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

[Zoom-boing]

And unless he believes that this occurs at conception, he is pro-choice.

Fact, not opinion.

And? He's answered the questions he's asked. Other haven't . . . that was the point of the thread.

I answered his question. He was annoyed that I blew the premise of his OP out of the water so he threw a tantrum and refused to acknowledge that his challenge was met.

Imagine how funny it was to find out later that he claims to be pro-choice.

I didn't see your exchange with him.

Your last sentence . . . . I'm still not sure which side he falls on. Despite his 'self-aware' threshold, his responses and posts in here certainly seem as if he is pro-life rather than pro-choice. Only JB can answer that though.

 

[manifold]

And? He's answered the questions he's asked. Other haven't . . . that was the point of the thread.

I answered his question. He was annoyed that I blew the premise of his OP out of the water so he threw a tantrum and refused to acknowledge that his challenge was met.

Imagine how funny it was to find out later that he claims to be pro-choice.

I didn't see your exchange with him.

Your last sentence . . . . I'm still not sure which side he falls on. Despite his 'self-aware' threshold, his responses and posts in here certainly seem as if he is pro-life rather than pro-choice. Only JB can answer that though.

Which of course speaks to his lack of balls. In the other thread, he questioned how his being 'pro-choice' is statist. In this thread, he's been tap-dancing around it like a bitch.

But again, there may be strong differences of opinion from one pro-choicer to another, but anyone that believes in an 'acceptable' window of time within which a pregnant woman should be allowed to abort a living, viable fetus, that person is pro-choice. I mean shit, they're certainly not pro-life.

 

[AllieBaba]

JB is ok with abortion up until a fetus becomes sentient or self-aware.

And unless he believes that this occurs at conception, he is pro-choice.

Fact, not opinion.

Hmmm....

So...if you believe sentience begins at conception, you are pro-choice?

Where is that in the definition?

"(prō-chois')
adj.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term

Read more: pro-choice: Definition from Answers.com"

English. It's a good thing.

 

[manifold]

JB is ok with abortion up until a fetus becomes sentient or self-aware.

And unless he believes that this occurs at conception, he is pro-choice.

Fact, not opinion.

Hmmm....

So...if you believe sentience begins at conception, you are pro-choice?

Not at all what I said. In fact, I said almost the exact opposite.

Seriously, learn to fuck'n read you stupid twat.

 

[AllieBaba]

I have no problem reading. You seem to have some difficulty with communication, however.

Like I said, I hope you get well soon. I've heard that frontal lobe damage is permanent but there is always a chance that could change in time for you to benefit.

 

[Valerie]

I'm sure manifold has always been sentient...

 

[Immanuel]

No, I can prove mine.

No, you can prove what happened 37 years ago. You cannot prove your predictions that the reverse will happen if Roe were overturned. But, go ahead and pretend you can. No one will be able to pull you out of your fantasy world.

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Cuz it's a loaded question.


We've made the assessment that we don't find it to be a living baby until a certain point, so you're asking a question with an assessment that we don't agree with.


If you know it's not a living baby..........why not have an early abortion if you want?

That's not an actual question, just giving you a comparison to what you're asking, as you and the pro-life crowd have made the assessment that it is a living baby.

It just flabbergasts me that a group of people who like to pride themselves on being about the "science" rather than "emotion" or "faith" are somehow perfectly comfortable believing that "living" is a matter of "making an assessment" or taking a vote.

And who the hell is this "we" who somehow acquired the ability to vote on scientific fact and arbitrarily hand their decision down to everyone else?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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...

Hi, you have received -147 reputation points from Grace.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Fucktard

Regards,
Grace

Note: This is an automated message.

What's wrong Grace?


Once again the pro-abortion crowd proves the really, really, really hate facts.

Remember me telling you a while back that trauma tends to stop a person's mental and emotional development at the age when the trauma occurred? Grace's pathetically adolescent behavior just continues to bear that assessment out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

1) "Grown-up discussion" apparently means "treats my crap with respect it doesn't deserve and can't earn on its merits".

2) If you can define that "reason" as anything that constitutes actual proof that unborn babies are not living humans, I'd like to hear that, rather than just a vague implication that it MUST mean you're right.

