A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Czernobog]

Yes, and the question was what should the punishment be for the woman who has an abortion. Did you answer that question, and I missed it? Because all I saw was you defending that position, which I was quite clear about not agreeing with.

So, would you like to discuss the OP, or do you wish to continue arguing a position that is untenable?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, I answered your question in my first post in the thread, you ignored it. And you saying my later opinions are untenable is another lie, our communicating on this message board proves it. You and I were both nonviable fetuses at one point in our lives, so yes we were alive. So are the ones in the womb today.

And what opinions, hopes, and desires do you remember having as a fetus?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What do you remember from when you were 3months old? 7 months? 11? Does that mean you were not alive? If you forget where you left your car keys, are you dead until you find them?

You keep talking about alive, as if that is paramount. ....

It is. You know it is, but you lack the moral courage to admit the crux of the matter.

No, it isn't. I listed several things that are alive, none of which is a person.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

So you have no intent of discussing your OP. You said the premise of the thread was abortion was murder, it appears that was more a pretense than a premise. Which made you a liar from the fist post.

Yes, and the question was what should the punishment be for the woman who has an abortion. Did you answer that question, and I missed it? Because all I saw was you defending that position, which I was quite clear about not agreeing with.

So, would you like to discuss the OP, or do you wish to continue arguing a position that is untenable?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, I answered your question in my first post in the thread, you ignored it. And you saying my later opinions are untenable is another lie, our communicating on this message board proves it. You and I were both nonviable fetuses at one point in our lives, so yes we were alive. So are the ones in the womb today.

And what opinions, hopes, and desires do you remember having as a fetus?

Ya know what? Don't bother answering that. You could claim anything you want, and it couldn't be verified, anyway.

One of us here is dishonest, but it isn't me.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Those things come with life experience, humans are born ignorant and have nothing but basic survival instincts during early development. So saying the unborn are not alive because they have no opinion, could also say a new born isn't alive either, do you want to kill them too. So yes, you are a liar.

No. One. Is. Saying. A. Fetus. Is. Not. Alive. Where you keep getting that from, I don't know. The mere act of being alive does not confer personhood. Cancer cells are alive. A poodle is alive. A tree is alive. Guess what? No one with a brain larger than a walnut would ever suggest that any of those should be called a person.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Humans don't have the authority to dictate personhood, or to deny it. It's just another term they've created to hide the fact that they approve.of the abuse and.murder of.people.

 

[Unkotare]

...... Cancer cells are alive. A poodle is alive. A tree is alive. Guess what?...

Guess what? None of those are human beings. None of those, in the normal course of natural development, will become a more developed form of human being. Guess what? You're an idiot.

 

[Unkotare]

In other words, you're complete full of shit. A fetus which is not a person - as evidenced by your own admission that it is not a person capable of opinions, or communication until they are actually born - does not have any actual opinions, and you cannot communicate with a fetus.

Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you have no intent of discussing your OP. You said the premise of the thread was abortion was murder, it appears that was more a pretense than a premise. Which made you a liar from the fist post.

Yes, and the question was what should the punishment be for the woman who has an abortion. Did you answer that question, and I missed it? Because all I saw was you defending that position, which I was quite clear about not agreeing with.

So, would you like to discuss the OP, or do you wish to continue arguing a position that is untenable?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, I answered your question in my first post in the thread, you ignored it. And you saying my later opinions are untenable is another lie, our communicating on this message board proves it. You and I were both nonviable fetuses at one point in our lives, so yes we were alive. So are the ones in the womb today.

And what opinions, hopes, and desires do you remember having as a fetus?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What do you remember from when you were 3months old? 7 months? 11? Does that mean you were not alive? If you forget where you left your car keys, are you dead until you find them?

.

 

[Czernobog]

Guess what? None of those are human beings.

Neither is a fetus. A being is a separate, biologically independent organism. A fetus depends entirely on it's host for it's functions.

Look. The bottom line is that the personhood of a fetus is a matter of opinion, based on one's personal moral code, be it religious or otherwise. You will never convince me of your position. Likewise, I will never convince you of mine.

I would not support any legislation that would require you to behave in accordance with my moral view. Likewise I will never support any legislation that requires me, or anyone else, to behave in accordance with yours.

 

[Unkotare]

Guess what? None of those are human beings.

Neither is a fetus. .....

Is a two year old child a human?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Same as for anyone who willingly has any part in the murder of any innocent, in the absentee of any mitigating circumstances.

Death.

The murder of an innocent, helpless child, is certainly the most evil and unjustifiable murder of all.

 

[Czernobog]

Guess what? None of those are human beings.

Neither is a fetus. .....

Is a two year old child a human?

Yeah. it is. And do you know what a two-year-old isn't? A fetus. That's why they call it a baby, or a child, not a fetus. See, no one says, "Hey, guys! Look at these pictures of my two-year-old fetus!"

Look, like I said, we are never going to agree. What we can - I hope - agree on, and should is that it is not proper for anyone to pass any legislation that forces another individual to behave in accordance with someone else's moral code.

