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

[Immanuel]

The point being: the founding fathers weren't concerned about abortion, perhaps because as Jillian pointed out, it was a medical matter. Abortion was legal from the beginning of this country until, according to wikipedia, it started to be outlawed in 1820 in various places.

Yet, it seems that in 2011, some people (although I find it hard to believe that Jillian is one of those as she has always seemed fair minded to me) think that now that the government is on their side, the discussion should be squashed. I highly doubt that in relationship to this particular issue if Roe v. Wade had not existed and the laws were as they had been in 1972, that those same people would approve of others saying that the issue is settled and has been for nearly 200 years so it is time to end the discussion.

Immie

it's not that i think the discussion should be quashed.

it's that nothing changes with the discussion.

and, frankly, getting called murderer doesn't rock me all that much.

For the record, I have never once called you a murderer.

In fact, I think the tendency of the pro-life forces to use that word or similar words is a detriment to the actual cause. It serves no purpose at all.

Nothing changes because people on both sides refuse to listen to the other side. We call each other murderers or clinic bombers or religious fanatics or what have you, but no one wants to sit down with a hated "choicer" on the other side of the table and say, "how can we reduce the number of abortions in this great country of ours?" Nor does that choicer want to sit down with someone on the pro-life side and say, "I realize that it is a human being within the mother and that it is sad to take that life, but we have these issues and the woman's life is more important and this is why... now what do we do to solve this problem and reduce the number of abortions?"

Your just a woman who thinks she's god and has the right to decide who lives and who dies! See what I mean?

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

How old were you, ravi, when killing you in cold blood went form being an okay thing to a not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become not-okay?

When I was born.

What mystical change took place when you came out your mama's coochie that made killing you not okay?

What if she'd had a c-section?

What about sucking your brains out of your head when you were crowning?

When you were halfway out? When you had one foot in?

When you had one toe in?

Can I kill you before the afterbirth comes out?

What about if I haven't cut the umbilical cord yet?

 

[Immanuel]

The point being: the founding fathers weren't concerned about abortion, perhaps because as Jillian pointed out, it was a medical matter. Abortion was legal from the beginning of this country until, according to wikipedia, it started to be outlawed in 1820 in various places.

Yet, it seems that in 2011, some people (although I find it hard to believe that Jillian is one of those as she has always seemed fair minded to me) think that now that the government is on their side, the discussion should be squashed. I highly doubt that in relationship to this particular issue if Roe v. Wade had not existed and the laws were as they had been in 1972, that those same people would approve of others saying that the issue is settled and has been for nearly 200 years so it is time to end the discussion.

Immie

I think since it was not an issue with the founders, since it was legal, since the unborn weren't considered persons then the years between 1820 and 1973 were the years when the laws were wrong. That the law in 1973 went back to the original intent of the founders is IMO, why people should get over themselves.

If you don't want an abortion simply don't have one.

And I think you have every right to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

That the law in 1973 went back to the original intent of the founders is IMO, why people should get over themselves.

If you don't want an abortion simply don't have one.

So if you don't want a negroe, don't buy one?

If you don't want to rape grace, don't?

If you don't want to set off a car bomb in Time square, don't?

Have a problem with killing or hurting people? Don't do it yourself and let those who enjoy it have their fun!

I think you should be banned for your unremitting nastiness toward Grace. And quite frankly, it is a shame you weren't aborted.

You two keep arguing that I have the right to do anything I want with my body. I asked repeatedly whether that excludes act that harms another person and you both refuse to say it does.

Ergo, you both believe what happened to her was okay because he was only doing what he chose with and to his own body, just as she did at the same moment when deciding whether to kick, bite, punch, or ride it like a champ.

It's your argument, not mine.

Or are you changing your mind now and saying that you right to do as you wish with and to your body excludes acts which cause direct harm to another?

