TERRIBLE. Well guess why? Canada is a very, very large frozen tundra in many rural areas. They have to travel hundreds of miles to get treatment. The same scenario would exist here and DOES exist here in south Georgia and many other areas NOW.
> The biggest lie is when I hear "you can not choose your own doctor in Canada". That is so funny and the masses believe those lies. Fact is you choose your own doctor all the time in Canada. In Canada poor people have the same access to the best specialists as wealthy people do.
> There are pros and cons to both systems. However, the lies and myths about the Canadian system are legend.
Click to expand...


----------



## Gadawg73

Patrick2 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same as Obamacare for sure. I oppose the Obama plan also but there are NO death panels in it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yes there is - the Independent Payment Advisory Board - read up.
> 
> 
> 
> How it will "go" is that if their contract with me promised something, and they renege, I'll sue and they'll lose for breach of contract.  That people sue all the time because they didn't get services that weren't in the contract is neither here nor there.
> 
> 
> 
> If they have such a bad business reputation, why do so many people do business with them?  Must be stupid I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what you say IS true when the insurance is employer provided.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense - go to canada or the UK, and ask yourself if you're getting "good health care" if the doctor orders an MRI for you, and you get on an eight month waiting list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health "insurance" is a joke and has resulted in creating a health care model in Americat that has little, if any, free market forces at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is truth in that, and the causes are all due to GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did government force health insurance on Americans?
Click to expand...


----------



## IndependntLogic

Cecilie1200 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But do you know that a bird isn't a mammal, so their respective reproductive systems have nothing whatsoever to do with each other?
> 
> One of the defining traits of mammals - one of the major things that differentiates them from other animals, in other words - is the fact that they give birth to LIVE YOUNG, as opposed to, for example, laying eggs.
> 
> You don't have to be a scientist to know that.  Just a junior high graduate.
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a Christian and I used to volunteer at The StoreFront in San Diego. It's a teen crisis center. I left with very different views than I arrived with.
> One of the first girls I met was fourteen. Her dad had been prostituting her to his friends for a couple years and using her himself, when he felt like it.
> Another one was thirteen and had been gang-raped by her brother and three of friends from his gang who thought she was cute.
> Both those girls got abortions. Who am I to judge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One would hope - but possibly in vain - you are a moral, decent, intelligent human being.  I cannot imagine what about Christianity taught you that you are supposed to stand back from acts and shrug and say, "Who am I to say what's right and wrong?"
> 
> 
> 
> Hysterical sob stories about extreme circumstances and straw-man arguments do nothing whatsoever to advance the real discussion.  Off the top of my head, I know of no one who is suggesting that the goal here is to "have the government or someone tell you that God will hate you", so it would be more productive if you didn't waste our time inserting such nonsensical garbage into the debate as though we're expected to take it seriously and discuss it as meaningful.
> 
> Is your theory is that people can't be reminded often enough that most abortions are performed on teenagers who've been raped by their own dads?  If not, why are you bringing it up in a discussion of abortion in general?
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, it sounds to me like you just shifted the targets of your self-righteous judgementalism, apparently in tandem with shifting your thinking functions from your brains to your glands.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you can make yourself feel morally superior and warm and fuzzy non-judgemental while you're doing it.  You didn't notice that your whole riff on this is really just you saying, "You pro-lifers are such heartless, mean bastards, and you should become kind and enlightened like I did", aka judging those who still have the moral fortitude to see that "life sucks" is not an excuse for infanticide?
> 
> 
> 
> Except for helpless infants being dismembered and thrown in the trash, apparently, because they were unlucky enough to be out or your sight, and therefore out of your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was taught my sins are no better than that of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make up your mind.  Either you're utterly incapable of making any judgements about the moral value of people's actions, in which case there's no such thing in your lexicon as "sin", or not.  Arguing both sides at once just sounds ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and I was taught that using God to influence politics was about as bad and low as it gets. Of course, I'm referring to the Pharisees and Sadducees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what I find more nauseatingly revolting about this post:  the fact that you sanctimoniously lectured us on how your superior understanding of Christianity required you to support massive, ongoing infanticide under the tattered, moldering disguise of "compassion", or the fact that you THEN have the unbelievable _chutzpah _to turn around and tell OTHERS how "low" THEY are for daring to let Christianity influence THEIR positions on abortion, simply because they chose a different position from yours.
> 
> Speaking of your Pharisees and Sadducees . . . Wasn't hypocrisy THEIR big problem, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have very strong emotions about this, as displayed by your progression from sarcasm to insult to overt hostility.
> It was not my intention to offend or to seem like I am judging anyone who is against abortion. I can understand and appreciate the reasoning for such a view.
> 
> So I'll try to just gloss past the anger and stay focused on the actual points you made.
> 
> 1. Fertilized animal egg vs. fertilized human egg. You claim you know live begins at fertilization. I don't. I simply don't know. So while you are obviously strong in your beliefs, I am allowed to simply not be sure. I imagine that seems unreasonable to you and you will again hurl your petty insults about junior high school and such. So be it.
> 
> 2. "Christianity taught you that you are supposed to stand back from acts and shrug and say, "Who am I to say what's right and wrong?"
> Actually, Jesus taught me exactly that. I'm not to judge another. I'm not to cast the first stone. I'm not to point to the speck in my brother's eye and so on. I know what I believe is right and wrong and that I have faced many difficult decisions, many of which I made the wrong choices on. But it is for me to love everyone as best I can and try to be as compassionate of their mistakes as I can. That's the goal - which I often fail at miserably. It sounds like the decision would be easy for you, were you to have been raped - which I have made clear, is the only circumstances I am talking about when it comes to abortion. Not so easy for those girls. There was no one to help them. And the very people who would point their fingers for the abortion, will most certainly complain about them being on welfare later. There was no church, no charity, nothing for these girls.
> 
> 3. "Hysterical sob stories about extreme circumstances and straw-man arguments"
> Maybe you're older, out of touch or just haven't been exposed to it but statistically, 1 out of 4 women in this country are raped by the age of 25. The percentage shoots up in inner cities etc...
> Love the phrase "Sob stories" in reference to rape, btw. I think that says something.
> 
> 4. "you saying, "You pro-lifers are such heartless.." Not my opinion at all. I know many people who are pro-life and wonderful compassionate people. I could never imagine any of them, calling rape a "sob story" for example.
> 
> 5. "to let Christianity influence THEIR positions on abortion"
> Actually, abortion has become very political. I was referring to the politicians use it as a tool to get elected. If it did not come across they way I meant it, well my wife will verify that, that happens.
> As far as personal views go, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I was simply sharing some personal experience which changed my views on abortion when it comes to rape, incest etc... I didn't think this would be tough to understand.
> 
> But then, I did go to junior high school
> 
> You may now feel free to sling a bit more anger and petty insults...
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Chris said:


> Why can't the anti abortion crowd be honest?
> 
> You want to bring MILLIONS OF UNWANTED CHILDREN into the world. Unwanted children are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be abused.
> 
> You are pro child abuse.
> 
> Is there no evil in the world that the Republican Party won't support?



I am not sure why you think people who state cold, hard, scientific facts are dishonest but I will continue to do so until someone provides me some cold, hard, scientific evidence that I am wrong.

Also, once again, speaking of evil, do you honestly feel unwanted children would be better off dead simply because they might be abused?


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Chris said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am extremely proud.
> 
> An embryo is NOT A HUMAN BEING. If it was, all the frozen embryos in labs around the country would have the right to carry guns.
> 
> Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused. So you are pro child abuse.
> 
> War, guns, pollution, child abuse...is there no evil the Republican Party won't support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A (human) embryo may not look like what you, personally, think a human being should look like, but that does not mean it is not a human being.   Sure, it may not be a baby yet, but it is just as human as the rest of us (it just happens to look a little different).
> 
> Also, once that human embryo grows old enough, it will have the right to carry a gun just like everyone else who is fortunate enough to live that long.
> 
> And, speaking of evil, do you honestly feel unwanted children would be better off dead simply because they might be abused?  (This argument always amazes me every time I see it.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An embryo is NOT A HUMAN BEING.
> 
> If it were all the thousands of frozen embryos in labs in this country would have the right to own guns.
Click to expand...



Once again, a human embryo may not look like what you, personally, think a human being should look like, but that does not mean it is not a human being.  Sure, it may not be a baby yet, but it is just as human as the rest of us (it just happens to look a little different then we do).

Also, once again, if those human embryos live long enough to reach the legal age, they will have every right to own guns( just like the rest of us humans in this country).


----------



## AllieBaba

If abortion cures child abuse, one wonders...

why has the rate of child abuse and murder increased exponentially since we legalized it?

Hmmmm...


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Moonglow said:


> I kill my sperm daily!



A DNA test on your sperm cells will reveal they do, indeed, match your DNA.  So, as far as I am concerned, they are your cells and you are free to do whatever you wish with them.

However, once your sperm cell creates an embryo, that same DNA test will reveal that the embryos DNA does not match yours.

So those new cells no longer belong to you and you should not feel you are free to treat them as your own.  Nope, the new cells belong to your offspring who is already a complete and unique human being (regardless of what it happens to look like at that particular stage of its development).


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Patrick2 said:


> ...NOBODY should have the power of life and death over another innocent human being.



The government has the power of life and death over us but usually there is some due process allowed before the killing is done.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

IndependntLogic said:


> ...I was taught to have compassion for all.




Me to.  (But I also have compassion for those who look different than me and also need an advocate because they are simply not big enough to beg for their own lives).


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

AllieBaba said:


> If abortion cures child abuse, one wonders...
> 
> why has the rate of child abuse and murder increased exponentially since we legalized it?
> 
> Hmmmm...



Yes, one does wonder...


----------



## jillian

AllieBaba said:


> If abortion cures child abuse, one wonders...
> 
> why has the rate of child abuse and murder increased exponentially since we legalized it?
> 
> Hmmmm...



Has it? Or is that just something you believe? 

Even if the numbers are up, would it perhaps not make sense that they could be up because people report it more?


----------



## IndependntLogic

Mr_Rockhead said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I was taught to have compassion for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me to.  (But I also have compassion for those who look different than me and also need an advocate because they are simply not big enough to beg for their own lives).
Click to expand...


I can respect that view.


----------



## bill5

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position



Gotta love the pot/kettle thing.  First you ask for people to "discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner" then follow up with stuff like "You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand." 

Brilliant.  Great basis for honest, intelligent discussion there. 

btw, I am not trying to imply I am either staunchly "pro life" or "pro choice."  In my experience, both sides tend to be extremist and close-minded and think this other side is horrible stupid blah blah blah and neither is about to listen to the other, so for me online discussion is typically pointless.

Oh and could your brilliant self have at least posted this in an appropriate forum, like politics or ethics? 


PS:  never mind. Apparently you've been banned. aw.


----------



## Gadawg73

jillian said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion cures child abuse, one wonders...
> 
> why has the rate of child abuse and murder increased exponentially since we legalized it?
> 
> Hmmmm...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has it? Or is that just something you believe?
> 
> Even if the numbers are up, would it perhaps not make sense that they could be up because people report it more?
Click to expand...


"because people report it more" is what I told her months ago.
Allie believes that ALL doctors reported all abortions when it was illegal.
I actually believe the numbers are up but other factors than it being legal are to blame for that. Irresponsible men play a large part in that. I offered ways to help that and Allie claimed I was a child molestor for offering those solutions.


----------



## AllieBaba

jillian said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion cures child abuse, one wonders...
> 
> why has the rate of child abuse and murder increased exponentially since we legalized it?
> 
> Hmmmm...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has it? Or is that just something you believe?
> 
> Even if the numbers are up, would it perhaps not make sense that they could be up because people report it more?
Click to expand...

 
No, the numbers are definitely up.

And perhaps that does make sense...but it's still something you believe. The occurrence has increased. That's what we do know.


----------



## AllieBaba

And the incidence of child abuse continues to rise:

"The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect Reports data from a representative sample of more than 5,600 professionals from 42 counties in the United States. The analysis examined the number of children harmed by abuse and neglect, child characteristics, family characteristics, perpetrator characteristics, report sources and CPS investigation. *Significant increases were found in the number of abused and neglected children who were harmed, and at risk of harm, since the previous study in 1986*. "

The National Incidence Study (NIS)

I think everybody has pretty much gotten onto the same page regarding abortion and child abuse...legal abortion does not decrease the incidence of child abuse. That is a complete myth. And the stats back it up.


----------



## Anguille

It's been maybe a month since I last looked in at USMB and wouldn't you know it, Allie Booby is still yapping away.


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion cures child abuse, one wonders...
> 
> why has the rate of child abuse and murder increased exponentially since we legalized it?
> 
> Hmmmm...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has it? Or is that just something you believe?
> 
> Even if the numbers are up, would it perhaps not make sense that they could be up because people report it more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "because people report it more" is what I told her months ago.
> Allie believes that ALL doctors reported all abortions when it was illegal.
> I actually believe the numbers are up but other factors than it being legal are to blame for that. Irresponsible men play a large part in that. I offered ways to help that and Allie claimed I was a child molestor for offering those solutions.
Click to expand...

 
good grief you're nuts.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I kill my sperm daily!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A DNA test on your sperm cells will reveal they do, indeed, match your DNA.  So, as far as I am concerned, they are your cells and you are free to do whatever you wish with them.
> 
> However, once your sperm cell creates an embryo, that same DNA test will reveal that the embryos DNA does not match yours.
> 
> So those new cells no longer belong to you and you should not feel you are free to treat them as your own.  Nope, the new cells belong to your offspring who is already a complete and unique human being (regardless of what it happens to look like at that particular stage of its development).
Click to expand...


See?  This is what I mean.  How many decades have we been teaching biology, anatomy, and sex ed in the schools?  And yet these ignoramuses STILL produce this crap and think it constitutes an argument.

So much for the vaunted value of "more education" to combat abortions.  You can lead an imbecile to knowledge, but you can't make him think.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr_Rockhead said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I was taught to have compassion for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me to.  (But I also have compassion for those who look different than me and also need an advocate because they are simply not big enough to beg for their own lives).
Click to expand...


I direct my compassion toward the victim, not the victimizer.  And I'd say being the one who winds up dead during the abortion wins the fetus the "victim" title hands-down.


----------



## Cecilie1200

jillian said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion cures child abuse, one wonders...
> 
> why has the rate of child abuse and murder increased exponentially since we legalized it?
> 
> Hmmmm...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has it? Or is that just something you believe?
> 
> Even if the numbers are up, would it perhaps not make sense that they could be up because people report it more?
Click to expand...


Over 3 children died each day last year as a result of parental maltreatment. A national survey conducted by Prevent Child Abuse America early in 2007 suggests that the number of confirmed child abuse fatalities increased 39% over the last 10 years. - Child abuse prevention, child abuse education, Code Amber Alert by child abuse.com

You can try to pretend that nothing has changed over the years based on an unsubstantiated assumption of apocryphal "hidden" abortions and child abuse that mysteriously were never noticed, but I don't think anyone can pretend that dead children would have passed unremarked if they'd existed, nor do I think the authorities would have been blind to abuse as the cause of death if it had been there.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has it? Or is that just something you believe?
> 
> Even if the numbers are up, would it perhaps not make sense that they could be up because people report it more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "because people report it more" is what I told her months ago.
> Allie believes that ALL doctors reported all abortions when it was illegal.
> I actually believe the numbers are up but other factors than it being legal are to blame for that. Irresponsible men play a large part in that. I offered ways to help that and Allie claimed I was a child molestor for offering those solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good grief you're nuts.
Click to expand...


Let me see if I can help you cut through the mind fog and deliberate obtuseness here, Allie.

Abortion is a much more routine and safe procedure now (assuming that you go to a clinic that isn't using its protected abortion status to skirt the safety and hygiene regulations) than it was prior to Roe v. Wade, even when it was performed by a doctor.  Given that the pro-abort side loves to trumpet this very fact and claim credit for legalization, I don't think anyone can or will argue this fact.

However, the reason - the REAL reason - for this is basically a coincidence:  about the time that abortion was legalized, the use of antibiotics to fight infection also became widespread and common.

What this means is that - again, assuming you have a responsible, competent doctor - it is much less likely, statistically, for a woman to develop severe, life-threatening complications from abortion - and even childbirth - than it used to be.

You can breezily assert, without substantiation, that women just didn't report illegal abortions and, therefore, there were probably a million of them a year, just as there are now, until your face turns blue.  But nothing is going to change the fact that IF that were true, there would have been SIGNIFICANTLY more deaths and medical treatments for complications and infections from those abortions (particularly if they actually followed the standard pro-abort storyline of "back alley butchers" that we're supposed to allow abortion to prevent).  While people might not be aware of some woman going and having an abortion now, when it's a routine outpatient procedure unlikely to have many visible physical effects, they WOULD have noticed a slew of dead women and women traipsing to the doctor to be treated for hemorrhaging and raging infections.

Furthermore, as I've pointed out before, it wasn't all that hard to get a LEGAL abortion in most states, even the conservative ones.  If your doctor signed on to the idea that you "needed" an abortion for medical reasons, it was unlikely to be questioned, and there were certainly doctors willing to claim "medical reasons" with very little provocation.  By and large, the liberal storyline of "back alley abortions" and "coat hangers" is an urban legend.  For example, the state of Kansas had nearly as many legal abortions the year before Roe v. Wade as California did.

This is not to say that there were never any illegal abortions, or women taking crazy risks with their health, because human beings are often very stupid, self-destructive creatures.  However, there is simply no logical reason, let alone any sort of proof, to believe that abortion was as widespread and commonplace prior to Roe v. Wade as it has been since, and EVERY logical reason - and proof - to believe it was not.


----------



## bill5

AllieBaba said:


> No, the numbers are definitely up.
> 
> And perhaps that does make sense...but it's still something you believe. The occurrence has increased. That's what we do know.



And how do you "know" this?  Some actual evidence would be nice.



AllieBaba said:


> And the incidence of child abuse continues to rise:
> 
> "The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect Reports data from a representative sample of more than 5,600 professionals from 42 counties in the United States. The analysis examined the number of children harmed by abuse and neglect, child characteristics, family characteristics, perpetrator characteristics, report sources and CPS investigation. *Significant increases were found in the number of abused and neglected children who were harmed, and at risk of harm, since the previous study in 1986*. "
> 
> The National Incidence Study (NIS)
> 
> I think everybody has pretty much gotten onto the same page regarding abortion and child abuse...legal abortion does not decrease the incidence of child abuse. That is a complete myth. And the stats back it up.



Abortion was not legalized in 1986 FYI.

I very seriously doubt it has increased OR decreased child abuse.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

AllieBaba said:


> And the incidence of child abuse continues to rise:
> 
> ...
> 
> The National Incidence Study (NIS)
> 
> I think everybody has pretty much gotten onto the same page regarding abortion and child abuse...legal abortion does not decrease the incidence of child abuse....



This makes sense to me simply because the abuse is almost always done by adults.

And, of course, nobody is proposing killing them off to lower these statistics.


----------



## AllieBaba

bill5 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the numbers are definitely up.
> 
> And perhaps that does make sense...but it's still something you believe. The occurrence has increased. That's what we do know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how do you "know" this? Some actual evidence would be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the incidence of child abuse continues to rise:
> 
> "The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect Reports data from a representative sample of more than 5,600 professionals from 42 counties in the United States. The analysis examined the number of children harmed by abuse and neglect, child characteristics, family characteristics, perpetrator characteristics, report sources and CPS investigation. *Significant increases were found in the number of abused and neglected children who were harmed, and at risk of harm, since the previous study in 1986*. "
> 
> The National Incidence Study (NIS)
> 
> I think everybody has pretty much gotten onto the same page regarding abortion and child abuse...legal abortion does not decrease the incidence of child abuse. That is a complete myth. And the stats back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion was not legalized in 1986 FYI.
> 
> I very seriously doubt it has increased OR decreased child abuse.
Click to expand...

 
You don't read, do you?

I did provide evidence, you loon. You referenced it.

And the incidence has increased SINCE 1986. Our stat coverage hasn't changed that much since 1986, if at all, so the fact that it's STILL rising is the point I was making.

Carry on with being an idiot now.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bill5 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the numbers are definitely up.
> 
> And perhaps that does make sense...but it's still something you believe. The occurrence has increased. That's what we do know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how do you "know" this?  Some actual evidence would be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the incidence of child abuse continues to rise:
> 
> "The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect Reports data from a representative sample of more than 5,600 professionals from 42 counties in the United States. The analysis examined the number of children harmed by abuse and neglect, child characteristics, family characteristics, perpetrator characteristics, report sources and CPS investigation. *Significant increases were found in the number of abused and neglected children who were harmed, and at risk of harm, since the previous study in 1986*. "
> 
> The National Incidence Study (NIS)
> 
> I think everybody has pretty much gotten onto the same page regarding abortion and child abuse...legal abortion does not decrease the incidence of child abuse. That is a complete myth. And the stats back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion was not legalized in 1986 FYI.
> 
> I very seriously doubt it has increased OR decreased child abuse.
Click to expand...


