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

[JBeukema]

Did you collect an insurance policy to pay for the funeral?

So the poor [who can't afford life insurance] aren't human and have no right live?

And we're back to the reason Planned Parenthood exists in the first place...

 

[JBeukema]

Why Can't The Anti Abortion People Be Honest?

First of all none of you give a rats ass what happens here on earth unless it relates to your stupid fantasy of pleasing your invisible friend God and going to never never land AKA heaven.

You all piss and moan about how a zigot is a life

What's a zigot?

..but what you REALLY mean is it is a life with a SOUL that has a right to go to heaven.

News flash! There is no such thing as a SOUL.

That is just another one of your stupid fantasies founded in your fear of death and the apparent uselessness of your existence. AKA There MUST be more to it all...THEREFORE there IS MORE to it all.

It is astonishing how you all leapfrog over the obvious obstructions to your logic to arrive at your shaky conclusions.

The real truth is that you do not cry for unborn babies for them..you do it for your make believe God.

If all of you worthless fucks woke up tomorrow and figured out that there was no God you wouldn't give abortion a second thought

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/01sally_girl_throw_tantrum_hg_clr1.gif?w=350&h=292

. You would see another human life as another drain on already stretched resources

. You would rightly ask yourself where are the tens of thousands of pounds of food ...hundreds of thousands of gallons of potable water...tens of thousands of gallons of gasoline.. tens of millions of watts of electricity going to come from to sustain this new life?

Truth is that better advice on the future of humanity could be better located within the walls of a mental institution.

You would know

Have a nice day.

You done with your tantrum now, little girl?

 

[JBeukema]

It was legal to Kill Mormons in Missouri, too...

 

[Zoom-boing]

I've experienced pregnancy and had children, including miscarriages.

My babies weren't *non-babies* until birth.

Did you find there to be a difference between them when they were in the womb and after delivery?

Or were they exactly alike? Did you get investigated on your miscarriages to make sure they weren't suspicious deaths? Were you issued death certificates for the miscarriages? Did you collect an insurance policy to pay for the funeral?

Would you expect these things to happen if the child had been delivered?

If so, what is the difference?

Aside from location, their stage of development.

They are human beings from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. Once implanted into the womb, they can continue on their development journey. Just because a 2 month old fetus looks different and is not as developed as a 2 month old born baby doesn't make it any less of a human being.

Why is it ok to take the life of a 2 month old unborn human but not ok to take the life of a 2 month old born human? (hint: because it's legal isn't an answer)

 

[smartdonkey]

Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception?

How about banning alcohol since pregnant drinkers endanger the fetus? Or banning fatty food, same argument?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception?

Peachy. Until one fertilizes the other a human being has not been created.

How about banning alcohol since pregnant drinkers endanger the fetus? Or banning fatty food, same argument?

How about answering questions already asked.

 

[JBeukema]

Why is it ok to take the life of a 2 month old unborn human

Because they don't look like us. Same reason it's okay to kill blacks.

Which brings us once again to Margaret Sanger and the reason Planned Parenthood exists...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception?

How about banning alcohol since pregnant drinkers endanger the fetus? Or banning fatty food, same argument?

My God, were all of you out smoking behind the same gym together during high school biology?

Let's try the Socratic method here, see if you can actually produce something that sounds vaguely educated. What is the difference between sperm and ova and an embryo? I promise you, they DID cover this in school.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

After I was born.

Why? What fundamental thing about your nature changes when you moved three feet to the left that made it no longer okay to swing you buy the legs and smash your skull against a wall, vacuum out your brain, rip you limb from limb, poison you, suffocate or drown you, or otherwise kill you?

What about when you had one toe in? When you were halfway out? When you were crowning? What changes?

Do I have to wait 'til the umbilical cord is cut? What about the afterbirth?

...If you can't see the fundamental difference between being in the womb and out of the womb, you won't ever get it. When I fry an egg, am I killing a chicken?

I’m afraid you’re the one who does not get it.

I agree that a mother’s egg belongs to the mother because a comparison between her DNA and the egg’s will prove it.

However, that same comparison done with her fertilized egg will not match. Nope, instead, it will reveal the brand new DNA of her offspring.

And you really have to be willing to accept this fundamental fact of biology to truly understand the argument.

Nobody is arguing that a person cannot do as they wish with their own cells; the argument is about what they are doing with someone else’s cells.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

I've experienced pregnancy and had children, including miscarriages.

My babies weren't *non-babies* until birth.

Did you find there to be a difference between them when they were in the womb and after delivery?

Or were they exactly alike? Did you get investigated on your miscarriages to make sure they weren't suspicious deaths? Were you issued death certificates for the miscarriages? Did you collect an insurance policy to pay for the funeral?

Would you expect these things to happen if the child had been delivered?

If so, what is the difference?

As I’ve already noted on this thread, this argument boils down to – “it’s okay to kill them because they don’t look like us”.

Well, I’m sorry, but I simply can’t buy-into that particular line of thinking.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception?

...

<Sigh>

At the risk of repeating myself, sperm and ova cells belong to the parents and this can be proven with a simple DNA comparison between these cells and the parent&#8217;s DNA. So the parent is free to do with those cells as they please.

However, once the sperm fertilizes the ova, a brand new cell is created (not in the biblical sense) whose DNA does not match the parent&#8217;s DNA. So this new cell belongs to someone else and others should not be free to treat it as their personal property.

 

[HUGGY]

Why Can't The Anti Abortion People Be Honest?

First of all none of you give a rats ass what happens here on earth unless it relates to your stupid fantasy of pleasing your invisible friend God and going to never never land AKA heaven.

