A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[kaz]

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?

I'm pro-choice, but most conservatives consider the doctor to have a free choice and the woman to be a victim just like the child

 

[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.

Surely that ought to apply to any legal position which forces one human being to forfeit his very life, because another person refuses to recognize his humanity.

I would agree. The problem comes when you equate a fetus with a human being. You'll notice the word I highlighted. A non-viable fetus is not an individual being. Rather than trying to convince people of your opinions of what constitutes a person, why not advocate for more, easily accessible contraception, to reduce the need for abortion?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

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?

I'm pro-choice, but most conservatives consider the doctor to have a free choice and the woman to be a victim just like the child

Which is hogwash. She is making a choice just as much as the doctor.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[OKTexas]

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

Which one of those things have the potential to grow and someday kick your ass for wanting them dead? That should be a difference you can understand.

So a fetus is a potential person. I would agree. I will worry about it's "rights", and concerns when it becomes an actual person. Until then the only actual person involved in the equation is the pregnant woman, so her desires, and wishes are the only things that matter.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Feel free to get back to me when you become an actual person.

 

[kaz]

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?

I'm pro-choice, but most conservatives consider the doctor to have a free choice and the woman to be a victim just like the child

Which is hogwash. She is making a choice just as much as the doctor.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I was answering the question you asked. As I said, I'm pro-choice. I don't concede the government has a legitimate power to force a woman to carry a baby to term in her own body

 

[Czernobog]

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

Which one of those things have the potential to grow and someday kick your ass for wanting them dead? That should be a difference you can understand.

So a fetus is a potential person. I would agree. I will worry about it's "rights", and concerns when it becomes an actual person. Until then the only actual person involved in the equation is the pregnant woman, so her desires, and wishes are the only things that matter.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Feel free to get back to me when you become an actual person.

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

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Is abortion murder? Indeed, I believe it is. We do not advocate the same punishment for those who kill another human being in a traffic accident, or unintentionally. There are degrees of murder. I realize that for the loony left, the concern for 'me' overrides all other considerations. Abortion kills a human. It is just that simple.

Abortion isn't an innocent traffic accident, where someone dies as a result of mild carelessness or random chance.

Abortion is the deliberate, willful, and knowing taking of an innocent human life—the killing of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, in the absence of any circumstances to mitigate it.

Yes, there are “degrees” of murder, and rationally, abortion should be seen as among the worst.

As far as I am concerned, justice requires that anyone who willfully has any part in abortion should be put to death. Surely, there is no deeper level of criminal depravity that that of one who would so casually destroy another human being, with so little thought for the victim's humanity.

 

[kaz]

Is abortion murder? Indeed, I believe it is. We do not advocate the same punishment for those who kill another human being in a traffic accident, or unintentionally. There are degrees of murder. I realize that for the loony left, the concern for 'me' overrides all other considerations. Abortion kills a human. It is just that simple.

Abortion isn't an innocent traffic accident, where someone dies as a result of mild carelessness or random chance.

Abortion is the deliberate, willful, and knowing taking of an innocent human life—the killing of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, in the absence of any circumstances to mitigate it.

Yes, there are “degrees” of murder, and rationally, abortion should be seen as among the worst.

As far as I am concerned, justice requires that anyone who willfully has any part in abortion should be put to death. Surely, there is no deeper level of criminal depravity that that of one who would so casually destroy another human being, with so little thought for the victim's humanity.

No one has a right to someone else's body

 

[Czernobog]

I was answering the question you asked. As I said, I'm pro-choice. I don't concede the government has a legitimate power to force a woman to carry a baby to term in her own body

Except that answer is insufficient. It speaks directly to the contradictory positions that calling abortion "murder" forces conservatives to take. In this scenario, one of the participants is an evil murderer, while the other participant is, somehow, a victim, completely removed from the willful choices they make when contracting this evil murderer to assist them in killing their victim. It would be like an abused spouse - clearly a victim of her husband's abuse - contracting a killer to murder her husband. While she may have been a victim of abuse, that, in no way, absolves her of her decision to contract a killer.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I was answering the question you asked. As I said, I'm pro-choice. I don't concede the government has a legitimate power to force a woman to carry a baby to term in her own body

Certainly one of the most legitimate purposes and authorities of government is to protect the innocent from the acts of criminals, and to administer judgement where one willfully violates the rights of another.

Government absolutely has the authority and duty to prohibit one person from murdering another.

 

[Czernobog]

Is abortion murder? Indeed, I believe it is. We do not advocate the same punishment for those who kill another human being in a traffic accident, or unintentionally. There are degrees of murder. I realize that for the loony left, the concern for 'me' overrides all other considerations. Abortion kills a human. It is just that simple.

Abortion isn't an innocent traffic accident, where someone dies as a result of mild carelessness or random chance.

Abortion is the deliberate, willful, and knowing taking of an innocent human life—the killing of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, in the absence of any circumstances to mitigate it.

Yes, there are “degrees” of murder, and rationally, abortion should be seen as among the worst.

As far as I am concerned, justice requires that anyone who willfully has any part in abortion should be put to death. Surely, there is no deeper level of criminal depravity that that of one who would so casually destroy another human being, with so little thought for the victim's humanity.

Again, you equate a life that is gentically human to a human being. That is an ideological leap with no foundation. A non-viable fetus is no more an individual being than is a cluster of cancer cells, which are also genetically human. I do not disagree that the organism destroyed is human, therefore a human life. I take issue calling it a human being, implying that it is a separate, individual organism. It isn't. It is, at best, a parasitic organism, relying solely on its host for its existence.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

As far as I am concerned, justice requires that anyone who willfully has any part in abortion should be put to death. Surely, there is no deeper level of criminal depravity that that of one who would so casually destroy another human being, with so little thought for the victim's humanity.