I don't believe Allie ever said that abortion increased child abuse.  She said the incidence of it has increased since the late 1970s.  And her point was that the standard liberal "compassion" argument that abortion should be legal "because those unwanted children would just be abused" is crap, since legalized abortion obviously has not decreased the incidence thereof.


----------



## bill5

AllieBaba said:


> You don't read, do you?


Yes. And unlike you, I also comprehend.  You provided evidence of an increase between 1986 and 1996.  I repeat for the second time - try to follow now - abortion wasn't legalized in 1986, so your statement "why has the rate of child abuse and murder increased exponentially since we legalized it?" is invalid.  Provide some evidence of an exponential increase from 1973 to today and then you'll actually have something.  We'll all hold our breath waiting.

To use your own words:  carry on with being an idiot now.


----------



## bill5

Cecilie1200 said:


> I don't believe Allie ever said that abortion increased child abuse.  She said the incidence of it has increased since the late 1970s.  And her point was that the standard liberal "compassion" argument that abortion should be legal "because those unwanted children would just be abused" is crap, since legalized abortion obviously has not decreased the incidence thereof.


Thanks for the translation into English.

Pathetically flawed logic aside, then she should use evidence that backs it up or simply admit it's her opinion only.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> And the incidence of child abuse continues to rise:
> 
> "The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect Reports data from a representative sample of more than 5,600 professionals from 42 counties in the United States. The analysis examined the number of children harmed by abuse and neglect, child characteristics, family characteristics, perpetrator characteristics, report sources and CPS investigation. *Significant increases were found in the number of abused and neglected children who were harmed, and at risk of harm, since the previous study in 1986*. "
> 
> The National Incidence Study (NIS)
> 
> I think everybody has pretty much gotten onto the same page regarding abortion and child abuse...legal abortion does not decrease the incidence of child abuse. That is a complete myth. And the stats back it up.



And I stated my 30 years work with The Boys Club, Youth football, basketball, baseball, and soccer coaching young boys without fathers in their lives and you stated that I did it because I am attracted to little boys.
I do it because right wing loons like you ignore the fact that is the absence of men and them being responsible that causes the problem. 
Teach these boys how to be responsible and less women get pregnant.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has it? Or is that just something you believe?
> 
> Even if the numbers are up, would it perhaps not make sense that they could be up because people report it more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "because people report it more" is what I told her months ago.
> Allie believes that ALL doctors reported all abortions when it was illegal.
> I actually believe the numbers are up but other factors than it being legal are to blame for that. Irresponsible men play a large part in that. I offered ways to help that and Allie claimed I was a child molestor for offering those solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good grief you're nuts.
Click to expand...


Allie does not know that you have to have a man to make a woman pregnant. 
According to Allie and the right wing looons it is always the fault of the mother no matter what happens.


----------



## AllieBaba

bill5 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't read, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And unlike you, I also comprehend. You provided evidence of an increase between 1986 and 1996. I repeat for the second time - try to follow now - abortion wasn't legalized in 1986, so your statement "why has the rate of child abuse and murder increased exponentially since we legalized it?" is invalid. Provide some evidence of an exponential increase from 1973 to today and then you'll actually have something. We'll all hold our breath waiting.
> 
> To use your own words: carry on with being an idiot now.
Click to expand...

 
No, it's not, you fucking retard. We have something already, you just aren't intelligent or honest enough to grasp it.

 If you assert that abortion decreases child abuse, then my stats show that you're full of shit, because child abuse not only has increased since the legalization of abortion, it CONTINUES to increase. If your argument is that we can't tell that the incidence has increased since legalization, then we can use the stats just since 1986, and see that the rate of child abuse/neglect continues to climb, DESPITE legalization of abortion and increased access to abortion.

Hello? Anybody home? The study (which conveniently has the word "incidence" in the title, to help you along) shows that child abuse continues to climb, regardless of the availability of abortion, which means that people who argue that we need abortion to decrease child abuse are, well, just lying. At best, they're fantasizing, and their fantasies have absolutely no basis in fact. Because the facts show that not only has incidence increased since the advent of legalized abortion, but that the incidence CONTINUES to climb.

I know this is difficult for simple minded ignorami, who get all their information from wive's tales and Planned Parenthood propaganda fliers....


----------



## bill5

AllieBaba said:


> No, it's not, you fucking retard.


Wow - "fucking retard" - impressive.  Your little potty mouth certainly lends credibility to your posts and alleged IQ.



> We have something already, you just aren't intelligent or honest enough to grasp it.


 This, however, does not.  Can someone translate that one into English as well?  ie who is "we" and what does "we have something already" even refer to?  You have - what?  Poor reading comprehension?  A potty mouth?  A pathetic inability to have a rational discussion?  



> If you assert that abortion decreases child abuse, then my stats show that you're full of shit,


I didn't, but pretending that I did for a sec, I again ask you to show me "your stats" which allegedly show I'm "full of shit." (there's that potty mouth again, tsk tsk - if your mother ever found out - ).  The ones above do not for reasons I already explained and then some.  If you don't get it, maybe a teacher can explain it to you.



> If your argument is that we can't tell that the incidence has increased since legalization, then we can use the stats just since 1986,


 My God Gump!  Depending on how you meant it, you might have actually just made some sense!     Yes, we can use your stats to show child abuse increased from 1986 to 1996.

Unfortunately, that also means your "child abuse has increased" (and "exponentially," remember?) since the legalization of abortion" statement still remains quite unproven.



> Hello? Anybody home?


In your case, I'm afraid not.



> The study (which conveniently has the word "incidence" in the title, to help you along) shows that child abuse continues to climb, regardless of the availability of abortion,


 Nooo, for the second time, try to follow now:  the recap of the study (we don't have access to the study itself) states that child abuse increased from 1986 to 1996, along with some demographics and such.  Period.  There is nothing there about the cause, either proven or even theorized.  You are simply yanking out stuff out of your butt like some hippie on LSD.  Dude!  The colors!



> this is difficult for simple minded ignorami,


 Clearly.  But congrats on finally looking in the mirror.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bill5 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe Allie ever said that abortion increased child abuse.  She said the incidence of it has increased since the late 1970s.  And her point was that the standard liberal "compassion" argument that abortion should be legal "because those unwanted children would just be abused" is crap, since legalized abortion obviously has not decreased the incidence thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the translation into English.
> 
> Pathetically flawed logic aside, then she should use evidence that backs it up or simply admit it's her opinion only.
Click to expand...


You're very welcome for the clarification for the English-impaired.

Furthermore, she DID use evidence that backs it up.  I realize that you desperately want to pretend that the only studies including every year all the way back to the passage of Roe v. Wade will suffice (which will then, of course, be rejected as "no evidence" for some other pretext), but since what Allie is demonstrating is that widespread legalized abortion does nothing to decrease child abuse, ANY time period in which widespread legalized abortion has been available serves.  Has abortion-on-demand been legal the entire time since 1986?  Yes.  Has it decreased child abuse?  No.

Finally, the spectacle of people who make breezy arguments like "Child abuse is just reported more now" and "How do you know there weren't just as many abortions when they were illegal?" without a single shred of evidence to support that  trying to excoriate someone ELSE for "not enough evidence" is just laughable.

And yes, I realize that you didn't personally say those things.  You're just defending them now that someone else said them.  So if you want better evidence from Allie, I think you're going to have to start ponying up some evidence of your own first, because from where I sit, she's way ahead of you in that game.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> It's not just YOUR BODY. If it were just YOUR BODY, you could drop it off a cliff for anyone cares. In fact, I'll be happy to give you a push if you want. The fetus is ANOTHER body, a DIFFERENT life. NOBODY should have the power of life and death over another innocent human being.





> You know, pro-aborts are always wailing about how what we REALLY need to reduce the number of abortions is just more education. Yet we've been teaching biology in schools for how many years, and they STILL don't know that a fetus is not part of his mother's body. So much for THAT plan.
> 
> And what are you going to do about it? Put doctors and women in jail? To be consistent you must also forbid abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the womans life is at risk.


How will you enforce your anti-abortion law? Require pregnant women to register with the state? Have doctors inform on their patients, turning in the names of women who ask about abortion or who dont seem happy with the pregnancy? Perhaps youll have neighbors and family members spy on pregnant women, with a criminal penalty for anyone failing to report an abort. 

What we have, therefore, is not only the right advocating an un-Constitutional violation of privacy rights, but also the creation of a police-state apparatus threatening individual liberty. 

Where are the small government conservatives? This certainly doesnt sound like individual liberty, indeed, it sounds exactly like the authoritarianism the right accuses liberals of constantly. 

So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime. 

Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.


----------



## Gadawg73

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It's not just YOUR BODY. If it were just YOUR BODY, you could drop it off a cliff for anyone cares. In fact, I'll be happy to give you a push if you want. The fetus is ANOTHER body, a DIFFERENT life. NOBODY should have the power of life and death over another innocent human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, pro-aborts are always wailing about how what we REALLY need to reduce the number of abortions is just more education. Yet we've been teaching biology in schools for how many years, and they STILL don't know that a fetus is not part of his mother's body. So much for THAT plan.
> 
> And what are you going to do about it? Put doctors and women in jail? To be consistent you must also forbid abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the womans life is at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law? Require pregnant women to register with the state? Have doctors inform on their patients, turning in the names of women who ask about abortion or who dont seem happy with the pregnancy? Perhaps youll have neighbors and family members spy on pregnant women, with a criminal penalty for anyone failing to report an abort.
> 
> What we have, therefore, is not only the right advocating an un-Constitutional violation of privacy rights, but also the creation of a police-state apparatus threatening individual liberty.
> 
> Where are the small government conservatives? This certainly doesnt sound like individual liberty, indeed, it sounds exactly like the authoritarianism the right accuses liberals of constantly.
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.
Click to expand...


They are so fucking stupid they have no clue how to formulate an answer to your questions.
I am a small government conservative and have been so for 40 years. 
These other clowns do not live in the REAL WORLD.


----------



## bill5

Cecilie1200 said:


> You're very welcome for the clarification for the English-impaired.


 FROM the English-impaired, actually, but anyway....



> Furthermore, she DID use evidence that backs it up.


No, she did not, as I have clearly laid out at least twice already.    



> I realize that you desperately want to pretend that the only studies including every year all the way back to the passage of Roe v. Wade will suffice (which will then, of course, be rejected as "no evidence" for some other pretext),


  Ignoring this what you think you know I would accept or reject silliness, I have no need to "desperately pretend it will suffice."  I simply ask that when someone makes a claim of something being a fact, they actually back it up.  She did not.  She just spewed a lot of mindless vocal sewage that my young nephew would find lame.  PS:  that is not to say she is wrong per se.  But again, she is the one making the claim; the onus of evidence/proof is on her and she has come nowhere near proving her point...in fact she wouldn't have even if she had evidence that child abuse has been on a steady increase since 1973 (which she does not) as (reported) child abuse could increase or decrease for any number of reasons.



> but since what Allie is demonstrating is that widespread legalized abortion does nothing to decrease child abuse, ANY time period in which widespread legalized abortion has been available serves.


 It might've been if she said that.  For the last time I will again repeat what she said earlier that I'm referencing and she and you are conviently ignoring...here we go.........

*"Why has the rate of child abuse and murder increased exponentially since we legalized it?" *

Those are her words and a claim which she's backed up with brilliant gems like "you're a fucking retard" and "carry on idiot."  Gee hard to argue that logic.



> And yes, I realize that you didn't personally say those things.  You're just defending them now that someone else said them.


?  No I'm not. 



> So if you want better evidence from Allie, I think you're going to have to start ponying up some evidence of your own first,


   Evidence of what?  Of claims I'm not making?  

Again, I am not the one making claims as fact and failing miserably to back them up.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It's not just YOUR BODY. If it were just YOUR BODY, you could drop it off a cliff for anyone cares. In fact, I'll be happy to give you a push if you want. The fetus is ANOTHER body, a DIFFERENT life. NOBODY should have the power of life and death over another innocent human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, pro-aborts are always wailing about how what we REALLY need to reduce the number of abortions is just more education. Yet we've been teaching biology in schools for how many years, and they STILL don't know that a fetus is not part of his mother's body. So much for THAT plan.
> 
> And what are you going to do about it? Put doctors and women in jail? To be consistent you must also forbid abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the womans life is at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I do so love being lectured by people who not only support infanticide but actually try to claim moral superiority about it by calling it "compassion" on what I "must" do in order to be allowed to hold my own beliefs.

I tell you what, ass clown.  You tell me who the fuck YOU are that I have to answer to you and justify my beliefs to you and get your permission to hold them because you have granted your almighty approval to them, and perhaps THEN we can move on to you POLITELY ASKING me what my beliefs are, rather than demanding how I'm going to do what YOU have already arrogantly decided I HAVE to do in your infinite wisdom.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to get that handled, pusbag.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law? Require pregnant women to register with the state? Have doctors inform on their patients, turning in the names of women who ask about abortion or who dont seem happy with the pregnancy? Perhaps youll have neighbors and family members spy on pregnant women, with a criminal penalty for anyone failing to report an abort.



What "abortion law" is this that you are assigning me possession of and demanding explanations about?  So far as I know, I have never mentioned any "anti-abortion law", of mine or anyone else's.  I KNOW you aren't DARING to demand that I work out a detailed explanation of the workings of an abortion law YOU decided that I "must" support, because I KNOW that even YOU cannot be stupid and presumptuous enough to try to insert your foul, immoral thoughts into my head and try to call them mine.

You want to engage in mental rape?  Do it with someone who can't intellectually kick your punk ass with half her brain cells tied behind her back.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What we have, therefore, is not only the right advocating an un-Constitutional violation of privacy rights, but also the creation of a police-state apparatus threatening individual liberty.



No, fucktard. What we have is the right saying, "Killing babies is wrong", and dishonest left-wing shitstains getting hysterical and screaming, "Well, then, YOU have to want to pass a law putting pregnant women and doctors in jail, and THAT'S a violation of privacy, and we've decided that the Constitution guarantees that privacy is a universal right and totally sacrosanct, never mind that it doesn't actually say so, it IS, and you're creating a police state and you hate liberty!"

They have meds for your condition.  Try them.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Where are the small government conservatives? This certainly doesnt sound like individual liberty, indeed, it sounds exactly like the authoritarianism the right accuses liberals of constantly.



Where are the honest liberals who don't try to pretend that "small government" means "no government at all" and don't run around screaming, "Ohmigod, if you don't support the government handing out checks and telling businesses what products to sell and classifying childhood obesity as abuse, then you AREN'T ALLOWED TO WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO DO ANYTHING!  How DARE you think the government should protect people from being killed if you object to government-run healthcare?  You HYPOCRITE!"

Do you actually expect this dishonest, hysterical horseshit to impress anyone who isn't already as stupid and dishonest and invested in defending infanticide in any way possible?



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.



So, for those demanding plan details, try just asking next time, instead of trying to put words in my mouth and then conduct an Inquisition based on what you just told me I believe.  I have no intention of discussing my plans to pass a law YOU invented, and implement a prosecution and punishment YOU are trying to force on me.

Once again, I don't cast pearls before swine.


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the incidence of child abuse continues to rise:
> 
> "The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect Reports data from a representative sample of more than 5,600 professionals from 42 counties in the United States. The analysis examined the number of children harmed by abuse and neglect, child characteristics, family characteristics, perpetrator characteristics, report sources and CPS investigation. *Significant increases were found in the number of abused and neglected children who were harmed, and at risk of harm, since the previous study in 1986*. "
> 
> The National Incidence Study (NIS)
> 
> I think everybody has pretty much gotten onto the same page regarding abortion and child abuse...legal abortion does not decrease the incidence of child abuse. That is a complete myth. And the stats back it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I stated my 30 years work with The Boys Club, Youth football, basketball, baseball, and soccer coaching young boys without fathers in their lives and you stated that I did it because I am attracted to little boys.
> I do it because right wing loons like you ignore the fact that is the absence of men and them being responsible that causes the problem.
> Teach these boys how to be responsible and less women get pregnant.
Click to expand...

 
Let no opportunity for self-aggrandization slip by...

trying really hard to figure out how your 30 years of man/boy love experience and out of wedlock births are related to each other, or the incidence of child abuse..

But carry on with your crazy musings anyway. 

I especially like the implication that women are too stupid to be taught responsibility, and that we reduce the rate of pregnancy by educating boys only.


----------



## del

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the incidence of child abuse continues to rise:
> 
> "The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect Reports data from a representative sample of more than 5,600 professionals from 42 counties in the United States. The analysis examined the number of children harmed by abuse and neglect, child characteristics, family characteristics, perpetrator characteristics, report sources and CPS investigation. *Significant increases were found in the number of abused and neglected children who were harmed, and at risk of harm, since the previous study in 1986*. "
> 
> The National Incidence Study (NIS)
> 
> I think everybody has pretty much gotten onto the same page regarding abortion and child abuse...legal abortion does not decrease the incidence of child abuse. That is a complete myth. And the stats back it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I stated my 30 years work with The Boys Club, Youth football, basketball, baseball, and soccer coaching young boys without fathers in their lives and you stated that I did it because I am attracted to little boys.
> I do it because right wing loons like you ignore the fact that is the absence of men and them being responsible that causes the problem.
> Teach these boys how to be responsible and less women get pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let no opportunity for self-aggrandization slip by...
> 
> *trying really hard to figure out* how your 30 years of man/boy love experience and out of wedlock births are related to each other, or the incidence of child abuse..
> 
> But carry on with your crazy musings anyway.
> 
> I especially like the implication that women are too stupid to be taught responsibility, and that we reduce the rate of pregnancy by educating boys only.
Click to expand...


you ought to try reading only the words that actually appear on your screen; it makes things a lot easier to figure out.


----------



## AllieBaba

Did he not reference 30 years of interaction with boys as something that is pertinent to the topic?

Why yes, he did.

Perhaps you should take your own advice, Del..


----------



## del

AllieBaba said:


> Did he not reference 30 years of interaction with boys as something that is pertinent to the topic?
> 
> Why yes, he did.
> 
> Perhaps you should take your own advice, Del..



he said nothing about *man/boy love* nor did he imply that women are too stupid to be taught responsibility. 

your inability to drag what passes for your mind from the gutter aside, maybe you should put down the crack pipe?

harridan


----------



## AllieBaba

Yes, he did. I suggest you read again and actually read the words that are on the screen:

"And I stated my 30 years work with The Boys Club, Youth football, basketball, baseball, and soccer coaching young boys without fathers in their lives and you stated that I did it because I am attracted to little boys."

He brought it up, not me.

"
I do it because right wing loons like you ignore the fact that is *the absence of men and them being responsible that causes the problem*. "

Maybe dividing it up like that will help.....
Teach these boys how to be responsible and less women get pregnant.


----------



## del

AllieBaba said:


> Yes, he did. I suggest you read again and actually read the words that are on the screen:
> 
> "And I stated my 30 years work with The Boys Club, Youth football, basketball, baseball, and soccer coaching young boys without fathers in their lives and you stated that I did it because I am attracted to little boys."
> 
> He brought it up, not me.
> 
> "
> I do it because right wing loons like you ignore the fact that is *the absence of men and them being responsible that causes the problem*. "
> 
> Maybe dividing it up like that will help.....
> Teach these boys how to be responsible and less women get pregnant.



and that equates to man/boy love and girls being stupid, how, exactly?

you really are fucked in the head, allie.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It's not just YOUR BODY. If it were just YOUR BODY, you could drop it off a cliff for anyone cares. In fact, I'll be happy to give you a push if you want. The fetus is ANOTHER body, a DIFFERENT life. NOBODY should have the power of life and death over another innocent human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, pro-aborts are always wailing about how what we REALLY need to reduce the number of abortions is just more education. Yet we've been teaching biology in schools for how many years, and they STILL don't know that a fetus is not part of his mother's body. So much for THAT plan.
> 
> And what are you going to do about it? Put doctors and women in jail? To be consistent you must also forbid abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the womans life is at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law?...
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.
Click to expand...


Since we already have laws on the books that deal with illegal killing, I am not sure why we wouldnt just apply those same laws to the person who did the abortion.

Also, Ive always assumed that the child abuse argument stemmed from a logic that goes, if they are killed before they are born, they will not be around to be abused later on.  But, the more I think about it, even THAT does not make sense because abused children are the product of parents who made an active choice not to have an abortion in the first place.

So, as long as the population increases, the number of people who have abortions will increase but so will the number of people who have children.  And, likewise, so will the number of parents who abuse those children.

So abortion really has nothing to do with it unless we are claiming we should have more abortions so we can bring our child-abuse numbers under control.  And thats the part of that argument I could really never get my head around.


----------



## AllieBaba

del said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he did. I suggest you read again and actually read the words that are on the screen:
> 
> "And I stated my 30 years work with The Boys Club, Youth football, basketball, baseball, and soccer coaching young boys without fathers in their lives and you stated that I did it because I am attracted to little boys."
> 
> He brought it up, not me.
> 
> "
> I do it because right wing loons like you ignore the fact that is *the absence of men and them being responsible that causes the problem*. "
> 
> Maybe dividing it up like that will help.....
> Teach these boys how to be responsible and less women get pregnant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that equates to man/boy love and girls being stupid, how, exactly?
> 
> you really are fucked in the head, allie.
Click to expand...