 

[Anathema]

Look, like I said, we are never going to agree. What we can - I hope - agree on, and should is that it is not proper for anyone to pass any legislation that forces another individual to behave in accordance with someone else's moral code.

That's never going good to happen. See, some of us understand there is only one Moral Code, and it wasn't developed by people. It's also not optional. Everything else is wishful thinking.

 

[Czernobog]

Look, like I said, we are never going to agree. What we can - I hope - agree on, and should is that it is not proper for anyone to pass any legislation that forces another individual to behave in accordance with someone else's moral code.

That's never going good to happen. See, some of us understand there is only one Moral Code, and it wasn't developed by people. It's also not optional. Everything else is wishful thinking.

...and therein lies the problem. That makes you not a Christian, but a fanatic. You do get that the Muslim Extremists that so many of you, on the right, detest, insist the same thing, yet when you fear they are going to impose their moral code on Americans through legislation, you scream about Shari'a Law, and run for the religious protection clause of the first amendment.

Tell me. What makes you any different from them? And, please don't bother telling me it is because you don't kill sinners, because I can demonstrate a gaggle of your spokes people who would happily institute public execution of the "fags", once they have circumvented that pesky religious protection clause. Even here your compatriots are endorsing everything from prison to mutilation to the death penalty for women who would not adhere to your moral position.

So, again, what makes you different from the Muslim zealots?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Unkotare]

Guess what? None of those are human beings.

Neither is a fetus. .....

Is a two year old child a human?

Yeah. it is. And do you know what a two-year-old isn't? ....

Yeah, a one-year old. Is a one-year old human?

 

[Anathema]

...and therein lies the problem. That makes you not a Christian, but a fanatic. You do get that the Muslim Extremists that so many of you, on the right, detest, insist the same thing, yet when you fear they are going to impose their moral code on Americans through legislation, you scream about Shari'a Law, and run for the religious protection clause of the first amendment.

Tell me. What makes you any different from them? And, please don't bother telling me it is because you don't kill sinners, because I can demonstrate a gaggle of your spokes people who would happily institute public execution of the "fags", once they have circumvented that pesky religious protection clause. Even here your compatriots are endorsing everything from prison to mutilation to the death penalty for women who would not adhere to your moral position.

So, again, what makes you different from the Muslim zealots?

I'm not a Christian. Nor am I a member of ANY Religious organization. In fact I detest the concept of Organized Religion in all forms. Especially public religions.

Morality cones from The Divine, and is instilled in all people as part of our Soul. It's in there, whether we choose to recognize it or not. It supercedes ALL Religions.

If asked to define Morality compared to modern religion, I'd have to say the Fundamentalist Abrahamic religions are far closer to it than anyone else.

 

[Unkotare]

Guess what? None of those are human beings.

Neither is a fetus. .....

Is a two year old child a human?

........What we can - I hope - agree on, and should is that it is not proper for anyone to pass any legislation that forces another individual to behave in accordance with someone else's moral code.

That's exactly what YOU want.

 

[hadit]

"Anti-choice" would be those who take ALL choices away from the most innocent, vulnerable, potential-laden members of society.


The pro-death crowd is extremely anti-choice.

.....

So, tell me, do you know of a way to ascertain the wishes of a fetus, or even the capability of a fetus to formulate an opinion, to make a choice?

.....

Yes, I do.

Really? And how do you do that, pray tell? I can't wait to hear this…

Very simple: DON'T KILL THE PERSON.

In the natural course of events that person will grow and develop until he or she is ready to tell you whether he or she wants to live.

In other words, you're complete full of shit. A fetus which is not a person - as evidenced by your own admission that it is not a person capable of opinions, or communication until they are actually born - does not have any actual opinions, and you cannot communicate with a fetus.

Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

"Personhood" is a legal construct that has nothing to do with biology. We should at least be able to agree on that. The bottom line with abortion is this. It destroys a living human organism. The only thing we're really arguing over is when that's acceptable.

 

[Unkotare]

Guess what? None of those are human beings.

Neither is a fetus. .....

Is a two year old child a human?

Yeah. it is. And do you know what a two-year-old isn't? A fetus. That's why they call it a baby, or a child, not a fetus. See, no one says, "Hey, guys! Look at these pictures of my two-year-old fetus.

Seems like you've never spoken to a mother with pictures from an ultrasound.

 

[Czernobog]

Guess what? None of those are human beings.

Neither is a fetus. .....

Is a two year old child a human?

........What we can - I hope - agree on, and should is that it is not proper for anyone to pass any legislation that forces another individual to behave in accordance with someone else's moral code.

That's exactly what YOU want.

No, it's not. Nothing in what I support dictates that you do anything. You think that abortion is murder? Don't have an abortion. Nothing in my position would force you to have an abortion you didn't agree with. You think homosexuality is a sin, and a perversion? Don't sleep with men, and don't marry someone of the same sex. Nothing I support would require you to engage with people of the same sex as if you were a homosexual. It is not my positions, but yours, that attempts to dictate people's personal behaviours as if they agreed with your moral positions.

