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

[Immanuel]

Response to #1115

No, I did not. I didn't comment about what happened to you (other than in a pm). I've been mainly discussing/arguing the 'fetus is a human being' aspect. If you thought my posts were directed at you, they weren't. Well not directly but I guess indirectly based on what you went through. That wasn't my intention.

Immie, Thank you for clarification . You may be right and if you are, I apologize. I dont intend to go back and look. It will just rile me up again. Still...this thread hasnt been fun...nor has it been easy to leave it because I do have a say and feel beholden to state my opinions..which is why Im still here.

I understand it has been tough, and I have tried to moderate my statements because I realize that you have gone through a tough ordeal that I will never be able to understand. I have also attempted to inform others who do not appear to have seen your statement about what had happened to you.

Your input is invaluable to this thread but I feel that you are not right in all of your beliefs. Basically what I mean by that is that what happened to you unfortunately happens too often but for a very small percentage of all abortions. I cannot justify 93% of abortions simply because of the 1% of abortions due to rape or the other 6% due to fetal abnormalities or health of the mother.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol..learn to use the quote function and do one at a time.

Incidentally, I'm terrible about quoting too.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't know if this was a recent conversation or not, but I know that as of the other day, her inbox was full and I could not even thank her for a rep that she sent my way.

Immie

Oh, now I get what IMEURU was talking about.

The pm between me and Ang happened ages ago, not recently. Thanks Immie.

I have no memory of ever exchanging PMs with you Boink. And if I had and you had PMed me about wanting to discuss further in PM something we had been discussing publically in a thread I would have told you to keep it on the thread. It has always been my policy to discuss the issues openly. I rarely PM. I keep my box full because I find pm pop-ups annoying and most are just some generic thank you for rep. Anyone who has anything to say to me can write on my wall.

I typically will thank someone for a rep. The only person I don't thank is Strollingbones because I know she doesn't want it. I also read you did not either. There are a few that have their pm boxes closed and you can't thank them even if you wanted to i.e. Pale Rider and California Girl. If I know you don't want it, I won't deliberately reply although, I think occasionally, I screw up with bones.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

This is getting confusing. But at least its off the OP for the moment. Maybe we all need a breather.

Amen to that.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

Oh, now I get what IMEURU was talking about.

The pm between me and Ang happened ages ago, not recently. Thanks Immie.

I have no memory of ever exchanging PMs with you Boink. And if I had and you had PMed me about wanting to discuss further in PM something we had been discussing publically in a thread I would have told you to keep it on the thread. It has always been my policy to discuss the issues openly. I rarely PM. I keep my box full because I find pm pop-ups annoying and most are just some generic thank you for rep. Anyone who has anything to say to me can write on my wall.

I typically will thank someone for a rep. The only person I don't thank is Strollingbones because I know she doesn't want it. I also read you did not either. There are a few that have their pm boxes closed and you can't thank them even if you wanted to i.e. Pale Rider and California Girl. If I know you don't want it, I won't deliberately reply although, I think occasionally, I screw up with bones.

Immie

I don't mind thank yous if they come with a witty comment. It's the perfunctory ones that are a waste of time. I don't think my pos repping someone deserves thanks anyway. I ought to be thanking the poster for posting something worthwhile. My rep is a way of showing my thanks.

Being thanked for being thankful - too Emily Post for me.

Thanks for hearing me out.

 

[Immanuel]

I have no memory of ever exchanging PMs with you Boink. And if I had and you had PMed me about wanting to discuss further in PM something we had been discussing publically in a thread I would have told you to keep it on the thread. It has always been my policy to discuss the issues openly. I rarely PM. I keep my box full because I find pm pop-ups annoying and most are just some generic thank you for rep. Anyone who has anything to say to me can write on my wall.

I typically will thank someone for a rep. The only person I don't thank is Strollingbones because I know she doesn't want it. I also read you did not either. There are a few that have their pm boxes closed and you can't thank them even if you wanted to i.e. Pale Rider and California Girl. If I know you don't want it, I won't deliberately reply although, I think occasionally, I screw up with bones.

Immie

I don't mind thank yous if they come with a witty comment. It's the perfunctory ones that are a waste of time. I don't think my pos repping someone deserves thanks anyway. I ought to be thanking the poster for posting something worthwhile. My rep is a way of showing my thanks.

Being thanked for being thankful - too Emily Post for me.

Thanks for hearing me out.

I agree with you. Yet, I feel some will think me rude for not replying.

If the rep comes with a comment that I can think of a good reply, I add my reply otherwise, I do try to remember to thank them. Yet, I am never offended nor do I realize it if someone does not thank me... in fact, it is nice because it means I have a longer time before I have to empty my inbox again.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

Thank you for saying you're thankful.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't think it's rude not to thank pos reps.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Founders did not put fetal protections into the Constitution despite the fact that abortion up until the time of quickening was generally legal in the colonies.

A constitutional amendment is necessary to change that, if anyone cares about the legal business of all this.

The "founders' left very broad swaths which were to be filled in as time went on. There isn't any amendment necessary because it is already constitutionally protected ... if anyone cares about the legal business of all this.

As for why the "founders" didn't include the protection of women's rights... WOMEN HAD NO RIGHTS THEN. Women were chattel.

Ah... the good old days.

There are no fetal protections in the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I agree.

And I'm still trying to figure out how some of them can insist abortion is murder and then turn around and insist murder should not be punished.

I think it was Zoomboing who howled that I was trying to paint him as an extremist by suggesting that should be his position.

Imagine, thinking someone who commits a murder is a murderer!!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3494511-post744.html

thanks for proving me right.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

A child is a young human; one's child is one's offspring

It's not that complicated

It is a matter of opinion at what point cells become a "child"

No, it's not.

and at what point cells have a stand alone life of their own.

No, it's not. That is a simple matter of biology. The child is a young living human- a human life- from the moment two gametes from a zygote.

No matter how badly you wish for Earth to be flat, the science is settled

 

[Anguille]

This thread has gotten too civilized.

 

[Anguille]

I spoke too soon. Puke is back.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm sure it will come around again.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

DNA?

Blacks don't look like us. Does that mean they're not human either?

 

[JBeukema]

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

Every biologist on Earth disagrees.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Being 'human' based on counting the chromosomes is an irrelevant measure. There is absolutely no meaningful relevant similarity between a born person and a fertilized human egg.

Negroes don't look like us

Clearly, they're not human


You never told us what the difference is or at what point what magical change makes killing a child in cold blood go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing

 

[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?

It was definitely ok in the first 9 weeks, which is when RU486 can be used. What's your problem with that?

Is it okay to kill you in cold blood now? If not, why not?

What changed?

 

[JBeukema]

You've answered your own question but you're too stupid to see that. They were included in the phrase "all other persons." And you know who wasn't included in that phrase? The unborn. The founders didn't count the unborn as persons and neither do rational people.

Because they're not and the constitution backs that up.

Loser.

You know who else wasn't counted?

Women.

We needed a constitutional amendment to make it clear that females are people, too.

(Clearly, you're not familiar with the suffragettes.)

So let's go ahead and run with your argument and see where that takes us, eh?

Which proves that you need a constitutional amendment to give fetuses personhood.

So the Law determines who's a person and who's not?

So if i declare the Jews to be subhuman and pass a law to that effect...?

 

[JBeukema]

It is human only because the term is used so broadly

The definition of the species is too broad?

Who shouldn't be covered? Jews? Negroes? Gypsies?