Pro-abortionists furious at Tim Tebow ad

[CurveLight]

How does "tricking" a woman into killing her "child" (by telling her 'it' is not a child, like 'it' could be born a cat or a dog), "HONOR" her?
When she realizes what she did (usually years later), who can comfort her? She has killed her child, voluntarily. What a terrible burden to bear for the rest of a life.

You anti-Choicers are the most consistent post editors in the world. Where is there any trickery in saying we should honor womens' Right to privacy and sole domain over their bodies?

Answer my question first.

You claimed there is trickery with absolutely nothing to support that accusation. How do you expect someone to answer a question of a claim you invented?

 

[logical4u]

No. It's nothing like that but we knew you would not understand. The problem is you refuse to admit you want to force yourself (your views) between women's legs. You keep skipping over that part. Let's try a rough analogy. Let's say you don't like beets (or insert any food you don't like) and since you don't like them there should be a law that makes all beets illegal. Would you support that law?

How about if we made a law were children under two weren't considered to be human, and if you wanted, you (either parent) could take your child to "a center" and have them "eliminated"? It would be the "parent's" right to choose?

Trying to equate the unborn with 2 year olds is a great example of intellectual dishonesty.

How? the main difference is: age.

 

[Immanuel]

You anti-Choicers are the most consistent post editors in the world. Where is there any trickery in saying we should honor womens' Right to privacy and sole domain over their bodies?

the trickery lies in claiming you are anti-abortion yet pro-choice, and that a human fetus isn't human.

Well einstein, a fetus is not a human. That. Is. Why. It. Is. Called. A. Fetus.

You are wrong in this. A fetus is a stage of life. In this case a stage of human life.

A toddler is a human at a certain stage in life as is a fetus and a teenager and a human embryo. Even that despised "clump of cells" four hours after conception is human and on its way to becoming a fully developed, middle aged human being with a life of its own, if it is allowed to develop.

But that matters not. The fact is that it is a life and a human life. It will never be a cat or a dog or a mouse or an elephant. It will always be a human.

The issue is not and should not be couched in terms of whether or not the fetus is human. Trying to make it out that it is not human is attempting to use deception to win your case.

I've read some of your writing before. I don't think that is your intention, but it is what your argument amounts to.

edit:

In fact, I will help you out and make this proposal: At the very moment of conception it is a human being. Can we agree on that premise?

Read this after I made this post. Yes, we can agree on this premise and we can build on that. If we are not willing to begin agreeing somewhere, then we will never agree on anything.

Immie

 

[logical4u]

You anti-Choicers are the most consistent post editors in the world. Where is there any trickery in saying we should honor womens' Right to privacy and sole domain over their bodies?

Answer my question first.

You claimed there is trickery with absolutely nothing to support that accusation. How do you expect someone to answer a question of a claim you invented?

Let me re-phrase it for you: How does encouraging a woman to KILL her unborn "child" (because it can not possibly develope into anyhing other than a "child"), HONOR her?

 

[Immanuel]

so why make a stink over an ad that celebrates the "choice" made by this woman to use her womb for intended purpose? Especially if the opponents of the ad truly are "pro-choice, yet anti-abortion"?

$$$$$$$$$$$ and lot's of it.

Immie

I agree with you on that. If there was no whining then chances are none of us would have known about it nor been affected after the ad aired. Both lobbyist groups raise a stink over dumb shit to help generate income. The complaint the station is "aligning" itself with FOF over this is pure bullshit. It's nothing but a cheap scare tactic to try and make people feel like the Half-Time Show would be SCOTUS overturning R v W.

No kidding and here is an example from my own life.

I probably never would have read The DaVinci Code if the Catholic Church hadn't made such a stink about it. Thanks to the church, I read the book and I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Then I saw the movie and enjoyed it as well.

My personal opinion is that Dan Brown should have written a very large check to the Catholic Church.

I highly doubt that anyone would have noticed this ad come Super Bowl Sunday if it had not been for the controversy that has arisen. I'm watching the Super Bowl (can't decide who I want to win) but I can say that I WILL be watching for this ad.

edit:

You know now that I think about it, maybe FoF (it was them that produced the ad right? Can't remember for sure) should have thought about planting the controversy out there just to get people watching ahead of time... or maybe they did think about it?

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

How about if we made a law were children under two weren't considered to be human, and if you wanted, you (either parent) could take your child to "a center" and have them "eliminated"? It would be the "parent's" right to choose?

Trying to equate the unborn with 2 year olds is a great example of intellectual dishonesty.

How? the main difference is: age.

That's the least important difference.

 

[Anguille]

Trying to equate the unborn with 2 year olds is a great example of intellectual dishonesty.

How? the main difference is: age.

That's the least important difference.

If you see the woman who bears the child as less than human, as so many anti-choice activists do, then age is all they see. The mother is invisible. An egg shell to be cracked and discarded.

 

[Ravi]

bullshit. a bunch of you baby-hatin lefties have issue with the ad. Perhaps once you actually see the ad, you will have adequate information with which to base your protestations.

" Baby-hating, baby killers ...."

All inventions of the doctor killing cult.

I wonder whose sock puppet that was?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.

But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.

It seems to me that you have the only honest opinion concerning abortion as something that the government should ban. If it's wrong to abort, it's always wrong. No exceptions because the father committed a crime. Once you make those sort of exceptions then you are saying some lives should be protected and others should be destroyed. Even if all those forms of life are identical and equally desereving of respect. Those who say they are not equal are being blatanly discriminatory against some because of the circumstances of their conception.

