Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[JFK_USA]

Yeah also NO BIRTH CONTROL because it would kill an egg. YEAH. WOOOO!!!! Lets go back to the 1600!!!!

 

[manifold]

You've no reasoning. All you've said is birth. You've made no argument for why birth changes anything.

It's a pretty material change in status dude. Challenging the obvious is not a very compelling argument.

So you've no argument...

I don't see it that way.

But regardless, that's still better than writing a grandstanding OP such as yours, only to see it so dismantled that you're reduced to arguing that birth is an immaterial event in human life, in a failed attempt to veil the tail tucked between your legs.

 

[JBeukema]

Really? You're gonna declare victory, rdean? You can't even be bothered to lay out the argument you claim you have

 

[Ravi]

Buttemia, why are you such a coward that you can't answer questions?

How do you know the mind of a rapist?
Why are you obsessed with this subject?
Why do you constantly lie?

 

[manifold]

Really? You're gonna declare victory, rdean? You can't even be bothered to lay out the argument you claim you have

I draw the line at birth because IMO that makes the most sense, all things considered.

I can't help it if that's too hard for you to comprehend.

 

[liebuster]

I don't think it's "right" for Abortion short of the reasons of Rape and Maternal (death) risk. That is my opinion.

Why is killing an unborn child okay if the mother was raped but not if she was just stupid?

How does your parents' relationship determine whether it's okay to kill you? You never presented any cogent arguments to make that case.

So....lemmie get this straight.........

You think that if a woman is raped, she must carry the memory of the horror around inside her, moving, and reminding her every day of what happened? Then.......send the kid up for adoption?

You really are a soul less bastard.

Why should a child be sucked out by a vacuum because its father is a criminal?

You really are a soulless bastard

 

[JBeukema]

Really? You're gonna declare victory, rdean? You can't even be bothered to lay out the argument you claim you have

I draw the line at birth because IMO that makes the most sense, all things considered.

I can't help it if that's too hard for you to comprehend.

So there's no reasoning involved at all? It's just what you've been programmed to say or what?

What changes between the time when the last toe is in and when the last toe is out?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Me shooting you in the face is between me and my creator? At what point does homicide become a social matter?

Yes, actually. Only trouble is, I'm gonna get to Him before you do, and I'm gonna tell Him that it was you that murdered me.

Yep. It'll be between just you two, because by then, I'll have already finished my part of the conversation.

So ABS is on record supporting the decriminalization of all murder.

A batshit insane position, but at least an internally consistent one.

No, I simply answered your question is your shooting me in the face between you and the Creator. I answered yes.

However..........it's also between the cop investigating the scene, the judge and the jury that hand down the sentence, etc. etc. etc. It's also between THEM and the Creator about how they feel as a society about what you did.

Try again Jolly Butt Licker, you fail yet again.

 

[JBeukema]

However...........telling someone what they can and can't do with their own lives is pure bullshit. I mean........if you do something like that, in my opinion, that's strictly between you and your Creator.

I mean......God gave us free will, which means we have the ability to choose sin or not. How do YOU know that maybe after some girl's first abortion, she may use that moment of despair and pain to actually connnect with Father.

Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?

You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...

 

[ABikerSailor]

However...........telling someone what they can and can't do with their own lives is pure bullshit. I mean........if you do something like that, in my opinion, that's strictly between you and your Creator.

I mean......God gave us free will, which means we have the ability to choose sin or not. How do YOU know that maybe after some girl's first abortion, she may use that moment of despair and pain to actually connnect with Father.

Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?

You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...

Not at all. We are all free to do whatever we want to do. Someone like you would probably laugh and point if you saw some homeless person being teased and poked.

Me? I'd walk over and tell the people doing the teasing to leave them alone. I've done it before, and will do it again if I see it happen around me. They are then free to turn on me and attack, and I am also free to defend myself. If people around me see what is going on, they are free to call the cops, and the cops are free to come out and arrest the both of us and see what is going on.

