Abortion Bullshit...

[Plasmaball]

Fact: life beginning at conception is an ideological, not logical conclusion.

Fact: both parties use abortion.

LOL....life does begin at conception you moron.

i really dont give a shit if you think it does or doesnt. Its none of your business. It never will be.

 

[PredFan]

The logical facts..

1) a human life begins at conception.

2) if Roe v Wade is overturned it reverts back to the each individual State's jurisdiction.

3) the odds of certain States (liberal utopias) outlawing abortion is nil, zero, not an F'ing chance.

4) The odds of back alley abortions, coat hanger abortions, whatever, is no greater with or without Roe v Wade

The reality..

Democrats only use the issue as a political tool to scare women/men into voting Democrat.

Another reality is that there is a lot of overlap between those who call themselves "pro-choice" and those who call themselves "pro-life". This means real solutions to abortion are within our easy grasp. There is a lot of low hanging fruit.

For instance, two thirds of Americans are opposed to second trimester abortions, even though half of Americans call themselves pro-life and half call themselves pro-choice. Clearly, there are pro-choicers who are opposed to abortion in the second trimester.

Another example: birth control. Very few Americans are opposed to birth control, including the majority of pro-lifers. And since nearly half of all abortions are the result of a pregnancy brought about by no birth control of any kind being used during the sex act which led to the pregnancy, and even more are caused by the improper use of birth control, then the obvious solution to the problem is getting more people to use birth control properly and consistently. The discussion should then revolve around the means to achieve this goal.

So why can't we achieve these goals?

Because the polarizing extremists dominate and control the conversation. On one side they use rape and incest victims as human shields to distract from the million-plus abortions each year which have nothing to do with rape and incest. On the other side they scream about promiscuity and sin.

As long as we let the nutjobs hijack the rhetoric, no workable solutions to the abortion problem will ever be achieved.

The real problem behind abortion is that fanatics, by definition, have more energy. A fanatic is more likely to vote in a primary, and so politicians feel obligated to pander to them to win the nomination.

It is time to take the conversation back. Clear-headed people outnumber the whackjobs by a wide margin. We need to stop being lazy and start kicking the maniacs in the nuts with some doses of reality and facts.


.

Too bad I can't rep you twice for that.

 

[Amazed]

Fact: life beginning at conception is an ideological, not logical conclusion.

Fact: both parties use abortion.

LOL....life does begin at conception you moron.

i really dont give a shit if you think it does or doesnt. Its none of your business. It never will be.

Ooo lookie, a badass

 

[Shelzin]

The logical facts..

1) a human life begins at conception.

2) if Roe v Wade is overturned it reverts back to the each individual State's jurisdiction.

3) the odds of certain States (liberal utopias) outlawing abortion is nil, zero, not an F'ing chance.

4) The odds of back alley abortions, coat hanger abortions, whatever, is no greater with or without Roe v Wade

The reality..

Democrats only use the issue as a political tool to scare women/men into voting Democrat.

Another reality is that there is a lot of overlap between those who call themselves "pro-choice" and those who call themselves "pro-life". This means real solutions to abortion are within our easy grasp. There is a lot of low hanging fruit.

For instance, two thirds of Americans are opposed to second trimester abortions, even though half of Americans call themselves pro-life and half call themselves pro-choice. Clearly, there are pro-choicers who are opposed to abortion in the second trimester.

Another example: birth control. Very few Americans are opposed to birth control, including the majority of pro-lifers. And since nearly half of all abortions are the result of a pregnancy brought about by no birth control of any kind being used during the sex act which led to the pregnancy, and even more are caused by the improper use of birth control, then the obvious solution to the problem is getting more people to use birth control properly and consistently. The discussion should then revolve around the means to achieve this goal.

So why can't we achieve these goals?

Because the polarizing extremists dominate and control the conversation. On one side they use rape and incest victims as human shields to distract from the million-plus abortions each year which have nothing to do with rape and incest. On the other side they scream about promiscuity and sin.

As long as we let the nutjobs hijack the rhetoric, no workable solutions to the abortion problem will ever be achieved.

The real problem behind abortion is that fanatics, by definition, have more energy. A fanatic is more likely to vote in a primary, and so politicians feel obligated to pander to them to win the nomination.

It is time to take the conversation back. Clear-headed people outnumber the whackjobs by a wide margin. We need to stop being lazy and start kicking the maniacs in the nuts with some doses of reality and facts.


.

Too bad I can't rep you twice for that.

Got it.

 

[chikenwing]

Fact: life beginning at conception is an ideological, not logical conclusion.

Fact: both parties use abortion.

Another cabbage patch kid?? I once was a goldfish,but then I wasn't

And they push critical thinking at the same time!!