 
I only work with what's given me, and the idiot that is Gadawg brought it up, not me.

He's the one that said that teaching boys will prevent girls from getting pregnant. 

It's a shame you don't recognize a woman hater when you see one. You're seeing one in gadawg.


----------



## AllieBaba

Mr_Rockhead said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just YOUR BODY. If it were just YOUR BODY, you could drop it off a cliff for anyone cares. In fact, I'll be happy to give you a push if you want. The fetus is ANOTHER body, a DIFFERENT life. NOBODY should have the power of life and death over another innocent human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, pro-aborts are always wailing about how what we REALLY need to reduce the number of abortions is just more education. Yet we've been teaching biology in schools for how many years, and they STILL don't know that a fetus is not part of his mother's body. So much for THAT plan.
> 
> And what are you going to do about it? Put doctors and women in jail? To be consistent you must also forbid abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the womans life is at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law?...
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we already have laws on the books that deal with illegal killing, I am not sure why we wouldnt just apply those same laws to the person who did the abortion.
> 
> Also, Ive always assumed that the child abuse argument stemmed from a logic that goes, if they are killed before they are born, they will not be around to be abused later on. But, the more I think about it, even THAT does not make sense because abused children are the product of parents who made an active choice not to have an abortion in the first place.
> 
> So, as long as the population increases, the number of people who have abortions will increase but so will the number of people who have children. And, likewise, so will the number of parents who abuse those children.
> 
> So abortion really has nothing to do with it unless we are claiming we should have more abortions so we can bring our child-abuse numbers under control. And thats the part of that argument I could really never get my head around.
Click to expand...

 
That's because it makes no sense and has no basis in fact.

The hysterical posturing about how illegal abortion will result in untold deaths, increased child abuse incidence, and an upsurge in crime is just that..hysterical posturing meant to hide the fact that there's no good reason for legalized abortion. Just as the claims that if abortion is illegal women will die when they're *forced* to bear killer mutant babies is a fantasy..del thinks I have a sick mind, what sort of sick fuck thinks up these psycho scenarios to justify scaring women into killing their children...after telling them that they have a *right* to pursue every sexual whim?


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the incidence of child abuse continues to rise:
> 
> "The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect Reports data from a representative sample of more than 5,600 professionals from 42 counties in the United States. The analysis examined the number of children harmed by abuse and neglect, child characteristics, family characteristics, perpetrator characteristics, report sources and CPS investigation. *Significant increases were found in the number of abused and neglected children who were harmed, and at risk of harm, since the previous study in 1986*. "
> 
> The National Incidence Study (NIS)
> 
> I think everybody has pretty much gotten onto the same page regarding abortion and child abuse...legal abortion does not decrease the incidence of child abuse. That is a complete myth. And the stats back it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I stated my 30 years work with The Boys Club, Youth football, basketball, baseball, and soccer coaching young boys without fathers in their lives and you stated that I did it because I am attracted to little boys.
> I do it because right wing loons like you ignore the fact that is the absence of men and them being responsible that causes the problem.
> Teach these boys how to be responsible and less women get pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let no opportunity for self-aggrandization slip by...
> 
> trying really hard to figure out how your 30 years of man/boy love experience and out of wedlock births are related to each other, or the incidence of child abuse..
> 
> But carry on with your crazy musings anyway.
> 
> I especially like the implication that women are too stupid to be taught responsibility, and that we reduce the rate of pregnancy by educating boys only.
Click to expand...


Dumbass, I coached football and there are no girls that play football so how could I mentor them?
As we have pointed out dozens of times you and your looney tunes have not produced ONE idea on how you would police your prohbition on abortion and how that would work in each individual state.
As a result of those failings you have not offered any defense to the simple fact that NO LAW ever stops legal abortions at will just about anywhere in the United States and NO LAW ever has or ever will.
Try again.


----------



## Gadawg73

del said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I stated my 30 years work with The Boys Club, Youth football, basketball, baseball, and soccer coaching young boys without fathers in their lives and you stated that I did it because I am attracted to little boys.
> I do it because right wing loons like you ignore the fact that is the absence of men and them being responsible that causes the problem.
> Teach these boys how to be responsible and less women get pregnant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let no opportunity for self-aggrandization slip by...
> 
> *trying really hard to figure out* how your 30 years of man/boy love experience and out of wedlock births are related to each other, or the incidence of child abuse..
> 
> But carry on with your crazy musings anyway.
> 
> I especially like the implication that women are too stupid to be taught responsibility, and that we reduce the rate of pregnancy by educating boys only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you ought to try reading only the words that actually appear on your screen; it makes things a lot easier to figure out.
Click to expand...


 Gummint workers do not need to compete for their job so sloppiness is the norm.


----------



## Gadawg73

Mr_Rockhead said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just YOUR BODY. If it were just YOUR BODY, you could drop it off a cliff for anyone cares. In fact, I'll be happy to give you a push if you want. The fetus is ANOTHER body, a DIFFERENT life. NOBODY should have the power of life and death over another innocent human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, pro-aborts are always wailing about how what we REALLY need to reduce the number of abortions is just more education. Yet we've been teaching biology in schools for how many years, and they STILL don't know that a fetus is not part of his mother's body. So much for THAT plan.
> 
> And what are you going to do about it? Put doctors and women in jail? To be consistent you must also forbid abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the womans life is at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law?...
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we already have laws on the books that deal with illegal killing, I am not sure why we wouldnt just apply those same laws to the person who did the abortion.
> 
> Also, Ive always assumed that the child abuse argument stemmed from a logic that goes, if they are killed before they are born, they will not be around to be abused later on.  But, the more I think about it, even THAT does not make sense because abused children are the product of parents who made an active choice not to have an abortion in the first place.
> 
> So, as long as the population increases, the number of people who have abortions will increase but so will the number of people who have children.  And, likewise, so will the number of parents who abuse those children.
> 
> So abortion really has nothing to do with it unless we are claiming we should have more abortions so we can bring our child-abuse numbers under control.  And thats the part of that argument I could really never get my head around.
Click to expand...


So if a doctor aborts a baby because of "the safety and health of the mother" then you would charge the doctor with murder the same as the laws on the books?
SCARY


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I stated my 30 years work with The Boys Club, Youth football, basketball, baseball, and soccer coaching young boys without fathers in their lives and you stated that I did it because I am attracted to little boys.
> I do it because right wing loons like you ignore the fact that is the absence of men and them being responsible that causes the problem.
> Teach these boys how to be responsible and less women get pregnant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let no opportunity for self-aggrandization slip by...
> 
> trying really hard to figure out how your 30 years of man/boy love experience and out of wedlock births are related to each other, or the incidence of child abuse..
> 
> But carry on with your crazy musings anyway.
> 
> I especially like the implication that women are too stupid to be taught responsibility, and that we reduce the rate of pregnancy by educating boys only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass, I coached football and there are no girls that play football so how could I mentor them?
> As we have pointed out dozens of times you and your looney tunes have not produced ONE idea on how you would police your prohbition on abortion and how that would work in each individual state.
> As a result of those failings you have not offered any defense to the simple fact that NO LAW ever stops legal abortions at will just about anywhere in the United States and NO LAW ever has or ever will.
> Try again.
Click to expand...

 
I don't care if you love boys, Gadawg. Again, you're the one bringing it up and dragging it around with you. Moron.

And you bet laws stop abortion. And legalization still doesn't stop illegal ones, btw, nor does it reduce the numbers of deaths caused by abortion.

Unless you're implying that every woman who gets a legal abortion is a criminal who would get an abortion regardless of whether or not it's legal. That would go with your assertion that they're too stupid to be responsible for birth control...


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law?...
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since we already have laws on the books that deal with illegal killing, I am not sure why we wouldnt just apply those same laws to the person who did the abortion.
> 
> Also, Ive always assumed that the child abuse argument stemmed from a logic that goes, if they are killed before they are born, they will not be around to be abused later on. But, the more I think about it, even THAT does not make sense because abused children are the product of parents who made an active choice not to have an abortion in the first place.
> 
> So, as long as the population increases, the number of people who have abortions will increase but so will the number of people who have children. And, likewise, so will the number of parents who abuse those children.
> 
> So abortion really has nothing to do with it unless we are claiming we should have more abortions so we can bring our child-abuse numbers under control. And thats the part of that argument I could really never get my head around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a doctor aborts a baby because of "the safety and health of the mother" then you would charge the doctor with murder the same as the laws on the books?
> SCARY
Click to expand...

 
Another lie. Nobody has ever proposed this scenario.

Nice try though.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let no opportunity for self-aggrandization slip by...
> 
> trying really hard to figure out how your 30 years of man/boy love experience and out of wedlock births are related to each other, or the incidence of child abuse..
> 
> But carry on with your crazy musings anyway.
> 
> I especially like the implication that women are too stupid to be taught responsibility, and that we reduce the rate of pregnancy by educating boys only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass, I coached football and there are no girls that play football so how could I mentor them?
> As we have pointed out dozens of times you and your looney tunes have not produced ONE idea on how you would police your prohbition on abortion and how that would work in each individual state.
> As a result of those failings you have not offered any defense to the simple fact that NO LAW ever stops legal abortions at will just about anywhere in the United States and NO LAW ever has or ever will.
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care if you love boys, Gadawg. Again, you're the one bringing it up and dragging it around with you. Moron.
> 
> And you bet laws stop abortion. And legalization still doesn't stop illegal ones, btw, nor does it reduce the numbers of deaths caused by abortion.
> 
> Unless you're implying that every woman who gets a legal abortion is a criminal who would get an abortion regardless of whether or not it's legal. That would go with your assertion that they're too stupid to be responsible for birth control...
Click to expand...


That is all you have so you keep coming back with it time and time again.
You are too ignorant to come up with any rational thoughts so all you have are gutter insults.
But a few weeks ago a fatherless young man I coached years ago was drafted in the first round in the NBA draft.
You can ask his mother about the work we did mentoring him as a youth, the times no other coach would pick him in the rec leagues because he was such a discipline problem.
Sadly Allie, you and your kind that live in the gutter are PART OF THE PROBLEM we have in America. You are a so called social worker and you make things far worse than make them better.
Instead of offering help and guidance to the problem you condemn the very people you are paid to help, turn your arrogant back on them and collect your pay.
Typical government emplpyee.
But go ahead and insult me all you want. Sticks and stones. 
I have been beat up, shot at and left for dead. I love these debates with defenseless folks like you.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we already have laws on the books that deal with illegal killing, I am not sure why we wouldnt just apply those same laws to the person who did the abortion.
> 
> Also, Ive always assumed that the child abuse argument stemmed from a logic that goes, if they are killed before they are born, they will not be around to be abused later on. But, the more I think about it, even THAT does not make sense because abused children are the product of parents who made an active choice not to have an abortion in the first place.
> 
> So, as long as the population increases, the number of people who have abortions will increase but so will the number of people who have children. And, likewise, so will the number of parents who abuse those children.
> 
> So abortion really has nothing to do with it unless we are claiming we should have more abortions so we can bring our child-abuse numbers under control. And thats the part of that argument I could really never get my head around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if a doctor aborts a baby because of "the safety and health of the mother" then you would charge the doctor with murder the same as the laws on the books?
> SCARY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie. Nobody has ever proposed this scenario.
> 
> Nice try though.
Click to expand...


Fool, that is what EVERY DOCTOR did when abortion was "illegal".
You are too stupid to know any better.


----------



## Vanquish

> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law?...
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how you&#8217;d go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those &#8216;guilty&#8217; of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, it&#8217;s time for the right to put up or shut up.



Well first of all, doctors are usually pretty law-abiding people so I'd say about 95-99% of doctors will stop on their own.

In the case of back-alley abortions, the doctor will get reported and discovered.

I'm not seeing why you think it's unenforceable. That opinion has no basis in reality.

In my personal opinion, it should be the mother's decision (or she can consent to have someone designated instead, since she probably couldnt make an unpressured decision during delivery) as to what do do in an extreme emergency (aka who do we save, the mother or the child).

done. easy. submit.


----------



## Vanquish

> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law?...
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.



Well first of all, doctors are usually pretty law-abiding people so I'd say about 95-99% of doctors will stop on their own.

In the case of back-alley abortions, the doctor will get reported and discovered.

I'm not seeing why you think it's unenforceable. That opinion has no basis in reality.

In my personal opinion, it should be the mother's decision (or she can consent to have someone designated instead, since she probably couldnt make an unpressured decision during delivery) as to what do do in an extreme emergency (aka who do we save, the mother or the child).

done. easy. submit.


----------



## Gadawg73

Vanquish said:


> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law?...
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all, doctors are usually pretty law-abiding people so I'd say about 95-99% of doctors will stop on their own.
> 
> In the case of back-alley abortions, the doctor will get reported and discovered.
> 
> I'm not seeing why you think it's unenforceable. That opinion has no basis in reality.
> 
> In my personal opinion, it should be the mother's decision (or she can consent to have someone designated instead, since she probably couldnt make an unpressured decision during delivery) as to what do do in an extreme emergency (aka who do we save, the mother or the child).
> 
> done. easy. submit.
Click to expand...


"in the health interest of the mother"
How do you stop that?
What doctor is going to step forward and state it was not done in the best interest of the mother?
Do you know that is the standard in criminal court?
Real world.


----------



## bill5

Pardon the sidetrack (as if there haven't been others in this thread), but I just saw that I got a "negative rep" (I think) from ol Cecille.  It's so lame it's funny and so I thought some of you might enjoy:



> "Ohmigod, you CURSED! I win!" is the last resort of juveniles who can't make a self-supporting argument. Grow up, or go join a message board for tweenies.



Not sure why to even bother with the private little jab (?) - don't have the spine to say it where everyone can see?  Or just becoming obsessed with me in a perverse way I'd rather not think about?  

Next again surprise, the pot/kettle thing.  I point out that casual/excessive cursing or doing as a name-calling thing because someone simply disagrees with you is not only obnoxious and childish but doesn't exactly build a case for one's intelligence, so I get "it's so stupid to say that!"  Then more pot/kettle BS (original thought clearly isn't a strength here) of spewing childish spittle at me and then saying "grow up" after I suggest the same initially.  I also have no idea what "tweenies" even are but that sounded funny in a little kid kind of way too.  

Thanks for the laugh you rocket scientist you  

But this is getting old quickly and clearly there is little if any real discussion to be had on this thread, so bye and have fun slinging the f words and such at each other some more.  I can't wait for another snotty PM, lol


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if a doctor aborts a baby because of "the safety and health of the mother" then you would charge the doctor with murder the same as the laws on the books?
> SCARY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie. Nobody has ever proposed this scenario.
> 
> Nice try though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fool, that is what EVERY DOCTOR did when abortion was "illegal".
> You are too stupid to know any better.
Click to expand...

 
Prove it, nitwit. Show me the stats of the thousands of women who died because they were "forced" to give birth to killer babies.

Liar and loser..


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie. Nobody has ever proposed this scenario.
> 
> Nice try though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fool, that is what EVERY DOCTOR did when abortion was "illegal".
> You are too stupid to know any better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it, nitwit. Show me the stats of the thousands of women who died because they were "forced" to give birth to killer babies.
> 
> Liar and loser..
Click to expand...


?????
Once again this goes 20 feet over your naive and gullible head.
I do not know WTF you are talking about.
Doctors will give any diagnosis so that they can "legally" give a woman what she wants, an abortion when abortion was "illegal".
How does one prove that the diagnosis of the doctor that the woman needed thE abortion for health reasons is incorrect?
Explain that one. What is the standard of proof in criminal court to show that a doctor's diagnosis is incorrect?
Uh, to the dumbmasses: That would be another doctor and THAT DOCTOR NEVER SAW THAT PATIENT. So what you end up with is NOTHING to stop  a doctor from providing whatever diagnosis he desires to fit the need for an abortion whether the law bans it or not.
Damn, you people are stupid as a box of rocks as to how the real world works.
Well, DUH.
Stick to your day job. You know nothing of THE LAW and how it is applied in THE REAL WORLD.


----------



## AllieBaba

Yeah, everybody ELSE is stupid, lol.

Per usual, you can't back up anything you say. Just flapping those cocksuckers....


----------



## Dr.Drock

Vanquish said:


> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law?...
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all, doctors are usually pretty law-abiding people so I'd say about 95-99% of doctors will stop on their own.
> 
> In the case of back-alley abortions, the doctor will get reported and discovered.
> 
> I'm not seeing why you think it's unenforceable. That opinion has no basis in reality.
> 
> In my personal opinion, it should be the mother's decision (or she can consent to have someone designated instead, since she probably couldnt make an unpressured decision during delivery) as to what do do in an extreme emergency (aka who do we save, the mother or the child).
> 
> done. easy. submit.
Click to expand...


Self-induced abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are dozens of self induced abortion methods that happen all over the world probably on a daily basis.

I'm certain all those methods would just be done by people here if abortion became illegal, and they probably already happen because girls make a naive decision to do it on their own.

I'm pro-choice just as a full disclosure but I take no issue with people being pro-life, I just don't think laws would do much to stop them here in this country and it would seem to be very very hard to prove.


----------



## AllieBaba

People who needed abortions for medical reasons would continue to be able to access them, just as they did before RvW in this country. They do it by going to their dr, advising him of the situation, and together making a decision.

Making it *legal* only allowed for abortion to be used as birth control. It was a bad law based upon misinformation and lies, and it continues to be a *cause* that is supported by nothing but misinformation and lies.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> People who needed abortions for medical reasons would continue to be able to access them, just as they did before RvW in this country. They do it by going to their dr, advising him of the situation, and together making a decision.
> 
> Making it *legal* only allowed for abortion to be used as birth control. It was a bad law based upon misinformation and lies, and it continues to be a *cause* that is supported by nothing but misinformation and lies.



Of course people that needed abortions for medical reasons would continue to be able to access them. And anyone else and everybody that could get a doctor to state that was the reason for the abortion. And that includes ANYONE WITH CASH. 
That is the way it was before Roe and that is the way it will be if it was repealed. 
It has always been used for birth control. Nothing new about that. 
What lies was Roe argued on? What misinformation was used?
Specifics.


----------



## AllieBaba

The abortion industry is primarily a cash industry as it stands now. Because bottom line, the American people don't want to fund it, think it's revolting, and would never in a million years have voted abortion legal.


----------



## Gadawg73

Facts for the uninformed and ignorant:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> Facts for the uninformed and ignorant:
> 
> Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?


 
You wouldn't even know about guttmacher if I hadn't schooled you about them:

"*By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200*"

All those are soft numbers, incidentally. You obviously have missed the many disclaimers guttmacher seeds throughout its site, where they state the numbers are soft and they have no real way of knowing the true stats, since PP doesn't actually provide stats.


----------



## Vanquish

Gadawg73 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law?...
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all, doctors are usually pretty law-abiding people so I'd say about 95-99% of doctors will stop on their own.
> 
> In the case of back-alley abortions, the doctor will get reported and discovered.
> 
> I'm not seeing why you think it's unenforceable. That opinion has no basis in reality.
> 
> In my personal opinion, it should be the mother's decision (or she can consent to have someone designated instead, since she probably couldnt make an unpressured decision during delivery) as to what do do in an extreme emergency (aka who do we save, the mother or the child).
> 
> done. easy. submit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "in the health interest of the mother"
> How do you stop that?
> What doctor is going to step forward and state it was not done in the best interest of the mother?
> Do you know that is the standard in criminal court?
> Real world.
Click to expand...


I'm a lawyer who does criminal defense as a healthy part of my practice...so uhm I think I have a basis in reality.

How do you stop "in the interest of the mother" ?  If you don't know, that language you're referring to is in one of the companion cases to Roe v. Wade, Webster, btw.

You stop that, by explainting that the "interest of the mother" is a life or death decision. It's as simple as that. No, really.  If it's a choice between the mother and the child, which one do we have a greater chance of saving? Most mothers would rather save their child rather than themselves. But let's say they don't want to. The point is you'd rather save the person who has the greater chance.

I don't know why you're building this one part into some mission impossible. It's quite easy to understand.

Even the Catholic church has a history of protecting the mother in these type of circumstances. Read up. Here.

The problem isn't how do you enforce a law like this...it's getting people to value human life when they can't see it hidden away in a woman's womb.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts for the uninformed and ignorant:
> 
> Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't even know about guttmacher if I hadn't schooled you about them:
> 
> "*By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200*"
> 
> All those are soft numbers, incidentally. You obviously have missed the many disclaimers guttmacher seeds throughout its site, where they state the numbers are soft and they have no real way of knowing the true stats, since PP doesn't actually provide stats.
Click to expand...


So what does that prove?


