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

[Gadawg73]

Yeah, you go ahead and link that, you lying sack of shit.

I said it seems to be an effective way of dealing with the issue in that time, and probably would be effective today. Not quite the same thing.

"it seems to be an effective way of dealing with the issue in that time"
How so?
"seemed" is the approprate tense for the past.
Is the spread too high or too low Georgia/Ole Miss?
Do you like Go Bananas in the 6th at Calder at 10-1?

I didn't think you could possibly become more incoherent. Thank you. My lack of faith in humanity is restored.

I will come down to your 5th grade comprehension level with my wit:
Are you psychic?

 

[Dragon]

Horse crap.

My, what an eloquent and reasoned response.

Koshergrl, when confronted with an argument you have no way to rebut, saying "horse crap" or some similar content-free expression of thoughtless disdain draws too much attention to the fact that you have run out of ammunition. The ideal response, if one is courteous and honorable, is to concede the point. Less than ideally, one may simply not respond. What you did here is quite likely the worst option possible short of physical violence.

 

[koshergrl]

I use the term "horsecrap" when a person posts such idiotic blather that there is absolutely no point in pretending it's reasonable. I don't waste much of my time debating outright lies, and incoherent rhetoric backed up by not even the semblance of substance that can be addressed in a fashion that is reserved for adult and reasonable debate.

So yes, "horsecrap". Believe me, it's no my way of saying "gosh your points are so salient I have no response". It's my way of saying "there's nothing there worth responding to."

 

[InDoctriNation]

I use the term "horsecrap" when a person posts such idiotic blather that there is absolutely no point in pretending it's reasonable. I don't waste much of my time debating outright lies, and incoherent rhetoric backed up by not even the semblance of substance that can be addressed in a fashion that is reserved for adult and reasonable debate.

So yes, "horsecrap". Believe me, it's no my way of saying "gosh your points are so salient I have no response". It's my way of saying "there's nothing there worth responding to."

Haha, Dragon obliterated your argument and you're just too butt hurt to admit it. Now at least I know how to respond to all your posts from now on in terms that you can actually understand - horse crap!

 

[midcan5]

Forty one pages so far - always a hardcore topic of debate.

The reason women choose to have abortions is the same reason people use contraception, not so hard to understand. Unless you have lots and lots of kids, don't masturbate, don't use contraceptives, don't let a month or an egg drop without a chance for life, attempt to create each month if married, you too are choosing not to procreate. Next time you jack off get a microscope and check all the potential children you have killed, next time a fertile month goes by, think of that egg and who it could have been. Oh I realize this sounds absurd but consider the same moral hypocrites who want to punish a women or even a family for not having a child are the same idiots who would complain vociferously if the child were born and they had to help support it. So until abortion hypocrites support living feeling people they remain phonies in my book and in moral terms too.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-a-heartbeat-is-detectable-4.html#post3814184


"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

"Another error is the moment-of-conception fallacy. The joining of a human egg and sperm defines a new and unique human genotype. It does not produce any human hopes and fears and memories or anything else of moral importance implied by the term human. The newly fertilized egg may have the potential for a fully human existence, but that potential was there even before fertilization. The same can be said of all the fertilizations that might have been. The penetration of that egg by one sperm meant an early death for millions of competing sperm. It destroyed all hope for those millions of other unique human genotypes.

The moment-of-conception fallacy implies that fertilization is a simple process with never a doubt as to whether it has or has not happened. In reality, the "moment" is a matter of some hours of complex activity. There are elaborate biochemical interactions between the sperm and various layers of the egg membrane. The sperm gradually breaks up, and only its nucleus is established in the egg. Then both egg and sperm nuclei initiate radical changes before the fusion of the two nuclei. Many of the developmental events following this fusion were predetermined during the production of the egg. Genes provided by the sperm do not have discernible effects until embryonic development is well under way. A strictly biological definition of humanity would have to specify some point in this elaborate program at which the egg and sperm have suddenly been endowed with a single human life." From The Pony Fish's Glow and Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature, by George C. William.


Boston Review — Judith Jarvis Thomson
Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion
Why Francis Beckwith


When so called pro life people support living people I'll take them serious, till then they remain hypocrites and two faced moralists.




"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

 

[Dragon]

I use the term "horsecrap" when a person posts such idiotic blather that there is absolutely no point in pretending it's reasonable.

If that were really the case, you would expend at least a little energy explaining why it is so clearly wrong. No, you simply have no coherent response, no way to refute what I said, and that's obvious. Calling it names won't disguise the fact, all it does is to point up what a jerk you are.

