A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[BDBoop]

"terminate a pregnancy"

Ohhhhhhhhhh yeah!......I remember now, that's liberal code words for viciously exterminating an innocent life, who had no say so in the matter whatsoever.......Isn't that speeeeeeeciiiiiiaaaaaaaaaallllllll?

The NAZI'S would be so proud and impressed with you lib's!.........ACHTUNG BABIES!

you know, joker... you and i have no personal issue. so don't ever compare me to nazis.

no matter how much the rabid religious right thinks government should turn women into incubators.

I am tired of this. If the religious right was trying to turn women into incubators, then they, not the woman would be choosing who would impregnated her. They, not the woman would decide the frequency of sexual intercourse.

Women can choose. They can choose to use effective birth control. They can choose with who they have intercourse. They can choose not to have intercourse. Why isn't that enough "choice"? Why do you want to add "murder" as "choice"?

We don't.

It's not.

But see what happens in cases where women are made to continue pregnancies beyond that which they can endure.

What was her name? Andrea Yates?

 

[logical4u]

Unfortunately, those who back the extermination of innocent life, like to put it into such simple comparisons.

I'm going to snip the rest of your post which consisted of nothing but completely-unjustified (insofar as you don't know who I am in any way, sir) ad homs and personal insults, and deal just with this which at least vaguely resembles an argument.

It's a perfectly valid comparison, and apparently you missed the point of it. The point being that "extermination of life" (innocent or otherwise) is not what we need to be looking for. Not even if we add "human" in front of "life," which we should and which is why I used the shaving example and didn't go with, say, stepping on a cockroach.

When I cut myself shaving, I have destroyed "human life." If I punch someone in the nose and cause a nosebleed, I have destroyed "human life." Every month, every woman of childbearing age who is not pregnant destroys "human life," or at least her body does. Every time a man ejaculates, he destroys "human life" in all of the sperm cells of his ejaculate that do not find and fertilize an ovum.

Many cells are "human life" which are not persons. And there is no question that an embryo at conception is "human life." The question is whether it is a person. And I insist that it is not.

Loosing blood, and remaining alive is not death. Taking a being, that is alive and growing, and stopping it from growing is murder.
I know that is not convenient, truth isn't about convenience. I would not outlaw abortion, since it would be impossible to effectively enforce. I would tell any woman that was considering it, that she will be lied to, and manipulated to get her "hit money" to murder her child. When she is alone and sees another child, she will "know" what she did was wrong. The guilt and the grief will cause mental distress for hours, weeks, years? Those that told her it was okay don't have to live with that. Killing/murdering someone is extremely hard to live with, and people who say differently are either deceitful, or idiots.

 

[koshergrl]

you know, joker... you and i have no personal issue. so don't ever compare me to nazis.

no matter how much the rabid religious right thinks government should turn women into incubators.

I am tired of this. If the religious right was trying to turn women into incubators, then they, not the woman would be choosing who would impregnated her. They, not the woman would decide the frequency of sexual intercourse.

Women can choose. They can choose to use effective birth control. They can choose with who they have intercourse. They can choose not to have intercourse. Why isn't that enough "choice"? Why do you want to add "murder" as "choice"?

We don't.

It's not.

But see what happens in cases where women are made to continue pregnancies beyond that which they can endure.

What was her name? Andrea Yates?

That's ridiculous. Andrea was mentally ill...and she chose to have those kids, nobody forced her. She didn't ask to have abortions, and get denied.

This is the way the left works. "Babies are evil! They make women crazy!"

If you had tried to get Andrea to get an abortion, she would have fought tooth and nail. Essentially what you are saying is that certain populations should be sterilized, based upon their religion., despite what the women themselves want.

That's some sort of choice.

 

[logical4u]

human life is when an entity can survive on its own, like after birth, otherwise it's just an entity still parasiting its host.

I seriously doubt that you could survive "on your own", does that make you, not human?

 

[Wicked Jester]

you know, joker... you and i have no personal issue. so don't ever compare me to nazis.

no matter how much the rabid religious right thinks government should turn women into incubators.

I am tired of this. If the religious right was trying to turn women into incubators, then they, not the woman would be choosing who would impregnated her. They, not the woman would decide the frequency of sexual intercourse.

Women can choose. They can choose to use effective birth control. They can choose with who they have intercourse. They can choose not to have intercourse. Why isn't that enough "choice"? Why do you want to add "murder" as "choice"?

We don't.

It's not.

But see what happens in cases where women are made to continue pregnancies beyond that which they can endure.

What was her name? Andrea Yates?

Are you fucking serious?

Christ, do you EVER think before you post?