 

[PredFan]

There is no coherence to the argument "I believe abortion is wrong but I would not stop others".

If you believe abortion is the extinguishing of a human life, then that argument is akin to saying, "I would not kill my teenaged daughter, but I have no business imposing that moral belief on someone else and stopping them from killing their own teenaged daughters."

Murder is murder. If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, then you are obligated to stop others from committing that murder just as we all are obligated to stop all murder in our society.

Abortion is either murder, or it isn't. There is no room for waffling with this bogus imposition-of-morals argument.

You can't be "a little bit pregnant" and you can't be a little bit opposed to murder.

.

Here you are comparing apples to oranges. One statement: "I believe abortion is wrong but I would not stop others." and the other is "I believe abortion is murder and I would not stop others."

I believe that abortion is wrong, if used for birth control. I believe that it is wrong, but I'm not convinced it's murder. I would not ask a woman I got pregnant to have an abortion, and if asked my opinion on the matter, I would urge for giving the baby up for adoption rather than abortion. But I would not dream of forcing my beliefs on others.

 

[PredFan]

LOL....life does begin at conception you moron.

i really dont give a shit if you think it does or doesnt. Its none of your business. It never will be.

Ooo lookie, a badass

Yeah, he's an internet tough guy.

 

[Plasmaball]

There is no coherence to the argument "I believe abortion is wrong but I would not stop others".

If you believe abortion is the extinguishing of a human life, then that argument is akin to saying, "I would not kill my teenaged daughter, but I have no business imposing that moral belief on someone else and stopping them from killing their own teenaged daughters."

Murder is murder. If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, then you are obligated to stop others from committing that murder just as we all are obligated to stop all murder in our society.

Abortion is either murder, or it isn't. There is no room for waffling with this bogus imposition-of-morals argument.

You can't be "a little bit pregnant" and you can't be a little bit opposed to murder.

.

you can call it murder till you are blue in the face and pass out. Its none of your business.

 

[g5000]

The issue of when life begins is critical to the debate. Once life begins, ending it is the killing of a human being.

Even the majority of pro-choicers are opposed to abortion in the third trimester, and that is where the Supreme Court drew the line, with some allowances for the regulation of abortion prior to the third trimester.

So the majority of people agree that the fetus is a human being in the third trimester. Once in a while, some people still have to be reminded of this, though, which is why I occasionally post photos of 20+ week fetuses. When you can count fingers and toes and see the human features, it is undeniable that is a human being, regardless of whether or not it could live outside the womb without the aid of machines. There are many humans who cannot live without the aid of machines. Dick Cheney, for one.

At the other extreme is the moment of conception. If you believe life begins at conception, then all abortions are murder.

I think if you asked every pro-lifer whether they believe killing a two day old embryo is murder, most would probably hesitate. That is why most Americans are okay with abortifacients for victims of rape and incest, even pro-lifers.

But those who have polarized the issue have made the moment of conception the definition of whether or not you are a real pro-lifer.

If you believe life begins at conception, then it would be logically inconsistent to be okay with abortion for victims of rape and incest. So, as a politician, you have to decide whether to be ripped to shreds by the media for being inconsistent and going with abortion for victims or rape and incest, or being ripped to shreds by the media for being a heartless bastard for denying abortion to victims of rape and incest.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, half a million women are not using birth control and getting unintentionally pregnant and aborting. Year after year after year after year after year.



.

 

[Plasmaball]

LOL....life does begin at conception you moron.

i really dont give a shit if you think it does or doesnt. Its none of your business. It never will be.

Ooo lookie, a badass

nah, not a badass, just pointing out how you need to mind your own business

 

[emilynghiem]

Since we have a consensus on murder laws, we agree to give this authority to the state.
With executions, we don't all agree; and so we should decide case by case, and let
consensus be the factor that determines if the states have authority to carry out. It should be by consensus of the people affected by a capital murder case, since taking a life involves spiritual and religious beliefs. The people would have to agree to give such state authority.

If we had a consensus on abortion laws, then it would not be an issue.
But since we don't have a consensus, that is where the state technically should not be making laws one way or another, since doing so would impose a bias either way
that either conflicts with the beliefs of one group or the others, and thus discriminating.

Laws would need to be written where they do not penalize or burden the woman more than the man. For example, what if any act that resulted in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children, or unwanted abortion counted as "relationship abuse" or a form of sexual abuse or rape, where if such a complaint is filed then both parties were subject to counseling to resolve the cause and provide for the welfare and health of victims of abuse.

