Pro-Lifer Throws Incendiary Device at PP

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]

I don’t quite understand this question. Could you rephrase it possibly? [/quote]

Where do you draw the line between a parent doing what is her “choice” and child abuse. When it is finally time to step in and stop someone and call the act abuse?[/quote]

Ehhhhhh, I don’t know… lol.[/quote]

Ooooookaaaaay…

Does this not give you pause? [/quote]

I don’t think “child” abuse and abortion are at all related. There is no “child” involved in abortions…
[/quote]

Ahh, good, I see you are detecting my point.

Okay, this brings us full circle now to a question I asked you earlier. I don’t feel I received an adequate answer so I am going to quote the exchange and then rephrase the question below.

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Okay. Understood.

So what is the point at which the parasite becomes a human? What changes, exactly?[/quote]

To me its cut and dry. Whenever the fetus’s survival no longer pivots on co-existence in a parasitic biological interaction then it is no longer a parasite and becomes “human”. Basically, when you can pull that little fetus out of the womb and hook it up to some machines and shit and have it live… If you can pull it out of the womb(lets have a 4month old fetus as an example) and through no miracle of medical science have it any hopes of living, it is still a parasite. If you can pull it out of the womb(lets call this fetus 8months) and hook it up to a machine and have that little bastard live… Ect. Of course, I THINK the state defines this transition as the third trimester.
[/quote]

See, I didn’t ask, “What conditions change?” I asked, "What changes?

In one moment it is a parasite. In the next, it becomes a child. What about the organism itself changed in that moment? Please answer.
[/quote]

I. Just. Did. After the 2nd trimester the parasite no longer requires the host for survival. In that, its removal does is not synonymous with its death(an unrelated solution to the problem of it being a bastard offspring that nobody wants). This brings up a conundrum of what to do with this unwanted, now premature baby. And since your crowd doesn’t put its money where its mouth is a provide shelter for them, I am in favor of restricting abortions to the first 2 trimesters. If you didn’t understand what I said that time, don’t bother asking a 3rd time(not to sound hostile, it’s just I answered you directly both times).

PS It never goes from parasite to “child” within the womb. The fetus stays a parasitic organism until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. [/quote]

Soooo, is someone on life support a parasite?[/quote]

Is life support an organism? What the fuck… -_- No but a pregnant women is a host organism for a parasitic fetus… This is getting banal.

222

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]

I don’t quite understand this question. Could you rephrase it possibly? [/quote]

Where do you draw the line between a parent doing what is her “choice” and child abuse. When it is finally time to step in and stop someone and call the act abuse?[/quote]

Ehhhhhh, I don’t know… lol.[/quote]

Ooooookaaaaay…

Does this not give you pause? [/quote]

I don’t think “child” abuse and abortion are at all related. There is no “child” involved in abortions…
[/quote]

Ahh, good, I see you are detecting my point.

Okay, this brings us full circle now to a question I asked you earlier. I don’t feel I received an adequate answer so I am going to quote the exchange and then rephrase the question below.

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Okay. Understood.

So what is the point at which the parasite becomes a human? What changes, exactly?[/quote]

To me its cut and dry. Whenever the fetus’s survival no longer pivots on co-existence in a parasitic biological interaction then it is no longer a parasite and becomes “human”. Basically, when you can pull that little fetus out of the womb and hook it up to some machines and shit and have it live… If you can pull it out of the womb(lets have a 4month old fetus as an example) and through no miracle of medical science have it any hopes of living, it is still a parasite. If you can pull it out of the womb(lets call this fetus 8months) and hook it up to a machine and have that little bastard live… Ect. Of course, I THINK the state defines this transition as the third trimester.
[/quote]

See, I didn’t ask, “What conditions change?” I asked, "What changes?

In one moment it is a parasite. In the next, it becomes a child. What about the organism itself changed in that moment? Please answer.
[/quote]

I. Just. Did. After the 2nd trimester the parasite no longer requires the host for survival. In that, its removal does is not synonymous with its death(an unrelated solution to the problem of it being a bastard offspring that nobody wants). This brings up a conundrum of what to do with this unwanted, now premature baby. And since your crowd doesn’t put its money where its mouth is a provide shelter for them, I am in favor of restricting abortions to the first 2 trimesters. If you didn’t understand what I said that time, don’t bother asking a 3rd time(not to sound hostile, it’s just I answered you directly both times).

