American's More Pro-Life

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…interesting article, have you read it? The jist is not that condoms don’t work, but in the specific case of African countries most affected by the AIDS epidemic, it’s about inconsistent use of condoms whilst having multiple, overlapping relationships…[/quote]

Stop misrepresenting the article.

The dude is a highly respected Harvard researcher who has found that condoms change social behaviors that lead to even more AIDS. Of course, this contradicts liberal dogma so we’ll just have to mock the pope instead of looking at the facts, even though Green AGREES WITH THE POPE ON THAT.

[quote]Yes, the breakdown of the family & traditional values has had truly devastating consequences.

…at what time in your country’s history did you have strong family and traditional values? [/quote]

Most Americans before the latter half of the 20th century lived in small, tight communities and in stable families; and held strong moral and usually religious beliefs that could be called “traditional.” That’s not really that debatable.

[quote]What is ridiculous is the abstinence-only campaign.

Yes, a single campaign can only do so much. We need to do much, much more in this regard. The culture of death - family “planning,” condoms for children, moral relativism > nihilism, lack of authority and standards, etc. - is spreading and deeply entrenched.

…education, education and education plus making birthcontrol available to adolescents. You will never change the nature of teenagers, or humans for that matter. Better accept that and work with how things are… [/quote]

You’re getting incoherent again. Who said anything about changing the nature of teenagers? On the other hand, you can change their behavior right? Isn’t that why you’re calling for “education, education…”?

[quote]What is ridiculous is that pharmacies in the US can deny the morning after-pill to paying customers based on religious beliefs.

If true, I don’t see that as ridiculous at all. Why should a person be forced to participate in murder? Just so you can sleep at night: this won’t prevent ANYONE from getting what they wish to obtain.

…what you believe has nothing to do with my business…[/quote]

You can smoke all the pot you want. Inject chlorox in your veins - i really don’t care. But when it comes to taking an innocent life (if we’re still talking about abortion), yeah, it’s my fucking business.

[quote]So let me get this straight - because we have freed countless people from oppressive regimes around the world, American mothers should be allowed unfettered power to kill their babies? Is that your argument?

…no, what i find utterly hypocritical is this reverence for life and freedom you seem to be having when you are so quick to wage wars that kill countless of innocent people, and make 50% of your own country’s population a second class citizen because of your beliefs…[/quote]

So therefore we should kill innocent babies. Is that your argument?

If requiring mothers not to kill their babies turns them into “second class citizens,” then may we all be second class citizens.

182

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
tom63 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

Well in theory they need not be mutually exclusive but in real live you only have so much time and resources. Why waste them to legislate other peoples behavior instead of doing something yourself?

We have sufficient resources to feed starving children - it’s a matter of getting the food to them; talk to aid workers about how easy that is.

re: “legislating people’s behavior” - well presumably you believe in laws against murder right? Well, I consider baby killing murder; and, the rate at which it’s performed it’s nearly genocidal.

Yep, a few other things to remember. The baby cannot live outside the womb if it is not supplied with food and shelter. It cannot fend for itself for a few years at least.

It’s brain will not fully develop until app 25 years of age. Yep, it starts developing as one cell with it’s own unique DNA and it continues until app 25 years of age.

so when is a fetus fully developed? Once it can survive on it’s own at 18? Or 6 months in utero? Or is it when it is a unique organism? Or when it shows signs of life according to 9th grade science textbooks?

Like maintaining homeostasis and developing maybe? Or how about the studies of twins showing much earlier interaction than previously thought. I forgot the exact week they were talking about, but scientists observed human behavior such as playing, teasing, comforting and such.

What do we do if we eventually prove this is life and the people getting an abortion are killing a life?

Nothing, for “a life” and “a full fledged human being” and a “person” is not the same.

If however an embryo should ever complain about that cruel and inhuman treatment I�?�´d suggest that we stopped abortions immediately.

The same is true for cows though.

A cow isn’t a human being. Must I really say things like this?

Your embryo complaining thing is, well, just silly - okay, so a child is being sexually abused but isn’t “complaining” - does that mean it’s okay? [/quote]

I do not care what a cow is.