 

[JBeukema]

Yet, it seems that in 2011, some people (although I find it hard to believe that Jillian is one of those as she has always seemed fair minded to me) think that now that the government is on their side, the discussion should be squashed. I highly doubt that in relationship to this particular issue if Roe v. Wade had not existed and the laws were as they had been in 1972, that those same people would approve of others saying that the issue is settled and has been for nearly 200 years so it is time to end the discussion.

Immie

it's not that i think the discussion should be quashed.

it's that nothing changes with the discussion.

and, frankly, getting called murderer doesn't rock me all that much.

For the record, I have never once called you a murderer.

Nobody has except her own conscience.

 

[Vanquish]

Allowing someone to rape someone is also not allowing a woman to do what she wants to do with her body.

Sure, it is. She can resist or go along with is as she wills, just as he does as he will with his body in attempting to overpower her.

I wonder whether the foetus would choose to tear its won body apart with a pair of forceps...

Wrong, both issues are about a person being allowed to do what they wish with their body.

Another idiotic point of yours destroyed.

But interesting that you think rape should be legal.

What the fuck?

You don't get to do what you want with your body in our society.

Can you ingest drugs? No.
Can you hit someone that isn't attacking you? No.
Can you scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater and not expect to reap the consequences? No.

I can't believe your argument is so narrow and pathetic as to boil down to "I can do whatever I want because it's MY body"

Your point was destroyed several pages back. The baby is ANOTHER body. Not your body. How it got there doesnt matter. A living creature is there from the moment of conception. There are cells growing. That's motherfucking life right there. You lose. Again.

 

[syrenn]

and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.

Should everyone stay out of eachother's face when it comes to detonating a bomb inside an abortion clinic full of people?

As far as your hypo goes, answer it yourself.

At what age, and for what reason, does killing a child in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
Why is it wrong to kill you now if if was okay when you were younger?

Your term "child" is subjective. It is a matter of opinion at what point cells become a "child" and at what point cells have a stand alone life of their own.


The standard LEGAL time now is 14 weeks.

 

[syrenn]

A woman does have the right to do what she wants to HER body

Agree. Causing direct harm to another is a different matter. Or should raping grace and bombing a police station be legal, too?

Again, C-sections it out. Give it birth. That is not causing harm to anything that has a stand alone life.

Do try and stick with one subject. Are you talking about the unborn or something else?

 

[Vanquish]

and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.

Should everyone stay out of eachother's face when it comes to detonating a bomb inside an abortion clinic full of people?

As far as your hypo goes, answer it yourself.

At what age, and for what reason, does killing a child in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
Why is it wrong to kill you now if if was okay when you were younger?

Your term "child" is subjective. It is a matter of opinion at what point cells become a "child" and at what point cells have a stand alone life of their own.


The standard LEGAL time now is 14 weeks.

You've just disproven yourself. You said it's subjective, yet you've given an objective definition (14 weeks).

Whatever the state of the law is, that fact that it's not cuddly or even visible doesnt change the fact that it's human life. Growing from the moment it gets all chromosomes.

Seriously. Humans need clear pregnancy bellies.

 

[syrenn]

Just as you should have no problem surviving just fine in Siberia, regardless of being unprepared and unequipped to do so. Right?

Do i say not to assist the 4 week old cells once it is outside of its host environment? Do i say new born babies do not require assistance to survive? Do i say children do not need assistance to survive? No, i do not. Just as a baby needs assistance to survive in a new environment I would need assistance to survive in Siberia.

Again, feel free to give all the assistance to 4 week old tissue on a table you want. See if it survives.

If i was given all the assistance i wanted in Siberia...i would survive just fine.

I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.

And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.

 

[Vanquish]

Do i say not to assist the 4 week old cells once it is outside of its host environment? Do i say new born babies do not require assistance to survive? Do i say children do not need assistance to survive? No, i do not. Just as a baby needs assistance to survive in a new environment I would need assistance to survive in Siberia.

Again, feel free to give all the assistance to 4 week old tissue on a table you want. See if it survives.

If i was given all the assistance i wanted in Siberia...i would survive just fine.

