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

[Vanquish]

Not one person on the pro-abortion side has debunked ANYTHING I've said. Not one.

 

[AllieBaba]

They can't debunk anything, and they can't justify the killing of babies. The only thing they can do is cling to debunked talking points (you should adopt kids before you voice an opposing opinion! If you don't protest war you don't get to protest abortion! If we don't abort the monsters, they'll grow up to be criminal/abused/neglected!)

 

[Anguille]

Pro-choice is pro-abortion.

We already established that, which caused the pro-abortion crowd to jump ship pre-board meltdown.

Well, I am sure in your own mind that has been established.

It seems that you are of the assumption that when you say something, that makes it to be true.

Unfortunately, I have seen not one person who is pro-choice "jump ship pre-board meltdown".

For the record, I do not recognize you as some kind of ultimate authority on this or any subject.

Immie

I hope you don't go to hell for that.

 

[manifold]

Not one person on the pro-abortion side has debunked ANYTHING I've said. Not one.

^All caps emphasis ALWAYS means it's true.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

And right on schedule, the talking-point troll blows through the last one on the list and runs away, to be replaced by the next troll on the rotation.

I wonder if they're at least getting minimum wage for this.

Sounds like you’ve been down this path before.

Did you have a chance to read the entire thread (I realize it's kinda long)? Right off the bat, some troll or other started out with this EXACT SAME spiel, almost word for word. We slapped him down with the EXACT SAME argument, and he ran off. Couple of pages later, BAM! There was another troll, spewing the same garbage, also in nearly the exact wording, as though it was something new and original and clever that he just thought up. We ran through the same debate, got to this point, and away he ran. Couple of pages later, voila! New troll, same argument, same air of "I'll bet you've never looked at it THIS way before". This one is at least the fourth or fifth, possibly more, JUST IN THIS THREAD, to present the same argument, in the same words, as though they're on some sort of hellish recording loop. And it happens every damned time this topic comes up.

I have been lurking on this thread for awhile but, admittedly, I have not read the entire thing. Indeed, this thread was so long that I could never get got caught up so I was reluctant to join. But, eventually, I just jumped in because abortion is one of the topics I like to debate.

As far as the trolls and sock puppets go, I treat their posts as an opportunity to re-state my points but I do have to admit that it does get a little tiring after awhile.

 

[Father Time]

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.

Demonstrate that it's acceptable? What is morally acceptable is subjective so how would you suggest it be demonstrated?

 

[Father Time]

I know, you don't recognize facts pretty much straight down the line.

Still, it's true. I posted the definitions of pro-choice and pro-abortion, and there was no doubt.

I think smoking cigarettes should be legal but I cannot stand the smell of the smoke and generally avoid people when they smoke. So am I pro cigarettes in your view?

 

[Vanquish]

Not one person on the pro-abortion side has debunked ANYTHING I've said. Not one.

^All caps emphasis ALWAYS means it's true.

Sarcasm duly noted. I never said caps = true. It is true though.

I've yet to hear a good answer to the simple question:
If you'll never know which answer is "right" - and one answer could be DREADFULLY wrong ending in death - why chance it?

 

[Father Time]

But, eventually, I just jumped in because abortion is one of the topics I like to debate.

May I ask why?

It's filled with over dramatic shmoes who will call you evil for disagreeing with them.

And really it all boils down to "Do you think a human life is valuable all the time or just when they're sentient/capable of pain/whatever"

There's no possible way to answer that question objectively.

All I ever see is stupid slippery slopes and yelling.

 

[manifold]

Not one person on the pro-abortion side has debunked ANYTHING I've said. Not one.

^All caps emphasis ALWAYS means it's true.

Sarcasm duly noted. I never said caps = true. It is true though.

I've yet to hear a good answer to the simple question:
If you'll never know which answer is "right" - and one answer could be DREADFULLY wrong ending in death - why chance it?

I wouldn't.

Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, pro-choice isn't about thinking abortion is morally ok. It's about thinking that completely denying women the choice is NOT ok.

 

[wolf_22]

I am more than a fetus. I am more than a blastocryst. I am more than an embryo.

if you are not, thats on you.

those pre-life forms are not my equal.

and even if they were - no one has the right to use my body or anyone else's. no one has the right to feed off of another or intrude on their rights.

you can't have fetal rights and have women still be treated as autonomous, dignified people

 

[amhealy]

more sex offenders work in the education system than in ANY OTHER PROFESSION .

Can you source that, please?

I thought that the profession that employed the most sex offenders was the catholic church.

 

[Cecilie1200]

more sex offenders work in the education system than in ANY OTHER PROFESSION .

Can you source that, please?

I thought that the profession that employed the most sex offenders was the catholic church.

Well, then, obviously thinking is not an activity for which you are properly equipped. Perhaps an information source other than pop culture might be of assistance.

A synthesis report prepared for the US Department of Education says that the study with the most accurate data puts the percentage of students experiencing sexual misconduct from teachers to be about 9.6%. Simple math will tell us that that's a lot more kids than have experienced sexual misconduct from priests, since the vast majority of children in this country attend school of some sort, but nothing like a majority of children are even Catholic, let alone in any sort of regular contact with priests.

 

[Gadawg73]

A woman becomes pregnant and her doctor states that because of her health she should have an abortion. She could die with child birth. The local district attorney has a mandate from his constituents and local churches NOT to allow such abortions.
Who makes the decision? The local district attorney or the family with their doctor?
Conservatives want less government and believe in family.
Liberals want big government, do not want the family making that decision as that is a government decision and liberals want government to take action.