If it has enough consciousness and is articulate enough to complain, at least in theory, killing them is wrong.

Embryos have neither, probably even less than cows.

183

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

The money and time anti-abortionists put into trying to stop abortions could save more lives if this time and money was spent saving starving and sick children.

And I think even an anti-abortionist would agree a young child starving to death is worse than a fetus being aborted.

They’re equally horrible. Much of the good work being done to help sick and starving children is performed and funded by people of faith.

One involves a lifetime of suffering (starving to death is a pretty bad way to die), so I can’t see how they are equally horrible.

And being sliced up and vacuumed out isn’t a “pretty bad way to die”???

Not if thought processes haven’t even started. I would much rather be sliced to death in a coma than starve to death conscious.

So the fetus is feigning when it writhes while being sliced up?
[/quote]

Feigning what?

Plants do that and they do not even have a nervous system-

184

…bullshit katz, the article does not suggest this is the case, and i urge you to show me where it says exactly that or retract your statement…

…the mythical 50s? “Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 60s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million, even though abortion procedures were unsafe and often life-threatening, in addition to being illegal”

http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/roe30/beforeafter.html

…you’re a piece of work allright. Eventhough you can try to educate teenagers on abstinence, it’ll fail because it is in their nature to experiment and be rebelious. Does Palin’s daughter ring a bell with you?

…you’re a tough guy aren’t you?

…ofcourse not. You are the head of the household. Women don’t speak if not spoken too. They take care of their 8 children without complaining. Your wife cooks your meals and satisfies you in bed, and if she gets uppity, just give her a good once over to set her straight. Indeed, a second class tough guy…

185

[quote]orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
tom63 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

Well in theory they need not be mutually exclusive but in real live you only have so much time and resources. Why waste them to legislate other peoples behavior instead of doing something yourself?

We have sufficient resources to feed starving children - it’s a matter of getting the food to them; talk to aid workers about how easy that is.

re: “legislating people’s behavior” - well presumably you believe in laws against murder right? Well, I consider baby killing murder; and, the rate at which it’s performed it’s nearly genocidal.

Yep, a few other things to remember. The baby cannot live outside the womb if it is not supplied with food and shelter. It cannot fend for itself for a few years at least.

It’s brain will not fully develop until app 25 years of age. Yep, it starts developing as one cell with it’s own unique DNA and it continues until app 25 years of age.

so when is a fetus fully developed? Once it can survive on it’s own at 18? Or 6 months in utero? Or is it when it is a unique organism? Or when it shows signs of life according to 9th grade science textbooks?

Like maintaining homeostasis and developing maybe? Or how about the studies of twins showing much earlier interaction than previously thought. I forgot the exact week they were talking about, but scientists observed human behavior such as playing, teasing, comforting and such.

What do we do if we eventually prove this is life and the people getting an abortion are killing a life?

Nothing, for “a life” and “a full fledged human being” and a “person” is not the same.

If however an embryo should ever complain about that cruel and inhuman treatment I�??�?�´d suggest that we stopped abortions immediately.

The same is true for cows though.

A cow isn’t a human being. Must I really say things like this?

Your embryo complaining thing is, well, just silly - okay, so a child is being sexually abused but isn’t “complaining” - does that mean it’s okay?

I do not care what a cow is.

If it has enough consciousness and is articulate enough to complain, at least in theory, killing them is wrong.

Embryos have neither, probably even less than cows. [/quote]

Yeah, don’t you know, the baby is supposed to get permission before taking residence in a womb. I mean, it’s only logical.

So, if you cannot complain, you are considered not human enough to kill at will? Brother.

186

[quote]orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

The money and time anti-abortionists put into trying to stop abortions could save more lives if this time and money was spent saving starving and sick children.

And I think even an anti-abortionist would agree a young child starving to death is worse than a fetus being aborted.

They’re equally horrible. Much of the good work being done to help sick and starving children is performed and funded by people of faith.

One involves a lifetime of suffering (starving to death is a pretty bad way to die), so I can’t see how they are equally horrible.

And being sliced up and vacuumed out isn’t a “pretty bad way to die”???