 

[JohnA]

I use the term "horsecrap" when a person posts such idiotic blather that there is absolutely no point in pretending it's reasonable.

If that were really the case, you would expend at least a little energy explaining why it is so clearly wrong. No, you simply have no coherent response, no way to refute what I said, and that's obvious. Calling it names won't disguise the fact, all it does is to point up what a jerk you are.

her and her ike did the same to my posts ..they have no intelligent answer to a reasonable question so they bring on the grammer police
conveniant cop out ......


they lose big time

 

[logical4u]

What I said is that it would be an effective deterrent.

That does clarify matters, but it's still, frankly, weird, and any expression of approval of it is even weirder.

Rape isn't murder, folks. It's not nice, it's not pleasant, but the histrionics about how all rapists in ancient cultures should be cast out society forever meant that that society would lose a LOT of able bodied men, gain a LOT of women with no protectors or providers, and result in a large population of illegitimate children with no means of support.

Look, it goes beyond that. In ancient societies, while rape was a crime, it wasn't viewed as the same sort of crime as today. It was in fact a property crime, a man making use of a woman to whom he had no right, a woman who was either another man's wife (i.e., slave) or still the property of her father or brothers (i.e., marketable commodity whose price would be negatively impacted by loss of virginity). It wasn't rape if the rapist was the woman's husband -- i.e., her owner, who had a right to fuck her whenever he wanted, whether or not she wanted.

It was a very nasty set of rules. And yes, I do understand the need for something like this, of the subordination of women to men during the millennial of agrarian civilization when maximizing birthrates was a competitive necessity. A similar need existed for slavery or some sort of substitute form of forced labor. That doesn't make these things right or desirable, and we as a society are absolutely right to eradicate them as soon as changed material circumstances render that possible.

My entire point in many of my posts on this thread has been that anti-abortion advocates, a large majority of them that is, are champions of the old female-subordinate mores of the agrarian age, perhaps not in their appallingly pure form, but in a stronger form than we should find tolerable.

Perhaps instead of pissing and moaning over this single biblical stricture that is no longer adhered to, you shoud devote your time to educating Muslim men, women, and girls about acceptable behavior between men and women and what marriage really can mean...instead of boo hooing about a practice that no longer has anything to do with anything in the Christian world.

I disagree that it no longer has anything to do with anything in the Christian world. It is part and parcel of the entire idea that a woman should be subordinate to a man, and that is very much alive among right-wing Christians today.

However, be assured that I will do my best to educate Muslims on the same subject should that need arise. This disgusting tendency is of course not confined to Christianity.

Yes, women should be "subordinate" to a man that lives according to Biblical terms. Most men don't, and that is a deal breaker. The man should be an upstanding model of strength. He should treat his wife like Yeshua treats the church (how many men do that?). If...... the man, does not live up to the Biblical standard, it is up to the woman to bring up the children to fear and love the Lord. And if that means standing up to a man that is trying to force her away from the Lord, she should choose the Lord. There are many women who have done this. Either the husband gets the message, or he leaves.

 

[logical4u]

Forty one pages so far - always a hardcore topic of debate.

The reason women choose to have abortions is the same reason people use contraception, not so hard to understand. Unless you have lots and lots of kids, don't masturbate, don't use contraceptives, don't let a month or an egg drop without a chance for life, attempt to create each month if married, you too are choosing not to procreate. Next time you jack off get a microscope and check all the potential children you have killed, next time a fertile month goes by, think of that egg and who it could have been. Oh I realize this sounds absurd but consider the same moral hypocrites who want to punish a women or even a family for not having a child are the same idiots who would complain vociferously if the child were born and they had to help support it. So until abortion hypocrites support living feeling people they remain phonies in my book and in moral terms too.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-a-heartbeat-is-detectable-4.html#post3814184




"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

"Another error is the moment-of-conception fallacy. The joining of a human egg and sperm defines a new and unique human genotype. It does not produce any human hopes and fears and memories or anything else of moral importance implied by the term human. The newly fertilized egg may have the potential for a fully human existence, but that potential was there even before fertilization. The same can be said of all the fertilizations that might have been. The penetration of that egg by one sperm meant an early death for millions of competing sperm. It destroyed all hope for those millions of other unique human genotypes.