I have heard of women who kept the children they had born of rape because they did not fault the children for what their fathers had done. A friend's daughter married a man whose mother had been raped by his father. I don't know if he ever has had contact with the rapist but he is not ashamed of the circumstances of his birth and by all accounts is a fine person.

In the 19th century in England it was customary in the case where a decision must be made to save the mother's life or save the infant to be born that the doctor asked the husband which he wanted. Some husbands were more interested in getting an heir so the wives where sacrificed. Like damaged cows.

Myself, if I believed that a woman's life was equal to that of the fetus she was carrying, I would say give preferance to the child to be born as the woman would have already experienced life and the newborn had not yet.

Are you saying in cases where the woman's life is in danger, she should risk losing her life in order for the child to live? That's sounds admirable, I just don't think too many women would come to that decision.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Oh my mistake, there aren't upset at the ad being anti-abortion, they're upset because its "anti-equality, anti-choice" and of course a "homophobic organization". Silly me

Yea, I am sure Jesus would be much more pleased if people kept silent about abortion, because you know, he would surely be for it.

If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue? Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension. You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles. Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.

Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act". Go read the gospels and get back to us.

Excellent point Logical4u, "render unto Caesar...."

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So are you now against abortion in "extreme" cases?

You may know the words you are posting but you don't know the message sent from the description of your position. Words can be used to send a message different from their normal application and I will give you an example. If I said: "The logic of a lonestar falls somewhere between comatose and jello." what message would I be sending? Do you think it would be complimentary? Or do you think it would be another way of describing dumb?

I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.

But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.

Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?

Wow you're really reaching here aren't ya? If you're trying to equate semen emissions to giving birth then you're even more stupid than I realized.

 

[CurveLight]

How? the main difference is: age.

That's the least important difference.

If you see the woman who bears the child as less than human, as so many anti-choice activists do, then age is all they see. The mother is invisible. An egg shell to be cracked and discarded.

They clearly don't honor their autonomy as humans but only treat them like performance products or breeding horses. All the comments that justify the anti-choice position based on "She should have thought of that before getting pregnant" shows indignation at the contempt of women for fucking without their permission.

 

[CurveLight]

If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue? Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension. You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles. Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.

Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act". Go read the gospels and get back to us.

Excellent point Logical4u, "render unto Caesar...."

Speaking of rewriting the Bible, why did you ignore what Jesus said by truncating the answer?

 

[CurveLight]

I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.

But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.

Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?

Wow you're really reaching here aren't ya? If you're trying to equate semen emissions to giving birth then you're even more stupid than I realized.

Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act". Go read the gospels and get back to us.

Excellent point Logical4u, "render unto Caesar...."

Speaking of rewriting the Bible, why did you ignore what Jesus said by truncating the answer?

Answer? There was no question asked, so no answer was required. I simply made a comment and for those that know the Bible the entire verse isn't needed to get the idea.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?

Wow you're really reaching here aren't ya? If you're trying to equate semen emissions to giving birth then you're even more stupid than I realized.

Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?

You think by asking the same asinine question you will get an answer? You fail!

 

[CurveLight]

Oh my mistake, there aren't upset at the ad being anti-abortion, they're upset because its "anti-equality, anti-choice" and of course a "homophobic organization". Silly me

Yea, I am sure Jesus would be much more pleased if people kept silent about abortion, because you know, he would surely be for it.

If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue? Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension. You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles. Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.

Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act". Go read the gospels and get back to us.

What hermeneutical approach do you use for your biblical exegesis? Do you use an Oral Performance model, and if so, do you place the Pharisees as sympathetic to the Jesus Movement? Where do you stand on Q? Does it have credibility? What do you think about the theory that Paul was initially an undercover agent for the Temple? Do you think the expansive renovations of the Second Temple backfired and hastened the Jewish Revolt instead of pacifying Judeans? Did Client-Kings succeed as a buffer between Rome and Jewish peasants? Do you think the Temple employees were criticized too harshly? Were they really more concerned about keeping Rome from direct rule over Judeans to prevent their slaughter or were they as selfish as portrayed?

I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have accidentally bumped into such a great Biblical scholar such as yourself. All I ask is for you to grant some patience since I might take a little longer than it took you to comprehend these concepts. Thank you in advance for answering the above questions.

 

[CurveLight]

Wow you're really reaching here aren't ya? If you're trying to equate semen emissions to giving birth then you're even more stupid than I realized.

Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?

You think by asking the same asinine question you will get an answer? You fail!

Asking and answering questions will sometimes happen in a discussion. I hear it is not unusual. Your clear avoidance of answering indicates fear on some level. Maybe it's because you don't know how to debate or maybe you see the implications therefore avoiding a very simple question. In either case, dodging the question and calling me stupid screams insecurity.

 

[CurveLight]

Excellent point Logical4u, "render unto Caesar...."

Speaking of rewriting the Bible, why did you ignore what Jesus said by truncating the answer?

Answer? There was no question asked, so no answer was required. I simply made a comment and for those that know the Bible the entire verse isn't needed to get the idea.

Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question. Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible. I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means. You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.

 

[Immanuel]

Speaking of rewriting the Bible, why did you ignore what Jesus said by truncating the answer?

Answer? There was no question asked, so no answer was required. I simply made a comment and for those that know the Bible the entire verse isn't needed to get the idea.

Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question. Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible. I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means. You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.

Your last couple of posts were quite interesting.

I'd like to know what you think that narrative means, too. I'd be quite interested in knowing if in coincides with my understanding of the passage.

As to your earlier questions, they too are interesting. I can't say I can answer all of them, but these all would be an interesting discussion in the religion forum.

Immie