Just a clump of cells

[PaintMyHouse]

I think that God has already given his opinion on abortion.

I think God gave his opinion on abortion when he created life on this planet. If he intended it to end before it ever began, we would most certainly not exist today.

If God is opposed to abortion, why do women miscarry?

If God favored abortion, do you think Jesus would have been born? The whole story about Jesus is his birth, not Mary's right to choose. I honestly cannot believe you would use religion as a means to justify a woman's right to abort...

If you believe that God created us, then God created women to have miscarriages.

If God created us, he didn't intend for us to be aborted, either.

If every fetus was sacred, they would all be born. 1/3 of all pregnancies wouldn't spontaneously abort.

If the baby is being carried, already developing, and has a high chance of being born, I don't think God has the intention of having the child aborted. People like you bother me in the sense that you treat unborn children as things to be discarded.

God gave women the option. Conservatives would thwart that right and take away free will.

God gave that child the right to live. So, you would fly in the face of God's will simply to appease your sense of free will?

There is no right to life, only life and death.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So, the question is, is it possible to spot an advocate of Foreign Ideas, which are Hostile to American Principle?

The answer to which is: OF COURSE! There's absolutely nothing to it.

The Charter of American Principles provides that the right to one's life is truth of the self-evident variety. So, an Advocate of Foreign Ideas, which are Hostile to American principles would reject American principle.

For example, below is a classic example of such:

There is no right to life, only life and death.

See how easy that is?

 

[JoeB131]

I think God gave his opinion on abortion when he created life on this planet. If he intended it to end before it ever began, we would most certainly not exist today.

Wow. That exceeds even YOUR level of stupidity, Runs With Scissors.

If God was so committed to "life" and 'children", why did he drown most off the human race, kill the first born of Egypt, vaporized the children of Sodom, kill the son of David and Bathsheba. I could go on to the funnier ones, like how 42 children were mauled by two bears because they made fun of a bald prophet. (He wasn't just the hair club president, he was also a client!)

If God favored abortion, do you think Jesus would have been born? The whole story about Jesus is his birth, not Mary's right to choose. I honestly cannot believe you would use religion as a means to justify a woman's right to abort...

Well, you have a good point. The big question about Mary was that because she was knocked up wihtout being married (only my Patron Saint would have bought THAT story) she was subject to being stoned. So lots of pregnant women got stoned to death (along with their fetuses) following God's law.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

There is no right to life, only life and death.

How exactly are you defining "person"? I think it might help to know how your definition differs from the one I gave above. If you don't recognize a right to life, then is taking someone's life without cause morally acceptable to you? If so, then why? You're not depriving them of any of their rights. One would think you would just be exercising your own.

You never did answer my questions. I will assume you didn't see them since the thread picked back up soon after I posted them.

 

[Dragonlady]

You don't think God believes in abortion. Well that's definitive.

But yet he gave women the ability to end a pregnancy. There are prohibitions in the bible against lying, stealing, even coveting another's property, and adultery. Not one word against ending your pregnancy.

God discards 1/3 of all "unborn children" via miscarriage. You keep trying to claim abortion is wrong on moral and ethical grounds but whose morality? It's certainly doesn't violate anything that's in the Bible.

I'm not against you choosing not to have an abortion. You are entitled to your own beliefs. I am opposed to you inflicting your wrong-headed misogyny on the rest of us.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

You don't think God believes in abortion. Well that's definitive.

But yet he gave women the ability to end a pregnancy. There are prohibitions in the bible against lying, stealing, even coveting another's property, and adultery. Not one word against ending your pregnancy.

God discards 1/3 of all "unborn children" via miscarriage. You keep trying to claim abortion is wrong on moral and ethical grounds but whose morality? It's certainly doesn't violate anything that's in the Bible.

I'm not against you choosing not to have an abortion. You are entitled to your own beliefs. I am opposed to you inflicting your wrong-headed misogyny on the rest of us.

You ever notice that it pretty much always comes down to "believe what I'm doing is right or you hate women"...?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You don't think God believes in abortion. Well that's definitive.

But yet he gave women the ability to end a pregnancy. There are prohibitions in the bible against lying, stealing, even coveting another's property, and adultery. Not one word against ending your pregnancy.