----------



## Lovebears65

I am on the fence about pro choice and pro life and I am a ReP. I think a women has the right to her body but after 3 months pregnant then you should carry that baby to term. How can someone abort a 20 week old fetus when its viable in just a few more weeks. I also believe if the child is not going to survive the delivery because of child defect then I see no problem with abortion. If the the mother was raped or it was incest again I see why a mother would abort. I for my self can not do it either way. I could not live with myself so for me I am pro life but I will not judge another for doing it unless they do a late term abortion after 12 weeks pregnant.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Gadawg73 said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law?...
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since we already have laws on the books that deal with illegal killing, I am not sure why we wouldnt just apply those same laws to the person who did the abortion.
> 
> Also, Ive always assumed that the child abuse argument stemmed from a logic that goes, if they are killed before they are born, they will not be around to be abused later on.  But, the more I think about it, even THAT does not make sense because abused children are the product of parents who made an active choice not to have an abortion in the first place.
> 
> So, as long as the population increases, the number of people who have abortions will increase but so will the number of people who have children.  And, likewise, so will the number of parents who abuse those children.
> 
> So abortion really has nothing to do with it unless we are claiming we should have more abortions so we can bring our child-abuse numbers under control.  And thats the part of that argument I could really never get my head around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a doctor aborts a baby because of "the safety and health of the mother" then you would charge the doctor with murder the same as the laws on the books?
> SCARY
Click to expand...


That may be your talking point but it is not what I said.

I consider the how are we ever going to enforce anti-abortion laws a straw man because, since we already have laws on the books that deal with illegal killing, once abortion becomes illegal killing, there will be no more need for any abortion laws at all.

You see, we will simply enforce the laws already on the books (so the government would not step in until after a killing was reported - just like in any other case where a law is broken).

However, for your sake, I will also add that those same laws have plenty of exceptions.  (So I guess it would be up to people like you to insure the exceptions you mentioned get included).


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law?...
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all, doctors are usually pretty law-abiding people so I'd say about 95-99% of doctors will stop on their own.
> 
> In the case of back-alley abortions, the doctor will get reported and discovered.
> 
> I'm not seeing why you think it's unenforceable. That opinion has no basis in reality.
> 
> In my personal opinion, it should be the mother's decision (or she can consent to have someone designated instead, since she probably couldnt make an unpressured decision during delivery) as to what do do in an extreme emergency (aka who do we save, the mother or the child).
> 
> done. easy. submit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self-induced abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> There are dozens of self induced abortion methods that happen all over the world probably on a daily basis.
> 
> I'm certain all those methods would just be done by people here if abortion became illegal, and they probably already happen because girls make a naive decision to do it on their own.
> 
> I'm pro-choice just as a full disclosure but I take no issue with people being pro-life, I just don't think laws would do much to stop them here in this country and it would seem to be very very hard to prove.
Click to expand...


Well, if Wikipedia says it, it MUST be true.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Gadawg73 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law?...
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all, doctors are usually pretty law-abiding people so I'd say about 95-99% of doctors will stop on their own.
> 
> In the case of back-alley abortions, the doctor will get reported and discovered.
> 
> I'm not seeing why you think it's unenforceable. That opinion has no basis in reality.
> 
> In my personal opinion, it should be the mother's decision (or she can consent to have someone designated instead, since she probably couldnt make an unpressured decision during delivery) as to what do do in an extreme emergency (aka who do we save, the mother or the child).
> 
> done. easy. submit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "in the health interest of the mother"
> How do you stop that?
> What doctor is going to step forward and state it was not done in the best interest of the mother?
> Do you know that is the standard in criminal court?
> Real world.
Click to expand...


Once again, this talking point simply has no base in reality because we have always had all kinds of exceptions to our laws that deal with killing.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Dr.Drock said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you enforce your anti-abortion law?...
> 
> So, for those wishing to ban abortion, document in detail your plan, exactly how youd go about investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of your new crime.
> 
> Once again, its time for the right to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all, doctors are usually pretty law-abiding people so I'd say about 95-99% of doctors will stop on their own.
> 
> In the case of back-alley abortions, the doctor will get reported and discovered.
> 
> I'm not seeing why you think it's unenforceable. That opinion has no basis in reality.
> 
> In my personal opinion, it should be the mother's decision (or she can consent to have someone designated instead, since she probably couldnt make an unpressured decision during delivery) as to what do do in an extreme emergency (aka who do we save, the mother or the child).
> 
> done. easy. submit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self-induced abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> There are dozens of self induced abortion methods that happen all over the world probably on a daily basis.
> 
> I'm certain all those methods would just be done by people here if abortion became illegal, and they probably already happen because girls make a naive decision to do it on their own.
> 
> I'm pro-choice just as a full disclosure but I take no issue with people being pro-life, I just don't think laws would do much to stop them here in this country and it would seem to be very very hard to prove.
Click to expand...


Our laws make all types of killing hard to prove.

Just ask OJ.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Vanquish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all, doctors are usually pretty law-abiding people so I'd say about 95-99% of doctors will stop on their own.
> 
> In the case of back-alley abortions, the doctor will get reported and discovered.
> 
> I'm not seeing why you think it's unenforceable. That opinion has no basis in reality.
> 
> In my personal opinion, it should be the mother's decision (or she can consent to have someone designated instead, since she probably couldnt make an unpressured decision during delivery) as to what do do in an extreme emergency (aka who do we save, the mother or the child).
> 
> done. easy. submit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "in the health interest of the mother"
> How do you stop that?
> What doctor is going to step forward and state it was not done in the best interest of the mother?
> Do you know that is the standard in criminal court?
> Real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...The problem isn't how do you enforce a law like this...it's getting people to value human life when they can't see it hidden away in a woman's womb.
Click to expand...


I could not agree more.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all, doctors are usually pretty law-abiding people so I'd say about 95-99% of doctors will stop on their own.
> 
> In the case of back-alley abortions, the doctor will get reported and discovered.
> 
> I'm not seeing why you think it's unenforceable. That opinion has no basis in reality.
> 
> In my personal opinion, it should be the mother's decision (or she can consent to have someone designated instead, since she probably couldnt make an unpressured decision during delivery) as to what do do in an extreme emergency (aka who do we save, the mother or the child).
> 
> done. easy. submit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self-induced abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> There are dozens of self induced abortion methods that happen all over the world probably on a daily basis.
> 
> I'm certain all those methods would just be done by people here if abortion became illegal, and they probably already happen because girls make a naive decision to do it on their own.
> 
> I'm pro-choice just as a full disclosure but I take no issue with people being pro-life, I just don't think laws would do much to stop them here in this country and it would seem to be very very hard to prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if Wikipedia says it, it MUST be true.
Click to expand...


So you clicked on Wikipedias references and found them to be wrong, or did you just lazily type a silly sentence because the link said something you didn't wanna hear?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all, doctors are usually pretty law-abiding people so I'd say about 95-99% of doctors will stop on their own.
> 
> In the case of back-alley abortions, the doctor will get reported and discovered.
> 
> I'm not seeing why you think it's unenforceable. That opinion has no basis in reality.
> 
> In my personal opinion, it should be the mother's decision (or she can consent to have someone designated instead, since she probably couldnt make an unpressured decision during delivery) as to what do do in an extreme emergency (aka who do we save, the mother or the child).
> 
> done. easy. submit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self-induced abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> There are dozens of self induced abortion methods that happen all over the world probably on a daily basis.
> 
> I'm certain all those methods would just be done by people here if abortion became illegal, and they probably already happen because girls make a naive decision to do it on their own.
> 
> I'm pro-choice just as a full disclosure but I take no issue with people being pro-life, I just don't think laws would do much to stop them here in this country and it would seem to be very very hard to prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our laws make all types of killing hard to prove.
> 
> Just ask OJ.
Click to expand...


Even with perfect evidence, even with videotaping it happening, you often times couldn't prove it.  If a woman fell on her stomach on purpose trying to abort, you'd have to prove she didn't trip on accident. She could even argue she didn't know she was pregnant.

And that'd be an instance of one of those rare 1 in a million instances where you had all the evidence possible.


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts for the uninformed and ignorant:
> 
> Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't even know about guttmacher if I hadn't schooled you about them:
> 
> "*By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200*"
> 
> All those are soft numbers, incidentally. You obviously have missed the many disclaimers guttmacher seeds throughout its site, where they state the numbers are soft and they have no real way of knowing the true stats, since PP doesn't actually provide stats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does that prove?
Click to expand...

 
It proves you're talking out your ass if you are saying that there is this huge problem with women dying from illegal abortions. The numbers are not very high, and  have been manipulated to such a degree that they're worthless. The number of women who died from abortions are roughly the same number as would have died giving birth.


----------



## Vanquish

You seem to forget that abortion was against the law before Roe v. Wade...and having the law itself stopped the vast majority of abortions.  And when "doctors" did them, eventually someone reported some of them and they were put in jail.

Like was said above, you don't give up on a system of laws because you can't enforce them perfectly. The point is that the laws reflect our belief that human life is worth protecting.

If you change the law, the majority of abortions will stop.


----------



## Vanquish

You seem to forget that abortion was against the law before Roe v. Wade...and having the law itself stopped the vast majority of abortions.  And when "doctors" did them, eventually someone reported some of them and they were put in jail.

Like was said above, you don't give up on a system of laws because you can't enforce them perfectly. The point is that the laws reflect our belief that human life is worth protecting.

If you change the law, the majority of abortions will stop.


----------



## AllieBaba

Not according to gadawg and the other pro-abortionists.

According to them, not only are women too stupid to understand birth control, they're a criminal element who will ignore laws about abortion, and always will kill themselves obtaining illegal abortions or using coat hangers, rather than submit to the law.


----------



## Dr.Drock

AllieBaba said:


> Not according to gadawg and the other pro-abortionists.
> 
> According to them, not only are women too stupid to understand birth control, they're a criminal element who will ignore laws about abortion, and always will kill themselves obtaining illegal abortions or using coat hangers, rather than submit to the law.



and one thing we all know for certain, when Allie puts words in people's mouths she's always perfectly accurate....................................


----------



## Vanquish

aaaaaand we're derailed.


----------



## Immanuel

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "in the health interest of the mother"
> How do you stop that?
> What doctor is going to step forward and state it was not done in the best interest of the mother?
> Do you know that is the standard in criminal court?
> Real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The problem isn't how do you enforce a law like this...it's getting people to value human life when they can't see it hidden away in a woman's womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could not agree more.
Click to expand...


+1

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Drock said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self-induced abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> There are dozens of self induced abortion methods that happen all over the world probably on a daily basis.
> 
> I'm certain all those methods would just be done by people here if abortion became illegal, and they probably already happen because girls make a naive decision to do it on their own.
> 
> I'm pro-choice just as a full disclosure but I take no issue with people being pro-life, I just don't think laws would do much to stop them here in this country and it would seem to be very very hard to prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if Wikipedia says it, it MUST be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you clicked on Wikipedias references and found them to be wrong, or did you just lazily type a silly sentence because the link said something you didn't wanna hear?
Click to expand...


Actually, I found the subject of them utterly fucking irrelevant, and I find "Look, my source is a website whose content can be changed by ANYONE" to be laughable.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if Wikipedia says it, it MUST be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you clicked on Wikipedias references and found them to be wrong, or did you just lazily type a silly sentence because the link said something you didn't wanna hear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I found the subject of them utterly fucking irrelevant, and I find "Look, my source is a website whose content can be changed by ANYONE" to be laughable.
Click to expand...


So you didn't click on the references, thanks for the honesty in your laziness.


I have no idea how it could be irrelevent, a woman wants an abortion, can't get one at the doctor, of course there's going to be instances where she tries to do it on her own.


I'm not even saying the idea that a law would essentially be near impossible to enforce is even a reason to not want the law on the books.  All we were talking about is the feasibility of being able to arrest women for performing abortions on themselves if abortions were made illegal.


----------



## Grace

Nobody will ever stop a woman from choosing to have an abortion. Ever. Its HER BODY.

I hate this thread.


----------



## High_Gravity

Grace said:


> Nobody will ever stop a woman from choosing to have an abortion. Ever. Its HER BODY.
> 
> I hate this thread.



Yeah me too.


----------



## Vanquish

Grace said:


> Nobody will ever stop a woman from choosing to have an abortion. Ever. Its HER BODY.
> 
> I hate this thread.



You're entitled to your opinion of course, but the BABY HAS ITS OWN BODY. I hope this thread helps people realize that.


----------



## Grace

Vanquish said:


> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody will ever stop a woman from choosing to have an abortion. Ever. Its HER BODY.
> 
> I hate this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion of course, but the BABY HAS ITS OWN BODY. I hope this thread helps people realize that.
Click to expand...


Y'all can scream and wave your tiny fists in fury all you fucking want. Its THE WOMANS BODY. PERIOD. Nothing you say. No pics you show. No scientific evidence. No demands that a coma shaped being to be allowed to be hosted against the hosts will. The religious aspects. The fighting about rights of a sperm that got in the egg. NOTHING you say will EVER change the fact that as women, WE CHOOSE. Period. End of story. So yell, holler, stamp your little feetsies all you want. Won't change a damn thing.

Now I'm out of here because this thread SUCKS.


----------



## Grace

But before I leave...I DEMAND that if your doctors ever tell you that you have a fucking tape worm...IT HAS RIGHTS. You are to LEAVE it there and let it FEED off you. After all. Its alive, aint it? And yes, I am comparing a fetus to a tape worm. Don't like it? Tough shit.

*spit*


----------



## Dr.Drock

Grace said:


> But before I leave...I DEMAND that if your doctors ever tell you that you have a fucking tape worm...IT HAS RIGHTS. You are to LEAVE it there and let it FEED off you. After all. Its alive, aint it? And yes, I am comparing a fetus to a tape worm. Don't like it? Tough shit.
> 
> *spit*



I'm pro choice but that was maybe the dumbest analogy I've ever read.


----------



## Grace

Whats the difference? Those against abortion want to force someone else to host a living being. FORCE is the key word here.
And they will bicker and fight and stamp their feet and wave their fists because they want the government to control what we CHOOSE to do with our bodies when it comes to hosting another human being. 
Dumb analogy maybe, but it fits with MY opinion, to which I am entitled just like the rest of the BULLSHIT going on in here.

Like I said..tough shit.

*backs up, kicks dirt on thread, spits again*


----------



## Luissa

Vanquish said:


> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody will ever stop a woman from choosing to have an abortion. Ever. Its HER BODY.
> 
> I hate this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion of course, but the BABY HAS ITS OWN BODY. I hope this thread helps people realize that.
Click to expand...


That cannot live on it's own until the fetus is at least 22 weeks.


----------



## R.D.

Grace said:


> Whats the difference? Those against abortion want to force someone else to host a living being. FORCE is the key word here.
> And they will bicker and fight and stamp their feet and wave their fists because they want the government to control what we CHOOSE to do with our bodies when it comes to hosting another human being.
> Dumb analogy maybe, but it fits with MY opinion, to which I am entitled just like the rest of the BULLSHIT going on in here.
> 
> Like I said..tough shit.
> 
> *backs up, kicks dirt on thread, spits again*



We are all entitled to our opinions.  

 Why so angry?   I've read your posts and you will no more convince those who value the life of the unborn any more than we will convince you _to _value it.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Grace said:


> Whats the difference? Those against abortion want to force someone else to host a living being. FORCE is the key word here.
> And they will bicker and fight and stamp their feet and wave their fists because they want the government to control what we CHOOSE to do with our bodies when it comes to hosting another human being.
> Dumb analogy maybe, but it fits with MY opinion, to which I am entitled just like the rest of the BULLSHIT going on in here.
> 
> Like I said..tough shit.
> 
> *backs up, kicks dirt on thread, spits again*



Because humans are on a different scale than tapeworms and every other living thing.  I know a lot people who smack their dog on the back but would never their kid (i wouldn't do either but I digress).  I'd like to think you'd take more thought in terms of whether or not to have an abortion than you would whether or not to have tapeworms removed.

I agree with you that I'm ok with an abortion up to a certain time period, but relating a fetus to tapeworms is dumb, and I'm glad you admitted that.


----------



## Gadawg73

Vanquish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all, doctors are usually pretty law-abiding people so I'd say about 95-99% of doctors will stop on their own.
> 
> In the case of back-alley abortions, the doctor will get reported and discovered.
> 
> I'm not seeing why you think it's unenforceable. That opinion has no basis in reality.
> 
> In my personal opinion, it should be the mother's decision (or she can consent to have someone designated instead, since she probably couldnt make an unpressured decision during delivery) as to what do do in an extreme emergency (aka who do we save, the mother or the child).
> 
> done. easy. submit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "in the health interest of the mother"
> How do you stop that?
> What doctor is going to step forward and state it was not done in the best interest of the mother?
> Do you know that is the standard in criminal court?
> Real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a lawyer who does criminal defense as a healthy part of my practice...so uhm I think I have a basis in reality.
> 
> How do you stop "in the interest of the mother" ?  If you don't know, that language you're referring to is in one of the companion cases to Roe v. Wade, Webster, btw.
> 
> You stop that, by explainting that the "interest of the mother" is a life or death decision. It's as simple as that. No, really.  If it's a choice between the mother and the child, which one do we have a greater chance of saving? Most mothers would rather save their child rather than themselves. But let's say they don't want to. The point is you'd rather save the person who has the greater chance.
> 
> I don't know why you're building this one part into some mission impossible. It's quite easy to understand.
> 
> Even the Catholic church has a history of protecting the mother in these type of circumstances. Read up. Here.
> 
> The problem isn't how do you enforce a law like this...it's getting people to value human life when they can't see it hidden away in a woman's womb.
Click to expand...


You can find a doctor to claim "in the best interest of the mother" just about anywhere.
I also work criminal defense cases as a licensed PI for 30 years.
And I also do civil litigation and wrongful death. I used to do a lot of comp cases 25 years ago.
Counselor, how come you do not acknowledge the FACT that doctor's opinion varies like the wind? Don't you know that you can pay doctors to say whatever you want? Respectfully, if you don't then you haven't practiced very long.
I have worked hundreds of cases where one doctor comes in and testifies "The standard of care Dr. Kilgore gave was excellent for XYZ reasons. The doctor did everything right and nothing wrong." Next doctor comes in and testifies "Doctor Kilgore was clearly negligent and his negligence and lack of following XYZ prodcedures, etc., etc., caused the patient to die."
Now which is it counselor? Fact is doctors BS all the time and that BS stands up most all of the time. The prosecution will need another doctor to state that the mother of the aborted fetus was not in medical danger and the doctor that claimed she was was wrong in his diagnosis.
If you do not know that there are thousands of doctors out there that would do this and do it daily then take a look at the plaintiffs docket your next trip to the civil clerk's office and watch TV one afternoon and see the dozens of Personal Injury lawyers soliciting cases for fender benders where there is nothing wrong with 90% of the "injured".
Doctors fuel those soft tissue cases and 9 times out of ten there are no real injuries. What, doctors "doctoring" up the file? Surely you jest!!
But back to making abortion illegal. A doctor to performthe abortion "in the best interest of the mother's medical safety" would be just as easy to find as the ones the personal injury lawyers send their clients to. And they will stamp that on every abortion they perform. And the state prosecutor would need ANOTHER DOCTOR to state that it was not a medical necessity. 
Now counselor, what doctor is going to do that and how credible would they be to a jury when that doctor NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?


----------



## Vanquish

Gadawg73 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "in the health interest of the mother"
> How do you stop that?
> What doctor is going to step forward and state it was not done in the best interest of the mother?
> Do you know that is the standard in criminal court?
> Real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a lawyer who does criminal defense as a healthy part of my practice...so uhm I think I have a basis in reality.
> 
> How do you stop "in the interest of the mother" ?  If you don't know, that language you're referring to is in one of the companion cases to Roe v. Wade, Webster, btw.
> 
> You stop that, by explainting that the "interest of the mother" is a life or death decision. It's as simple as that. No, really.  If it's a choice between the mother and the child, which one do we have a greater chance of saving? Most mothers would rather save their child rather than themselves. But let's say they don't want to. The point is you'd rather save the person who has the greater chance.
> 
> I don't know why you're building this one part into some mission impossible. It's quite easy to understand.
> 
> Even the Catholic church has a history of protecting the mother in these type of circumstances. Read up. Here.
> 
> The problem isn't how do you enforce a law like this...it's getting people to value human life when they can't see it hidden away in a woman's womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can find a doctor to claim "in the best interest of the mother" just about anywhere.
> I also work criminal defense cases as a licensed PI for 30 years.
> And I also do civil litigation and wrongful death. I used to do a lot of comp cases 25 years ago.
> Counselor, how come you do not acknowledge the FACT that doctor's opinion varies like the wind? Don't you know that you can pay doctors to say whatever you want? Respectfully, if you don't then you haven't practiced very long.
> I have worked hundreds of cases where one doctor comes in and testifies "The standard of care Dr. Kilgore gave was excellent for XYZ reasons. The doctor did everything right and nothing wrong." Next doctor comes in and testifies "Doctor Kilgore was clearly negligent and his negligence and lack of following XYZ prodcedures, etc., etc., caused the patient to die."
> Now which is it counselor? Fact is doctors BS all the time and that BS stands up most all of the time. The prosecution will need another doctor to state that the mother of the aborted fetus was not in medical danger and the doctor that claimed she was was wrong in his diagnosis.
> If you do not know that there are thousands of doctors out there that would do this and do it daily then take a look at the plaintiffs docket your next trip to the civil clerk's office and watch TV one afternoon and see the dozens of Personal Injury lawyers soliciting cases for fender benders where there is nothing wrong with 90% of the "injured".
> Doctors fuel those soft tissue cases and 9 times out of ten there are no real injuries. What, doctors "doctoring" up the file? Surely you jest!!
> But back to making abortion illegal. A doctor to performthe abortion "in the best interest of the mother's medical safety" would be just as easy to find as the ones the personal injury lawyers send their clients to. And they will stamp that on every abortion they perform. And the state prosecutor would need ANOTHER DOCTOR to state that it was not a medical necessity.
> Now counselor, what doctor is going to do that and how credible would they be to a jury when that doctor NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
Click to expand...