 

[Unkotare]

Guess what? None of those are human beings.

Neither is a fetus. .....

Is a two year old child a human?

........What we can - I hope - agree on, and should is that it is not proper for anyone to pass any legislation that forces another individual to behave in accordance with someone else's moral code.

That's exactly what YOU want.

No, it's not. Nothing in what I support dictates that you do anything. You think that abortion is murder? Don't have an abortion. Nothing in my position would force you to have an abortion you didn't agree with. You think homosexuality is a sin, and a perversion? Don't sleep with men, and don't marry someone of the same sex. Nothing I support would require you to engage with people of the same sex as if you were a homosexual. It is not my positions, but yours, that attempts to dictate people's personal behaviours as if they agreed with your moral positions.

Funding, enabling, condoning, and securing are all actions.

 

[Czernobog]

...and therein lies the problem. That makes you not a Christian, but a fanatic. You do get that the Muslim Extremists that so many of you, on the right, detest, insist the same thing, yet when you fear they are going to impose their moral code on Americans through legislation, you scream about Shari'a Law, and run for the religious protection clause of the first amendment.

Tell me. What makes you any different from them? And, please don't bother telling me it is because you don't kill sinners, because I can demonstrate a gaggle of your spokes people who would happily institute public execution of the "fags", once they have circumvented that pesky religious protection clause. Even here your compatriots are endorsing everything from prison to mutilation to the death penalty for women who would not adhere to your moral position.

So, again, what makes you different from the Muslim zealots?

I'm not a Christian. Nor am I a member of ANY Religious organization. In fact I detest the concept of Organized Religion in all forms. Especially public religions.

Morality cones from The Divine, and is instilled in all people as part of our Soul. It's in there, whether we choose to recognize it or not. It supercedes ALL Religions.

If asked to define Morality compared to modern religion, I'd have to say the Fundamentalist Abrahamic religions are far closer to it than anyone else.

Cute. "The divine". And there is "only one". You can call yourself whatever you like, it is still fanaticism. I am proof of the inaccuracy of your position. My morality is written on my heart just as strongly as yours. Yet my morality demands that I never attempt to force others to comply with my beliefs. If there is but one "divine", and He instills the only moral code in existence onto the hearts of everyone, how, then, is my moral position so fundamentally different form yours?

Sorry, your One True Wayism is just as fanatical as any Christian's, or Muslim's, and is just as dangerous, whatever you want to call yourself. Organized religion isn't the problem. It never was. The fanaticism of One-True-Wayism, in whatever guise, is. Any time someone becomes so arrogant, self-righteous, and convinced of their own moral superiority to everyone else that they feel they have to right to impose their morality on everyone, that person is dangerous, and does irreparable harm to society, if not kept in check.

You will never convince me otherwise. You can label yourself whatever you like, you are no different than the Christian extremists, or Muslim Extremists.

 

[Czernobog]

Neither is a fetus. .....

Is a two year old child a human?

........What we can - I hope - agree on, and should is that it is not proper for anyone to pass any legislation that forces another individual to behave in accordance with someone else's moral code.

That's exactly what YOU want.

No, it's not. Nothing in what I support dictates that you do anything. You think that abortion is murder? Don't have an abortion. Nothing in my position would force you to have an abortion you didn't agree with. You think homosexuality is a sin, and a perversion? Don't sleep with men, and don't marry someone of the same sex. Nothing I support would require you to engage with people of the same sex as if you were a homosexual. It is not my positions, but yours, that attempts to dictate people's personal behaviours as if they agreed with your moral positions.

Funding, enabling, condoning, and securing are all actions.

None of which you are required to do. There is no law that says you have to drive anyone to the abortion, or that you have to condone the actions. Non-interference is not approval, or sanction. That's what none of you seem to understand. Hell, I don't even care if you picket the fucking abortion clinics - so long as you're doing so peacefully. You can scream at the women going in that they are killing babies, and the God hates them until your throat is raw, for all I care. You just don't get to pass laws that interfere with their right to do what they are doing.

 

[Czernobog]

.....

So, tell me, do you know of a way to ascertain the wishes of a fetus, or even the capability of a fetus to formulate an opinion, to make a choice?

.....

Yes, I do.

Really? And how do you do that, pray tell? I can't wait to hear this…

Very simple: DON'T KILL THE PERSON.

In the natural course of events that person will grow and develop until he or she is ready to tell you whether he or she wants to live.

In other words, you're complete full of shit. A fetus which is not a person - as evidenced by your own admission that it is not a person capable of opinions, or communication until they are actually born - does not have any actual opinions, and you cannot communicate with a fetus.

Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

"Personhood" is a legal construct that has nothing to do with biology. We should at least be able to agree on that. The bottom line with abortion is this. It destroys a living human organism. The only thing we're really arguing over is when that's acceptable.

Apparently not. I tried to point that out, and was told in no uncertain terms that personhood has nothing to do with the law, or society.