So this could address the cause of the problems, without getting into unresolved conflicts or debates on how to hold the men equally responsible as the women in cases of unwanted pregnancy or abortion

Murder is a moral issue which we have made a legislative one. Should we make it "go away" and leave it as a "private matter" between the murderer and their victim?

That is the logic you are using, and it completely collapses if you believe killing a fetus in the womb is murdering a human being.

If abortion is not the extinguishing of a human life, why are you personally opposed to it?

You can be against murder, and not agree with the death penalty as the way to address it.
In fact, of all the programs I have seen that best prevent crime violence and murder, these do not involve judging or condemning the person, but focusing on healing the causes in order to prevent problems that otherwise lead to crime and violence including murder.

The same is with preventing abortion.
You can be against abortion, and not take any of this approach of calling it murder.
In fact, the programs I have seen that intervene most effectively to prevent abortion,
DO NOT involve judging people with fear that this is murder. One of my friends just failed at counseling someone because she had this fear in her mind, and it generally backfires.
The more successful approaches are to help women from feeling trapped and helpless where they compromise out of fear of being 'judged."

I know you mean well, but this whole attitude of judging abortion as murder
too often backfires and has the opposite effect. What women need to prevent abortion is SUPPORT that is open and without condition; not this politicized environment of judgment.

 

[g5000]

There is no coherence to the argument "I believe abortion is wrong but I would not stop others".

If you believe abortion is the extinguishing of a human life, then that argument is akin to saying, "I would not kill my teenaged daughter, but I have no business imposing that moral belief on someone else and stopping them from killing their own teenaged daughters."

Murder is murder. If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, then you are obligated to stop others from committing that murder just as we all are obligated to stop all murder in our society.

Abortion is either murder, or it isn't. There is no room for waffling with this bogus imposition-of-morals argument.

You can't be "a little bit pregnant" and you can't be a little bit opposed to murder.

.

you can call it murder till you are blue in the face and pass out. Its none of your business.

Murder is everyone's business. If it wasn't, why can't you kill anyone you feel like?

If you don't believe abortion is murder, that is your opinion and it is a starting point for discussion. We then move on to debating when life begins.

But if you believe abortion is murder, it is incoherent to say it is none of your business to stop others from committing it.

If you don't believe a first trimester abortion is murder, then you don't believe it is murder. Period. There is no waffling in that viewpoint.

I am taking issue with the wafflers.



.

 

[Plasmaball]

i really dont give a shit if you think it does or doesnt. Its none of your business. It never will be.

Ooo lookie, a badass

Yeah, he's an internet tough guy.

and you are an internet retard

 

[Amazed]

i really dont give a shit if you think it does or doesnt. Its none of your business. It never will be.

Ooo lookie, a badass

nah, not a badass, just pointing out how you need to mind your own business

Did someone die and leave you the keys to the kingdom kid?

Do bad you weren't aborted.

 

[MisterBeale]

There is no coherence to the argument "I believe abortion is wrong but I would not stop others".

If you believe abortion is the extinguishing of a human life, then that argument is akin to saying, "I would not kill my teenaged daughter, but I have no business imposing that moral belief on someone else and stopping them from killing their own teenaged daughters."

Murder is murder. If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, then you are obligated to stop others from committing that murder just as we all are obligated to stop all murder in our society.

Abortion is either murder, or it isn't. There is no room for waffling with this bogus imposition-of-morals argument.

You can't be "a little bit pregnant" and you can't be a little bit opposed to murder.

.

You are wrong.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6105140-post178.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6169081-post951.html

 

[g5000]

Murder is a moral issue which we have made a legislative one. Should we make it "go away" and leave it as a "private matter" between the murderer and their victim?

That is the logic you are using, and it completely collapses if you believe killing a fetus in the womb is murdering a human being.

If abortion is not the extinguishing of a human life, why are you personally opposed to it?

You can be against murder, and not agree with the death penalty as the way to address it.
In fact, of all the programs I have seen that best prevent crime violence and murder, these do not involve judging or condemning the person, but focusing on healing the causes in order to prevent problems that otherwise lead to crime and violence including murder.

But murder itself is still outlawed. We are not talking about penalties. We are talking about the outlawing of the act itself.

The same is with preventing abortion.
You can be against abortion, and not take any of this approach of calling it murder.
In fact, the programs I have seen that intervene most effectively to prevent abortion,
DO NOT involve judging people with fear that this is murder. One of my friends just failed at counseling someone because she had this fear in her mind, and it generally backfires.
The more successful approaches are to help women from feeling trapped and helpless where they compromise out of fear of being 'judged."

I know you mean well, but this whole attitude of judging abortion as murder
too often backfires and has the opposite effect. What women need to prevent abortion is SUPPORT that is open and without condition; not this politicized environment of judgment.

