What a bunch of hypocrites the “pro-life” movement is.
No, but like most of your “reasonings,” it’s incorrect. Respecting a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body and providing a lawful service which facilitates it is not a capital crime, but attempting to remove her human rights and making many worse off in the process (usually to appease a magic sky person) might be.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ryan, if that isn’t clear enough for you let’s try something else:
I like dogs. (Mainly big dogs. The little ones annoy me)
I think dogs are great. I don’t think dogs should be killed like you or I would kill a mosquito or a roach or a cottonmouth under the front porch.
However, I think rabid dogs who attack people should be put down. Killed. Eliminated. Tossed in the incinerator.
Now, am I a hypocrite? After all I started out by saying I like dogs then I ended up by saying some of them should be wiped from the face of this earth.
Distinctions, Senor McCarter. Learn all about distinctions. And how to apply them.[/quote]
I’m a little tired of your patroninzing, comically-flawed right wing “logic.” The man that the dog attacks does not depend directly on the use of another’s body for their existence, nor will his continued livelihood for the next 18 years depend on another’s benevolence. For your scenario to be accurate, the baby would have to be walking around minding its own business, and then the mean old doctor would come along and kill it for no reason.
Are you about done?
It’s hypocritical because they claim to “cherish all life” or some such rubbish, and this guy, who obviously subscribes to this view, GUNNED DOWN a man he disagreed with. How did you not see this? And you’re questioning my discernment?
Yes, you did make several cute attempts to justify your revocation of an important right, but ultimately, like the new Star Trek movie, they failed to satisfy. The comparison to slavery is laughable, though not entirely unpredictable. You continue to skirt around the fact that you cannot be pro-life without denying the rights of the mother and imposing your will on her body. I don’t blame you though, it’s really impossible to get around.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’m a little tired of your patroninzing, comically-flawed right wing “logic.”
Then lie down and take a nap.
The man that the dog attacks does not depend directly on the use of another’s body for their existence, nor will his continued livelihood for the next 18 years depend on another’s benevolence. For your scenario to be accurate, the baby would have to be walking around minding its own business, and then the mean old doctor would come along and kill it for no reason.
Are you about done?
No, the analogy stands. Good dog live. Bad dog die. Dog lover allows for both without being a hypocrite.
[/quote]
Oh, OK, the argument stands! Silly me for trying to be logically consistent.
If you want to say, “To hell with logic and to hell with the woman’s rights, I’m against abortion 'cause it’s icky,” or whatever the hell your misguided reasons are, fine, but you can’t sit here and pretend to actually be on solid ground.
Ok, let’s calm down on some of the rhetoric. The pro-life movement didn’t murder this guy, a single individual did. And, nobody should be celebrating this.
The baby is making a huge imposition on the mother. It is up to the mother to decide whether she wants to comply. If she doesn’t, she calls up the doctor, and schedules an apppointment and has an abortion performed. The doctor doesn’t do it until he (or she) is requested to do so, by the right of the mother.
Why are you leaving out vital pieces of information?
Do you promise to read my post this time? Because it’s apparent reading this one that you did not read my others.
Since when does “they” and “you” mean the same thing? Pay attention and this won’t take as long.
I said it was the mother’s right. This does not depend on its legal status. If it were illegal, I would still support it and my arguments would not need to change. I know you think you’re being really clever here, but slavery is not a valid comparison.
The rights of the baby? Does this include the right to deny others their rights? It’s funny that we rail against tyrants and encroachments on our liberties on this board all the time, yet the right of the baby (whose status as a person is very debatable at this point) to completely trump the mother’s rights is held up as self-evident. Like it or not, to have a case, you have to justify this annulment of the woman’s right to control her body, and this against her better judgement. “No ma’am, we know better than you whether or not you should have this baby.”
Well, the baby has a right to “want” to be born (if only they knew), and the mother has a right to allow or not allow the baby to be born. They can both make decisions, but due to biology, the mother’s wishes carry the day. If the baby can find some other way to be born, he is perfectly free to avail himself of this opportunity.
You mean, it’s about deciding what critical pieces of information to ignore in crafting your arguments?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The baby is making a huge imposition on the mother. It is up to the mother to decide whether she wants to comply. If she doesn’t, she calls up the doctor, and schedules an apppointment and has an abortion performed. The doctor doesn’t do it until he (or she) is requested to do so, by the right of the mother.
Why are you leaving out vital pieces of information?
“Imposition?” The dastardly lil feller is making an “imposition?” Holy cow!
You could/should do a much better job defending slavery. Go.[/quote]
“Go” fuck yourself. I’m not interested in defending slavery. I am interested in defending a basic human right from a bunch of patriarchal jackasses.
Besides, abortion is legal, and so the burden of defending one’s view is yours. Have fun.
Out of ammo? That’s what I thought. I’ll leave you to think about this for a while.