The moment-of-conception fallacy implies that fertilization is a simple process with never a doubt as to whether it has or has not happened. In reality, the "moment" is a matter of some hours of complex activity. There are elaborate biochemical interactions between the sperm and various layers of the egg membrane. The sperm gradually breaks up, and only its nucleus is established in the egg. Then both egg and sperm nuclei initiate radical changes before the fusion of the two nuclei. Many of the developmental events following this fusion were predetermined during the production of the egg. Genes provided by the sperm do not have discernible effects until embryonic development is well under way. A strictly biological definition of humanity would have to specify some point in this elaborate program at which the egg and sperm have suddenly been endowed with a single human life." From The Pony Fish's Glow and Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature, by George C. William.


Boston Review — Judith Jarvis Thomson
Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion
Why Francis Beckwith


When so called pro life people support living people I'll take them serious, till then they remain hypocrites and two faced moralists.




"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

Was this written by some one who was once a fertilized egg?

 

[koshergrl]

I use the term "horsecrap" when a person posts such idiotic blather that there is absolutely no point in pretending it's reasonable.

If that were really the case, you would expend at least a little energy explaining why it is so clearly wrong. No, you simply have no coherent response, no way to refute what I said, and that's obvious. Calling it names won't disguise the fact, all it does is to point up what a jerk you are.

No, again, I don't expend energy arguing with ignorant halfwits. If you had a point worth debating, I would debate it. I won't debate lies and emotional rants with no basis in fact or reality.

 

[koshergrl]

I use the term "horsecrap" when a person posts such idiotic blather that there is absolutely no point in pretending it's reasonable.

If that were really the case, you would expend at least a little energy explaining why it is so clearly wrong. No, you simply have no coherent response, no way to refute what I said, and that's obvious. Calling it names won't disguise the fact, all it does is to point up what a jerk you are.

her and her ike did the same to my posts ..they have no intelligent answer to a reasonable question so they bring on the grammer police
conveniant cop out ......


they lose big time

No, the other side doesn't lose when you are so incompetent at debate that they refuse to engage with you. You lose, because you are not capable of participating in this debate in an intelligent, truthful, or reasoned manner.

I don't fight with retarded people, either. No matter how irate they get or how many names they may call me.

 

[Moonglow]

I'm killing my sperm right now!

 

[JohnA]

What I said is that it would be an effective deterrent.

That does clarify matters, but it's still, frankly, weird, and any expression of approval of it is even weirder.



Look, it goes beyond that. In ancient societies, while rape was a crime, it wasn't viewed as the same sort of crime as today. It was in fact a property crime, a man making use of a woman to whom he had no right, a woman who was either another man's wife (i.e., slave) or still the property of her father or brothers (i.e., marketable commodity whose price would be negatively impacted by loss of virginity). It wasn't rape if the rapist was the woman's husband -- i.e., her owner, who had a right to fuck her whenever he wanted, whether or not she wanted.

It was a very nasty set of rules. And yes, I do understand the need for something like this, of the subordination of women to men during the millennial of agrarian civilization when maximizing birthrates was a competitive necessity. A similar need existed for slavery or some sort of substitute form of forced labor. That doesn't make these things right or desirable, and we as a society are absolutely right to eradicate them as soon as changed material circumstances render that possible.

My entire point in many of my posts on this thread has been that anti-abortion advocates, a large majority of them that is, are champions of the old female-subordinate mores of the agrarian age, perhaps not in their appallingly pure form, but in a stronger form than we should find tolerable.

Perhaps instead of pissing and moaning over this single biblical stricture that is no longer adhered to, you shoud devote your time to educating Muslim men, women, and girls about acceptable behavior between men and women and what marriage really can mean...instead of boo hooing about a practice that no longer has anything to do with anything in the Christian world.

I disagree that it no longer has anything to do with anything in the Christian world. It is part and parcel of the entire idea that a woman should be subordinate to a man, and that is very much alive among right-wing Christians today.

However, be assured that I will do my best to educate Muslims on the same subject should that need arise. This disgusting tendency is of course not confined to Christianity.

Yes, women should be "subordinate" to a man that lives according to Biblical terms. Most men don't, and that is a deal breaker. The man should be an upstanding model of strength. He should treat his wife like Yeshua treats the church (how many men do that?). If...... the man, does not live up to the Biblical standard, it is up to the woman to bring up the children to fear and love the Lord. And if that means standing up to a man that is trying to force her away from the Lord, she should choose the Lord. There are many women who have done this. Either the husband gets the message, or he leaves.

so glad im not married to you

 

[Moonglow]

That does clarify matters, but it's still, frankly, weird, and any expression of approval of it is even weirder.