So, under your premise, women should just terminate ALL pregnancies, 'cause ya' never know when they may flip out a few years down the road, by god!

Your post, is some of the most moronic BS i've ever heard on the subject.

 

[logical4u]

Both are nothing more than attempts to make themselves feel better about themselves.....A way to try and not feel guilt.

No, it's a way to fight back against those who would reduce women to brood-mare slavery. I feel no guilt about this at all. The fact that you would in my shoes simply means I'm smarter than you.

Women are being kept in stalls and then when they are ovulating a stud is selected for them? Are they put back in the stalls and kept away from other studs until they are capable of being impregnated again? No sir, "sexual freedom" reduces women to penis receptacles. They are told they do not need to elevate themselves to the status of "mother". Just murder your child and remain a penis receptacle.

If women have choice: choice of sexual partner, choice to use birth control, choice of when they have sex, why do they need "choice" of murder?

 

[logical4u]

Why do women abort their babies?

I understand there may be an ample number of reasons, but what, in your opinion would be the concensus?

I think it's purely for selfish reasons for the most part.

Your thoughts.

Its none of your business why they do it, it isn't your body, or your choice.

No one has the right to control a woman's body except the woman who owns it.

It really is that simple.

If you are against abortion, don't have one. In the mean time, mind your own business.

Then stop using my tax money to encourage child sex and pay for abortions.

 

[koshergrl]

The Andrea Yates story has zero bearing on this topic, zero. She was terribly mentally ill for years, and got pregnant against the advice of her doctors...and went off her meds. It wasn't a matter of her wanting to get an abortion, and not being able to get one, or even of being forced into repeated pregnancies against her will. The woman was a registered nurse who worked in a cancer unit...not some poor rube who was being held hostage and forced to pop out younguns. She was committed to getting pregnant, she wanted to have babies, but unfortunately, her mental illness was exacerbated by just that.

I find it so frustrating that the people who adopt these extreme views are without exception woefully ignorant of the crap they spout. It's one thing to have an intelligent conversation with people who do have an educated viewpoint, and who can come up with reasonable and well thought out arguments....those sorts of intellectual discussions are interesting.

It's a completely different thingn to try to have a discussion with willfully ignorant yokels who lie, make things up, and don't seem in the least bit interested in considering the facts of the ponits they argue. It's depressing.

Anyway, andrea Yates didn't kill her children because she couldn't get an abortion. She killed her kids because she had postpartum psychosis among other things. She didn't kill her kids because she wanted abortions and was denied, or because anyone wanted her to have babies against her will. She killed her kids because she was very, very sick, and part of her sickness led her to get pregnant, go off her meds, and get even sicker. Unless you're proposing forced sterilization of the mentally ill (and I'm sure you're all for it) that case has nothing to do with this conversation.

 

[logical4u]

you know, joker... you and i have no personal issue. so don't ever compare me to nazis.

no matter how much the rabid religious right thinks government should turn women into incubators.

I am tired of this. If the religious right was trying to turn women into incubators, then they, not the woman would be choosing who would impregnated her. They, not the woman would decide the frequency of sexual intercourse.

Women can choose. They can choose to use effective birth control. They can choose with who they have intercourse. They can choose not to have intercourse. Why isn't that enough "choice"? Why do you want to add "murder" as "choice"?

We don't.

It's not.

But see what happens in cases where women are made to continue pregnancies beyond that which they can endure.

What was her name? Andrea Yates?

For every Andrea Yates there are billions of mothers that rejoice in their child. Are you saying that 5 MURDERS, justify millions more murders?

 

[koshergrl]

and Andrea rejoiced in her kids....she wasn't forced to have them.

She was just crazy. It had nothing to do with whether or not abortion was available to her. It was, and she didn't want it. I think what is being argued in her case is that it should have been forced upon her.

Which is scary.

 

[HotDogg]

human life is when an entity can survive on its own, like after birth, otherwise it's just an entity still parasiting its host.

I seriously doubt that you could survive "on your own", does that make you, not human?

You want to force women to give birth, you should be a communist.

 

[koshergrl]

human life is when an entity can survive on its own, like after birth, otherwise it's just an entity still parasiting its host.

I seriously doubt that you could survive "on your own", does that make you, not human?

You want to force women to give birth, you should be a communist.

Wrong, remember, we had this convo already...forcing women to have abortions is a communist thing, not forcing them to have birth. So you're the commie.

 

[jillian]

"terminate a pregnancy"

Ohhhhhhhhhh yeah!......I remember now, that's liberal code words for viciously exterminating an innocent life, who had no say so in the matter whatsoever.......Isn't that speeeeeeeciiiiiiaaaaaaaaaallllllll?