You apparently don't get the concept that if mankind didn't have free will, we'd do more damage to each other.

But then again.......it's reflected in your laser narrow views Jolly Butt Kisser.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?

You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...

I think it is you that wants it both ways. Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being (obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you). Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.

For the sake of argument we will stick with your premise that the unborn is a human being. Science itself doesn't care about the value of life but it might explain why we do. The easiest to explain is why we value our own life, it is instinctual, it has literally been breed into us, survivors live to give birth to survivors. Furthermore (in general ignoring outliers) we value the other humans in an almost instinctual way that helps ensure the survival of our species.

What is rarely true is that we value human life in an absolute way. Is it the norm for pro-lifers to conduct funerals for an early term miscarriage or grieve in the same way? Many early miscarriage go undetected but no effort is made to monitor the well being of these 'children'. History shows us that our value of human life steadily increase as it develops... to a point (e.g. we value a newborn over a fetus, a fetus over a zygote and even a toddler over a newborn) This value seems to peak around the time a child can survive independently and remains fairly steady through the reproductive years and continues as long as the person is contributing to society. Unfortunately throughout history we also see less value given to the elderly.

Science makes no moral judgements but people do and with consensus societies tend to make them law. As an individual you can choose not to have an abortion but our society currently won't punish you if you do. One would probably be scared to be in a dark alley with a bunch of murders but wouldn't feel the same if it was a bunch of women that had abortions and the doctors who gave them. Most people would find the idea of executing a woman for terminating her pregnancy absurd and they should because it goes against our very nature.

 

[Bern80]

I think it is you that wants it both ways. Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being (obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you). Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.

I woulldn't engage in it either simply because societies opinion is completely arbitrary. The only definition based on any real absoute truth is a scientific one. The changes that turn a lump of cells into a human being are scientfically observable. But we can't observe when someone is imbued with a soul (religous). And far as legal and historical definitions, those again are going to be totally arbitrary and based simply on one's opinion. An opinion that can't be backed by anything observable. You're trying to accuse JB of avoiding an argument that isn't convenient when the reality is it's other way around. It is YOU that wants to avoid the scientific argument because it's not convenient for your position. It's easier for you to use those other defintions of personhood because they fit your position better. The only problem for you is they are definitions that have no real meaning. They are totally arbitrary points in time that someone simply pulled out of their ass at some point in history.

 

[editec]

However...........telling someone what they can and can't do with their own lives is pure bullshit. I mean........if you do something like that, in my opinion, that's strictly between you and your Creator.

Me shooting you in the face is between me and my creator? At what point does homicide become a social matter?

Post natal.

 

[Ravi]

Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?

You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...

I think it is you that wants it both ways. Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being (obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you). Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.

For the sake of argument we will stick with your premise that the unborn is a human being. Science itself doesn't care about the value of life but it might explain why we do. The easiest to explain is why we value our own life, it is instinctual, it has literally been breed into us, survivors live to give birth to survivors. Furthermore (in general ignoring outliers) we value the other humans in an almost instinctual way that helps ensure the survival of our species.

What is rarely true is that we value human life in an absolute way. Is it the norm for pro-lifers to conduct funerals for an early term miscarriage or grieve in the same way? Many early miscarriage go undetected but no effort is made to monitor the well being of these 'children'. History shows us that our value of human life steadily increase as it develops... to a point (e.g. we value a newborn over a fetus, a fetus over a zygote and even a toddler over a newborn) This value seems to peak around the time a child can survive independently and remains fairly steady through the reproductive years and continues as long as the person is contributing to society. Unfortunately throughout history we also see less value given to the elderly.

Science makes no moral judgements but people do and with consensus societies tend to make them law. As an individual you can choose not to have an abortion but our society currently won't punish you if you do. One would probably be scared to be in a dark alley with a bunch of murders but wouldn't feel the same if it was a bunch of women that had abortions and the doctors who gave them. Most people would find the idea of executing a woman for terminating her pregnancy absurd and they should because it goes against our very nature.