Look, it goes beyond that. In ancient societies, while rape was a crime, it wasn't viewed as the same sort of crime as today. It was in fact a property crime, a man making use of a woman to whom he had no right, a woman who was either another man's wife (i.e., slave) or still the property of her father or brothers (i.e., marketable commodity whose price would be negatively impacted by loss of virginity). It wasn't rape if the rapist was the woman's husband -- i.e., her owner, who had a right to fuck her whenever he wanted, whether or not she wanted.

It was a very nasty set of rules. And yes, I do understand the need for something like this, of the subordination of women to men during the millennial of agrarian civilization when maximizing birthrates was a competitive necessity. A similar need existed for slavery or some sort of substitute form of forced labor. That doesn't make these things right or desirable, and we as a society are absolutely right to eradicate them as soon as changed material circumstances render that possible.

My entire point in many of my posts on this thread has been that anti-abortion advocates, a large majority of them that is, are champions of the old female-subordinate mores of the agrarian age, perhaps not in their appallingly pure form, but in a stronger form than we should find tolerable.



I disagree that it no longer has anything to do with anything in the Christian world. It is part and parcel of the entire idea that a woman should be subordinate to a man, and that is very much alive among right-wing Christians today.

However, be assured that I will do my best to educate Muslims on the same subject should that need arise. This disgusting tendency is of course not confined to Christianity.

Yes, women should be "subordinate" to a man that lives according to Biblical terms. Most men don't, and that is a deal breaker. The man should be an upstanding model of strength. He should treat his wife like Yeshua treats the church (how many men do that?). If...... the man, does not live up to the Biblical standard, it is up to the woman to bring up the children to fear and love the Lord. And if that means standing up to a man that is trying to force her away from the Lord, she should choose the Lord. There are many women who have done this. Either the husband gets the message, or he leaves.

so glad im not married to you

a real bummer, eh?

 

[JohnA]

If that were really the case, you would expend at least a little energy explaining why it is so clearly wrong. No, you simply have no coherent response, no way to refute what I said, and that's obvious. Calling it names won't disguise the fact, all it does is to point up what a jerk you are.

her and her ike did the same to my posts ..they have no intelligent answer to a reasonable question so they bring on the grammer police
conveniant cop out ......


they lose big time

No, the other side doesn't lose when you are so incompetent at debate that they refuse to engage with you. You lose, because you are not capable of participating in this debate in an intelligent, truthful, or reasoned manner.

I don't fight with retarded people, either. No matter how irate they get or how many names they may call me.

you are the one who is incompetent at debate
the retard is the one who is illogical ,rude , disingenuous, and arditrary .


can you fiqure out who that might be ?????

you are the one who got personal not me so doing i can reply in same

those that dont have a answer to a honest contention resort to personal attacks .
the debate was going fine until you did not have a rebuttal to a TRUE statement , you bought the debate to a halt by instead of answering you got personal

now go and rethink your position come back with a logical answer and we will continue ,

or if you dont understand the rules of intelligent debate ill not expect a answer ill just move on ......

 

[Dragon]

Yes, women should be "subordinate" to a man that lives according to Biblical terms.

That's exactly what's in dispute. We say: No, she should NOT. It doesn't matter whether he's a good man or a bad one, she should NOT have any obligation to be subordinate or obedient to him merely because she is female. For him to be a good man is of course desirable for other reasons, but it will NOT earn him any obligation of obedience on her part because NOTHING can; it is simply WRONG for women to be subordinate to men. For him to be a bad man is of course undesirable for other reasons, but it will NOT be a "deal-breaker" because there is no deal; it will not lose him his wife's obligation to be subordinate and obey because no such obligation existed to begin with.

(It may lose him his wife, i.e. break up their relationship, but that's a different subject.)

This is simply a way in which prevailing values have changed. And it is, I believe, the real reason for the abortion controversy.

 

[logical4u]

Yes, women should be "subordinate" to a man that lives according to Biblical terms.

That's exactly what's in dispute. We say: No, she should NOT. It doesn't matter whether he's a good man or a bad one, she should NOT have any obligation to be subordinate or obedient to him merely because she is female. For him to be a good man is of course desirable for other reasons, but it will NOT earn him any obligation of obedience on her part because NOTHING can; it is simply WRONG for women to be subordinate to men. For him to be a bad man is of course undesirable for other reasons, but it will NOT be a "deal-breaker" because there is no deal; it will not lose him his wife's obligation to be subordinate and obey because no such obligation existed to begin with.

(It may lose him his wife, i.e. break up their relationship, but that's a different subject.)