Not if thought processes haven’t even started. I would much rather be sliced to death in a coma than starve to death conscious.

So the fetus is feigning when it writhes while being sliced up?

Feigning what?

Plants do that and they do not even have a nervous system-
[/quote]

That’s what that screaming is every time I cut the grass…Seriously, O, you are reaching. Missing too. Plants? Please.

187

ephrem, you’re making all kinds of mistakes in your argumentation, you might want to tone it down a bit and just pick one or two instead of trying all these different ones. May have better results concentrating your efforts instead of spraying and praying eh?

188

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
ephrem, you’re making all kinds of mistakes in your argumentation, you might want to tone it down a bit and just pick one or two instead of trying all these different ones. May have better results concentrating your efforts instead of spraying and praying eh?[/quote]

…that’s nice, since when is it required of me to follow certain rules of debate when the believing side in the discussion does not bother with them? So far i’ve encountered misdirection, falsehoods, outright lies, willfull ignorance, ad hominem attacks and the inability to reason logically based on honesty and sincerety, and yet i’m the one making all kinds of mistakes in my argumentation. Well, thank you for your kind suggestion Aragorn. In respons i’ll fart in your general direction…

189

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

The money and time anti-abortionists put into trying to stop abortions could save more lives if this time and money was spent saving starving and sick children.

And I think even an anti-abortionist would agree a young child starving to death is worse than a fetus being aborted.

They’re equally horrible. Much of the good work being done to help sick and starving children is performed and funded by people of faith.

One involves a lifetime of suffering (starving to death is a pretty bad way to die), so I can’t see how they are equally horrible.

And being sliced up and vacuumed out isn’t a “pretty bad way to die”???

Not if thought processes haven’t even started. I would much rather be sliced to death in a coma than starve to death conscious.

So the fetus is feigning when it writhes while being sliced up?

Feigning what?

Plants do that and they do not even have a nervous system-

That’s what that screaming is every time I cut the grass…Seriously, O, you are reaching. Missing too. Plants? Please.[/quote]

A fetus does not scream either.

So there.

190

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
ephrem, you’re making all kinds of mistakes in your argumentation, you might want to tone it down a bit and just pick one or two instead of trying all these different ones. May have better results concentrating your efforts instead of spraying and praying eh?

Well, thank you for your kind suggestion Aragorn. In respons i’ll fart in your general direction…
[/quote]

Well you can do as you please. I deal with all kinds of people who act like they’re still in primary school in my job, so I suppose one more won’t make a difference. It’s these types of routine responses from you that make me regret I am mostly a civil type of debater, even though I’m abstaining here. I’m not talking about what you encountered–I know all to well that this is the PWI forum. I’m talking about some of your actual attempts at argumentation.

The only problem is that I am abstaining, and if I were to try and point them out to you I would be immediately mauled by others as “rabidly pro-life”, as lixy already attempted to do to me once.

191

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

If true, I don’t see that as ridiculous at all. Why should a person be forced to participate in murder? Just so you can sleep at night: this won’t prevent ANYONE from getting what they wish to obtain.

I didn’t realise anyone thought the morning after pill was considered murder. I thought most of you anti-abortionists didn’t mind it because it acts before fertalisation.[/quote]

technically it acts before embedding. The only way it could act before fertilization is if you took it before having sex. But I know what you mean.

192

[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

The money and time anti-abortionists put into trying to stop abortions could save more lives if this time and money was spent saving starving and sick children.

And I think even an anti-abortionist would agree a young child starving to death is worse than a fetus being aborted.

They’re equally horrible. Much of the good work being done to help sick and starving children is performed and funded by people of faith.

One involves a lifetime of suffering (starving to death is a pretty bad way to die), so I can’t see how they are equally horrible.

And being sliced up and vacuumed out isn’t a “pretty bad way to die”???

Not if thought processes haven’t even started. I would much rather be sliced to death in a coma than starve to death conscious.

So the fetus is feigning when it writhes while being sliced up?

Feigning what?

Plants do that and they do not even have a nervous system-

That’s what that screaming is every time I cut the grass…Seriously, O, you are reaching. Missing too. Plants? Please.

A fetus does not scream either.