God discards 1/3 of all "unborn children" via miscarriage. You keep trying to claim abortion is wrong on moral and ethical grounds but whose morality? It's certainly doesn't violate anything that's in the Bible.

I'm not against you choosing not to have an abortion. You are entitled to your own beliefs. I am opposed to you inflicting your wrong-headed misogyny on the rest of us.

You ever notice that it pretty much always comes down to "believe what I'm doing is right or you hate women"...?

That pretty much ends the debate right there.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You don't think God believes in abortion. Well that's definitive.

But yet he gave women the ability to end a pregnancy. There are prohibitions in the bible against lying, stealing, even coveting another's property, and adultery. Not one word against ending your pregnancy. ...

LOL!

Nonsense.. "Thou shall not commit murder". It's in the Big Ten COMMANDMENTS!

Well, by claiming that one has no responsibility for the life they conceived through their willful behavior, they're lying.

When you use the power you possess to take the life of the human you conceived... you're stealing.

When you 'wish that you were in the same condition as your friend who did NOT CHOOSE to engage in intercourse before she was ready to raise her child... you're COVETING.

When you take the life of the child you conceived as a result of your willful choice to engage in intercourse with a married man... You're Lyin', Stealin', cheatin' and MURDERING YOUR OWN CHILD!

(Once again friends, we're looking at the perversion of reasoning...)

 

[Dragonlady]

Templar has already made it clear that he wants to punish women for choosing to have sex. He then suggests that women are getting abortions to get rid of the results of illicit affairs and suggests a litany of sins this woman could be involved in. That's the misogyny.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I don't think I saw that post. Which was it?

 

[Dragonlady]

75% of women cite financial inability to care for a child. Yet in countries which provide higher minimum wages, cheaper health care, better schools, and where abortion is readily available, more women keep their babies.

Telling women not to have sex with their husbands isn't going to fly either since refusing to have sex with your husband is grounds for him to divorce you in some states.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I thought we had no fault divorce?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Templar has already made it clear that he wants to punish women for choosing to have sex. ... That's the misogyny.

ROFLMNAO! THAT is LUNACY!

Truly a perversion of human reasoning... .

 

[TemplarKormac]

Templar has already made it clear that he wants to punish women for choosing to have sex. He then suggests that women are getting abortions to get rid of the results of illicit affairs and suggests a litany of sins this woman could be involved in. That's the misogyny.

Yes yes, and this smear campaign of yours will fail. How refreshing, another liberal feminist resorting to identity politics instead of an argument. That's very cute.

So are all abortions a result of accidents these women happen to find themselves in? Or is it simply because of a lack of self restraint? What is more misogynistic, denying a woman her choice or dictating her choices to her? The only thing liberals like you insist on doing is holding the mind of the woman hostage.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes yes, and this smear campaign of yours will fail. How refreshing, another liberal feminist resorting to identity politics instead of an argument. That's very cute.

So are all abortions a result of accidents these women happen to find themselves in? Or is it simply because of a lack of self restraint? What is more misogynistic, denying a woman her choice or dictating her choices to her? The only thing liberals like you insist on doing is holding the mind of the woman hostage.

The thing is, your whole argument is based on a woman having sex just for sex being a bad thing, or htat an abortion in the early stages is morally objectionable.

Those happen to be your opinions, based on a reading of the Bible that you really can't support with a direct verse. Some churches are fine with abortion, other churches are against it. Women who belong to the latter routinely ignore their churches.

 

[Dragonlady]

Templar has already made it clear that he wants to punish women for choosing to have sex. He then suggests that women are getting abortions to get rid of the results of illicit affairs and suggests a litany of sins this woman could be involved in. That's the misogyny.

Yes yes, and this smear campaign of yours will fail. How refreshing, another liberal feminist resorting to identity politics instead of an argument. That's very cute.

So are all abortions a result of accidents these women happen to find themselves in? Or is it simply because of a lack of self restraint? What is more misogynistic, denying a woman her choice or dictating her choices to her? The only thing liberals like you insist on doing is holding the mind of the woman hostage.

Just in this thread you have called women getting abortions sluts. Here you talk about "lack of self-restraint". No mention of the poverty that drives so many women to seek abortions. Just suggestions that women are casually disposing of the results of their wanton behaviour. That's misogyny.