I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.

And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.

That's it? The fact that it's indistinguishable makes it ok to murder? Wow. You really need to stop rationalizing so hard there.

You're admitting that it's life. It is alive. You're stopping that life. End of story.

 

[Grace]

And I think you have every right to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.

There it is. The perfect phrase for this subject and any other subject. Might even use it as a sigline later on, its so good.

JB is on ignore, but quotes show he still has this fascination of rape.
Went thru it once before physically. Now I get to go thru it again verbally. Ill ask for him to cease. But I wont hold my breath.

 

[syrenn]

Oh knock it off, jillian. Go find ANYWHERE in ANY abortion thread where I've EVER ONCE brought religion (mine or any other) into it. Go ahead, FIND IT. That's really bullshit you know? I thought you above that kind of shit.

A fertilized chicken egg is a chicken in the earliest stages of life.

whether or not life should be PROTECTED from conception is a religious concept. I do not share that concept.

and for the record, i thought you were above the rightwing picture posting. we all know what a fetus looks like. having pictures shoved in one's face does nothing to change anyone's minds.

It's not just religious. I am pro-life for entirely NON-religious reasons. From the moment of conception it's life. All that's ever going to be there is there. Nothing else needed or added.

Is it a life of its own or just living tissue?

If it is a stand alone life, there should be no reason it cannot be removed from an unwilling host.

If it needs a host then it is not a life of its own, and requires the cooperation of the host. The host has the final say about providing that service.

 

[syrenn]

Sure, it is. She can resist or go along with is as she wills, just as he does as he will with his body in attempting to overpower her.

I wonder whether the foetus would choose to tear its won body apart with a pair of forceps...

Wrong, both issues are about a person being allowed to do what they wish with their body.

Another idiotic point of yours destroyed.

But interesting that you think rape should be legal.

What the fuck?

You don't get to do what you want with your body in our society.

Can you ingest drugs? No.
Can you hit someone that isn't attacking you? No.
Can you scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater and not expect to reap the consequences? No.

I can't believe your argument is so narrow and pathetic as to boil down to "I can do whatever I want because it's MY body"

Your point was destroyed several pages back. The baby is ANOTHER body. Not your body. How it got there doesnt matter. A living creature is there from the moment of conception. There are cells growing. That's motherfucking life right there. You lose. Again.

Yes you can do what you want with your own body.

Yes you can ingest as many drugs as you want, just don't get caught with illegal drugs.
Yes you can hit anyone you want in the face, but know you will be prosecute for assault.


If that baby is another foreign body residing WITHIN someones else's body, that person has the right to expel it for THEIR body.

If it is ANOTHER body then c-sections it out at any point after conception and let it live its own life outside of a host.

 

[Vanquish]

whether or not life should be PROTECTED from conception is a religious concept. I do not share that concept.

and for the record, i thought you were above the rightwing picture posting. we all know what a fetus looks like. having pictures shoved in one's face does nothing to change anyone's minds.

It's not just religious. I am pro-life for entirely NON-religious reasons. From the moment of conception it's life. All that's ever going to be there is there. Nothing else needed or added.

Is it a life of its own or just living tissue?

If it is a stand alone life, there should be no reason it cannot be removed from an unwilling host.

If it needs a host then it is not a life of its own, and requires the cooperation of the host. The host has the final say about providing that service.

Nice logical fallacy. It's called a false dichotomy, if you weren't already aware.

The host doesn't have final say about providing "that service." No matter how it got there, the baby is growing life.

Puke out that dichotomy to the side and ask yourself a simpler question - "are the cells alive?" One simple question. Much easier to answer. If the answer is yes, then BOOM you're terminating LIFE. You're murdering - terminating life without a justification like self-defense or war.

BTW, you prove an excellent point with your wording at how absolutely terrible it is when people use language like "service" to devalue life. The anti-life movement absolutely de-values life in its rhetoric. Over and over you have to unpersonalize children and life tp rationalize your "choice" which amounts to murder for hire.