You all piss and moan about how a zigot is a life

What's a zigot?

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/01sally_girl_throw_tantrum_hg_clr1.gif?w=350&h=292

Truth is that better advice on the future of humanity could be better located within the walls of a mental institution.

You would know

Have a nice day.

You done with your tantrum now, little girl?

That's all you got? Weak.

 

[snjmom]

Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception?

...

<Sigh>

At the risk of repeating myself, sperm and ova cells belong to the parents and this can be proven with a simple DNA comparison between these cells and the parent’s DNA. So the parent is free to do with those cells as they please.

However, once the sperm fertilizes the ova, a brand new cell is created (not in the biblical sense) whose DNA does not match the parent’s DNA. So this new cell belongs to someone else and others should not be free to treat it as their personal property.

So, if the new cell belongs to someone else, shouldn't it have explicit permission to use the womb to continue it's existence?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception?

...

<Sigh>

At the risk of repeating myself, sperm and ova cells belong to the parents and this can be proven with a simple DNA comparison between these cells and the parent&#8217;s DNA. So the parent is free to do with those cells as they please.

However, once the sperm fertilizes the ova, a brand new cell is created (not in the biblical sense) whose DNA does not match the parent&#8217;s DNA. So this new cell belongs to someone else and others should not be free to treat it as their personal property.

So, if the new cell belongs to someone else, shouldn't it have explicit permission to use the womb to continue it's existence?

YOU created that person. HE didn't ASK you to go out and fuck and make him. It's fucking stupid and juvenile for you to come up and pout because HE didn't ask permission to be in your womb, like you're some sort of passive, helpless bystander while HE is the active, malicious actor in all of this.

Cripes. Is there ANY point in the process where you stop blaming everyone else for your fucking around and take responsibility for it yourself?

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

Sperm and ova are human and alive too. So you want to ban contraception?

...

<Sigh>

At the risk of repeating myself, sperm and ova cells belong to the parents and this can be proven with a simple DNA comparison between these cells and the parent’s DNA. So the parent is free to do with those cells as they please.

However, once the sperm fertilizes the ova, a brand new cell is created (not in the biblical sense) whose DNA does not match the parent’s DNA. So this new cell belongs to someone else and others should not be free to treat it as their personal property.

So, if the new cell belongs to someone else, shouldn't it have explicit permission to use the womb to continue it's existence?

If there were any question about those cells belonging to someone else, I would not be arguing for its life.

As far as the permission goes, it would seem that mother nature has already extended that permission simply by the way we are put together.

And, personally, I think the government should extend the same basic “permission to live” to the unborn as they currently extend to those who are already born.

 

[mudwhistle]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

Some folks don't care if it's moral or right. It just has to be legal.

 

[Dr.Drock]

A few points

1.) I miss Immanuel, the only person who I can have a grown up discussion about the abortion issue on here .
2.) There's a reason society doesn't view an early miscarriage as they do a baby dying, funerals/obituaries/etc, providing an example of it happening once won't prove me wrong either.
3.) Sure would be nice if the pro-lifers would spend more time speaking positively about adoption after going through the pregnancy, rather than using 99% of their time and effort to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their exact same views.

Let's see what kind of insults that post brings, anything new?

 

[AllieBaba]

A few points

1.) I miss Immanuel, the only person who I can have a grown up discussion about the abortion issue on here .
2.) There's a reason society doesn't view an early miscarriage as they do a baby dying, funerals/obituaries/etc, providing an example of it happening once won't prove me wrong either.
3.) Sure would be nice if the pro-lifers would spend more time speaking positively about adoption after going through the pregnancy, rather than using 99% of their time and effort to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their exact same views.

Let's see what kind of insults that post brings, anything new?

Why would it bring anything else, since it is, in essence, a post that insults everybody of the opposition?

Essentially you say in that post that everybody (except Immie) who disagrees with you is stupid, and none of their arguments will work cuz you said so.

Completely worthless as far as arguments go. And you like to discuss it with Immie because Immie agrees with you. No big mystery there.

 

[Dr.Drock]

A few points

1.) I miss Immanuel, the only person who I can have a grown up discussion about the abortion issue on here .
2.) There's a reason society doesn't view an early miscarriage as they do a baby dying, funerals/obituaries/etc, providing an example of it happening once won't prove me wrong either.
3.) Sure would be nice if the pro-lifers would spend more time speaking positively about adoption after going through the pregnancy, rather than using 99% of their time and effort to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their exact same views.

Let's see what kind of insults that post brings, anything new?

Why would it bring anything else, since it is, in essence, a post that insults everybody of the opposition?

Essentially you say in that post that everybody (except Immie) who disagrees with you is stupid, and none of their arguments will work cuz you said so.

Completely worthless as far as arguments go. And you like to discuss it with Immie because Immie agrees with you. No big mystery there.

1.) Because if all you can post is insults, why post?
2.) No that's just the story you have going on in your head, I don't think you or JB or Cecillie are stupid, you just can't control your emotions very well and that's why you go on emotional outbursts rather than discussing/debating the issue. It's hard to filter through "arguments" when they include calling people poopyfaces and ninny muggins.
3.) Immie is pro-life, I'm pro-choice, so no of course we don't agree on the morality of early term abortion. I want Roe vs Wade overturned and want it to become a state's rights issue, that's what I see MOST pro-lifers advocate so I agree with them politically more often than I agree with pro-choicers.

 

[Vanquish]

I've still not gotten a decent answer for my simple question to pro-abortionists/pro-choicers:

If there's a chance you could be wrong about babies being alive...why chance it?