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

[slukasiewski]

I think they realize that if they logically apply the principles of our law to their own view of what a fetus is, from conception on,

they have to take the stand that abortion should in fact logically be the crime of murder (what else could it possibly be?)

and the anti-abortion crowd is well aware that the idea of convicting women of murder because they had an illegal abortion is viewed as crackpot extremism by normal America.

Abortion does end the life of another individual human being. Abortion was made legal with Roe v. Wade. What abortion is, is legalized murder.

Second bolded -- Other than Vanquish I haven't seen anyone on the pro-life side saying that abortion should be made illegal. What I have seen is you making this false claim then going around posing questions as if it were fact and actually expecting answers.

What I and many others have stated is that reducing the number of abortions should be the goal of both sides. Do you disagree that this should be a common goal? I have also stated that if making abortion illegal achieved this then make it illegal; if keeping it legal achieves this then keep it legal.

That's an illogical position if you also claim that a fetus is a human being, and equivalent to a born person, or deserving the same rights and protections as a born person.

Why would you insist that the fetus is an individual human being, and then turn around and say you're willing to allow killing of it to be legal, if it reduces how many are killed?

Clearly you do not consider the fetus the same as a born person.

Oh look - the asswupe from Hannity.com forums has found a home. Getting the shit kicked out of you here too?

Idiot....

 

[Immanuel]

Abortion - bad

"Catholics" like Nancy Pelosi, and you, should be ex-communicated.

Ah yes, the old "conversion by force" scam. It works every time.

Immie

Huh?

Catholicism.

Pro Life

Dense much?

And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.

You can't make someone be faithful. You can't make them follow doctrine. Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.

I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

Ah yes, the old "conversion by force" scam. It works every time.

Immie

Huh?

Catholicism.

Pro Life

Dense much?

And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.

You can't make someone be faithful. You can't make them follow doctrine. Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.

I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.

Immie

Has anyone actually defined what "pro abortion" is supposed to mean as far as this thread is concerned?

 

[Zoom-boing]

I think they realize that if they logically apply the principles of our law to their own view of what a fetus is, from conception on,

they have to take the stand that abortion should in fact logically be the crime of murder (what else could it possibly be?)

and the anti-abortion crowd is well aware that the idea of convicting women of murder because they had an illegal abortion is viewed as crackpot extremism by normal America.

Abortion does end the life of another individual human being. Abortion was made legal with Roe v. Wade. What abortion is, is legalized murder.

Second bolded -- Other than Vanquish I haven't seen anyone on the pro-life side saying that abortion should be made illegal. What I have seen is you making this false claim then going around posing questions as if it were fact and actually expecting answers.

What I and many others have stated is that reducing the number of abortions should be the goal of both sides. Do you disagree that this should be a common goal? I have also stated that if making abortion illegal achieved this then make it illegal; if keeping it legal achieves this then keep it legal.

That's an illogical position if you also claim that a fetus is a human being, and equivalent to a born person, or deserving the same rights and protections as a born person.

Why would you insist that the fetus is an individual human being, and then turn around and say you're willing to allow killing of it to be legal, if it reduces how many are killed?

Clearly you do not consider the fetus the same as a born person.

Because preventing the unborn from being killed trumps punishing the woman. Sometimes you have to settle for the lesser of two evils.

 

[Immanuel]

Huh?

Catholicism.

Pro Life

Dense much?

And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.

You can't make someone be faithful. You can't make them follow doctrine. Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.

I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.

Immie

Has anyone actually defined what "pro abortion" is supposed to mean as far as this thread is concerned?

Nope and in this case it is in my context. Nancy Pelosi is a tool of the abortion industry and she will do whatever she can do to make sure that abortion is anything but "rare".

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

When the pro-abortionists say things like "a 9-week old fetus is just a clump of cells" they open the door for pics of what a 9-week old fetus really is.

So the stunt is in response to the "stunt" of referring to a 9-week old baby as a clump of cells.

This is a clump of cells:

Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise. And just go on like it never happened.

How the fuck does one compromise on facts? It's not like we can say, "Oh, all right, we'll just change the study of biology to make you feel better." The truth is what it is, and I can't make the world flat just to be nice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise. And just go on like it never happened.