PS It never goes from parasite to “child” within the womb. The fetus stays a parasitic organism until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. [/quote]

Soooo, is someone on life support a parasite?[/quote]

Is life support an organism? What the fuck… -_- No but a pregnant women is a host organism for a parasitic fetus… This is getting banal. [/quote]

Noz really, because when it comes to biology you have no ground to stand on, because offspring is definitely not a parasite.

If the principle is however that noone has a right to live at someones elses expense against that someone elses will, we would have quite a few things to discuss.

223

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]flores87 wrote:
I would say that a life begins with the parents decision to have sex. As I stated earlier the purpose of sex is to create children. So if two people decide to have sex they are choosing to create children. I know it takes time for the fetus to fully develop, however the child’s parents decided to mix their genetic material to create this life. It all starts with the parents decision so the moment the sperm penetrates the egg and the development process begins, this is where I believe a human life begins. [/quote]

I give you:

the Bonobo!

Who, incidentally, fucks like a demented rabid on speed, for all kinds of reasons, with procreation being the least of his worries.

[/quote]

Nature of Man is not the savage or beast, sorry orion.[/quote]

Says you, but stapling two unfounded assumptions on top of each other do not a convincing argument make.

[/quote]

Says 2400+ years of history.[/quote]

No, that actually says that we have a rather beastly and savage streak.

[/quote]

That doesn’t even make sense. So, we have gone towards beastly and savageness?

224

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]cvb wrote:
I do agree that a woman has a right to an abortion if her life is threatened. It is self defense. For myself, I would try to save the child first.
[/quote]

Negative, abortions are always wrong.[/quote]

Catholic Priests are always child molesters.[/quote]

Prove it.[/quote]

Swing and a miss.[/quote]

Put up or shut up. I can go for days, I’m an All-Star.

225

[quote]cvb wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
1+x=10… 99% of the time… unless x doesn’t equal 9… But that only happens 1% of the time so we can ignore that.

It’s just horribly flawed to think that way.[/quote]

I do not consider myself pro-choice and the choice is whether or not to have sex. I am pro life. It is about not murdering.

The choice to have sex is to prevent pregnancy. You know that if you have sex there might be a baby. If you don’t want a baby, do not have sex. There is an exception to every rule. A woman that is raped did not decide to have sex. Yes, that is correct. But if she is pregnant then she is going to be a mommy. I do not believe that her rape justifies her killing her baby. [/quote]

Fuck this pro-choice, anti-abortion bullshit. Stop playing their word games.

I’ll be proud to be an anti-abortionist any day of the week, 52 weeks out of a year. My great grand daddy was anti-slavery. I don’t see anyone talking shit about him being anti-something. But, I decided to defend the life of an innocent child and now I’m anti-choice. Guess, what…fuck yeah I am. I’m pro-choice and anti-choice at the same time.

I’ll list a short list of shit I’m against:
murder
rape
genocide
theft
child abuse

Shit I’m pro-choice about:
religion
freedom
having the say so to have sex or not
owning land
defending yourself

226

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]

I don’t quite understand this question. Could you rephrase it possibly? [/quote]

Where do you draw the line between a parent doing what is her “choice” and child abuse. When it is finally time to step in and stop someone and call the act abuse?[/quote]

Ehhhhhh, I don’t know… lol.[/quote]

Ooooookaaaaay…

Does this not give you pause? [/quote]

I don’t think “child” abuse and abortion are at all related. There is no “child” involved in abortions…
[/quote]

Ahh, good, I see you are detecting my point.

Okay, this brings us full circle now to a question I asked you earlier. I don’t feel I received an adequate answer so I am going to quote the exchange and then rephrase the question below.

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Okay. Understood.

So what is the point at which the parasite becomes a human? What changes, exactly?[/quote]

To me its cut and dry. Whenever the fetus’s survival no longer pivots on co-existence in a parasitic biological interaction then it is no longer a parasite and becomes “human”. Basically, when you can pull that little fetus out of the womb and hook it up to some machines and shit and have it live… If you can pull it out of the womb(lets have a 4month old fetus as an example) and through no miracle of medical science have it any hopes of living, it is still a parasite. If you can pull it out of the womb(lets call this fetus 8months) and hook it up to a machine and have that little bastard live… Ect. Of course, I THINK the state defines this transition as the third trimester.
[/quote]

See, I didn’t ask, “What conditions change?” I asked, "What changes?