First of all, you're acting as if there aren't standards and procedures in medicine. Respectfully, if you think there aren't rules in medicine then YOU haven't been practicing very long.

Second, if you read exactly what I said, instead of broadening the definition of "interest of the mother" I was VERY specific - when the mother's life is in danger or the child's is. THAT'S a very very tiny set of circumstances...for which there are...wait for it....wait for it...rules and standard practices!

While doctors can differ surely....whether someone is in a life and death situation is much less prone to such a difference of opinion. Either you are or you aren't.

Your condescending blathering about expert witnesses and doctors backing each other up notwithstanding, yes, they do do that. But that doesnt mean that you can't get one to testify against another. They do that too, buddy.  And proving it in a court of law is what you have to do to get justice. Your little anecdotes are one-sided and self-serving....all the while you word things like you've set up some inescapable logic trap. NEWS FLASH. You haven't.

But again, that doesn't mean that you can't outlaw abortion. That's like saying...well fuck. we can't stop people from stabbing each other...so let's just let people stab each other.

Huh?????  You're fundamentally wrong about how law works and how it operates.


----------



## Gadawg73

Vanquish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a lawyer who does criminal defense as a healthy part of my practice...so uhm I think I have a basis in reality.
> 
> How do you stop "in the interest of the mother" ?  If you don't know, that language you're referring to is in one of the companion cases to Roe v. Wade, Webster, btw.
> 
> You stop that, by explainting that the "interest of the mother" is a life or death decision. It's as simple as that. No, really.  If it's a choice between the mother and the child, which one do we have a greater chance of saving? Most mothers would rather save their child rather than themselves. But let's say they don't want to. The point is you'd rather save the person who has the greater chance.
> 
> I don't know why you're building this one part into some mission impossible. It's quite easy to understand.
> 
> Even the Catholic church has a history of protecting the mother in these type of circumstances. Read up. Here.
> 
> The problem isn't how do you enforce a law like this...it's getting people to value human life when they can't see it hidden away in a woman's womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can find a doctor to claim "in the best interest of the mother" just about anywhere.
> I also work criminal defense cases as a licensed PI for 30 years.
> And I also do civil litigation and wrongful death. I used to do a lot of comp cases 25 years ago.
> Counselor, how come you do not acknowledge the FACT that doctor's opinion varies like the wind? Don't you know that you can pay doctors to say whatever you want? Respectfully, if you don't then you haven't practiced very long.
> I have worked hundreds of cases where one doctor comes in and testifies "The standard of care Dr. Kilgore gave was excellent for XYZ reasons. The doctor did everything right and nothing wrong." Next doctor comes in and testifies "Doctor Kilgore was clearly negligent and his negligence and lack of following XYZ prodcedures, etc., etc., caused the patient to die."
> Now which is it counselor? Fact is doctors BS all the time and that BS stands up most all of the time. The prosecution will need another doctor to state that the mother of the aborted fetus was not in medical danger and the doctor that claimed she was was wrong in his diagnosis.
> If you do not know that there are thousands of doctors out there that would do this and do it daily then take a look at the plaintiffs docket your next trip to the civil clerk's office and watch TV one afternoon and see the dozens of Personal Injury lawyers soliciting cases for fender benders where there is nothing wrong with 90% of the "injured".
> Doctors fuel those soft tissue cases and 9 times out of ten there are no real injuries. What, doctors "doctoring" up the file? Surely you jest!!
> But back to making abortion illegal. A doctor to performthe abortion "in the best interest of the mother's medical safety" would be just as easy to find as the ones the personal injury lawyers send their clients to. And they will stamp that on every abortion they perform. And the state prosecutor would need ANOTHER DOCTOR to state that it was not a medical necessity.
> Now counselor, what doctor is going to do that and how credible would they be to a jury when that doctor NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you're acting as if there aren't standards and procedures in medicine. Respectfully, if you think there aren't rules in medicine then YOU haven't been practicing very long.
> 
> Second, if you read exactly what I said, instead of broadening the definition of "interest of the mother" I was VERY specific - when the mother's life is in danger or the child's is. THAT'S a very very tiny set of circumstances...for which there are...wait for it....wait for it...rules and standard practices!
> 
> While doctors can differ surely....whether someone is in a life and death situation is much less prone to such a difference of opinion. Either you are or you aren't.
> 
> Your condescending blathering about expert witnesses and doctors backing each other up notwithstanding, yes, they do do that. But that doesnt mean that you can't get one to testify against another. They do that too, buddy.  And proving it in a court of law is what you have to do to get justice. Your little anecdotes are one-sided and self-serving....all the while you word things like you've set up some inescapable logic trap. NEWS FLASH. You haven't.
> 
> But again, that doesn't mean that you can't outlaw abortion. That's like saying...well fuck. we can't stop people from stabbing each other...so let's just let people stab each other.
> 
> Huh?????  You're fundamentally wrong about how law works and how it operates.
Click to expand...


Of course there are standards in medicine.
But you ignore my factual scenario.
How can a doctor claim there was NO need for the abortion when HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
You have not stated one fact to rebut anything or any factual scenario I presented.
If you do not know that ALL medical malpractice cases have TOTALLY opposite diagnosis of standard of care then you know nothing about medical legal issues.
If you deny that in worker's compensation cases one doctor gets up and testifies "the claimant is fine and can go back to work" and then the next doctor comes in and states "the claimant is 80% disabled and can not work" that proves without any doubt you have never, ever done any trial work in the civil courts.
That sir goes on in EVERY worker's compensation case across the nation daily. 
All the while you naively claim that doctors do not doctor their records. 
Try again and show me something, anything that shows that doctors do not offer opinions to fit their clients' needs.
Sort of like attorneys but without the doctor's various opionions to fit their client's needs the attorneys have NO case. 
I have been doing this 30 years. 5000 cases with over 1000 jury trials.


----------



## Gadawg73

Even Pro Life Rick Santorum stated that medical exception reasons are "phony" and John McCain called the medical exception for late term abortions are "being stretched to mean almost anything".
Case closed. Everyone associated with this knows full well the abortion doctors will go to any means necessary to make a health exception stick when they perform abortions.
I hate it, despise it but do not stick my head in the sand when I know full well it has worked that way for over 100 years.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grace said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody will ever stop a woman from choosing to have an abortion. Ever. Its HER BODY.
> 
> I hate this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion of course, but the BABY HAS ITS OWN BODY. I hope this thread helps people realize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all can scream and wave your tiny fists in fury all you fucking want. Its THE WOMANS BODY. PERIOD. Nothing you say. No pics you show. No scientific evidence. No demands that a coma shaped being to be allowed to be hosted against the hosts will. The religious aspects. The fighting about rights of a sperm that got in the egg. NOTHING you say will EVER change the fact that as women, WE CHOOSE. Period. End of story. So yell, holler, stamp your little feetsies all you want. Won't change a damn thing.
> 
> Now I'm out of here because this thread SUCKS.
Click to expand...


Yes, you can keep up your vain, futile attempts to introduce facts, logic, and science into this debate, but the truth is going to continue to be whatever the infanticide crowd needs it to be to assuage their guilt and neuroses, and that's that.  Just accept that we INVENT truth in this society, rather than discovering it.  Nothing you say.  No pictures you show.  No evidence you produce, is going to EVER convince the baby-killers that doing what's convenient for THEM is not the high road to morality, because to them, their personal, selfish happiness IS morality.  (Morality, like truth, is something that is invented, rather than discovered.)  Nothing you say will EVER change the fact that self-hating, baby-killing women CHOOSE what reality is, and ignore anything that might indicate that there's a reality beyond what THEY want.  Period.  End of story.  State the truth, present facts, study science all you want.  Won't change a damned thing.

And Grace is out of here now, until the NEXT time she comes weaseling around this "sucky" thread, trying to justify her monstrously unjustifiable choice and whining about how "attacked" she is because people dare to think that what she did was evil, instead of accepting the manifestly obvious fact that it MUST have been moral, because it was what she wanted to do.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grace said:


> But before I leave...I DEMAND that if your doctors ever tell you that you have a fucking tape worm...IT HAS RIGHTS. You are to LEAVE it there and let it FEED off you. After all. Its alive, aint it? And yes, I am comparing a fetus to a tape worm. Don't like it? Tough shit.
> 
> *spit*



Before you run back here YET AGAIN to tell us how we all suck for not approving of whatever you want to do, and how you're OUT OF HERE (again), I DEMAND that you learn the difference between a human and a tape worm.  It's one thing that you flatly reject the scientific fact that a fetus is a living human being simply because you don't want to accept that you're every bit as evil and disgusting a creature as your rapist, but there should still be limits on the amount of willful scientific ignorance you're prepared to espouse in public in service of your selfish self-justification.

And yes, I'm comparing you to a rapist.  Don't like it?  Tough shit.  Try leaving for REAL, instead of for tantrum effect.  That's what someone who REALLY believed she was right, rather than someone desperately trying to rationalize herself, would do.

Be sure to whine and cry to someone about how "abused" you were when you went back to the thread you've flounced out of three times so far, Drama Queen.  Boo fucking hoo.


----------



## Vanquish

Gadawg73 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can find a doctor to claim "in the best interest of the mother" just about anywhere.
> I also work criminal defense cases as a licensed PI for 30 years.
> And I also do civil litigation and wrongful death. I used to do a lot of comp cases 25 years ago.
> Counselor, how come you do not acknowledge the FACT that doctor's opinion varies like the wind? Don't you know that you can pay doctors to say whatever you want? Respectfully, if you don't then you haven't practiced very long.
> I have worked hundreds of cases where one doctor comes in and testifies "The standard of care Dr. Kilgore gave was excellent for XYZ reasons. The doctor did everything right and nothing wrong." Next doctor comes in and testifies "Doctor Kilgore was clearly negligent and his negligence and lack of following XYZ prodcedures, etc., etc., caused the patient to die."
> Now which is it counselor? Fact is doctors BS all the time and that BS stands up most all of the time. The prosecution will need another doctor to state that the mother of the aborted fetus was not in medical danger and the doctor that claimed she was was wrong in his diagnosis.
> If you do not know that there are thousands of doctors out there that would do this and do it daily then take a look at the plaintiffs docket your next trip to the civil clerk's office and watch TV one afternoon and see the dozens of Personal Injury lawyers soliciting cases for fender benders where there is nothing wrong with 90% of the "injured".
> Doctors fuel those soft tissue cases and 9 times out of ten there are no real injuries. What, doctors "doctoring" up the file? Surely you jest!!
> But back to making abortion illegal. A doctor to performthe abortion "in the best interest of the mother's medical safety" would be just as easy to find as the ones the personal injury lawyers send their clients to. And they will stamp that on every abortion they perform. And the state prosecutor would need ANOTHER DOCTOR to state that it was not a medical necessity.
> Now counselor, what doctor is going to do that and how credible would they be to a jury when that doctor NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you're acting as if there aren't standards and procedures in medicine. Respectfully, if you think there aren't rules in medicine then YOU haven't been practicing very long.
> 
> Second, if you read exactly what I said, instead of broadening the definition of "interest of the mother" I was VERY specific - when the mother's life is in danger or the child's is. THAT'S a very very tiny set of circumstances...for which there are...wait for it....wait for it...rules and standard practices!
> 
> While doctors can differ surely....whether someone is in a life and death situation is much less prone to such a difference of opinion. Either you are or you aren't.
> 
> Your condescending blathering about expert witnesses and doctors backing each other up notwithstanding, yes, they do do that. But that doesnt mean that you can't get one to testify against another. They do that too, buddy.  And proving it in a court of law is what you have to do to get justice. Your little anecdotes are one-sided and self-serving....all the while you word things like you've set up some inescapable logic trap. NEWS FLASH. You haven't.
> 
> But again, that doesn't mean that you can't outlaw abortion. That's like saying...well fuck. we can't stop people from stabbing each other...so let's just let people stab each other.
> 
> Huh?????  You're fundamentally wrong about how law works and how it operates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are standards in medicine.
> But you ignore my factual scenario.
> How can a doctor claim there was NO need for the abortion when HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
> You have not stated one fact to rebut anything or any factual scenario I presented.
> If you do not know that ALL medical malpractice cases have TOTALLY opposite diagnosis of standard of care then you know nothing about medical legal issues.
> If you deny that in worker's compensation cases one doctor gets up and testifies "the claimant is fine and can go back to work" and then the next doctor comes in and states "the claimant is 80% disabled and can not work" that proves without any doubt you have never, ever done any trial work in the civil courts.
> That sir goes on in EVERY worker's compensation case across the nation daily.
> All the while you naively claim that doctors do not doctor their records.
> Try again and show me something, anything that shows that doctors do not offer opinions to fit their clients' needs.
> Sort of like attorneys but without the doctor's various opionions to fit their client's needs the attorneys have NO case.
> I have been doing this 30 years. 5000 cases with over 1000 jury trials.
Click to expand...


Stroke your epeen a little more. Something useful might come out.

Of course I know that doctors conflict. I'm the one who explained that in MY POST.

YOU SEEM TO IGNORE the fact that making it illegal means that 99% of doctors will stop doing it. That's pretty effective enforcement right there.  And in the cases where you have a doctor claiming that a mother's life is in danger, it's going to be pretty hard medically to cheat the system.  You keep making these sweeping comments about medical litigation in general, but fail to speak about SPECIFIC circumstances.

I'm pretty glad that you were never a PI for one of my cases. You can't seem to hold a train of thought very well.


----------



## Gadawg73

Vanquish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you're acting as if there aren't standards and procedures in medicine. Respectfully, if you think there aren't rules in medicine then YOU haven't been practicing very long.
> 
> Second, if you read exactly what I said, instead of broadening the definition of "interest of the mother" I was VERY specific - when the mother's life is in danger or the child's is. THAT'S a very very tiny set of circumstances...for which there are...wait for it....wait for it...rules and standard practices!
> 
> While doctors can differ surely....whether someone is in a life and death situation is much less prone to such a difference of opinion. Either you are or you aren't.
> 
> Your condescending blathering about expert witnesses and doctors backing each other up notwithstanding, yes, they do do that. But that doesnt mean that you can't get one to testify against another. They do that too, buddy.  And proving it in a court of law is what you have to do to get justice. Your little anecdotes are one-sided and self-serving....all the while you word things like you've set up some inescapable logic trap. NEWS FLASH. You haven't.
> 
> But again, that doesn't mean that you can't outlaw abortion. That's like saying...well fuck. we can't stop people from stabbing each other...so let's just let people stab each other.
> 
> Huh?????  You're fundamentally wrong about how law works and how it operates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are standards in medicine.
> But you ignore my factual scenario.
> How can a doctor claim there was NO need for the abortion when HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
> You have not stated one fact to rebut anything or any factual scenario I presented.
> If you do not know that ALL medical malpractice cases have TOTALLY opposite diagnosis of standard of care then you know nothing about medical legal issues.
> If you deny that in worker's compensation cases one doctor gets up and testifies "the claimant is fine and can go back to work" and then the next doctor comes in and states "the claimant is 80% disabled and can not work" that proves without any doubt you have never, ever done any trial work in the civil courts.
> That sir goes on in EVERY worker's compensation case across the nation daily.
> All the while you naively claim that doctors do not doctor their records.
> Try again and show me something, anything that shows that doctors do not offer opinions to fit their clients' needs.
> Sort of like attorneys but without the doctor's various opionions to fit their client's needs the attorneys have NO case.
> I have been doing this 30 years. 5000 cases with over 1000 jury trials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stroke your epeen a little more. Something useful might come out.
> 
> Of course I know that doctors conflict. I'm the one who explained that in MY POST.
> 
> YOU SEEM TO IGNORE the fact that making it illegal means that 99% of doctors will stop doing it. That's pretty effective enforcement right there.  And in the cases where you have a doctor claiming that a mother's life is in danger, it's going to be pretty hard medically to cheat the system.  You keep making these sweeping comments about medical litigation in general, but fail to speak about SPECIFIC circumstances.
> 
> I'm pretty glad that you were never a PI for one of my cases. You can't seem to hold a train of thought very well.
Click to expand...


I was questioning whether you were a lawyer or not but your dancing around like a monkey on fire, twisting and distorting the truth have convinced me you are.
I gave you SPECIFICS such as medical malpractice cases where YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DOCTOR'S AFFIDAVIT that there was negligence to even file your case. 
Now tell me counselor, are you denying that in a mdeical malpractice case, IN ALL medical malpractice cases you have a doctor stating that the standard of care was not up to speed and that is what caused the malpractice and that the insurance carrier of the doctor will have their doctor come in and state THE EXACT OPPOSITE?
If they didn't then how do THEY DEFEND THE DAMN CASE?
Same with worker's compensation cases. I gave SPECIFICS on that also.
And from the companion case YOU BROUGHT UP Doe which proves my point 100%:
That case broadly defined the health exemption so that any level of distress or discomfort would qualify and gave the abortionist the final say over what qualified: 
"The medical judgement may be exercised in the light of all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age, relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to "health". 
Because the application of the health exemption was left to the abortionist, as I have been schooling you on here, any legislation directly prohibitng any abortion is practically UNENFORCEABLE.
And it was prior history of doctors ALWAYS DOING THIS, that prompted the ruling in the first place. 
Fairly simple for anyone that is interested IN FACT.


----------



## AllieBaba

Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, if abortion is made illegal.

What amazes me is people who support killing babies and who claim it's because of their love of WOMEN are almost always dismissive of women and think women don't have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own.


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, if abortion is made illegal.
> 
> What amazes me is people who support killing babies and who claim it's because of their love of WOMEN are almost always dismissive of women and think women don't have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own.



I oppose abortion just like I oppose drug use and cigarette smoking.
I agree with you that women should "have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own."
Without GOVERNMENT telling them what to do and MEN having to be responsible for their actions  which is what you advocate


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, if abortion is made illegal.
> 
> What amazes me is people who support killing babies and who claim it's because of their love of WOMEN are almost always dismissive of women and think women don't have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own.



Maybe gadawg and company just think that all women hate their own femaleness too much to ever think of pregnancy as anything but having their bodies hijacked by malicious aliens.  After all, their side of the aisle DOES have NOW.

Dunno why that amazes me.  The kind of men who support abortion and claim it's because they "love women" are actually saying that they love women who are stupid, easily-led immoral sluts, and they don't want anything to dry up the supply of them.  We used to call them "cads".


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, *or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place,* if abortion is made illegal.



Because that's worked so well in the past, right?


----------



## AllieBaba

Speak of the devil.


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, if abortion is made illegal.
> 
> What amazes me is people who support killing babies and who claim it's because of their love of WOMEN are almost always dismissive of women and think women don't have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe gadawg and company just think that all women hate their own femaleness too much to ever think of pregnancy as anything but having their bodies hijacked by malicious aliens.  After all, their side of the aisle DOES have NOW.
> 
> Dunno why that amazes me.  The kind of men who support abortion and claim it's because they "love women" are actually saying that they love women who are stupid, easily-led immoral sluts, and they don't want anything to dry up the supply of them.  We used to call them "cads".
Click to expand...


Yeah, there is a whole group of men out there professing they support abortion because they 'love' women. Yeah, good one Cesspit, you're on to a winner there......

And we all know that any woman who gets knocked up but doesn't want a child is an easily led immoral slut.

Dunno what's worse - you posting such drivel, or you believing it....


----------



## Gadawg73

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, if abortion is made illegal.
> 
> What amazes me is people who support killing babies and who claim it's because of their love of WOMEN are almost always dismissive of women and think women don't have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe gadawg and company just think that all women hate their own femaleness too much to ever think of pregnancy as anything but having their bodies hijacked by malicious aliens.  After all, their side of the aisle DOES have NOW.
> 
> Dunno why that amazes me.  The kind of men who support abortion and claim it's because they "love women" are actually saying that they love women who are stupid, easily-led immoral sluts, and they don't want anything to dry up the supply of them.  We used to call them "cads".
Click to expand...


I oppose abortion. Where have I ever stated I am pro abortion?
Try again.


----------



## Gadawg73

Dr Grump said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, if abortion is made illegal.
> 
> What amazes me is people who support killing babies and who claim it's because of their love of WOMEN are almost always dismissive of women and think women don't have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe gadawg and company just think that all women hate their own femaleness too much to ever think of pregnancy as anything but having their bodies hijacked by malicious aliens.  After all, their side of the aisle DOES have NOW.
> 
> Dunno why that amazes me.  The kind of men who support abortion and claim it's because they "love women" are actually saying that they love women who are stupid, easily-led immoral sluts, and they don't want anything to dry up the supply of them.  We used to call them "cads".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a whole group of men out there professing they support abortion because they 'love' women. Yeah, good one Cesspit, you're on to a winner there......
> 
> And we all know that any woman who gets knocked up but doesn't want a child is an easily led immoral slut.
> 
> Dunno what's worse - you posting such drivel, or you believing it....
Click to expand...


