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

[NYcarbineer]

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?

If there is no difference between a human fetus, a human embryo, a human fertilized egg, and a born Person,

then hiring someone to perform an abortion on you is materially no different than hiring someone to kill your child, or your spouse, or your boss, or the guy who owes you money, etc., etc., etc.

Are you prepared to defend that position, and all the implications it has for the law assuming YOUR logic were used to establish the criminality of abortion?

The practical implications of his acadmeic positions is JB's kryptonite.

The OP won't debate me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OMG!! So now the Moral equivalent of Murdering an innocent child is the same as going to War LMFAO!! you might want to throw that shovel away. or keep digging LOL!!!

]

Is taking RU486 to terminate a pregnancy the moral equivalent of drowning your 2 year old in the bathtub?

 

[Robert]

OMG!! So now the Moral equivalent of Murdering an innocent child is the same as going to War LMFAO!! you might want to throw that shovel away. or keep digging LOL!!!

Keep digging your hole deeper.

I want you to tell me how our military adventures in this century that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians isn't murder.

And if it is murder, why aren't you posting messages using that same emotional tagline on war-related threads?

No, I don't view abortion as murdering an innocent child you do.

So using your logic, what's the difference between murdering an innocent child by dropping a bomb on their head and murdering a child through abortion?

If you're pro-life then you're anti-war, if you're not anti-war than all you are is trying to force your religious views into law. Has absolutely nothing to do with the fetus/baby.

Got news for ya sport I'm not Religious...I also believe there are valid medical reasons for the allowance of a termination....And guess what that hole you're digging just keeps getting deeper. I also believe that war is permissible as is taking a life when that life threatens myself or family or nation. So I find myself laughing at your attempt to make this issue an either or argument as there is no rational basis to that attempt.

The solution to the abortion issue is not one of Pro Choice to commit murder of a defenseless child. If there are to be Abortions as much as I loath the practice then doing so should be extremely difficult (Next to impossible) unless there are valid medical or health issue involved.

But the Left's desire to maintain Death on Demand like you're going to McDonald's is not acceptable.

So please continue to dig a little deeper I'm having fun watching.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

This sounds to me like you're inventing dilemmas based on people's ignorance, rather than on any actual facts.

Science doesn't define life the way you seem to think it does. Lay people sometimes mistakenly do, because those things could often be considered SYMPTOMS of life (those signs that we can observe), but that doesn't make them the definition of life. Think of it this way: you could observe that I'm coughing and sneezing a great deal, and draw the conclusion that I have a cold. But those are signs and symptoms of a cold, not the actual definition of what a cold IS (which would be an infection of the upper respiratory system by a specific virus).

As for the whole "we could say no one is an individual until separated from his mother" thing, we could also say the moon is made of green cheese. Saying something is meaningless to making it true. While it is true that what to do or think or feel about the facts is a matter of opinion, the facts themselves are not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And there are many that believe that it is not the function of the state to discuss the personal subject of sex (and sexual practices) and what is ok to minors who are under the responsibility of parent/parents...

And there are, of course, varying stances on the rape/incest/mother's health portion... just as there are varying stances on when an unborn child can/should be terminated on the pro-choice side

Yes, and the irony comes in when those very same people think it is the function of the state to dictate when and if a woman gives birth.

WRONG

Not when a woman gives birth... when the unborn human life with it's own separate DNA signature is terminated by a woman... BIG mf'in difference

As stated SO many times... if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature), knock yourself out... remove an ear.. remove a pancreas.. remove your entire left leg for all I care

Since you tried to equate subject teaching of minors to killing an unborn human life... What the fuck do you think you are teaching the unborn child by carving it up and sucking it's brains out??

Interestingly enough, the medical community in the United States has more moral qualms about removing a healthy body part than they do about killing an unborn child. Strange priorities there.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yes, and the irony comes in when those very same people think it is the function of the state to dictate when and if a woman gives birth.

WRONG

Not when a woman gives birth... when the unborn human life with it's own separate DNA signature is terminated by a woman... BIG mf'in difference

As stated SO many times... if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature), knock yourself out... remove an ear.. remove a pancreas.. remove your entire left leg for all I care

Since you tried to equate subject teaching of minors to killing an unborn human life... What the fuck do you think you are teaching the unborn child by carving it up and sucking it's brains out??

Interestingly enough, the medical community in the United States has more moral qualms about removing a healthy body part than they do about killing an unborn child. Strange priorities there.