3) Sure would be nice if pro-aborts would spend more time sharing arguments based on reality, rather than the perception they WISH was reality. "Pro-lifers need to speak positively about adoption." Oh, really? And now you're going to show us some evidence besides your desire to believe it that pro-lifers have no interest in adoption, right? And no, the fact that THIS THREAD - a thread on abortion, not on adoption - is focusing on its topic is not proof.

I would think the positives of adoption would be the first thing someone speaking out against abortion would go to, sadly that's not the case. Seems like to me positively enforcing the idea of adoption would work better than negatively attacking through holier than thou proclamations.

. . . And I wait in vain for Dr. Dreck to offer evidence that his worldview is correct, rather than repeated assertions that it just is. I wish I could say I was surprised, but frankly, he continues to hit my lowest expectations of him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cuz it's a loaded question.


We've made the assessment that we don't find it to be a living baby until a certain point, so you're asking a question with an assessment that we don't agree with.


If you know it's not a living baby..........why not have an early abortion if you want?

That's not an actual question, just giving you a comparison to what you're asking, as you and the pro-life crowd have made the assessment that it is a living baby.

Of course it's a living human. Otherwise, why would one seek an abortion?

a·bor·tion: the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

preg·nan·cy: 1. the state or condition of being pregnant; 2. the period from conception to childbirth


If one is pro-choice then be pro-choice. Just be aware that the choice of abortion terminates/ends/destroys/kills a human being that is in the early stages of development. No way around it . . . . regardless of the multitude of excuses and rationalizations that have been posted.

I'm not overly worried about the wording, just about everyone agrees with some abortions or some version of timing whether it's the morning after pill or within the first month, 2 months, etc.

Truth is I want the same number of abortions the pro-life crowd wants, the same legislation done away with the pro-life crowd wants, I'm not sure why ONLY focusing on the differences is what has to be done.

The differences would have zero impact legislatively anyways.

And the question remains, WHY do you want zero abortions? What possible reason could you have for thinking there SHOULD be no one having abortions, that ALSO allows you to believe they should be completely unrestricted and unprohibited?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wtf does that have to do with this thread?

?????

The two Ds of liberal debate: diversion and deflection.

 

[JBeukema]

And? He's answered the questions he's asked. Other haven't . . . that was the point of the thread.

I answered his question. He was annoyed that I blew the premise of his OP out of the water so he threw a tantrum and refused to acknowledge that his challenge was met.

Imagine how funny it was to find out later that he claims to be pro-choice.

I didn't see your exchange with him.

Your last sentence . . . . I'm still not sure which side he falls on. Despite his 'self-aware' threshold, his responses and posts in here certainly seem as if he is pro-life rather than pro-choice. Only JB can answer that though.

I don't approve of using Meth and support programs to help people get and stay clean, but insomuch as you harm no other person, the State can stay the fuck out of it. Shadow box all you want; that's your business. Start walking up and hitting strangers in the face, and now it's everyone's business and the collective have every right to take action to stop you from harming other people.

Same thing here. Pierce, tattoo, cut, paint, and whatever else your own body all you want. Use it to rape or punch another person and you've discovered where your rights to do as you wish with/to your own body stops.

Pregnancy doesn't just deal with your own body. It deals, by definition, with another living human being. Yet the adepts of abortionism can't admit that. Time and again they prove incapable of honesty. I just want to know why they can't be honest and now I've my answer. They can't be honest with themselves because abortionism is a matter of faith- a religion of sorts, in which denying the truth is an act of service in the name of some higher calling- usually radical fourth-wave neofemin[az]ism.

Which of course speaks to his lack of balls.

Your your lack of reading comprehension skills. See my post on page six of this very thread or see my posts on just about any thread on this topic. It's really not that complicated.

Page six:

Human life isn't important

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

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?

Cuz it's a loaded question.


We've made the assessment that we don't find it to be a living baby until a certain point, so you're asking a question with an assessment that we don't agree with.


If you know it's not a living baby..........why not have an early abortion if you want?

That's not an actual question, just giving you a comparison to what you're asking, as you and the pro-life crowd have made the assessment that it is a living baby.

It just flabbergasts me that a group of people who like to pride themselves on being about the "science" rather than "emotion" or "faith" are somehow perfectly comfortable believing that "living" is a matter of "making an assessment" or taking a vote.