I'd like to add an analogy here.

A woman is like a mango tree. My mango tree often drops fruit if she has produced too much or has been stressed by weather or lack of a balanced diet. Some years she drops them all and produces a big crop the following year. Some years she drops some of them and produces a medium crop of healthy, tasty mangoes.

Just like my mango tree, a woman instinctively knows if she is ready to give birth. Having someone else make that decision for her goes against nature.

 

[Seawytch]

Women have been ridding their bodies of unwanted pregnancies since the beginning of time and making abortion illegal or difficult to obtain isn't going to change that. The ONLY way to combat abortion is through sex education. The same people that would not want a woman to rid herself of a rapists baby also don't want to see comprehensive sex education in schools.

Also, there is no such thing as "pro abortion". That's ludicrous. Most that are PRO CHOICE want to keep abortion safe, legal and RARE, period.

 

[Robert]

No one has a 'Pro Choice' to commit murder...period

I would really like to see some proof of these supposed people stopping Sex Ed or for that matter people or policy's stopping a women from terminating a child from rape or incest.

Women have been ridding their bodies of unwanted pregnancies since the beginning of time and making abortion illegal or difficult to obtain isn't going to change that. The ONLY way to combat abortion is through sex education. The same people that would not want a woman to rid herself of a rapists baby also don't want to see comprehensive sex education in schools.

Also, there is no such thing as "pro abortion". That's ludicrous. Most that are PRO CHOICE want to keep abortion safe, legal and RARE, period.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It's always fun to hear people who cheer and beg for more war use the emotional tagline "commit murder."

Moral and rational people can be either pro-life or pro-choice, it's intellectually embarrassing to play the "holier than thou" card for either side.

On another note is there anyone on the planet who's "pro-abortion"? Seems like the OP posts a dishonest thread title while asking others to be honest. hmmm

 

[Robert]

Funny though how its the Left begging for more War and Cheering the whole sale murder of innocent lives. "holier than thou" card for either side..... Indeed

It's always fun to hear people who cheer and beg for more war use the emotional tagline "commit murder."

Moral and rational people can be either pro-life or pro-choice, it's intellectually embarrassing to play the "holier than thou" card for either side.

On another note is there anyone on the planet who's "pro-abortion"? Seems like the OP posts a dishonest thread title while asking others to be honest. hmmm

 

[Ravi]

I would really like to see some proof of these supposed people stopping Sex Ed or for that matter people or policy's stopping a women from terminating a child from rape or incest.

Use the search function. There are many here that believe teaching people how to not get pregnant encourages them to have sex.

 

[Eric Cartman]

I woulldn't engage in it either simply because societies opinion is completely arbitrary. The only definition based on any real absoute truth is a scientific one. The changes that turn a lump of cells into a human being are scientfically observable. But we can't observe when someone is imbued with a soul (religous). And far as legal and historical definitions, those again are going to be totally arbitrary and based simply on one's opinion. An opinion that can't be backed by anything observable. You're trying to accuse JB of avoiding an argument that isn't convenient when the reality is it's other way around. It is YOU that wants to avoid the scientific argument because it's not convenient for your position. It's easier for you to use those other defintions of personhood because they fit your position better. The only problem for you is they are definition that have no real meaning they are totally arbitrary points in time that someone simply pulled out of their ass at some point in history.

Science, especially biological science is somewhat arbitrary. Like the need to define life (e.g. movement, reproduction, etc), now we can make machines that mimic/meet the characteristics that would meet some definitions of life (arbitrary). Science can observe the stages of human development (heartbeat, spinal cord, brain waves, speech and motor skills) and characteristics of our species (two arms, two legs, DNA) but it can't define when you have a soul or when the potential for full development grants the same rights as the fully developed. Those are issues for society and individuals to make.

We could say that no one is an individual until the are separated from their mother by definition (of course definitions by there very nature are arbitrary) hence they are granted no individual rights. Of course this invariably brings up conjoined twins which in turn raises new moral dilemmas... and on and on.