Are you in the medical community?

 

[Dr.Drock]

OMG!! So now the Moral equivalent of Murdering an innocent child is the same as going to War LMFAO!! you might want to throw that shovel away. or keep digging LOL!!!

No, I don't view abortion as murdering an innocent child you do.

So using your logic, what's the difference between murdering an innocent child by dropping a bomb on their head and murdering a child through abortion?

If you're pro-life then you're anti-war, if you're not anti-war than all you are is trying to force your religious views into law. Has absolutely nothing to do with the fetus/baby.

Got news for ya sport I'm not Religious...I also believe there are valid medical reasons for the allowance of a termination....And guess what that hole you're digging just keeps getting deeper. I also believe that war is permissible as is taking a life when that life threatens myself or family or nation. So I find myself laughing at your attempt to make this issue an either or argument as there is no rational basis to that attempt.

The solution to the abortion issue is not one of Pro Choice to commit murder of a defenseless child. If there are to be Abortions as much as I loath the practice then doing so should be extremely difficult (Next to impossible) unless there are valid medical or health issue involved.

But the Left's desire to maintain Death on Demand like you're going to McDonald's is not acceptable.

So please continue to dig a little deeper I'm having fun watching.

Fair enough, then I wouldn't categorize you as being pro-life since you're not anti-war and you think abortion is ok in some circumstances.

You have no problem with baby-killing in a lot of circumstances, so again the principle of killing a baby isn't what's important to you. Something else is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.

Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.

Two things: One, I AM a woman, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume that similarities in our reproductive system automatically mean your thoughts and attitudes are the standard.

Two, if you "don't have to defend yourself", why are you doing it?

She's not.

Why is reading comprehension a challenge for you? (Don't you love having the same sort of question you ask given back to you?)

Yes, she is. That was the most defensive thing I've read or heard in . . . I can't even remember, it's been so long. My teenager wasn't that defensive when he got sent home from school for getting into a fight with a classmate.

And in answer to your second question, I'm utterly indifferent to idiots trying to mimic me in a vain attempt to sound clever, except when I'm amused by it because they sound so lame doing it. Your first question is too pointless and out-of-place to bother with.

 

[Robert]

No, I don't view abortion as murdering an innocent child you do.

So using your logic, what's the difference between murdering an innocent child by dropping a bomb on their head and murdering a child through abortion?

If you're pro-life then you're anti-war, if you're not anti-war than all you are is trying to force your religious views into law. Has absolutely nothing to do with the fetus/baby.

Got news for ya sport I'm not Religious...I also believe there are valid medical reasons for the allowance of a termination....And guess what that hole you're digging just keeps getting deeper. I also believe that war is permissible as is taking a life when that life threatens myself or family or nation. So I find myself laughing at your attempt to make this issue an either or argument as there is no rational basis to that attempt.

The solution to the abortion issue is not one of Pro Choice to commit murder of a defenseless child. If there are to be Abortions as much as I loath the practice then doing so should be extremely difficult (Next to impossible) unless there are valid medical or health issue involved.

But the Left's desire to maintain Death on Demand like you're going to McDonald's is not acceptable.

So please continue to dig a little deeper I'm having fun watching.

Fair enough, then I wouldn't categorize you as being pro-life since you're not anti-war and you think abortion is ok in some circumstances.

You have no problem with baby-killing in a lot of circumstances, so again the principle of killing a baby isn't what's important to you. Something else is.

Ya really you think? How many times do I need to say it or is there something wrong with you that we don't see? Death On Demand shall I say it again do you not see it?

Also sport the world doesn't revolve around how you 'categorize' people or thing's the world is far more complex then that narrow little either or black and white box you seem to live in.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Got news for ya sport I'm not Religious...I also believe there are valid medical reasons for the allowance of a termination....And guess what that hole you're digging just keeps getting deeper. I also believe that war is permissible as is taking a life when that life threatens myself or family or nation. So I find myself laughing at your attempt to make this issue an either or argument as there is no rational basis to that attempt.

The solution to the abortion issue is not one of Pro Choice to commit murder of a defenseless child. If there are to be Abortions as much as I loath the practice then doing so should be extremely difficult (Next to impossible) unless there are valid medical or health issue involved.

But the Left's desire to maintain Death on Demand like you're going to McDonald's is not acceptable.

So please continue to dig a little deeper I'm having fun watching.