This is simply a way in which prevailing values have changed. And it is, I believe, the real reason for the abortion controversy.

There are times in a marriage when the couple disagrees. There must be a way to settle the dispute. One must be "dominant". If the man is righteous, he will be considerate of his family and do his best to settle disputes in the interest of the Lord and his family. If he surrenders his authority to his wife, then she must do, as he was "supposed" to in regards to the Lord and the family.
Most marriages have a combination of this. One spouse rules this area, one spouse rules that area, examples: children, household upkeep, household maintenance, lawn maintenance, financial maintenance.
Side note: if a wife is not "subordinate" to her husband in any area, he will not remain a "man". He will be the proverbial "nagged" or worse.
I can understand how this offends you. Most people do not want "truth". This is the way of spiritual marriages. If there is not spirituality in the marriage, it will not survive.
Maybe you choose to live a lie: we are really "equal" on every level. Maybe it gets you what you want. It just isn't true.
"IF" men acted as "men" and women acted as "women" with the grace of the Lord, there would be no abortions, other than medical emergencies. The couple would agree to have children when they were spiritually ready to support them, and stop having children when they felt their resources (spiritual, time, etc) would be stretched to the point of harming their children already born. At this point, if they were "surprised" by another child, that child would be looked on, as the Lord's plan, not theirs.
I realize this doesn't seem to fit here, but people are spiritual beings. We should consider that our spirits are shared with our children if they survive the pregnancy, or not, they are still part of ourselves.

 

[JohnA]

I use the term "horsecrap" when a person posts such idiotic blather that there is absolutely no point in pretending it's reasonable.

If that were really the case, you would expend at least a little energy explaining why it is so clearly wrong. No, you simply have no coherent response, no way to refute what I said, and that's obvious. Calling it names won't disguise the fact, all it does is to point up what a jerk you are.

No, again, I don't expend energy arguing with ignorant halfwits. If you had a point worth debating, I would debate it. I won't debate lies and emotional rants with no basis in fact or reality.

Your the one who is lying dimwit
your nose is growing longer every post .....

 

[JohnA]

We dont seem to have learned anything or got anybody to change thier view of abortion even after 42 pages on the subject
but what we have learnt is the loving, forgiving ,turn the other cheek ,teachings of JC to his followers seems to be lacking in some of the believers who post here .

 

[Gadawg73]

Yes, women should be "subordinate" to a man that lives according to Biblical terms.

That's exactly what's in dispute. We say: No, she should NOT. It doesn't matter whether he's a good man or a bad one, she should NOT have any obligation to be subordinate or obedient to him merely because she is female. For him to be a good man is of course desirable for other reasons, but it will NOT earn him any obligation of obedience on her part because NOTHING can; it is simply WRONG for women to be subordinate to men. For him to be a bad man is of course undesirable for other reasons, but it will NOT be a "deal-breaker" because there is no deal; it will not lose him his wife's obligation to be subordinate and obey because no such obligation existed to begin with.

(It may lose him his wife, i.e. break up their relationship, but that's a different subject.)

This is simply a way in which prevailing values have changed. And it is, I believe, the real reason for the abortion controversy.

There are times in a marriage when the couple disagrees. There must be a way to settle the dispute. One must be "dominant". If the man is righteous, he will be considerate of his family and do his best to settle disputes in the interest of the Lord and his family. If he surrenders his authority to his wife, then she must do, as he was "supposed" to in regards to the Lord and the family.
Most marriages have a combination of this. One spouse rules this area, one spouse rules that area, examples: children, household upkeep, household maintenance, lawn maintenance, financial maintenance.
Side note: if a wife is not "subordinate" to her husband in any area, he will not remain a "man". He will be the proverbial "nagged" or worse.
I can understand how this offends you. Most people do not want "truth". This is the way of spiritual marriages. If there is not spirituality in the marriage, it will not survive.
Maybe you choose to live a lie: we are really "equal" on every level. Maybe it gets you what you want. It just isn't true.
"IF" men acted as "men" and women acted as "women" with the grace of the Lord, there would be no abortions, other than medical emergencies. The couple would agree to have children when they were spiritually ready to support them, and stop having children when they felt their resources (spiritual, time, etc) would be stretched to the point of harming their children already born. At this point, if they were "surprised" by another child, that child would be looked on, as the Lord's plan, not theirs.
I realize this doesn't seem to fit here, but people are spiritual beings. We should consider that our spirits are shared with our children if they survive the pregnancy, or not, they are still part of ourselves.

You live in La La Land. Good luck to you.