Stop making life easier on yourself at the expense of a living (as you've admitted it is) being.

 

[syrenn]

Should everyone stay out of eachother's face when it comes to detonating a bomb inside an abortion clinic full of people?

As far as your hypo goes, answer it yourself.

At what age, and for what reason, does killing a child in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?
Why is it wrong to kill you now if if was okay when you were younger?

Your term "child" is subjective. It is a matter of opinion at what point cells become a "child" and at what point cells have a stand alone life of their own.


The standard LEGAL time now is 14 weeks.

You've just disproven yourself. You said it's subjective, yet you've given an objective definition (14 weeks).

Whatever the state of the law is, that fact that it's not cuddly or even visible doesnt change the fact that it's human life. Growing from the moment it gets all chromosomes.

Seriously. Humans need clear pregnancy bellies.

Right..subjective. In MY opinion 4 week old cells are a nothing more then that....tissue. 14 week old cells are to far gone. I do not believe anyone here is advocating late term abortion.

 

[Grace]

Im becoming very agitated and mean with this subject and I dont like being mean. Im off to find other news stories to discuss.

At least until the next time you decide to come back and start wailing, "I was raped! I'm a victim, so everyone has to SHUT UP! Stop saying things I don't want to hear! Abortion debates are ALL ABOUT ME! Bow before my towering suffering!"

At least we'll all be able to get back to some semblance of rational discussion for a little while.

The only one I said to stfu was to JB.
Link please, where I screamed for everyone to shut the fuck up....otherwise youre a liar and it didnt happen. Go for it. Ill wait.

 

[syrenn]

I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.

And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.

That's it? The fact that it's indistinguishable makes it ok to murder? Wow. You really need to stop rationalizing so hard there.

You're admitting that it's life. It is alive. You're stopping that life. End of story.

C-section it out and let have its life of its own. That is not murder. If it dies it dies. End of story.

I have never said it that it is not living human tissue. I do say it does not have a life of its own. Do try and keep up.

 

[syrenn]

It's not just religious. I am pro-life for entirely NON-religious reasons. From the moment of conception it's life. All that's ever going to be there is there. Nothing else needed or added.

Is it a life of its own or just living tissue?

If it is a stand alone life, there should be no reason it cannot be removed from an unwilling host.

If it needs a host then it is not a life of its own, and requires the cooperation of the host. The host has the final say about providing that service.

Nice logical fallacy. It's called a false dichotomy, if you weren't already aware.

The host doesn't have final say about providing "that service." No matter how it got there, the baby is growing life.

Puke out that dichotomy to the side and ask yourself a simpler question - "are the cells alive?" One simple question. Much easier to answer. If the answer is yes, then BOOM you're terminating LIFE. You're murdering - terminating life without a justification like self-defense or war.

BTW, you prove an excellent point with your wording at how absolutely terrible it is when people use language like "service" to devalue life. The anti-life movement absolutely de-values life in its rhetoric. Over and over you have to unpersonalize children and life tp rationalize your "choice" which amounts to murder for hire.

Stop making life easier on yourself at the expense of a living (as you've admitted it is) being.

Again, keep up with the thread. I have never said that the cells are not human or alive. There is a difference from having a life of your own and having cells that are alive.

My wording has nothing to do with de valuing life. Again, where it becomes a life of its own is subjective.

And just an aside since you are pro life, how many adopted children do you have?

 

[Vanquish]

I'm keeping up. It's you who seems to be lagging. Do try harder.

There is a difference from having a life of your own and having cells that are alive.

The child is put into motion at conception. Done. Period. Game, set, match. You keep rationalizing the ability to stop life. Just admit it. Murder of something tiny that you can't see is something you are able to justify to yourself. The viability of the child has nothing to do with whether it's worthy of protection or not.

As for my parental status, if you're inferring that my position as pro-life is less than fully valid because I haven't adopted...well you're failing there too.