Fair enough, then I wouldn't categorize you as being pro-life since you're not anti-war and you think abortion is ok in some circumstances.

You have no problem with baby-killing in a lot of circumstances, so again the principle of killing a baby isn't what's important to you. Something else is.

Ya really you think? How many times do I need to say it or is there something wrong with you that we don't see? Death On Demand shall I say it again do you not see it?

Also sport the world doesn't revolve around how you 'categorize' people or thing's the world is far more complex then that narrow little either or black and white box you seem to live in.

Lol you're the one trying to play the abortion issue as a black and white thing. "You're either a hideous baby killer or you're on the moral highground kissing every baby's forehead with me."

Anything I consider a baby, pregnancies at a certain point and babies in countries we're bombing, I am against them being killed. So in all circumstances where I consider something a baby and not a fetus I'm against the killing.

You can't say you stick to that principle. You aren't anti-war and since you consider all fetuses babies and you aren't against abortions in all circumstances than you don't even stick to it then. So you have no moral issue with foreign babies having their heads blown off and you don't care about the babies in the instances of abortion you approve of.

So, we're back to square 1, you're a hypocrite.

 

[Anguille]

Two things: One, I AM a woman, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume that similarities in our reproductive system automatically mean your thoughts and attitudes are the standard.

Two, if you "don't have to defend yourself", why are you doing it?

She's not.

Why is reading comprehension a challenge for you? (Don't you love having the same sort of question you ask given back to you?)

Yes, she is. That was the most defensive thing I've read or heard in . . . I can't even remember, it's been so long. My teenager wasn't that defensive when he got sent home from school for getting into a fight with a classmate.

And in answer to your second question, I'm utterly indifferent to idiots trying to mimic me in a vain attempt to sound clever, except when I'm amused by it because they sound so lame doing it. Your first question is too pointless and out-of-place to bother with.

You seem a mite put out. Did Si Modo get under your skin?

 

[Robert]

Fair enough, then I wouldn't categorize you as being pro-life since you're not anti-war and you think abortion is ok in some circumstances.

You have no problem with baby-killing in a lot of circumstances, so again the principle of killing a baby isn't what's important to you. Something else is.

Ya really you think? How many times do I need to say it or is there something wrong with you that we don't see? Death On Demand shall I say it again do you not see it?

Also sport the world doesn't revolve around how you 'categorize' people or thing's the world is far more complex then that narrow little either or black and white box you seem to live in.

Lol you're the one trying to play the abortion issue as a black and white thing. "You're either a hideous baby killer or you're on the moral highground kissing every baby's forehead with me."

Anything I consider a baby, pregnancies at a certain point and babies in countries we're bombing, I am against them being killed. So in all circumstances where I consider something a baby and not a fetus I'm against the killing.

You can't say you stick to that principle. You aren't anti-war and since you consider all fetuses babies and you aren't against abortions in all circumstances than you don't even stick to it then. So you have no moral issue with foreign babies having their heads blown off and you don't care about the babies in the instances of abortion you approve of.

So, we're back to square 1, you're a hypocrite.

LMAO!! So since you have no problem murdering children through abortion but have an absolute issue in taking a life through conflict while at the same time as supporting a president who has now murdered a lot of children.....Who would you say is the larger Hypocrite? hmmmmm Seems to me there is nothing hypocritical about my stance on the issue but there appears to be plenty with yours hmmmm how funny is that.

 

[Anguille]

The abortion debate can get so dull and formulaic sometimes. I think I will abort myself from this thread.

 

[Caroljo]

Now hold on there a sec. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to do. It is no picnic, I guarantee you. I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body. Wanna call me a murderer? Go ahead. Ive called myself much worse when I had it done many many MANY years ago. Its nobodies business why I had it done and I answer to nobody on why I did it.Say what you will. Unless you are a woman....you have no clue.

You're right, it's nobody's business and you don't have to answer to any of us...but someday you will have to answer for it....

 

[Si modo]

The abortion debate can get so dull and formulaic sometimes. I think I will abort myself from this thread.

(I can't send you any PMs cuz your box is full.) Thanks for the rep, Ongwee!