The opinion was stated that one would raise their daughter's child rather than see it aborted. Clearly there is some viewpoint here which sees such an act as extinguishing a human life that should be prevented.

If abortion of your own grandchild is the extinguishing of a human life, why is it not the extinguishing of a human life when it is a stranger's child?

There's a moral inconsistency here.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear G: And what if the way to prevent abortion is not by approaching it this way you describe? What if the way to prevent it is to prevent ALL forms of relationship abuse
and coersion, to provide nonjudgmental social support for women and children,
and also teaching men and boys to take responsibility instead of dumping this on women?

Wouldn't it be our social responsibility to prevent all causes of abortion on all levels?

There is no coherence to the argument "I believe abortion is wrong but I would not stop others".

If you believe abortion is the extinguishing of a human life, then that argument is akin to saying, "I would not kill my teenaged daughter, but I have no business imposing that moral belief on someone else and stopping them from killing their own teenaged daughters."

Murder is murder. If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, then you are obligated to stop others from committing that murder just as we all are obligated to stop all murder in our society.

Abortion is either murder, or it isn't. There is no room for waffling with this bogus imposition-of-morals argument.

You can't be "a little bit pregnant" and you can't be a little bit opposed to murder.

I think you are assuming that imposing a choice on someone is a better way to enforce a principle than educating people on what is the reality in rape and abortion cases, and teaching people to prevent all causes in advance before they ever get to that point.

If you look at all the Prolife people, can you name ONE that requires abortion to be illegal or banned "by law" in order to know it should be prevented at all costs?

I find people are more truly convicted in their beliefs if they have freedom to arrive at their beliefs themselves, by their own reasoning and free will.

I do have a moral obligation to make sure people have "fully informed" and correct information when they make their choices, but not to "depend on" imposing this by law, especially where the decisions to prevent abuses of relations and of sex take place long before the point of pregnancy. Preventing abuses on all levels requires full respect for free choice. If consensus can be formed on that level, not by imposition but fully informed consent, then legislation would not be a battle, but would follow naturally.

The fact we have such unresolved points, means we haven't finished all the groundwork to build legislation on a solid foundation; so bullying or imposing one view over another is not going to change that, but make communication more difficult. There are no shortcuts. We need to isolate and resolve each point, and write better legislative agreements that we can all agree across the board address and prevent the problems without introducing more.

 

[g5000]

There is no coherence to the argument "I believe abortion is wrong but I would not stop others".

If you believe abortion is the extinguishing of a human life, then that argument is akin to saying, "I would not kill my teenaged daughter, but I have no business imposing that moral belief on someone else and stopping them from killing their own teenaged daughters."

Murder is murder. If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, then you are obligated to stop others from committing that murder just as we all are obligated to stop all murder in our society.

Abortion is either murder, or it isn't. There is no room for waffling with this bogus imposition-of-morals argument.

You can't be "a little bit pregnant" and you can't be a little bit opposed to murder.

.

You are wrong.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6105140-post178.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6169081-post951.html

You have missed my point.

Until you can understand where your counterpart is coming from, no progress can be made.

From a pro-lifer's point of view, there is no difference between someone killing their parents and someone killing their unborn child. Which means both instances are their business.

Understand?

.

 

[emilynghiem]

Murder is everyone's business. If it wasn't, why can't you kill anyone you feel like?

If you don't believe abortion is murder, that is your opinion and it is a starting point for discussion. We then move on to debating when life begins.

But if you believe abortion is murder, it is incoherent to say it is none of your business to stop others from committing it.

If you don't believe a first trimester abortion is murder, then you don't believe it is murder. Period. There is no waffling in that viewpoint.

I am taking issue with the wafflers.

.

Dear G: again, I find it divisive and self-defeating to insist on framing abortion as murder if that's not communicating to the audience you are addressing.

i've had more success focusing on CONSENT as the issue at stake.
Even if we don't agree if abortion is murder, or at what point life begins,
can we at least agree that ALL people's views including yours that depend on these points
deserve equal protection under the laws Constitutionally?

So even if you disagree completely, you can still argue for laws that respect
equal Constitutional protection of all views equally, and that includes abortion being murder.

So there would have to be consensus on laws in order to be Constitutionally
equally inclusive of both prochoice and prolife views.

Once we agree to that, then even if we have our differences, we cannot impose laws that negate or impose on the views of others. So we would be required to focus on points of consensus for the purpose of public legislation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fact: life beginning at conception is an ideological, not logical conclusion.

Fact: both parties use abortion.

Fact: life beginning at conception is a biological and scientific fact.

Fact: no one expects the public-school dunderheads on the left to know jack about science, despite their professed love of it.