Ah, give her a break Doc. 
She is making, or attempting to make, her point based on emotion, not fact.
Because she has no facts to work with.


----------



## AllieBaba

Of course you're pro abortion. You're willing to lie to promote it. 

We all know the best way to prevent baby homicide is to kill those suckers off!! Woo hoo!


----------



## AllieBaba

No, we post facts, and stats, and you slimy pro-abortionists ignore them, and pretend your pretend scenarios somehow hold water.

You know, the scenarios where legalized abortion reduces child abuse, and results in fewer abortions, and saves women.

Still waiting for the *facts* and the studies that back up those *scientific* assertions.


----------



## Moonglow

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a whole group of men out there professing they support abortion because they 'love' women. Yeah, good one Cesspit, you're on to a winner there......
> 
> And we all know that any woman who gets knocked up but doesn't want a child is an easily led immoral slut.
> 
> Dunno what's worse - you posting such drivel, or you believing it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, give her a break Doc.
> She is making, or attempting to make, her point based on emotion, not fact.
> Because she has no facts to work with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, we post facts, and stats, and you slimy pro-abortionists ignore them, and pretend your pretend scenarios somehow hold water.
> 
> You know, the scenarios where legalized abortion reduces child abuse, and results in fewer abortions, and saves women.
> 
> Still waiting for the *facts* and the studies that back up those *scientific* assertions.
Click to expand...


Like how God created a monthly action which kills ova?


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Of course you're pro abortion. You're willing to lie to promote it.
> 
> We all know the best way to prevent baby homicide is to kill those suckers off!! Woo hoo!



Having played many a season between the lines I always know a dumb, sore loser when I see one.
In debate and any form of competition you always can spot a mile away a poor sport that has lost and is bitter when you hear them cry:
"You cheated and lie"


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> No, we post facts, and stats, and you slimy pro-abortionists ignore them, and pretend your pretend scenarios somehow hold water.
> 
> You know, the scenarios where legalized abortion reduces child abuse, and results in fewer abortions, and saves women.
> 
> Still waiting for the *facts* and the studies that back up those *scientific* assertions.



I never made any such assertions and I am not pro abortion.
Your lack of any ability to tell us WHAT YOU ARE FOR is astounding Allie.
Tell us what you favor and what laws you support and how that will be accomplished.
Fact is you are incapable of formulating any plan whatsoever to overturn Roe and set up a different set of laws.
Too stupid? Apparently so. So sad.


----------



## Dr Grump

Gadawg73 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe gadawg and company just think that all women hate their own femaleness too much to ever think of pregnancy as anything but having their bodies hijacked by malicious aliens.  After all, their side of the aisle DOES have NOW.
> 
> Dunno why that amazes me.  The kind of men who support abortion and claim it's because they "love women" are actually saying that they love women who are stupid, easily-led immoral sluts, and they don't want anything to dry up the supply of them.  We used to call them "cads".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a whole group of men out there professing they support abortion because they 'love' women. Yeah, good one Cesspit, you're on to a winner there......
> 
> And we all know that any woman who gets knocked up but doesn't want a child is an easily led immoral slut.
> 
> Dunno what's worse - you posting such drivel, or you believing it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, give her a break Doc.
> She is making, or attempting to make, her point based on emotion, not fact.
> Because she has no facts to work with.
Click to expand...


Funnily enough, that sums up her whole posting history....


----------



## AllieBaba

And don't think it has escaped anybody's notice that the two most vile, loathesome men on this forum (aside from Gaybiker) are the holdouts for the right to kill babies.

Grump, the creepiest and most disturbed private-messaging person (again, aside from gaybiker)...with his weird misogynist and foul neg reps...and gadawg, who struts around bragging about what a well versed, well educated, and RESPECTED person he is...while at the same time refusing to apply the most nominal of accepted debate practices to his own retarded musings. 

You have no idea how incredibly disgusting it is that two weirdoes like you guys are even participating in this conversation. You're disgusting. And you guys are the types that children need to be protected from...don't think it's not obvious.


----------



## R.D.

Gadawg73 said:


> I oppose abortion. Where have I ever stated I am pro abortion?
> Try again.



Too easy.



Gadawg73 said:


> I oppose abortion just like I oppose drug use and cigarette smoking.
> I agree with you that *women should "have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own." *
> 
> Without GOVERNMENT telling them what to do and MEN having to be responsible for their actions  which is what you advocate


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> And don't think it has escaped anybody's notice that the two most vile, loathesome men on this forum (aside from Gaybiker) are the holdouts for the right to kill babies.
> 
> Grump, the creepiest and most disturbed private-messaging person (again, aside from gaybiker)...with his weird misogynist and foul neg reps...and gadawg, who struts around bragging about what a well versed, well educated, and RESPECTED person he is...while at the same time refusing to apply the most nominal of accepted debate practices to his own retarded musings.
> 
> You have no idea how incredibly disgusting it is that two weirdoes like you guys are even participating in this conversation. You're disgusting. And you guys are the types that children need to be protected from...don't think it's not obvious.



I take it this a captulation on your part? 

1) I'm anti-abortion but pro choice
2) I only neg rep you when you neg rep me
3) As far as I'm aware I have only ever messaged you in reply to one of yours. I cannot think of an instant where I would waste my time engaging in private messages with a blithering idiot. Showing you up for the shitstain you are on a public messageboard? Sure...
4) Yeah I'm such a misogynist that I hate Jillian, EZ, Luissa, Goldcatt, Valerie, Sarah G, Maggie - oh that's right, I don't. Maybe I just don't like thick-as-pigshit hate mongers.
5) You are a disgrace to the conservative moment.
6) I would not be surprised if your kids get taken away from you at some stage - some people are not fit to be parents.
7) You on the jungle juice tonight? You're being more revolting/depraved/loathesome than usual...


----------



## Dr Grump

R.D. said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose abortion. Where have I ever stated I am pro abortion?
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too easy.
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose abortion just like I oppose drug use and cigarette smoking.
> I agree with you that *women should "have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own." *
> 
> Without GOVERNMENT telling them what to do and MEN having to be responsible for their actions  which is what you advocate
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You can be anti abortion and pro choice at the same time. Neither are exclusive...


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> And don't think it has escaped anybody's notice that the two most vile, loathesome men on this forum (aside from Gaybiker) are the holdouts for the right to kill babies.
> 
> Grump, the creepiest and most disturbed private-messaging person (again, aside from gaybiker)...with his weird misogynist and foul neg reps...and gadawg, who struts around bragging about what a well versed, well educated, and RESPECTED person he is...while at the same time refusing to apply the most nominal of accepted debate practices to his own retarded musings.
> 
> You have no idea how incredibly disgusting it is that two weirdoes like you guys are even participating in this conversation. You're disgusting. And you guys are the types that children need to be protected from...don't think it's not obvious.



I am well known for being far educated beyond my intelligence.
And I get no respect! 


Allie lecturing us on "accepted debate practices"
That is some FUNNY SHIT there.


----------



## Gadawg73

Dr Grump said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose abortion. Where have I ever stated I am pro abortion?
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too easy.
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose abortion just like I oppose drug use and cigarette smoking.
> I agree with you that *women should "have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own." *
> 
> Without GOVERNMENT telling them what to do and MEN having to be responsible for their actions  which is what you advocate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be anti abortion and pro choice at the same time. Neither are exclusive...
Click to expand...


That would be me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, give her a break Doc.
> She is making, or attempting to make, her point based on emotion, not fact.
> Because she has no facts to work with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we post facts, and stats, and you slimy pro-abortionists ignore them, and pretend your pretend scenarios somehow hold water.
> 
> You know, the scenarios where legalized abortion reduces child abuse, and results in fewer abortions, and saves women.
> 
> Still waiting for the *facts* and the studies that back up those *scientific* assertions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like how God created a monthly action which kills ova?
Click to expand...


Which is, just like it was the LAST time you brought it up, as relevant to this discussion as the fact that our skin cells die and slough off.  When human zits like you can figure out the difference between an embryo and the various individual cells of a human body, come back and talk.  Until then, you're making a fantastic case for what a complete waste of time and money sex education in the schools apparently is.


----------



## AllieBaba

Moonglow said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, give her a break Doc.
> She is making, or attempting to make, her point based on emotion, not fact.
> Because she has no facts to work with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we post facts, and stats, and you slimy pro-abortionists ignore them, and pretend your pretend scenarios somehow hold water.
> 
> You know, the scenarios where legalized abortion reduces child abuse, and results in fewer abortions, and saves women.
> 
> Still waiting for the *facts* and the studies that back up those *scientific* assertions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like how God created a monthly action which kills ova?
Click to expand...

 
Another brilliant argument. For something. Not sure what.


----------



## Gadawg73

Dr Grump said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't think it has escaped anybody's notice that the two most vile, loathesome men on this forum (aside from Gaybiker) are the holdouts for the right to kill babies.
> 
> Grump, the creepiest and most disturbed private-messaging person (again, aside from gaybiker)...with his weird misogynist and foul neg reps...and gadawg, who struts around bragging about what a well versed, well educated, and RESPECTED person he is...while at the same time refusing to apply the most nominal of accepted debate practices to his own retarded musings.
> 
> You have no idea how incredibly disgusting it is that two weirdoes like you guys are even participating in this conversation. You're disgusting. And you guys are the types that children need to be protected from...don't think it's not obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it this a captulation on your part?
> 
> 1) I'm anti-abortion but pro choice
> 2) I only neg rep you when you neg rep me
> 3) As far as I'm aware I have only ever messaged you in reply to one of yours. I cannot think of an instant where I would waste my time engaging in private messages with a blithering idiot. Showing you up for the shitstain you are on a public messageboard? Sure...
> 4) Yeah I'm such a misogynist that I hate Jillian, EZ, Luissa, Goldcatt, Valerie, Sarah G, Maggie - oh that's right, I don't. Maybe I just don't like thick-as-pigshit hate mongers.
> 5) You are a disgrace to the conservative moment.
> 6) I would not be surprised if your kids get taken away from you at some stage - some people are not fit to be parents.
> 7) You on the jungle juice tonight? You're being more revoting/depraved/loathesome than usual...
Click to expand...


You left out she has big feet and is ugly.


----------



## Dr Grump

Me too....


----------



## AllieBaba

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't think it has escaped anybody's notice that the two most vile, loathesome men on this forum (aside from Gaybiker) are the holdouts for the right to kill babies.
> 
> Grump, the creepiest and most disturbed private-messaging person (again, aside from gaybiker)...with his weird misogynist and foul neg reps...and gadawg, who struts around bragging about what a well versed, well educated, and RESPECTED person he is...while at the same time refusing to apply the most nominal of accepted debate practices to his own retarded musings.
> 
> You have no idea how incredibly disgusting it is that two weirdoes like you guys are even participating in this conversation. You're disgusting. And you guys are the types that children need to be protected from...don't think it's not obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am well known for being far educated beyond my intelligence.
> And I get no respect!
> 
> 
> Allie lecturing us on "accepted debate practices"
> That is some FUNNY SHIT there.
Click to expand...

 
Not half as funny as the board pervs claiming to be all about the children and the rights of women.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't think it has escaped anybody's notice that the two most vile, loathesome men on this forum (aside from Gaybiker) are the holdouts for the right to kill babies.
> 
> Grump, the creepiest and most disturbed private-messaging person (again, aside from gaybiker)...with his weird misogynist and foul neg reps...and gadawg, who struts around bragging about what a well versed, well educated, and RESPECTED person he is...while at the same time refusing to apply the most nominal of accepted debate practices to his own retarded musings.
> 
> You have no idea how incredibly disgusting it is that two weirdoes like you guys are even participating in this conversation. You're disgusting. And you guys are the types that children need to be protected from...don't think it's not obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am well known for being far educated beyond my intelligence.
> And I get no respect!
> 
> 
> Allie lecturing us on "accepted debate practices"
> That is some FUNNY SHIT there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not half as funny as the board pervs claiming to be all about the children and the rights of women.
Click to expand...


Ever notice how babykilling women are always screeching about how men don't have abortions, so they shouldn't get to have opinions . . . but they NEVER say it to the predatory dirtbags who want to be able to pressure their girlfriends into flushing away the Future Child Support Payment while he's still in utero?


----------



## Dr Grump

Gadawg73 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't think it has escaped anybody's notice that the two most vile, loathesome men on this forum (aside from Gaybiker) are the holdouts for the right to kill babies.
> 
> Grump, the creepiest and most disturbed private-messaging person (again, aside from gaybiker)...with his weird misogynist and foul neg reps...and gadawg, who struts around bragging about what a well versed, well educated, and RESPECTED person he is...while at the same time refusing to apply the most nominal of accepted debate practices to his own retarded musings.
> 
> You have no idea how incredibly disgusting it is that two weirdoes like you guys are even participating in this conversation. You're disgusting. And you guys are the types that children need to be protected from...don't think it's not obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it this a captulation on your part?
> 
> 1) I'm anti-abortion but pro choice
> 2) I only neg rep you when you neg rep me
> 3) As far as I'm aware I have only ever messaged you in reply to one of yours. I cannot think of an instant where I would waste my time engaging in private messages with a blithering idiot. Showing you up for the shitstain you are on a public messageboard? Sure...
> 4) Yeah I'm such a misogynist that I hate Jillian, EZ, Luissa, Goldcatt, Valerie, Sarah G, Maggie - oh that's right, I don't. Maybe I just don't like thick-as-pigshit hate mongers.
> 5) You are a disgrace to the conservative moment.
> 6) I would not be surprised if your kids get taken away from you at some stage - some people are not fit to be parents.
> 7) You on the jungle juice tonight? You're being more revoting/depraved/loathesome than usual...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You left out she has big feet and is ugly.
Click to expand...


Dunno about that...mind you she is apparently Gilbert Grape's mother incarnate....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UXcd8i0uLPI/TFKlMnG5QnI/AAAAAAAAAY4/SHCzYq7eapc/s1600/obese+mama.jpg


----------



## Gadawg73

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am well known for being far educated beyond my intelligence.
> And I get no respect!
> 
> 
> Allie lecturing us on "accepted debate practices"
> That is some FUNNY SHIT there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not half as funny as the board pervs claiming to be all about the children and the rights of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever notice how babykilling women are always screeching about how men don't have abortions, so they shouldn't get to have opinions . . . but they NEVER say it to the predatory dirtbags who want to be able to pressure their girlfriends into flushing away the Future Child Support Payment while he's still in utero?
Click to expand...


Are you that weak Cecille? You would let a man talk and pressure you into an abortion?
Damn, I wouldn't have ever admitted that.


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr Grump said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it this a captulation on your part?
> 
> 1) I'm anti-abortion but pro choice
> 2) I only neg rep you when you neg rep me
> 3) As far as I'm aware I have only ever messaged you in reply to one of yours. I cannot think of an instant where I would waste my time engaging in private messages with a blithering idiot. Showing you up for the shitstain you are on a public messageboard? Sure...
> 4) Yeah I'm such a misogynist that I hate Jillian, EZ, Luissa, Goldcatt, Valerie, Sarah G, Maggie - oh that's right, I don't. Maybe I just don't like thick-as-pigshit hate mongers.
> 5) You are a disgrace to the conservative moment.
> 6) I would not be surprised if your kids get taken away from you at some stage - some people are not fit to be parents.
> 7) You on the jungle juice tonight? You're being more revoting/depraved/loathesome than usual...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out she has big feet and is ugly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dunno about that...mind you she is apparently Gilbert Grape's mother incarnate....
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UXcd8i0uLPI/TFKlMnG5QnI/AAAAAAAAAY4/SHCzYq7eapc/s1600/obese+mama.jpg
Click to expand...

 

Tsk tsk, bringing family into the mix IS against the rules...


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left out she has big feet and is ugly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno about that...mind you she is apparently Gilbert Grape's mother incarnate....
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UXcd8i0uLPI/TFKlMnG5QnI/AAAAAAAAAY4/SHCzYq7eapc/s1600/obese+mama.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk tsk, bringing family into the mix IS against the rules...
Click to expand...


You brought up children...

..that aside..

I don't give a shit. Gunny only ever instituted that rule (and the one about changing quotes) because of whiney neocons....

At the end of the day this is just a messageboard. You can't handle the heat, fuck off....simple really....


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr Grump said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't think it has escaped anybody's notice that the two most vile, loathesome men on this forum (aside from Gaybiker) are the holdouts for the right to kill babies.
> 
> Grump, the creepiest and most disturbed private-messaging person (again, aside from gaybiker)...with his weird misogynist and foul neg reps...and gadawg, who struts around bragging about what a well versed, well educated, and RESPECTED person he is...while at the same time refusing to apply the most nominal of accepted debate practices to his own retarded musings.
> 
> You have no idea how incredibly disgusting it is that two weirdoes like you guys are even participating in this conversation. You're disgusting. And you guys are the types that children need to be protected from...don't think it's not obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it this a captulation on your part?
> 
> 1) I'm anti-abortion but pro choice
> 2) I only neg rep you when you neg rep me
> 3) As far as I'm aware I have only ever messaged you in reply to one of yours. I cannot think of an instant where I would waste my time engaging in private messages with a blithering idiot. Showing you up for the shitstain you are on a public messageboard? Sure...
> 4) Yeah I'm such a misogynist that I hate Jillian, EZ, Luissa, Goldcatt, Valerie, Sarah G, Maggie - oh that's right, I don't. Maybe I just don't like thick-as-pigshit hate mongers.
> 5) You are a disgrace to the conservative moment.
> 6) I would not be surprised if your kids get taken away from you at some stage - some people are not fit to be parents.
> 7) You on the jungle juice tonight? You're being more revolting/depraved/loathesome than usual...
Click to expand...

 
Reported, scum.

Like I said, people who are a threat to children always end up showing their true colors.


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr Grump said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno about that...mind you she is apparently Gilbert Grape's mother incarnate....
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UXcd8i0uLPI/TFKlMnG5QnI/AAAAAAAAAY4/SHCzYq7eapc/s1600/obese+mama.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk tsk, bringing family into the mix IS against the rules...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought up children...
> 
> ..that aside..
> 
> I don't give a shit. Gunny only ever instituted that rule (and the one about changing quotes) because of whiney neocons....
> 
> At the end of the day this is just a messageboard. You can't handle the heat, fuck off....simple really....
Click to expand...

 

It's a thread about abortion, of course I brought up children.

I did not bring up YOUR children...or mine.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that nuance escapes you.


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk tsk, bringing family into the mix IS against the rules...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up children...
> 
> ..that aside..
> 
> I don't give a shit. Gunny only ever instituted that rule (and the one about changing quotes) because of whiney neocons....
> 
> At the end of the day this is just a messageboard. You can't handle the heat, fuck off....simple really....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a thread about abortion, of course I brought up children.
> 
> I did not bring up YOUR children...or mine.
> 
> I guess I shouldn't be surprised that nuance escapes you.
Click to expand...


Look, I dunno if you are a real person posting on here or not, or just some schmuck who truly believes what you say. If it is the latter, I totally stand behind what I say..

And no, saying myself and Gadweg are a danger to children - no, no, no, that's not personal at all (sarcasm). Fuck, you truly are dense.....


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't think it has escaped anybody's notice that the two most vile, loathesome men on this forum (aside from Gaybiker) are the holdouts for the right to kill babies.
> 
> Grump, the creepiest and most disturbed private-messaging person (again, aside from gaybiker)...with his weird misogynist and foul neg reps...and gadawg, who struts around bragging about what a well versed, well educated, and RESPECTED person he is...while at the same time refusing to apply the most nominal of accepted debate practices to his own retarded musings.
> 
> You have no idea how incredibly disgusting it is that two weirdoes like you guys are even participating in this conversation. You're disgusting. And you guys are the types that children need to be protected from...don't think it's not obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it this a captulation on your part?
> 
> 1) I'm anti-abortion but pro choice
> 2) I only neg rep you when you neg rep me
> 3) As far as I'm aware I have only ever messaged you in reply to one of yours. I cannot think of an instant where I would waste my time engaging in private messages with a blithering idiot. Showing you up for the shitstain you are on a public messageboard? Sure...
> 4) Yeah I'm such a misogynist that I hate Jillian, EZ, Luissa, Goldcatt, Valerie, Sarah G, Maggie - oh that's right, I don't. Maybe I just don't like thick-as-pigshit hate mongers.
> 5) You are a disgrace to the conservative moment.
> 6) I would not be surprised if your kids get taken away from you at some stage - some people are not fit to be parents.
> 7) You on the jungle juice tonight? You're being more revolting/depraved/loathesome than usual...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reported, scum.
> 
> Like I said, people who are a threat to children always end up showing their true colors.
Click to expand...