So there.
[/quote]

Oh contraire! See the “Silent Scream”

- YouTube

And no, this is just a clump of cells:

193

Pro life is fucking stupid.

What you’re saying is that YOU have the right to control whether SOMEONE ELSE has a child or not? Being pro life means that you think it’s okay to choose what someone else does?

Is PWI full of these assholes? You don’t give a fuck about anyone else. You don’t. You get your panties in a bunch about an aborted fetus, but you don’t care about all the other shit in the world?

What’s next for these pro-lifers? Any man who masturbates faces life in jail? (You’re killing millions of “unborn children”)

194

[quote]Sick Rick wrote:
Pro life is fucking stupid.

What you’re saying is that YOU have the right to control whether SOMEONE ELSE has a child or not? Being pro life means that you think it’s okay to choose what someone else does?

Is PWI full of these assholes? You don’t give a fuck about anyone else. You don’t. You get your panties in a bunch about an aborted fetus, but you don’t care about all the other shit in the world?

What’s next for these pro-lifers? Any man who masturbates faces life in jail? (You’re killing millions of “unborn children”)
[/quote]

If you’re going to enter the debate, you might want to try making sense. Your post is the type of post that gives the pro-choice crowd a black eye. Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem. Shit like this makes me sick, and it’s why I never bother discussing any remotely hot button issues–people like you that make it impossible to have rational, dispassionate discussion. Instead you people pollute the air with pointless, ad hominem, red herring tripe.

196

[quote]Sick Rick wrote:
Pro life is fucking stupid.

What you’re saying is that YOU have the right to control whether SOMEONE ELSE has a child or not? Being pro life means that you think it’s okay to choose what someone else does?

Is PWI full of these assholes? You don’t give a fuck about anyone else. You don’t. You get your panties in a bunch about an aborted fetus, but you don’t care about all the other shit in the world?

What’s next for these pro-lifers? Any man who masturbates faces life in jail? (You’re killing millions of “unborn children”)
[/quote]

So this is the pro-abortion stance? Nice job representin’ yo. I wish they were all like you. Glad you are pro-abortion, please don’t switch sides, you are right where you belong.

197

[quote]orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

[/quote]

Being a woman myself the ‘right to choose’ ends when you chose to have sex. If you don’t want to be pregnant, don’t have sex. End of story. As in the cases of rape and abuse I think that what to do about it is a deeply personal decision and we don’t have any reason to dictate what goes on there.

198

[quote]Sick Rick wrote:
Pro life is fucking stupid.

What you’re saying is that YOU have the right to control whether SOMEONE ELSE has a child or not? Being pro life means that you think it’s okay to choose what someone else does?

Is PWI full of these assholes? You don’t give a fuck about anyone else. You don’t. You get your panties in a bunch about an aborted fetus, but you don’t care about all the other shit in the world?

What’s next for these pro-lifers? Any man who masturbates faces life in jail? (You’re killing millions of “unborn children”)
[/quote]

Ahhh…an intellectual troglodyte. Tell me, what is it like breaking rocks with bigger rocks?

199

[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
Sick Rick wrote:
Pro life is fucking stupid.

What you’re saying is that YOU have the right to control whether SOMEONE ELSE has a child or not? Being pro life means that you think it’s okay to choose what someone else does?

Is PWI full of these assholes? You don’t give a fuck about anyone else. You don’t. You get your panties in a bunch about an aborted fetus, but you don’t care about all the other shit in the world?

What’s next for these pro-lifers? Any man who masturbates faces life in jail? (You’re killing millions of “unborn children”)

Ahhh…an intellectual troglodyte. Tell me, what is it like breaking rocks with bigger rocks?
[/quote]

EDIT : NVM

Fuck PWI. Let me know when one of you revolutionists is ruling the world, I’ll shake your hand.

200

[quote]colleend78 wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

Being a woman myself the ‘right to choose’ ends when you chose to have sex. If you don’t want to be pregnant, don’t have sex. End of story. As in the cases of rape and abuse I think that what to do about it is a deeply personal decision and we don’t have any reason to dictate what goes on there.[/quote]

That makes you pro choice, for all practical purposes.