Compromise for what? Abortion is legal and isn't going anywhere and restrictions are in place. Unless you mean compromise on those restrictions? Can't a woman get an abortion within the first 3 months now?

A court ruling is not a Law, and can be overturned. Until a law is actually made providing definition, then there will always be a debate, and attempts to change the ruling.

And a woman can get an abortion in the 1st 3 months, but there are a myriad of exceptions allowing women to circumvent this.

My point here is that a law that specifically defines when a fetus becomes a full human being would end the debate forever. Such legislation would have to be a compromise.

Now we're having science decided for us by lawyers? Really? We need laws to tell us what reality is? Jesus.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ah yes, the old "conversion by force" scam. It works every time.

Immie

Huh?

Catholicism.

Pro Life

Dense much?

And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.

You can't make someone be faithful. You can't make them follow doctrine. Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.

I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.

Immie

You can't make someone follow the rules of a club, but you CAN toss them out of the club if they don't.

If you don't share the beliefs that define being a Catholic, why the hell would you want to be one? I don't usually join churches whose doctrines I disagree with.

 

[Vast LWC]

When the pro-abortionists say things like "a 9-week old fetus is just a clump of cells" they open the door for pics of what a 9-week old fetus really is.

So the stunt is in response to the "stunt" of referring to a 9-week old baby as a clump of cells.

This is a clump of cells:

Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise. And just go on like it never happened.

How the fuck does one compromise on facts? It's not like we can say, "Oh, all right, we'll just change the study of biology to make you feel better." The truth is what it is, and I can't make the world flat just to be nice.

You can keep shouting this BS until your head explodes. 92 pages of spouting the exact same argument over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

 

[AllieBaba]

Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise. And just go on like it never happened.

How the fuck does one compromise on facts? It's not like we can say, "Oh, all right, we'll just change the study of biology to make you feel better." The truth is what it is, and I can't make the world flat just to be nice.

You can keep shouting this BS until your head explodes. 92 pages of spouting the exact same argument over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

Lol..how true. Which is why the baby killer *argument* that it's just a cluster of cells is so laughable. As is their continued and wrong-headed assertion that abortion reduces child neglect, child abuse, child murder, and (in the case of the mothers) depression.

If one goes by the numbers, it appears to increase all those things.

But the abortionists just keep saying over and over that abortion is the cure...

 

[Anguille]

Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise. And just go on like it never happened.

How the fuck does one compromise on facts? It's not like we can say, "Oh, all right, we'll just change the study of biology to make you feel better." The truth is what it is, and I can't make the world flat just to be nice.

You can keep shouting this BS until your head explodes. 92 pages of spouting the exact same argument over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

No but it keeps her occupied. Think of the real people she knows and be glad for them that she is ranting away in real life.

 

[RachelMadcow]

Why do Democrats rally to kill black babies at will with other people's labor and wages?


Odd platform indeed

 

[Cecilie1200]

Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise. And just go on like it never happened.

How the fuck does one compromise on facts? It's not like we can say, "Oh, all right, we'll just change the study of biology to make you feel better." The truth is what it is, and I can't make the world flat just to be nice.

You can keep shouting this BS until your head explodes. 92 pages of spouting the exact same argument over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

And if I were you, spouting bullshit and opinions and how I WANTED things to be, that would be a problem. Since I'M not the one who needs to make something true that isn't, I'm not worried about it.

And I have no problem spending as many pages shoving the facts in your face as are necessary to get you to quit avoiding and denying them. How many pages of truth are too many?

 

[Immanuel]

Huh?

Catholicism.

Pro Life

Dense much?

And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.

You can't make someone be faithful. You can't make them follow doctrine. Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.

I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.

Immie

You can't make someone follow the rules of a club, but you CAN toss them out of the club if they don't.

If you don't share the beliefs that define being a Catholic, why the hell would you want to be one? I don't usually join churches whose doctrines I disagree with.

I cannot believe one accepts ALL doctrine of a church.

I don't agree with all doctrines of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of which I am a member. For instance, I disagree with "closed communion". Disagreeing with that particular doctrine of my church does not mean that I disagree with all doctrines of my church.