Go to town you bat shit loon.....

My true colours? You mean being concerned about the welfare of your kids? Gee, what a bad person am I......


----------



## Gadawg73

AllieBaba said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk tsk, bringing family into the mix IS against the rules...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up children...
> 
> ..that aside..
> 
> I don't give a shit. Gunny only ever instituted that rule (and the one about changing quotes) because of whiney neocons....
> 
> At the end of the day this is just a messageboard. You can't handle the heat, fuck off....simple really....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a thread about abortion, of course I brought up children.
> 
> I did not bring up YOUR children...or mine.
> 
> I guess I shouldn't be surprised that nuance escapes you.
Click to expand...


She's a gummint employee Doc. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9efgLHgsBmM]&#x202a;Citizens Arrest&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## AllieBaba

Of course it's personal. 

You need to read the rules. It's not against the rules to get personal or mention children. It's against the rules to bring up FAMILY.

And people who lobby to kill children are definitely a threat to children. I happen to know from watching what you guys say that you're also women-hating perverts. Why you think you can take a stand for baby-killing, and be taken seriously when you claim to be all about children (and not pro-abortion, lol) is beyond me.

Like I said, read the rules, pro-abortionist, perverted, fuck.


----------



## Gadawg73

Allie is a social worker for family services.
I bet good $$ she has fabricated cases out the wazoo claiming that those she may disagree with are a danger to children.
No telling how many lives she has ruined with her malice and hate. 
She is a big government tit sucker.


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> Of course it's personal.
> 
> You need to read the rules. It's not against the rules to get personal or mention children. It's against the rules to bring up FAMILY.
> 
> And people who lobby to kill children are definitely a threat to children. I happen to know from watching what you guys say that you're also* women-hating perverts.* Why you think you can take a stand for baby-killing, and be taken seriously when you claim to be all about children (and not pro-abortion, lol) is beyond me.
> 
> Like I said, read the rules, *pro-abortionist, perverted, fuck*.



See the bolded part? That's why you're a batshit loon.

Ok, I'll not mention your children.

You are an unfit mother.....better?


----------



## jillian

AllieBaba said:


> Of course it's personal.
> 
> You need to read the rules. It's not against the rules to get personal or mention children. It's against the rules to bring up FAMILY.
> 
> And people who lobby to kill children are definitely a threat to children. I happen to know from watching what you guys say that you're also women-hating perverts. Why you think you can take a stand for baby-killing, and be taken seriously when you claim to be all about children (and not pro-abortion, lol) is beyond me.
> 
> Like I said, read the rules, pro-abortionist, perverted, fuck.



grump? a woman-hating pervert? hon... you know i'm fond of you, but you need to take a step back on this one. 

and no one is talking about killing babies, allie. just because you believe something doesn't mean others are like-minded. there are a lot of ways to discuss a complicated issue, but that's not one of them.


----------



## AllieBaba

That's the discussion, Jillian, it's a discussion about abortion which is killing babies.

You can argue that, but it's against the rules to bring FAMILY into the discussion, as you know. 

I'm out. I've reported them. If the rules don't count any more, I don't feel safe in this forum.


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> That's the discussion, Jillian, it's a discussion about abortion which is killing babies.
> 
> You can argue that, but it's against the rules to bring FAMILY into the discussion, as you know.
> 
> I'm out. I've reported them. If the rules don't count any more, I don't feel safe in this forum.



Grow up you fucking moron. 

'don't feel safe in this forum'? WTF? You think I'm gonna reach through the screen and throttle you? Are you drinking? Seriously...I mean I know you're a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic but this beggars belief.

Don't let the door hit your fat arse on the way out....


----------



## AllieBaba

When people talk about my kids and my job in a threatening manner, I get nervous. Particularly when they're unhinged haters that I've reported before.

Adios, losers.


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> When people talk about my kids and my job, I get nervous. Particularly when they're unhinged haters that I've reported before.
> 
> Adios, losers.



The only one unhinged here is you. Step away from the liquor Babble and go and sleep it off.....


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Dr.Drock said:


> Mr_Rockhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self-induced abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> There are dozens of self induced abortion methods that happen all over the world probably on a daily basis.
> 
> I'm certain all those methods would just be done by people here if abortion became illegal, and they probably already happen because girls make a naive decision to do it on their own.
> 
> I'm pro-choice just as a full disclosure but I take no issue with people being pro-life, I just don't think laws would do much to stop them here in this country and it would seem to be very very hard to prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our laws make all types of killing hard to prove.
> 
> Just ask OJ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even with perfect evidence, even with videotaping it happening, you often times couldn't prove it.  If a woman fell on her stomach on purpose trying to abort, you'd have to prove she didn't trip on accident. She could even argue she didn't know she was pregnant.
> 
> And that'd be an instance of one of those rare 1 in a million instances where you had all the evidence possible.
Click to expand...


Since there is a type of buyers remorse that follows almost all abortions, I think most abortionists would eventually be turned-in by their very own clients (victims).


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Grace said:


> Nobody will ever stop a woman from choosing to have an abortion. Ever. Its HER BODY.
> 
> I hate this thread.



You seem rather open minded on other threads, Grace, so I am not sure why you would hate this one.

This is just another issue to debate (like the thousands of others on this board).  And, personally, I have found some well-thought-out arguments sprinkled among the clutter on this thread.  Indeed, so far, I think this thread is better than most abortion threads.

So, judging by your her body comment, please, take the pro-choice position and defend it.  I will be an advocate for the other body involved and defend the pro-life side.  And, who knows, maybe we can come away with a better understanding of each other and this issue.

I dont like to think of you as hating anything.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Grace said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody will ever stop a woman from choosing to have an abortion. Ever. Its HER BODY.
> 
> I hate this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion of course, but the BABY HAS ITS OWN BODY. I hope this thread helps people realize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all can scream and wave your tiny fists in fury all you fucking want. Its THE WOMANS BODY. PERIOD. Nothing you say. No pics you show. No scientific evidence. No demands that a coma shaped being to be allowed to be hosted against the hosts will. The religious aspects. The fighting about rights of a sperm that got in the egg. NOTHING you say will EVER change the fact that as women, WE CHOOSE. Period. End of story. So yell, holler, stamp your little feetsies all you want. Won't change a damn thing.
> 
> Now I'm out of here because this thread SUCKS.
Click to expand...


Denying the scientific evidence may allow you to get away with calling it a comma shaped thing, but that does not change the reality of what it really is.

And, since that particular argument boils down to: its okay to kill them because they dont look like us, I simply will not buy-into that particular line of thinking.

Also, the problem about the host aspect of the relationship can only be taken up with mother nature because the comma shaped thing had absolutely no say in the matter.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Luissa said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody will ever stop a woman from choosing to have an abortion. Ever. Its HER BODY.
> 
> I hate this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion of course, but the BABY HAS ITS OWN BODY. I hope this thread helps people realize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That cannot live on it's own until the fetus is at least 22 weeks.
Click to expand...


Uh, in reality, it cant live on its own until it grows for about another five or six years.  (And, even then, it would be a stretch to claim it could survive on its own.)


----------



## Mr_Rockhead

Moonglow said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, give her a break Doc.
> She is making, or attempting to make, her point based on emotion, not fact.
> Because she has no facts to work with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we post facts, and stats, and you slimy pro-abortionists ignore them, and pretend your pretend scenarios somehow hold water.
> 
> You know, the scenarios where legalized abortion reduces child abuse, and results in fewer abortions, and saves women.
> 
> Still waiting for the *facts* and the studies that back up those *scientific* assertions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like how God created a monthly action which kills ova?
Click to expand...


Most of us dont want religious-based arguments on this thread so lets just say that evolution has made sure that there is a new and healthy ova available should one be needed.


----------



## Gadawg73

Where was it that anyone spoke about anyone's family or kids in this thread?
Fact is Allie has been used to bullying her way around in her work, here and everywhere else she goes and if she gets mad in a place where she has no supposed authority she seeks someone to cry on and tattle tails to them.
Worse than a spoiled brat 5 year old.
You are one sick puppy Allie. You are the liar and pure fraud here. You lie to attempt to get your way.
I bet it will not work here like it does in your life.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Gadawg73 said:


> Where was it that anyone spoke about anyone's family or kids in this thread?
> Fact is Allie has been used to bullying her way around in her work, here and everywhere else she goes and if she gets mad in a place where she has no supposed authority she seeks someone to cry on and tattle tails to them.
> Worse than a spoiled brat 5 year old.
> You are one sick puppy Allie. You are the liar and pure fraud here. You lie to attempt to get your way.
> I bet it will not work here like it does in your life.



Sad, I really enjoyed your back and forth with Vanquish about facts and how these sort of things may work out in court based on how other similar issues have worked out in court.


However there's some people who just can't talk about the abortion issue like grown ups, personal attacks by calling people baby killers and then acting like a victim being attacked for no reason when people fire back.


----------



## Vanquish

Gadawg73 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are standards in medicine.
> But you ignore my factual scenario.
> How can a doctor claim there was NO need for the abortion when HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
> You have not stated one fact to rebut anything or any factual scenario I presented.
> If you do not know that ALL medical malpractice cases have TOTALLY opposite diagnosis of standard of care then you know nothing about medical legal issues.
> If you deny that in worker's compensation cases one doctor gets up and testifies "the claimant is fine and can go back to work" and then the next doctor comes in and states "the claimant is 80% disabled and can not work" that proves without any doubt you have never, ever done any trial work in the civil courts.
> That sir goes on in EVERY worker's compensation case across the nation daily.
> All the while you naively claim that doctors do not doctor their records.
> Try again and show me something, anything that shows that doctors do not offer opinions to fit their clients' needs.
> Sort of like attorneys but without the doctor's various opionions to fit their client's needs the attorneys have NO case.
> I have been doing this 30 years. 5000 cases with over 1000 jury trials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stroke your epeen a little more. Something useful might come out.
> 
> Of course I know that doctors conflict. I'm the one who explained that in MY POST.
> 
> YOU SEEM TO IGNORE the fact that making it illegal means that 99% of doctors will stop doing it. That's pretty effective enforcement right there.  And in the cases where you have a doctor claiming that a mother's life is in danger, it's going to be pretty hard medically to cheat the system.  You keep making these sweeping comments about medical litigation in general, but fail to speak about SPECIFIC circumstances.
> 
> I'm pretty glad that you were never a PI for one of my cases. You can't seem to hold a train of thought very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was questioning whether you were a lawyer or not but your dancing around like a monkey on fire, twisting and distorting the truth have convinced me you are.
> I gave you SPECIFICS such as medical malpractice cases where YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DOCTOR'S AFFIDAVIT that there was negligence to even file your case.
> Now tell me counselor, are you denying that in a mdeical malpractice case, IN ALL medical malpractice cases you have a doctor stating that the standard of care was not up to speed and that is what caused the malpractice and that the insurance carrier of the doctor will have their doctor come in and state THE EXACT OPPOSITE?
> If they didn't then how do THEY DEFEND THE DAMN CASE?
> Same with worker's compensation cases. I gave SPECIFICS on that also.
> And from the companion case YOU BROUGHT UP Doe which proves my point 100%:
> That case broadly defined the health exemption so that any level of distress or discomfort would qualify and gave the abortionist the final say over what qualified:
> "The medical judgement may be exercised in the light of all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age, relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to "health".
> Because the application of the health exemption was left to the abortionist, as I have been schooling you on here, any legislation directly prohibitng any abortion is practically UNENFORCEABLE.
> And it was prior history of doctors ALWAYS DOING THIS, that prompted the ruling in the first place.
> Fairly simple for anyone that is interested IN FACT.
Click to expand...


Coming back to this thread this morning as I don't surf USMB at night.

Let me start with this. Pulling the "im the only one interested in facts" bs is ridiculous. I know it happens elsewhere on USMB, but if we're going to have a discussion, that's got to stop.  Yes, I made the epeen comment, but you seem to have this recurring need to tell us your credentials. Just say, I've seen my share, and leave it at that.  Quoting unverifiable personal statistics over the internet doesnt give you any more credibility than simply stating your profession does.

Now, to the meat...

Yes, doctors disagree in court. I do both plaintiff's work and defense and have hired the same expert to testify to conflicting testimony, had the parties been joined. You're not telling me anything new.

But what you're lacking is a concept of how a trial (bench or jury) works. At the end of the day the plaintiff has to prove their case and if they dont, no judgment. I'll say that again a different way. You're making a BLANKET assertion that these cases would all be unprovable.  Each case works on its own facts, procedural posture, and discovery. You can't make a comment like that AT ALL.  That's like saying "yeah, police brutality cases are unwinnable since states have sovereign immunity." Sounds good in theory, but yes, they are winnable.

The prosecution/plaintiff makes their case and if they don't reach the burden then they lose. The facts of all these cases are SO different you can't possibly say that as a group they are unprovable.

Doctors go up against each other all the time...and VERDICTS ARE STILL HANDED DOWN. At the end of the day, juries make up their minds based on a whole bunch of other stuff besides just quibbling experts. I'd think with so much trial experience you'd know that.  The entire med mal market exists...not because juries hear two experts and won't decide. The market exists because even DESPITE dueling experts....they decide they like one side better than the other!!!

And taking into account the % of abortions that would go down simply because it was made illegal....YES, you can achieve the necessary result. I'm sorry, you don't see it that way, but it's true. (I could type something in here about how you want to avoid facts...but that wouldn't really move the discussion along and is just emotional raving.)


----------



## Gadawg73

Vanquish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stroke your epeen a little more. Something useful might come out.
> 
> Of course I know that doctors conflict. I'm the one who explained that in MY POST.
> 
> YOU SEEM TO IGNORE the fact that making it illegal means that 99% of doctors will stop doing it. That's pretty effective enforcement right there.  And in the cases where you have a doctor claiming that a mother's life is in danger, it's going to be pretty hard medically to cheat the system.  You keep making these sweeping comments about medical litigation in general, but fail to speak about SPECIFIC circumstances.
> 
> I'm pretty glad that you were never a PI for one of my cases. You can't seem to hold a train of thought very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was questioning whether you were a lawyer or not but your dancing around like a monkey on fire, twisting and distorting the truth have convinced me you are.
> I gave you SPECIFICS such as medical malpractice cases where YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DOCTOR'S AFFIDAVIT that there was negligence to even file your case.
> Now tell me counselor, are you denying that in a mdeical malpractice case, IN ALL medical malpractice cases you have a doctor stating that the standard of care was not up to speed and that is what caused the malpractice and that the insurance carrier of the doctor will have their doctor come in and state THE EXACT OPPOSITE?
> If they didn't then how do THEY DEFEND THE DAMN CASE?
> Same with worker's compensation cases. I gave SPECIFICS on that also.
> And from the companion case YOU BROUGHT UP Doe which proves my point 100%:
> That case broadly defined the health exemption so that any level of distress or discomfort would qualify and gave the abortionist the final say over what qualified:
> "The medical judgement may be exercised in the light of all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age, relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to "health".
> Because the application of the health exemption was left to the abortionist, as I have been schooling you on here, any legislation directly prohibitng any abortion is practically UNENFORCEABLE.
> And it was prior history of doctors ALWAYS DOING THIS, that prompted the ruling in the first place.
> Fairly simple for anyone that is interested IN FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming back to this thread this morning as I don't surf USMB at night.
> 
> Let me start with this. Pulling the "im the only one interested in facts" bs is ridiculous. I know it happens elsewhere on USMB, but if we're going to have a discussion, that's got to stop.  Yes, I made the epeen comment, but you seem to have this recurring need to tell us your credentials. Just say, I've seen my share, and leave it at that.  Quoting unverifiable personal statistics over the internet doesnt give you any more credibility than simply stating your profession does.
> 
> Now, to the meat...
> 
> Yes, doctors disagree in court. I do both plaintiff's work and defense and have hired the same expert to testify to conflicting testimony, had the parties been joined. You're not telling me anything new.
> 
> But what you're lacking is a concept of how a trial (bench or jury) works. At the end of the day the plaintiff has to prove their case and if they dont, no judgment. I'll say that again a different way. You're making a BLANKET assertion that these cases would all be unprovable.  Each case works on its own facts, procedural posture, and discovery. You can't make a comment like that AT ALL.  That's like saying "yeah, police brutality cases are unwinnable since states have sovereign immunity." Sounds good in theory, but yes, they are winnable.
> 
> The prosecution/plaintiff makes their case and if they don't reach the burden then they lose. The facts of all these cases are SO different you can't possibly say that as a group they are unprovable.
> 
> Doctors go up against each other all the time...and VERDICTS ARE STILL HANDED DOWN. At the end of the day, juries make up their minds based on a whole bunch of other stuff besides just quibbling experts. I'd think with so much trial experience you'd know that.  The entire med mal market exists...not because juries hear two experts and won't decide. The market exists because even DESPITE dueling experts....they decide they like one side better than the other!!!
> 
> And taking into account the % of abortions that would go down simply because it was made illegal....YES, you can achieve the necessary result. I'm sorry, you don't see it that way, but it's true. (I could type something in here about how you want to avoid facts...but that wouldn't really move the discussion along and is just emotional raving.)
Click to expand...


Never said they would all be unprovable.
But the standard and burden on the prosecution is so much greater in a criminal case than a civil case.
And that would make many a DA not want to prosecute. How could a doctor testify that it was not in the best interestof the health ofthe mother IF HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
Abortions go down because it was made illegal? ONLY from poor women. 
What I find amazing about you counselor is you do not acknowledge that if Roe was overturned today it would go back to the states individually and their legislatures.
And the facts are undisputed:
Some states would ban it outright with NO exceptions. 
Some states would ban it with few exceptions. 
Some states would ban it with many exceptions.
Some states would allow it with few restrictions.
Some states would allow it with many restrictions.
Some states would be AT WILL and allow it no matter what.
So what do we end up with counselor?
If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and live in a state THAT DOES NOT ALLOW IT AT ALL  and have $$$ you very easily get into a car or a plane and travel and obtain a legal abortion.
If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and have NO $$$ then you are forced by the government to have the child that YOU DO NOT WANT and in most cases DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
Tell me where I am wrong.
NO LAW ever stops abortion. I have already given you the facts of different scenarios if Roe was overturned. ABORTION WILL NEVER BE ILLEGAL.