And who the hell is this "we" who somehow acquired the ability to vote on scientific fact and arbitrarily hand their decision down to everyone else?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161359-why-cant-the-pro-abortion-crowd-be-honest.html

 

[Cecilie1200]

I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.

As long as it doesn't involve prohibiting it, talking to people about why they shouldn't, acknowledging any of the medical science around it, or really inhibiting abortion in any way.

 

[JBeukema]

I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.

As long as it doesn't involve prohibiting it, talking to people about why they shouldn't, acknowledging any of the medical science around it, or really inhibiting abortion in any way.

There was a time in America when we didn't let people like Drock reproduce...

 

[Dr Grump]

I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.

As long as it doesn't involve prohibiting it, talking to people about why they shouldn't, acknowledging any of the medical science around it, or really inhibiting abortion in any way.

There was a time in America when we didn't let people like Drock reproduce...

So you are in favour of sterilising folk? hmmmm

 

[Cecilie1200]

JB is pro-life. Period.

I see that Immie won't comment on the fact that if abortion were illegal, there would be less of it.

So what it comes down to is that the pro-abortion crowd would like to see abortion numbers reduced....but not if that means making it illegal. Gotta keep that door open to kill babies if *needed*...even though there is no true need.

Pro-aborts are always talking about how they want abortion to be "rare", how they want to "come together and compromise to lower the number of abortions", but for the life of me, I have NEVER heard one of them tell us any real, substantive way they intend to do that. The closest they come is prattling on and on about "sex education", like they honestly believe a majority of adolescents and young adults in 21st-century America have no idea how babies are made, or how one prevents it.

 

[rdean]

JB is pro-life. Period.

I see that Immie won't comment on the fact that if abortion were illegal, there would be less of it.

So what it comes down to is that the pro-abortion crowd would like to see abortion numbers reduced....but not if that means making it illegal. Gotta keep that door open to kill babies if *needed*...even though there is no true need.

Pro-aborts are always talking about how they want abortion to be "rare", how they want to "come together and compromise to lower the number of abortions", but for the life of me, I have NEVER heard one of them tell us any real, substantive way they intend to do that. The closest they come is prattling on and on about "sex education", like they honestly believe a majority of adolescents and young adults in 21st-century America have no idea how babies are made, or how one prevents it.

That's because the right wing fights "sex education" and wants to stop contraceptive use. But the worst thing they do is let children starve to make tax cuts for millionaires. Now we are talking "disgraceful".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-r...ake-tax-cuts-for-millionaires-is-working.html

 

[Cecilie1200]

Make it illegal, as all murder is illegal. It would do more to limit the number of abortions than anything else.

I think all that would do is create a black market, same way it did with drug use. If someone wants to have an abortion, just like if someone wants to smoke weed, they'll do it regardless of law.

So you honestly think that the amount of drug usage in this country wouldn't change at all if it were legal and more widely-available? You don't think legally prohibiting behavior inhibits it?

The past statistics I know you have on hand I don't find as an accurate portrayel, as before abortion was legal I'm doubting those who had it done went out of their way to report it.

Ahhh, more personal opinion, sans facts or proof, that we're just supposed to accept at face value.

By all means, show us SOMETHING to support your airy assertion that over a million babies were killed every year prior to Roe v. Wade, without anyone ever noticing anything about it.

I think the idea of education to keep people from getting pregnant, educating people (women especially) on the responsiblity a child entails, along with education on what to do/how to cope once pregnant is the best way to go.

So you really DO believe that millions of young adults in 21st-century America have no idea where babies come from or how to stop it, or that babies take a lot of work? Really? You really believe that's the whole problem here, that our society just doesn't talk about sex enough?!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I like the idea of people coming together and figuring out how to get the number of abortions to the lowest number possible.

Step One: Tell your daughters to keep their legs shut and your sons to keep their dicks in their pants if they're not ready to be responsible for a baby.

That would end 93% of all abortions.

I don't agree, you're going against basic human instinct to tell people age 15-20 something (or whatever age) to not want to have sex, completely unrealistic.

So your whole big plan to reduce abortions to zero is more talk and education about sex, how babies are made, how much work they are, but it's not going to EVER involve saying, "Don't make babies"?

THIS is what you want us to "come together" with you on: fucking makes babies, but it's unreasonable to expect you to avoid it, abortion is a bad thing, but you can do it any time you want, as many times as you want, for any reason.