Given that half the women who have abortions are married, that's also a false picture of who has an abortion and why, but that hasn't slowed you down in your portraying these women as selfish and immoral.

Birth control pills may be cheap but getting the prescription is not. There's the doctor's visit and tests. Getting the prescription can cost $200.00. Of course conservatives don't want to include that in employer health insurance either. Why should employers have to pay for that? It is to be noted that employers have no issue paying for men to get a prescription for Viagara. Ever the double standard.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no right to life, only life and death.

How exactly are you defining "person"? I think it might help to know how your definition differs from the one I gave above. If you don't recognize a right to life, then is taking someone's life without cause morally acceptable to you? If so, then why? You're not depriving them of any of their rights. One would think you would just be exercising your own.

You never did answer my questions. I will assume you didn't see them since the thread picked back up soon after I posted them.

Person, something like you or me, Someone that can live outside the womb. Not just a body but a brain. etc. Cells in a petri dish, not a person.

And no, you can't just kill someone. it's rude, but there is no right to life. You either make in into this world or you don't. Nature doesn't give a damn either way.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Person, something like you or me, Someone that can live outside the womb. Not just a body but a brain. etc. Cells in a petri dish, not a person.

And no, you can't just kill someone. it's rude, but there is no right to life. You either make in into this world or you don't. Nature doesn't give a damn either way.

That's an awfully specific definition, but okay. I think we're actually making some progress here. At least now we know exactly what the other means by that term.

I don't really understand why it being rude to kill someone would really matter if they don't have any right not to be killed though. Maybe the murderer doesn't think it's rude. Wouldn't their choice to take someone's life be only relatively immoral at best then? Let's say that I become more involved in abolishing abortion when it's legal for me to do so. Planned Parenthood sneaks into another neighborhood via its usual method (ie establishing a front company to build a normal clinic nearby with more secrecy and security than normal then, when construction is finished and all of the legal hoops are jumped through, dissolving the front company, taking direct control, renaming the supposed Center for Special Emergencies or whatever to their latest Planned Parenthood abortion clinic branch) and a protest is held against it.

I attend this protest and the anti-pro-life crowd stages a counter protest in defense of the clinic. The protesters start praying or yelling slogans or whatever shit they normally do. The counter protesters become increasingly hostile and aggressive. They start tearing down signs and throwing bottles and spitting on protesters and all the normal shit they like to do. Things get violent. I catch a rock to the temple and it fucks my arteries up and I die on the way to a real medical hospital. Would you say that throwing it was a morally neutral act? Well... I guess that particular ending does leave open the possibility that it wasn't thrown with the intent to kill, so let's go a little further. Let's say it's not a rock but a bullet. Would this still be morally neutral? Would you take this assertion that far? If so, then would you consider it a crime? If so, then why if they were acting well within the rights you grant them?

 

[Dragonlady]

Anyone who harms another person except in defence of their own life, is acting in a way to get themselves arrested.

But your scenario is backwards. It is the right to lifers who attack, spit on and harass women going into legal, licensed abortion clinics. They behaviour had been so relentless that most clinics have obtained restraining orders requiring them to keep a certain distance from the clinics in order to secure freedom from attack while entering or leaving the clinics.

Pro-choice demonstrators have not needed to be similarly restrained, to the best of my knowledge.

It is those who claim to respect life so much that they're willing to shoot, blow up, threaten care workers and their families, in order to ensure that everyone abides by their belief.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Person, something like you or me, Someone that can live outside the womb. Not just a body but a brain. etc. Cells in a petri dish, not a person.

And no, you can't just kill someone. it's rude, but there is no right to life. You either make in into this world or you don't. Nature doesn't give a damn either way.

That's an awfully specific definition, but okay. I think we're actually making some progress here. At least now we know exactly what the other means by that term.

Let's try one last time. Right to Life, the right to be born, does not exist. You either make it or you don't. Once you are here you have a right, that we have established by the laws of men, to not be killed just for the hell of it but I wouldn't push that either since people often are. If someone killed you that could be murder, manslaughter, state-approved execution, or accidental. Staying alive is not the same thing as being born. The right to be born does not exist, and never has since most conceptions are not born, they don't survive the process. That's life.