The only way, I can ever agree with all doctrines of my church would be to become the next David Koresh or Jim Jones. I'm really not into the playing god kind of games.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise. And just go on like it never happened.

How the fuck does one compromise on facts? It's not like we can say, "Oh, all right, we'll just change the study of biology to make you feel better." The truth is what it is, and I can't make the world flat just to be nice.

You can keep shouting this BS until your head explodes. 92 pages of spouting the exact same argument over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

Note: you might want to try reading some of the BS spouted by NYCaribineer throughout this thread. Not to mention JBeukemia as well. It has really been pretty bad.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.

You can't make someone be faithful. You can't make them follow doctrine. Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.

I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.

Immie

You can't make someone follow the rules of a club, but you CAN toss them out of the club if they don't.

If you don't share the beliefs that define being a Catholic, why the hell would you want to be one? I don't usually join churches whose doctrines I disagree with.

I cannot believe one accepts ALL doctrine of a church.

I don't agree with all doctrines of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of which I am a member. For instance, I disagree with "closed communion". Disagreeing with that particular doctrine of my church does not mean that I disagree with all doctrines of my church.

The only way, I can ever agree with all doctrines of my church would be to become the next David Koresh or Jim Jones. I'm really not into the playing god kind of games.

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

And "thou shalt be pro-life" is the 11th commandment.

You can't make someone be faithful. You can't make them follow doctrine. Simply because NP is pro-choice (and for her, I would not think it much of a stretch to say she is pro-abortion) doesn't mean that she is not a believer in Christ.

I would never be a Catholic simply because of their view that you accept everything the Pope farts out.

Immie

You can't make someone follow the rules of a club, but you CAN toss them out of the club if they don't.

If you don't share the beliefs that define being a Catholic, why the hell would you want to be one? I don't usually join churches whose doctrines I disagree with.

I cannot believe one accepts ALL doctrine of a church.

I don't agree with all doctrines of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of which I am a member. For instance, I disagree with "closed communion". Disagreeing with that particular doctrine of my church does not mean that I disagree with all doctrines of my church.

The only way, I can ever agree with all doctrines of my church would be to become the next David Koresh or Jim Jones. I'm really not into the playing god kind of games.

Immie

Is closed communion a doctrine, or just a practice? I'm not a Lutheran, so I have no idea.

As it happens, I believe all the doctrines and teachings of my church. I wouldn't be a member if I didn't. Now, I'll grant you, I don't agree with all of the beliefs that are prevalent among the members, but that's not the same thing.

For example, virtually everyone who is a member of the Assemblies of God (the church to which I belong) believes that drinking alcohol is a sin. I don't. But it's not an official church doctrine or teaching. IT IS a church teaching that because lowers your self-control and because it can be addictive, it can lead you into sin. I can agree with THAT wholeheartedly.

The doctrines of a church are the basic, bedrock things it teaches you about God and about your relationship to Him. I can't imagine belonging to a church if I thought it was founded on something dead wrong.

By the way, you don't have to be David Koresh or Jim Jones to start a church. After all, someone had to start each and every one of the mainstream churches out there, too. Y'know, like Martin Luther?

 

[Immanuel]

You can't make someone follow the rules of a club, but you CAN toss them out of the club if they don't.

If you don't share the beliefs that define being a Catholic, why the hell would you want to be one? I don't usually join churches whose doctrines I disagree with.

I cannot believe one accepts ALL doctrine of a church.

I don't agree with all doctrines of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of which I am a member. For instance, I disagree with "closed communion". Disagreeing with that particular doctrine of my church does not mean that I disagree with all doctrines of my church.

The only way, I can ever agree with all doctrines of my church would be to become the next David Koresh or Jim Jones. I'm really not into the playing god kind of games.

Immie

Is closed communion a doctrine, or just a practice? I'm not a Lutheran, so I have no idea.

As it happens, I believe all the doctrines and teachings of my church. I wouldn't be a member if I didn't. Now, I'll grant you, I don't agree with all of the beliefs that are prevalent among the members, but that's not the same thing.