 

[amhealy]

A woman becomes pregnant and her doctor states that because of her health she should have an abortion. She could die with child birth. The local district attorney has a mandate from his constituents and local churches NOT to allow such abortions.
Who makes the decision? The local district attorney or the family with their doctor?
Conservatives want less government and believe in family.
Liberals want big government, do not want the family making that decision as that is a government decision and liberals want government to take action.

The problem with using this as an example is that only 5% of abortions are performed because of health reasons. I don't think anyone would have a problem with performing an abortion to save the mother's life.

 

[Gadawg73]

A woman becomes pregnant and her doctor states that because of her health she should have an abortion. She could die with child birth. The local district attorney has a mandate from his constituents and local churches NOT to allow such abortions.
Who makes the decision? The local district attorney or the family with their doctor?
Conservatives want less government and believe in family.
Liberals want big government, do not want the family making that decision as that is a government decision and liberals want government to take action.

The problem with using this as an example is that only 5% of abortions are performed because of health reasons. I don't think anyone would have a problem with performing an abortion to save the mother's life.

Respectfully, you completely missed the point and it was most likely my fault.
The example I gave can be obtained in ANY SCENARIO.
Doctors will answer to the needs of the family and one can find NUMEROUS doctors to claim that it was a "medical emergency" no matter what.
Real world. Respectfully, please recognize this fact and join us conservatives against big government and allowing them to make the decision.

 

[amhealy]

A woman becomes pregnant and her doctor states that because of her health she should have an abortion. She could die with child birth. The local district attorney has a mandate from his constituents and local churches NOT to allow such abortions.
Who makes the decision? The local district attorney or the family with their doctor?
Conservatives want less government and believe in family.
Liberals want big government, do not want the family making that decision as that is a government decision and liberals want government to take action.

The problem with using this as an example is that only 5% of abortions are performed because of health reasons. I don't think anyone would have a problem with performing an abortion to save the mother's life.

Respectfully, you completely missed the point and it was most likely my fault.
The example I gave can be obtained in ANY SCENARIO.
Doctors will answer to the needs of the family and one can find NUMEROUS doctors to claim that it was a "medical emergency" no matter what.
Real world. Respectfully, please recognize this fact and join us conservatives against big government and allowing them to make the decision.

I get your point. Excuse me for being obtuse.

I personally would not have an abortion. But I support the individual's right to have one. Government and everyone else should stay out of it. I'm for less government, absolutely.

 

[wolf_22]

I am more than a fetus. I am more than a blastocryst. I am more than an embryo.

No, you aren't (unless by "more", you're referring to mass. In which case, Michael Moore is, presumably, "more" than you). You're just different than they are, the same as you are different from an infant or a toddler (again, we're probably just talking about mass, since this post didn't impress me with your difference in intelligence from your average toddler).
no we are talking about feelings, intellect, thoughts, sensations...everything that makes us alive and human. everything we use to describe the human experience.

if you are not, thats on you.

In much the same way I feel no need to declare my superiority to others based on my skin pigment, I feel no need to declare my superiority to others based on size and chronology. But then, unlike some people, I have something REAL in my life to be proud of.
what pride in not respecting women as full people who control their bodies?

those pre-life forms are not my equal.

"Pre-life"? Well, now we know WHY you have nothing to be proud of other than "Look how many cells I've managed to acquire!" Scientific acumen is clearly out of the realm of possibility for you.

Congratulations on your outstanding cellular production, though. We're very proud of you. :at, pat::

and even if they were - no one has the right to use my body or anyone else's. no one has the right to feed off of another or intrude on their rights.

you can't have fetal rights and have women still be treated as autonomous, dignified people

What kind of dumb **** discusses nature and biology in terms of "rights", as though there's some sort of Supreme Court of the Universe to which one can appeal the "unfairness" of one's anatomy? Oh, yeah, the kind of dumb **** who fucks around without protections and NEEDS to be able to kill her own child.

I find it very, very amusing that YOU are concerned about being treated as "dignified", though.

sorry you have no self respect and lash out against your own.

from any angle you cut it, a woman is a person and if she wants to end a pregnancy its her right and her choice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A woman becomes pregnant and her doctor states that because of her health she should have an abortion. She could die with child birth. The local district attorney has a mandate from his constituents and local churches NOT to allow such abortions.
Who makes the decision? The local district attorney or the family with their doctor?
Conservatives want less government and believe in family.
Liberals want big government, do not want the family making that decision as that is a government decision and liberals want government to take action.

The problem with using this as an example is that only 5% of abortions are performed because of health reasons. I don't think anyone would have a problem with performing an abortion to save the mother's life.

There's another problem with that scenario. I can't think of a single person on the pro-life side who is advocating outlawing abortion in the case of the mother's life being in danger. There ARE one or two, I believe, but they're such a statistically insignificant group, they're not even worth mentioning.

 

[AllieBaba]

A woman becomes pregnant and her doctor states that because of her health she should have an abortion. She could die with child birth. The local district attorney has a mandate from his constituents and local churches NOT to allow such abortions.
Who makes the decision? The local district attorney or the family with their doctor?
Conservatives want less government and believe in family.
Liberals want big government, do not want the family making that decision as that is a government decision and liberals want government to take action.

Lie, false premise.

Please show me proposed legislation that would require women who are in danger would be denied a D&C.

You won't, because it doesn't exist. Pro lifers have never proposed that women who need to abort for medical reasons be prevented from doing so. It happens very, very rarely, but when it happens, it usually happens suddenly and even before abortion was legal, there was no problem in treatment to save the mother's life.

Nobody has ever been forced to have a baby that would kill her as a result of abortion law. Never.

But continue to pretend this is an issue. Just like you pretend that the existence of the evolution theory proves ... something....about the creation of the world, life, and the existence of God.