----------



## Vanquish

Gadawg73 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was questioning whether you were a lawyer or not but your dancing around like a monkey on fire, twisting and distorting the truth have convinced me you are.
> I gave you SPECIFICS such as medical malpractice cases where YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DOCTOR'S AFFIDAVIT that there was negligence to even file your case.
> Now tell me counselor, are you denying that in a mdeical malpractice case, IN ALL medical malpractice cases you have a doctor stating that the standard of care was not up to speed and that is what caused the malpractice and that the insurance carrier of the doctor will have their doctor come in and state THE EXACT OPPOSITE?
> If they didn't then how do THEY DEFEND THE DAMN CASE?
> Same with worker's compensation cases. I gave SPECIFICS on that also.
> And from the companion case YOU BROUGHT UP Doe which proves my point 100%:
> That case broadly defined the health exemption so that any level of distress or discomfort would qualify and gave the abortionist the final say over what qualified:
> "The medical judgement may be exercised in the light of all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age, relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to "health".
> Because the application of the health exemption was left to the abortionist, as I have been schooling you on here, any legislation directly prohibitng any abortion is practically UNENFORCEABLE.
> And it was prior history of doctors ALWAYS DOING THIS, that prompted the ruling in the first place.
> Fairly simple for anyone that is interested IN FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming back to this thread this morning as I don't surf USMB at night.
> 
> Let me start with this. Pulling the "im the only one interested in facts" bs is ridiculous. I know it happens elsewhere on USMB, but if we're going to have a discussion, that's got to stop.  Yes, I made the epeen comment, but you seem to have this recurring need to tell us your credentials. Just say, I've seen my share, and leave it at that.  Quoting unverifiable personal statistics over the internet doesnt give you any more credibility than simply stating your profession does.
> 
> Now, to the meat...
> 
> Yes, doctors disagree in court. I do both plaintiff's work and defense and have hired the same expert to testify to conflicting testimony, had the parties been joined. You're not telling me anything new.
> 
> But what you're lacking is a concept of how a trial (bench or jury) works. At the end of the day the plaintiff has to prove their case and if they dont, no judgment. I'll say that again a different way. You're making a BLANKET assertion that these cases would all be unprovable.  Each case works on its own facts, procedural posture, and discovery. You can't make a comment like that AT ALL.  That's like saying "yeah, police brutality cases are unwinnable since states have sovereign immunity." Sounds good in theory, but yes, they are winnable.
> 
> The prosecution/plaintiff makes their case and if they don't reach the burden then they lose. The facts of all these cases are SO different you can't possibly say that as a group they are unprovable.
> 
> Doctors go up against each other all the time...and VERDICTS ARE STILL HANDED DOWN. At the end of the day, juries make up their minds based on a whole bunch of other stuff besides just quibbling experts. I'd think with so much trial experience you'd know that.  The entire med mal market exists...not because juries hear two experts and won't decide. The market exists because even DESPITE dueling experts....they decide they like one side better than the other!!!
> 
> And taking into account the % of abortions that would go down simply because it was made illegal....YES, you can achieve the necessary result. I'm sorry, you don't see it that way, but it's true. (I could type something in here about how you want to avoid facts...but that wouldn't really move the discussion along and is just emotional raving.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said they would all be unprovable.
> *Now, who's quibbling. You're saying that they would be unprovable to the level that it would be a waste of time. I dispute that assertion.*
> 
> But the standard and burden on the prosecution is so much greater in a criminal case than a civil case.
> *
> Yes, it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs "a preponderance".  But here is where your post starts to paint with too broad a brush.  Depending on the facts of each individual case that burden may or may not be met. Is it much harder? Sure. So are lots of other types of cases...especially the ones that require INTENT (i.e. proving what was inside someone's mind.  Common sense would say, "well hell. he can just lie about what his motives were. I can't prosecute this!"  But intent crimes are proven all the time.*
> 
> And that would make many a DA not want to prosecute. How could a doctor testify that it was not in the best interestof the health ofthe mother IF HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
> 
> Stop backtracking.  You don't have to see a patient to be a valid expert witness. Would it be better if an independent doctor evaluated the patient? Of course. That doesn't dispose of the case.
> 
> There are lots of types of cases where the evidence is spoiled, yet the case is still taken to trial and even won.  Take the Ford Rollover cases. I had the pleasure of litigating a small one here in Alabama. The tires weren't available, but we were able to make our case using known standards through experts anyway.
> 
> Abortions go down because it was made illegal? ONLY from poor women.
> Bullshit. You need to learn a bit about psychology. Most people, no matter what their socio-economic status is, follow the law BECAUSE it's the law.  (There are lots of reasons why people follow and don't follow the law, see Maslow, Erickson, or Tom Tyler's recent work).
> 
> Especially in an economy like this, if you make abortion illegal in the entire U.S., middle class women dont have the money to fly to Canada to have an abortion. Yes, the logic that caring for the child will cost more in the long run is still there, but if you don't have the money then you don't have the money. And an international trip for an abortion is out of the realm of possibility for a lot of people. This fantasy of "abortion vacations" just isn't real.
> 
> So let's add this up.
> Rich, middle-class, and poor women who follow the law won't be getting abortions
> Middle-class and poor women who don't have the money for an "abortion vacation" are off the list too.
> 
> Your number is getting really small now.  And you seem to forget that if they go ELSEWHERE for the abortion, there's no NEED for enforcement. It's not happening on our soil. Don't get me wrong...the children should still be protected, but we can't enforce our laws on some other country's soil. By definition, they're not breaking the law that a DA would be able to prosecute.
> 
> 
> What I find amazing about you counselor is you do not acknowledge that if Roe was overturned today it would go back to the states individually and their legislatures.
> 
> That has no bearing on the issue that you and I have been discussing, which is your amazing assertion that a pro-life law is unenforceable.
> 
> What magical upper hand do you win if I concede that? Ok great. It goes back to the states. And that means that the states that have "trigger bans" on abortion would kick in. The majority of America would find abortion illegal the next day.
> 
> And the facts are undisputed:
> Some states would ban it outright with NO exceptions.
> Some states would ban it with few exceptions.
> Some states would ban it with many exceptions.
> Some states would allow it with few restrictions.
> Some states would allow it with many restrictions.
> Some states would be AT WILL and allow it no matter what.
> So what do we end up with counselor?
> If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and live in a state THAT DOES NOT ALLOW IT AT ALL  and have $$$ you very easily get into a car or a plane and travel and obtain a legal abortion.
> 
> If you knew anything about criminal law, you'd know that a crime can start in one state and complete in another. And in your scenario, we now have medical records and receipts to prove it.  If the law is worded correctly, citizens of one state could be prohibited from going to another state to get an abortion.  Just like some states have import laws prohibiting the import of certain goods. Surely you don't think "aw hell. they can just sneak those goods over the border. there's no reason to have that law."  People get caught. People get turned in. Cases are made in a BILLION different ways, Mr. PI.
> 
> If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and have NO $$$ then you are forced by the government to have the child that YOU DO NOT WANT and in most cases DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
> 
> So you're advocating the murder of a child based on monetary reasons. That's just AWESOME.  Let's see you try that logic with your grandmother in the nursing home. "Well, fuck it. I can't pay for her any more. Guess we should put her to sleep." Whaaahhahhaaa??  Or let's say that a month after a rich woman has a baby, she goes bankrupt, becomes disabled, and can't work. Do we kill the already born child because there's no money and no hope for any money?  That's where your logic ends, man.
> 
> This is just the kind of spread of the devaluing of life that abortion brings!! Here it is in black and white. We kill a child because we don't have the money.
> 
> 
> By the way, there are more than enough resources for mothers who can't support their babies. State-run foster programs, Catholic and other religious charities, etc. etc. the list goes on.  Sorry, bub. That dog won't hunt.
> 
> Tell me where I am wrong.
> 
> It's been my pleasure to do so.
> 
> NO LAW ever stops abortion. I have already given you the facts of different scenarios if Roe was overturned. ABORTION WILL NEVER BE ILLEGAL.
> 
> Sure it does. Our country has a history of it before Roe.
> 
> Your main argument hinges everything on the "abortion vacation" premise which can be easily legislated around.  With the number of conservative states on the rise it will be illegal throughout the majority of America, once Roe is overturned.
> 
> Your secondary argument, that dueling experts in court can't prove anyone guilty fails too. Juries don't fail to decide when presented with conflicting testimony. They choose the side they prefer one side and go with that.  The facts of each case are different and your attempt to paint the majority of cases as unprovable just doesn't jive with how courts work.
Click to expand...


At least you're not disputing that it's life inside the womb. That's a win, I guess.


----------



## Gadawg73

Vanquish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming back to this thread this morning as I don't surf USMB at night.
> 
> Let me start with this. Pulling the "im the only one interested in facts" bs is ridiculous. I know it happens elsewhere on USMB, but if we're going to have a discussion, that's got to stop.  Yes, I made the epeen comment, but you seem to have this recurring need to tell us your credentials. Just say, I've seen my share, and leave it at that.  Quoting unverifiable personal statistics over the internet doesnt give you any more credibility than simply stating your profession does.
> 
> Now, to the meat...
> 
> Yes, doctors disagree in court. I do both plaintiff's work and defense and have hired the same expert to testify to conflicting testimony, had the parties been joined. You're not telling me anything new.
> 
> But what you're lacking is a concept of how a trial (bench or jury) works. At the end of the day the plaintiff has to prove their case and if they dont, no judgment. I'll say that again a different way. You're making a BLANKET assertion that these cases would all be unprovable.  Each case works on its own facts, procedural posture, and discovery. You can't make a comment like that AT ALL.  That's like saying "yeah, police brutality cases are unwinnable since states have sovereign immunity." Sounds good in theory, but yes, they are winnable.
> 
> The prosecution/plaintiff makes their case and if they don't reach the burden then they lose. The facts of all these cases are SO different you can't possibly say that as a group they are unprovable.
> 
> Doctors go up against each other all the time...and VERDICTS ARE STILL HANDED DOWN. At the end of the day, juries make up their minds based on a whole bunch of other stuff besides just quibbling experts. I'd think with so much trial experience you'd know that.  The entire med mal market exists...not because juries hear two experts and won't decide. The market exists because even DESPITE dueling experts....they decide they like one side better than the other!!!
> 
> And taking into account the % of abortions that would go down simply because it was made illegal....YES, you can achieve the necessary result. I'm sorry, you don't see it that way, but it's true. (I could type something in here about how you want to avoid facts...but that wouldn't really move the discussion along and is just emotional raving.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said they would all be unprovable.
> *Now, who's quibbling. You're saying that they would be unprovable to the level that it would be a waste of time. I dispute that assertion.*
> 
> But the standard and burden on the prosecution is so much greater in a criminal case than a civil case.
> *
> Yes, it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs "a preponderance".  But here is where your post starts to paint with too broad a brush.  Depending on the facts of each individual case that burden may or may not be met. Is it much harder? Sure. So are lots of other types of cases...especially the ones that require INTENT (i.e. proving what was inside someone's mind.  Common sense would say, "well hell. he can just lie about what his motives were. I can't prosecute this!"  But intent crimes are proven all the time.*
> 
> And that would make many a DA not want to prosecute. How could a doctor testify that it was not in the best interestof the health ofthe mother IF HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
> 
> Stop backtracking.  You don't have to see a patient to be a valid expert witness. Would it be better if an independent doctor evaluated the patient? Of course. That doesn't dispose of the case.
> 
> There are lots of types of cases where the evidence is spoiled, yet the case is still taken to trial and even won.  Take the Ford Rollover cases. I had the pleasure of litigating a small one here in Alabama. The tires weren't available, but we were able to make our case using known standards through experts anyway.
> 
> Abortions go down because it was made illegal? ONLY from poor women.
> Bullshit. You need to learn a bit about psychology. Most people, no matter what their socio-economic status is, follow the law BECAUSE it's the law.  (There are lots of reasons why people follow and don't follow the law, see Maslow, Erickson, or Tom Tyler's recent work).
> 
> Especially in an economy like this, if you make abortion illegal in the entire U.S., middle class women dont have the money to fly to Canada to have an abortion. Yes, the logic that caring for the child will cost more in the long run is still there, but if you don't have the money then you don't have the money. And an international trip for an abortion is out of the realm of possibility for a lot of people. This fantasy of "abortion vacations" just isn't real.
> 
> So let's add this up.
> Rich, middle-class, and poor women who follow the law won't be getting abortions
> Middle-class and poor women who don't have the money for an "abortion vacation" are off the list too.
> 
> Your number is getting really small now.  And you seem to forget that if they go ELSEWHERE for the abortion, there's no NEED for enforcement. It's not happening on our soil. Don't get me wrong...the children should still be protected, but we can't enforce our laws on some other country's soil. By definition, they're not breaking the law that a DA would be able to prosecute.
> 
> 
> What I find amazing about you counselor is you do not acknowledge that if Roe was overturned today it would go back to the states individually and their legislatures.
> 
> That has no bearing on the issue that you and I have been discussing, which is your amazing assertion that a pro-life law is unenforceable.
> 
> What magical upper hand do you win if I concede that? Ok great. It goes back to the states. And that means that the states that have "trigger bans" on abortion would kick in. The majority of America would find abortion illegal the next day.
> 
> And the facts are undisputed:
> Some states would ban it outright with NO exceptions.
> Some states would ban it with few exceptions.
> Some states would ban it with many exceptions.
> Some states would allow it with few restrictions.
> Some states would allow it with many restrictions.
> Some states would be AT WILL and allow it no matter what.
> So what do we end up with counselor?
> If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and live in a state THAT DOES NOT ALLOW IT AT ALL  and have $$$ you very easily get into a car or a plane and travel and obtain a legal abortion.
> 
> If you knew anything about criminal law, you'd know that a crime can start in one state and complete in another. And in your scenario, we now have medical records and receipts to prove it.  If the law is worded correctly, citizens of one state could be prohibited from going to another state to get an abortion.  Just like some states have import laws prohibiting the import of certain goods. Surely you don't think "aw hell. they can just sneak those goods over the border. there's no reason to have that law."  People get caught. People get turned in. Cases are made in a BILLION different ways, Mr. PI.
> 
> If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and have NO $$$ then you are forced by the government to have the child that YOU DO NOT WANT and in most cases DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
> 
> So you're advocating the murder of a child based on monetary reasons. That's just AWESOME.  Let's see you try that logic with your grandmother in the nursing home. "Well, fuck it. I can't pay for her any more. Guess we should put her to sleep." Whaaahhahhaaa??  Or let's say that a month after a rich woman has a baby, she goes bankrupt, becomes disabled, and can't work. Do we kill the already born child because there's no money and no hope for any money?  That's where your logic ends, man.
> 
> This is just the kind of spread of the devaluing of life that abortion brings!! Here it is in black and white. We kill a child because we don't have the money.
> 
> 
> By the way, there are more than enough resources for mothers who can't support their babies. State-run foster programs, Catholic and other religious charities, etc. etc. the list goes on.  Sorry, bub. That dog won't hunt.
> 
> Tell me where I am wrong.
> 
> It's been my pleasure to do so.
> 
> NO LAW ever stops abortion. I have already given you the facts of different scenarios if Roe was overturned. ABORTION WILL NEVER BE ILLEGAL.
> 
> Sure it does. Our country has a history of it before Roe.
> 
> Your main argument hinges everything on the "abortion vacation" premise which can be easily legislated around.  With the number of conservative states on the rise it will be illegal throughout the majority of America, once Roe is overturned.
> 
> Your secondary argument, that dueling experts in court can't prove anyone guilty fails too. Juries don't fail to decide when presented with conflicting testimony. They choose the side they prefer one side and go with that.  The facts of each case are different and your attempt to paint the majority of cases as unprovable just doesn't jive with how courts work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you're not disputing that it's life inside the womb. That's a win, I guess.
Click to expand...



Again, because you are dense and can not read.
I stated already NEVER SAID EVERY CASE IS UNPROVABLE.
And where have I ever advocated a woman having an abortion? You make shit up as you go so I will go r e a l   s l o w:
I OPPOSE ABORTION
Got it? 
You are claiming that a woman would be prosecuted in the state that the abortion WAS NOT DONE IN?
You are speaking of universal jurisdiction counselor and that applies to international law, NOT state laws in the United States of America. 
The Sixth amendment counselor: "*trial by impartial jury of the State WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED"*
That is for all states as I SPECIFICALLY stated. Federal Law is government by Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which specifies each federal court may hear a particilar criminal case.
Your claim that a state can pass a law that if one of it's citizens went from their state on the east coast, stole a car on the west coast, stripped it in that state and sold it in that other state and came home they can be prosecuted in their home state for car theft is so absurd it is laughable.


----------



## Vanquish

Gadawg73 said:


> Again, because you are dense and can not read.
> I stated already NEVER SAID EVERY CASE IS UNPROVABLE.
> And where have I ever advocated a woman having an abortion? You make shit up as you go so I will go r e a l   s l o w:
> I OPPOSE ABORTION
> Got it?
> You are claiming that a woman would be prosecuted in the state that the abortion WAS NOT DONE IN?
> You are speaking of universal jurisdiction counselor and that applies to international law, NOT state laws in the United States of America.
> The Sixth amendment counselor: "*trial by impartial jury of the State WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED"*
> That is for all states as I SPECIFICALLY stated. Federal Law is government by Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which specifies each federal court may hear a particilar criminal case.
> Your claim that a state can pass a law that if one of it's citizens went from their state on the east coast, stole a car on the west coast, stripped it in that state and sold it in that other state and came home they can be prosecuted in their home state for car theft is so absurd it is laughable.



My reading comprehension is fine. It's your attempt to squirm once you've been bagged and tagged that's the problem.

Again...

No you didn't say all. I already noted that you didnt say all. Quit with the fucking ALL stuff and stay on point.  You're obviously saying the law would be ineffectual based on SOME inability to prosecute. I'll give you the intellectual benefit of the doubt and assume you mean that it would be ineffectual in the *majority *of cases, otherwise...wait for it...wait for it...you've got an effective law.

I disagree. In my opininon, the law would be effective for the HUGE GIGANTIC NUMBER of reasons I've explained: 1) people follow laws for the most part 2) abortion vacations out of the country can't be prosecuted here 3) abortion vacations are out of the reach of the majority of the population. NONE of which you want to address and keep sidestepping.

I never said that your in favor of abortion personally, simply that you are arguing as if you are.  Remember when you said this?


> If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and have NO $$$ then you are forced by the government to have the child that YOU DO NOT WANT and in most cases DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.



That's you typing there, right? I mean, I'm not reading your name wrong, am I?  So either you advocate abortion, or you're playing devil's advocate for a position you don't believe. You're trying to justify killing a life based on monetary reasons in that clip.  Whether you believe it or not (now that I've shown how absurd it is)...you're putting it forth as a response and argument as to why abortion is necessary (the mother has no money and doesnt know how to care for the child...go back...re-read what you typed).

Your citation to the FRCP to sound technical and knowledgeable is what's laughable.  It is well established tort law nationally that if you stand in New York and fire a bullet into New Jersey, killing someone, you can be prosecuted in either state. Wow, you really should go back to watching housewives cheat on their husbands and not try to play with the law.  The same principle applies here. Forming the intent on one side of the Georgia/Alabama state line is more than enough for the crime to be validly prosecuted here.

It's ironic that you point to civil procedure as your saving grace, when you don't understand the rules of jurisdiction.  Pennoyer vs. Neff would probably blow your mind.  I said nothing of "universal jurisdiction".I did say that if people took "abortion vacations" out of the country that we wouldn't prosecute that.  Apparently you  were confused. 

You've proven less than nothing. And you seem to have conveniently forgotten about your "experts can disagree!" argument. I'm glad, cuz it was really embarrassing to watch you keep typing it.  Yes, experts disagree...so the jury makes a determination based on whatever's in their head that day...and a result is found.


----------



## R.D.

Dr Grump said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose abortion. Where have I ever stated I am pro abortion?
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too easy.
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose abortion just like I oppose drug use and cigarette smoking.
> I agree with you that *women should "have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own." *
> 
> Without GOVERNMENT telling them what to do and MEN having to be responsible for their actions  which is what you advocate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be anti abortion and pro choice at the same time. Neither are exclusive...
Click to expand...


When lacking integrity


----------



## Vanquish

R.D. said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can be anti abortion and pro choice at the same time. Neither are exclusive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When lacking integrity
Click to expand...


Quoted for truthfulness.

It's ok to play devil's advocate, but you can't duck out of the argument when you do. At least you can't duck out until you condede the "theoretical position" you were taking.

The government tells people what to do all the time, GAdawg. The protection of HUMAN life is definitely under it's umbrella, constitutionally.

This knee-jerk bs of it's only a woman's decision is illogical. It took two to create the situation...and it has consequences that affect the male. And that's on top of the fact that the baby is a life to be protected and the baby belongs to the male as well.

People take these extreme positions (get government out of everything! males have no right to be in on the decision!)...and we get to hear them on USMB.


----------



## Dr Grump

R.D. said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can be anti abortion and pro choice at the same time. Neither are exclusive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When lacking integrity
Click to expand...


Untrue....It depends how het up you get on the subject....


----------



## KissMy

AllieBaba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lott and Whitley demonstrated that the legalization of abortion actually increased the number of children born to unwed mothers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Because they take more chances.
> 
> The stats are what they are. Illegitimate births jumped and bounded upwards the second abortion became legal.
Click to expand...


This Freakonomics theory is major bullshit.

The illegitimate birth rate did not drop in 1973 when abortion was legalized. It climbed even faster. The illegitimate birth rate plummeted at the same time as the crime rate did in 1992.






Why did this happen? AIDS!!!!

November 7, 1991, basketball legend Earvin "Magic" Johnson stuns the world by announcing he tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Within 2 months the number of people getting tested for aids was up 50%. Illegitimate birth rates dropped within 9 months. Heroin & other injected drug use that had been soaring since 1960 slowed their accent.

The country sobered up a bit & people quit having as much sex with strangers & not without protection. This must have reduce the financial stress of illegitimate births & drug use.


----------



## Dragon

JBeukema said:


> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life.



All but the last sentence is true. There is no such thing as "a human life."

My blood cells are also living human organisms. When I cut myself shaving, have I committed suicide? The blood cells of another person are also living human organisms. If I get in a fight, and punch the other guy in the face so he bleeds, have I committed murder?

The question is not biological. It is not whether the embryo is a living human organism, but whether it is a PERSON. And the answer is no.


----------



## HUGGY

JBeukema said:


> If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
> 
> A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
> 
> Therefore, the child is _be definition_ a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
> 
> It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
> 
> If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac-  then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
> -You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
> 
> -You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.



I am pro choice.  That meaning life is full of choices from the time we are born until we die. 

The "choice" in question here is whether a woman has the right to choose to carry a fetus to birth.  Aside from the fact that it is no one's business but the womans there are some compelling reasons aside from her more weighty personal ones that tilt the choice towards abortion.

Consider the world we would live it if the were NO abortions and every medical effort was made to deliver every conception.  At this point we would not have enough food to feed everyone.  It is as simple as that.  

One might argue that people should be abstainant  to avoid the problem in the first place.  Again that is no one's business than the two involved.

What about the "rights" of the fetus?  A fetus has no rights.  A fetus is not a person.  There is no such thing as a soul.  At best at some point in the develpoement of a fetus to a viable human birth the fetus becomes "aware" to some extent of its environment.  I would say that at THAT point a fetus also begins to deserve "rights".  

At some point the medical community should endeavor to find a reliable way to measure brain activity of the fetus.  If those that truly want to preserve "life" want to do something definable to facilitate that I would suggest that you provide resources to achieve brain activity measurement so as to establish a reasonable cutoff timeline for abortions.

That said those that insist on every possible birth be achieved should also step up and provide the resources to sustain that childs life all the way to adulthood in the event the mother and/or father cannot provide such resources.  It is my opinion that babies ae expensive and the lack of financial resources to provide for a child is also a valid reason to abort a fetus.


----------