For example, virtually everyone who is a member of the Assemblies of God (the church to which I belong) believes that drinking alcohol is a sin. I don't. But it's not an official church doctrine or teaching. IT IS a church teaching that because lowers your self-control and because it can be addictive, it can lead you into sin. I can agree with THAT wholeheartedly.

The doctrines of a church are the basic, bedrock things it teaches you about God and about your relationship to Him. I can't imagine belonging to a church if I thought it was founded on something dead wrong.

By the way, you don't have to be David Koresh or Jim Jones to start a church. After all, someone had to start each and every one of the mainstream churches out there, too. Y'know, like Martin Luther?

Is Closed Communion a doctrine? I think it is a doctrine, but maybe we need to define doctrine so that we are in agreement as to what it means. To me, doctrine is a belief taught and practiced by a church. My church believes in Closed Communion and I understand why, I simply disagree with the reasons, yet it is not a deal breaker for me.

doc·trine
   /ˈdɒktrɪn/ Show Spelled[dok-trin] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

It would not be possible for you to believe everything every member of your church believe as I suspect many of those beliefs are actually contradictory. Not to mention that there are too many beliefs for you to even know.

I'm somewhat familiar with the Assembly of God, but not enough to discuss their doctrine with you particularly. The Lutheran Church has the Book of Concord which lays out their doctrine. Some Presbyterian Churches have the Westminster Confession that lays out their doctrine. This is not a slam on you as a believer, but my guess is that if you delve into the doctrines of the Assemblies of God, you will find some things that you don't agree with and I say that knowing that you are just a little strong willed. Just a little.

As for Martin Luther, it was not his goal to start a new church. He simply wanted to reform the old. I, too, would like to reform the LCMS when it comes to closed communion.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

I think doctrine is just institutionalized practice.

So any practice that is not necessarily scriptural (in the case of Christianity) is doctrine.

 

[xEchox]

unless YOU are going to take of that child, pay that woman's FULL medical bills for 9 months and delivery, etc., etc.

So unless you're going to pay for my child for 16 years, you can't tell me not to kill my 16 year old?

Isn't the whole rape and incest thing the very appeal to emotion that some people in this thread keep complaining about?

an present no evidence whatsoever that it is a human being, a person, other than its 46 chromosomes which are nothing more than the plans for a human being.

The DNA might be 'the plans', but the unborn child is the human being made form those plans. This is basic stuff for anyone who took science class in school.

You can no more claim a fertilized egg is a human than you can claim the blueprint for a house is a house.

So now the chromosomes and the zygote are the same thing? Maybe you should look up the definitions, since you don't seem to know what any of the things are that you talk about.


It's also worth noting that in this post you equate 'human being' and 'person'. Hencwe, if the child is human, it is a person.

There is no scientific argument that magically turns a human zygote into a human person

As opposed to a non-human person?

You deny that humans beget humans? What species is the zygote before it becomes a human? You define all humans as people without regard to age, yet you deny that we are people at our youngest?

If YOU can't, WON'T, are UNWILLING to sustain it? YOU have absolutely NO say in the matter, and that is how it should be.

How many years of a child's life are you willing to apply that argument? What about the elderly and people who develop Alzheimer's?

O

Personally I would strongly prefer some sort of compromise, like a firm date on whether a fetus is considered a viable, thinking human being.

So is it "viability" or thought that's important? What definition of "viability" are we using? Modern science seems to make it possible to save the lives of the unborn earlier and earlier in pregnancy.

doesn't look like a clump of cells to me.

The 9-Week Fetus in

It doesn't look like a human being either. It looks like a alien from some other planet.
Not sure what you kooks are trying to achieve with those kinds of stunts.

Two things. First, that's how we all looked at that age. Secondly, do you really mean that it should be okay to kill someone because they don't happen to look like you?

Because preventing the unborn from being killed trumps punishing the woman..

Punishing women? Do these people really think of themselves as a punishment? Maybe they should take that up with their psychiatrists?

Obama: I don't want my daughters "punished with a baby"

Now we're having science decided for us by lawyers? Really? We need laws to tell us what reality is? Jesus.

Dover Trial?