The NAZI'S would be so proud and impressed with you lib's!.........ACHTUNG BABIES!

you know, joker... you and i have no personal issue. so don't ever compare me to nazis.

no matter how much the rabid religious right thinks government should turn women into incubators.

Viciously exterminating innocent human life, is what it is, PERIOD!

you don't wear leather?

don't eat steak?

don't BBQ?

is an egg the same as a chicken, chef?

get a grip. just because the religious right believes something doesn't mean the rest of us do.

 

[Wicked Jester]

you know, joker... you and i have no personal issue. so don't ever compare me to nazis.

no matter how much the rabid religious right thinks government should turn women into incubators.

Viciously exterminating innocent human life, is what it is, PERIOD!

you don't wear leather?

don't eat steak?

don't BBQ?

is an egg the same as a chicken, chef?

get a grip. just because the religious right believes something doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Innocent Human life is NOT on the food chain, Counseler.

I'm not a fuckin' cannibal, and would never KNOWINGLY exterminate innocent human life.

 

[InDoctriNation]

That is a moronic argument, so half are going to die anyway so we may as well kill them to make sure?? What?? Surely your argument would be better suited in the pro life camp. If a doctor said to a mother, "look there is a 50% chance the baby will naturally abort". Then the mother might decide to take THAT chance.

The fact is we are living in a society where sex with a stranger doesn't bat most young peoples eye-lids.

They are using abortion as a contraceptive. Which is WRONG. Each abortion case should be looked at in full before someone takes the decision to terminate another human life.

Think about it, what if it was you in the womb? And men, what if it was your child who you are watching running around playing today, or watched grow up. What if your wife/partner had decided to deny that life.

If the mother doesn't want to have the child or can't support it, then 1. She shouldn't be having unprotected sex and 2. There are plenty of familys out there willing to adopt. 9 months pregnancy is not a lot to ask for, for your mistake and for another human to live their life.

I'm not arguing that you should just get an abortion anyways because of the high miscarriage rate, but I'm arguing that natural abortions are a very common thing. For whatever reason, the pro life crowd doesn't seem to give a lick about the natural abortion rate, which vastly dwarfs the unnatural abortion rate.

Consider this hypothetical situation: A woman has a natural condition which causes a thinning of the unterine wall, making it nearly impossible for implantation of a fertilized egg during ovulation. This woman is aware of her condition, and she has accepted the fact that she will almost certainly not be able to have children. She is married, and enjoys a healthy sex life with her spouse, which she wishes to continue.

If this woman, whose womb essentially acts as a natural abortifacient, continues to have sex with her husband, do you really believe that she is guilty of mass infanticide (keep in mind she is knowledgeable of her condition)? If the pro lifers truly believe that the life of every fertilized egg is just as valuable as my own life, then you must believe this to be consistent. If the pro lifers don't believe that she is guilty of mass infanticide, then you must believe that a fertilized egg isn't necessarily enough to constitute a human being. So which is it?

Any of you "pro lifers" wanna answer my hypothetical? Is it wrong for this woman to continue having sex with her husband?

 

[Wicked Jester]

That is a moronic argument, so half are going to die anyway so we may as well kill them to make sure?? What?? Surely your argument would be better suited in the pro life camp. If a doctor said to a mother, "look there is a 50% chance the baby will naturally abort". Then the mother might decide to take THAT chance.

The fact is we are living in a society where sex with a stranger doesn't bat most young peoples eye-lids.

They are using abortion as a contraceptive. Which is WRONG. Each abortion case should be looked at in full before someone takes the decision to terminate another human life.

Think about it, what if it was you in the womb? And men, what if it was your child who you are watching running around playing today, or watched grow up. What if your wife/partner had decided to deny that life.

If the mother doesn't want to have the child or can't support it, then 1. She shouldn't be having unprotected sex and 2. There are plenty of familys out there willing to adopt. 9 months pregnancy is not a lot to ask for, for your mistake and for another human to live their life.

I'm not arguing that you should just get an abortion anyways because of the high miscarriage rate, but I'm arguing that natural abortions are a very common thing. For whatever reason, the pro life crowd doesn't seem to give a lick about the natural abortion rate, which vastly dwarfs the unnatural abortion rate.

Consider this hypothetical situation: A woman has a natural condition which causes a thinning of the unterine wall, making it nearly impossible for implantation of a fertilized egg during ovulation. This woman is aware of her condition, and she has accepted the fact that she will almost certainly not be able to have children. She is married, and enjoys a healthy sex life with her spouse, which she wishes to continue.