 

[Eric Cartman]

Science doesn't define life the way you seem to think it does. Lay people sometimes mistakenly do, because those things could often be considered SYMPTOMS of life (those signs that we can observe), but that doesn't make them the definition of life. Think of it this way: you could observe that I'm coughing and sneezing a great deal, and draw the conclusion that I have a cold. But those are signs and symptoms of a cold, not the actual definition of what a cold IS (which would be an infection of the upper respiratory system by a specific virus).

enough about your cold... give me the real definition and prove me wrong (not that it has anything to do with my main points). Of course I think you will find it has probably evolved of the years.

As for the whole "we could say no one is an individual until separated from his mother" thing, we could also say the moon is made of green cheese. Saying something is meaningless to making it true. While it is true that what to do or think or feel about the facts is a matter of opinion, the facts themselves are not.

"Saying something is meaningless to making it true." You have certainly 'proved' that to me.

Several of the early pro-life arguments were backed up by the "by definition" phrase and I was simply pointing out the absurdity.

Like:

1. A baby by definition has been born.
or
1. A person is an individual.
2. An individual is a single human being.
3. A fetus is not an individual.
Q.E.D. a fetus is not a person.

 

[Caroljo]

The "pro-life" crowd has a cognitive disconnect that I just don't get. Not only are they usually folks that are pro death penalty , but beyond that they are also usually opposed to any kind of comprehensive sex education in schools.

The goals of the pro choice crowd are much easier to understand. Keep abortion safe, legal and RARE!

Well first of all...the death penalty has NOTHING to do with what is being talked about. The death penalty happens when an ADULT murders another human. That adult made a choice to kill another person. A baby (fetus) has NO say and can't defend themselves. The person killing this baby is an adult...so that person should be held liable for the killing of that baby. Just like any adult that kills anyone.

Second, you're right, i do not agree with sex education in schools...it's up to the parents or guardian to teach their kids. Look what has happened since they put sex education in the schools! Now you can buy condoms at school! Do they use them?? Probably some do, but look at how many pregnant teens there are in school now! Ya, that helped alot! If sex ed is so important to have in school, why are there so many more pregnant teens and teens getting abortions? It's as if they're telling the kids it's ok...here's your condoms, go at it, if you get pregnant that can be taken care of too...

 

[JBeukema]

only if we're specifically discussing single-celled organisms

we are not

we are discussing humans

You sound like the YECs demanding your religion be taught in school because you don't understand what a scientific theory is

Find a real biologist and ask about the differences between cells, tissues, organs, and organisms

Hell, ask about organelles, too

OK. So you meant multi-cell organisms when you wrote organism.

Cool. We have that corrected.

An appendix is a multi-cell organism. It is alive. It is genetically human, if a human appendix.

Now what?






This is where that argument needs more. Human - adjective and noun.

go to your local high school and pick up a biology book.

look up cell->tissue->organ->organism

Hi, you have received -239 reputation points from Si modo.
Reputation was given for this post

I know, I know, science is evil when you need your faith to be true, eh modo?

 

[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...

Not at all. We are all free to do whatever we want to do.

So the Law shouldn't exist? We're back to Charles Manson's actions being strictly between him and god?

Most people disagree.

Someone like you would probably laugh and point if you saw some homeless person being teased and poked.

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

So you believe in a god who, if we had to do what he said, would order us to rape and murder eachother every time we saw one anther?

The god you imagine for yourself tells us what a piece of shit you really are

 

[Ravi]

Got news for ya sport I'm not Religious...I also believe there are valid medical reasons for the allowance of a termination....And guess what that hole you're digging just keeps getting deeper. I also believe that war is permissible as is taking a life when that life threatens myself or family or nation. So I find myself laughing at your attempt to make this issue an either or argument as there is no rational basis to that attempt.

The solution to the abortion issue is not one of Pro Choice to commit murder of a defenseless child. If there are to be Abortions as much as I loath the practice then doing so should be extremely difficult (Next to impossible) unless there are valid medical or health issue involved.

But the Left's desire to maintain Death on Demand like you're going to McDonald's is not acceptable.

So please continue to dig a little deeper I'm having fun watching.

Fair enough, then I wouldn't categorize you as being pro-life since you're not anti-war and you think abortion is ok in some circumstances.

You have no problem with baby-killing in a lot of circumstances, so again the principle of killing a baby isn't what's important to you. Something else is.

Ya really you think? How many times do I need to say it or is there something wrong with you that we don't see? Death On Demand shall I say it again do you not see it?

Also sport the world doesn't revolve around how you 'categorize' people or thing's the world is far more complex then that narrow little either or black and white box you seem to live in.

You're for death on demand but you are too much of a coward to admit it.