No one has a right to someone else's body

Certainly no one has the right to kill another in cold blood. There is no spin that can be put ion this debate to hide that that is exactly what abortion is.

Even after birth, does a child not have the right to the care that he needs from his parents? During the first three-quarters of a year of one's existence, this care takes the form of being supported inside the body of one's mother. But we're not born, with the ability already in place to care for ourselves. Set a newborn infant out into the world, to fend for himself, and he'll die just as surely as if, earlier in his life, he is torn from his mother's womb and discarded like trash.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Again, you equate a life that is gentically human to a human being. That is an ideological leap with no foundation. A non-viable fetus is no more an individual being than is a cluster of cancer cells, which are also genetically human.

In a more savage part of our own shameful history, we thought the same thing about Negros. We thought we were justified in abducting them from their homeland, and bringing them here to be used as glorified farm animals.

We were just as wrong, then, as you are, now.

 

[Czernobog]

Again, you equate a life that is gentically human to a human being. That is an ideological leap with no foundation. A non-viable fetus is no more an individual being than is a cluster of cancer cells, which are also genetically human.

In a more savage part of our own shameful history, we thought the same thing about Negros. We thought we were justified in abducting them from their homeland, and bringing them here to be used as glorified farm animals.

We were just as wrong, then, as you are, now.

No we didn't. We recognized them as individual beings; we simply didn't recognize them as humans. I said exactly the opposite - a fetus is genetically human; it is not an individual being. If you want to elicit guilt, or some other emotion, you're going to have to do better than a false analogy.

 

[Anathema]

A non-viable fetus is no more an individual being than is a cluster of cancer cells, which are also genetically human. I do not disagree that the organism destroyed is human, therefore a human life. I take issue calling it a human being, implying that it is a separate, individual organism. It isn't. It is, at best, a parasitic organism, relying solely on its host for its existence.

Well then, do welfare recipients classify as human beings? They're genetic humans who would cease their existence if removed from their parasitic attachment to my wallet via the Government.

Give me the opportunity to abort them and I'll consider your abortion arguement.

 

[HenryBHough]

What's the difference between these statements:

1. It's OK to kill the unborn for the good of the mother.

2. It's OK to kill liberals for the good of the country.

Feels to me like if one is OK then so is the other.

 

[Czernobog]

A non-viable fetus is no more an individual being than is a cluster of cancer cells, which are also genetically human. I do not disagree that the organism destroyed is human, therefore a human life. I take issue calling it a human being, implying that it is a separate, individual organism. It isn't. It is, at best, a parasitic organism, relying solely on its host for its existence.

Well then, do welfare recipients classify as human beings? They're genetic humans who would cease their existence if removed from their parasitic attachment to my wallet via the Government.

Give me the opportunity to abort them and I'll consider your abortion arguement.

Sophistry. I have neither the time, nor desire to acknowledge such. Although I will note that I was one of those "parasites attached to your wallet", and because of the assistance I got from the government, when I needed it most, I was able to keep my family fed, a roof over their heads, and get them medical treatment they needed. Now, under Obama's Presidency, I finally have dug myself out, and am making a living wage that allowed me to completely remove myself from all forms of public assistance, and, thanks to the insurance exchange, I even have affordable health insurance, so I no longer need government sponsored health. Your disgusting hatred for anyone less fortunate than you has nothing to do with a non-viable fetus' inability to function without its host.

I will assume, since you had to resort to sophistry, that you cannot refute my position. Thank you for playing. Have a good day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

 

[Czernobog]

What's the difference between these statements:

1. It's OK to kill the unborn for the good of the mother.

2. It's OK to kill liberals for the good of the country.

Feels to me like if one is OK then so is the other.

The difference is the the "unborn" is nothing more than a sophist label for a fetus, which is not a person, while a liberal is, even if they are a person with whom you have ideological differences. Any other smart-ass questions?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What's the difference between these statements:

1. It's OK to kill the unborn for the good of the mother.

2. It's OK to kill liberals for the good of the country.

Feels to me like if one is OK then so is the other.

The latter is easier to justify, actually.

In the case of an unborn child, we do not know how that child will eventually turn out, whether that child will end up being an asset to society, or a burden.

In the case of a liberal, we know.

Surely, if it is justifiable to kill someone on the premise that they •may• become a burden on society, then it must be even more justifiable to kill someone who has proven to be a burden on society.

 

[Czernobog]

What's the difference between these statements:

1. It's OK to kill the unborn for the good of the mother.

2. It's OK to kill liberals for the good of the country.

Feels to me like if one is OK then so is the other.

The latter is easier to justify, actually.

In the case of an unborn child, we do not know how that child will eventually turn out, whether that child will end up being an asset to society, or a burden.

In the case of a liberal, we know.

Surely, if it is justifiable to kill someone on the premise that they •may• become a burden on society, then it must be even more justifiable to kill someone who has proven to be a burden on society.

Ya know, this is what is wrong with this country. Liberals, and conservatives have always been ideologically divergent. But, ya know, when it has gotten to the point that one ideological group can just so cavalierly discuss the murderous slaughter of the "opposition", then that group has become so clearly extreme, and uncivilized that adult discourse, and exchange of ideas in the pursuit of compromise, and understanding is impossible.

I don't mind aggressive discussion, and debate. But you two jackasses have demonstrated that you are such raging extremist Right Wing loons that you are not even worthy of acknowledgement. HenryBHough, and Bob Blaylock: Welcome to my ignore pile, and do feel free to go fuck yourselves.