If this woman, whose womb essentially acts as a natural abortifacient, continues to have sex with her husband, do you really believe that she is guilty of mass infanticide (keep in mind she is knowledgeable of her condition)? If the pro lifers truly believe that the life of every fertilized egg is just as valuable as my own life, then you must believe this to be consistent. If the pro lifers don't believe that she is guilty of mass infanticide, then you must believe that a fertilized egg isn't necessarily enough to constitute a human being. So which is it?

Any of you "pro lifers" wanna answer my hypothetical? Is it wrong for this woman to continue having sex with her husband?

No......they can use protection to prevent pregnancy. Or she can elect to have a hysterectomy. Or he can elect to have his nuts clipped.

Next.

 

[InDoctriNation]

I'm not arguing that you should just get an abortion anyways because of the high miscarriage rate, but I'm arguing that natural abortions are a very common thing. For whatever reason, the pro life crowd doesn't seem to give a lick about the natural abortion rate, which vastly dwarfs the unnatural abortion rate.

Consider this hypothetical situation: A woman has a natural condition which causes a thinning of the unterine wall, making it nearly impossible for implantation of a fertilized egg during ovulation. This woman is aware of her condition, and she has accepted the fact that she will almost certainly not be able to have children. She is married, and enjoys a healthy sex life with her spouse, which she wishes to continue.

If this woman, whose womb essentially acts as a natural abortifacient, continues to have sex with her husband, do you really believe that she is guilty of mass infanticide (keep in mind she is knowledgeable of her condition)? If the pro lifers truly believe that the life of every fertilized egg is just as valuable as my own life, then you must believe this to be consistent. If the pro lifers don't believe that she is guilty of mass infanticide, then you must believe that a fertilized egg isn't necessarily enough to constitute a human being. So which is it?

Any of you "pro lifers" wanna answer my hypothetical? Is it wrong for this woman to continue having sex with her husband?

No......they can use protection to prevent pregnancy. Or she can elect to have a hysterectomy. Or he can elect to have his nuts clipped.

Next.

So it's as good as murder for her to have sex with her husband unless they use a condom and/or have a medical procedure to prevent any sperm from uniting with any egg? Is this your position? A simple yes or no will do.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Any of you "pro lifers" wanna answer my hypothetical? Is it wrong for this woman to continue having sex with her husband?

No......they can use protection to prevent pregnancy. Or she can elect to have a hysterectomy. Or he can elect to have his nuts clipped.

Next.

So it's as good as murder for her to have sex with her husband unless they use a condom and/or have a medical procedure to prevent any sperm from uniting with any egg? Is this your position? A simple yes or no will do.

Don't tell me how to answer. I answer however I damn well please.

Not murder as defined by law........What they would be are irresponsible morons, continually engaging in the extermination of innocent human life, while full well knowing they could prevent it.

Next.

 

[InDoctriNation]

No......they can use protection to prevent pregnancy. Or she can elect to have a hysterectomy. Or he can elect to have his nuts clipped.

Next.

So it's as good as murder for her to have sex with her husband unless they use a condom and/or have a medical procedure to prevent any sperm from uniting with any egg? Is this your position? A simple yes or no will do.

Don't tell me how to answer. I answer however I damn well please.

Not murder as defined by law........What they would be are irresponsible morons, continually engaging in the extermination of innocent human life, while full well knowing they could prevent it.

Next.

I didn't tell you how to answer, I simply told you what would have been a sufficient answer to my question. So I'll take your answer as a 'yes, they are guilty of murder in my eyes.' Hmmmm.....I think you might fit in quite well with the congregation at a small, but quite well known church in Topeka, Kansas.

 

[Wicked Jester]

So it's as good as murder for her to have sex with her husband unless they use a condom and/or have a medical procedure to prevent any sperm from uniting with any egg? Is this your position? A simple yes or no will do.

Don't tell me how to answer. I answer however I damn well please.

Not murder as defined by law........What they would be are irresponsible morons, continually engaging in the extermination of innocent human life, while full well knowing they could prevent it.

Next.

I didn't tell you how to answer, I simply told you what would have been a sufficient answer to my question. So I'll take your answer as a 'yes, they are guilty of murder in my eyes.' Hmmmm.....I think you might fit in quite well with the congregation at a small, but quite well known church in Topeka, Kansas.

Murder by law......No.

So, your question was not a simple yes or no, slapdick.

You can take my answer however you like....You're opinion lends about as much credibility as the steaming turd my dog left on the lawn this morning does.


But, you would definitely have fit right in with the NAZI's leading the Jews to their demise, eh?