In one moment it is a parasite. In the next, it becomes a child. What about the organism itself changed in that moment? Please answer.
[/quote]

I. Just. Did. After the 2nd trimester the parasite no longer requires the host for survival. In that, its removal does is not synonymous with its death(an unrelated solution to the problem of it being a bastard offspring that nobody wants). This brings up a conundrum of what to do with this unwanted, now premature baby. And since your crowd doesn’t put its money where its mouth is a provide shelter for them, I am in favor of restricting abortions to the first 2 trimesters. If you didn’t understand what I said that time, don’t bother asking a 3rd time(not to sound hostile, it’s just I answered you directly both times).

PS It never goes from parasite to “child” within the womb. The fetus stays a parasitic organism until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. [/quote]

You are contradicting yourself. Your PS demonstrates this contradiction. Can you not see it?

Again, you are either misunderstanding me, or avoiding my point. I specifically stated that I am not talking about the conditions of the pregnancy.

I will rephrase one more time, and put it just a bit differently:

Did the organism itself change? Not it’s circumstances. The organism connected to its mother via the umbilical cord. Did THAT ORGANISM change in form in some manner?
[/quote]

For the mother fucking 3rd time YES it mother fucking changed. IT NO LONGER REQUIRES A HOST ORGANISM FOR SURVIVAL. CAN YOU NOT FUCKING READ?! HOLY FUCK MY PATIENCE IS SHOT.[/quote]

Repeating something ad nauseum is not the equivalent to winning an argument.

Okay. So you admit that there is no physical transformation that occurs within the organism itself. The only thing that changes are its conditions. If you disagree, I’m sorry to inform you that you’ve already played your trump card. There is no “louder” function than the CAPS LOCK key. The only option you’ve left yourself with is to actually answer the question.

So: The organism physically changes, yes or no?

227

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]

I don’t quite understand this question. Could you rephrase it possibly? [/quote]

Where do you draw the line between a parent doing what is her “choice” and child abuse. When it is finally time to step in and stop someone and call the act abuse?[/quote]

Ehhhhhh, I don’t know… lol.[/quote]

Ooooookaaaaay…

Does this not give you pause? [/quote]

I don’t think “child” abuse and abortion are at all related. There is no “child” involved in abortions…
[/quote]

Ahh, good, I see you are detecting my point.

Okay, this brings us full circle now to a question I asked you earlier. I don’t feel I received an adequate answer so I am going to quote the exchange and then rephrase the question below.

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Okay. Understood.

So what is the point at which the parasite becomes a human? What changes, exactly?[/quote]

To me its cut and dry. Whenever the fetus’s survival no longer pivots on co-existence in a parasitic biological interaction then it is no longer a parasite and becomes “human”. Basically, when you can pull that little fetus out of the womb and hook it up to some machines and shit and have it live… If you can pull it out of the womb(lets have a 4month old fetus as an example) and through no miracle of medical science have it any hopes of living, it is still a parasite. If you can pull it out of the womb(lets call this fetus 8months) and hook it up to a machine and have that little bastard live… Ect. Of course, I THINK the state defines this transition as the third trimester.
[/quote]

See, I didn’t ask, “What conditions change?” I asked, "What changes?

In one moment it is a parasite. In the next, it becomes a child. What about the organism itself changed in that moment? Please answer.
[/quote]

I. Just. Did. After the 2nd trimester the parasite no longer requires the host for survival. In that, its removal does is not synonymous with its death(an unrelated solution to the problem of it being a bastard offspring that nobody wants). This brings up a conundrum of what to do with this unwanted, now premature baby. And since your crowd doesn’t put its money where its mouth is a provide shelter for them, I am in favor of restricting abortions to the first 2 trimesters. If you didn’t understand what I said that time, don’t bother asking a 3rd time(not to sound hostile, it’s just I answered you directly both times).

PS It never goes from parasite to “child” within the womb. The fetus stays a parasitic organism until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. [/quote]

You are contradicting yourself. Your PS demonstrates this contradiction. Can you not see it?

Again, you are either misunderstanding me, or avoiding my point. I specifically stated that I am not talking about the conditions of the pregnancy.

I will rephrase one more time, and put it just a bit differently:

Did the organism itself change? Not it’s circumstances. The organism connected to its mother via the umbilical cord. Did THAT ORGANISM change in form in some manner?
[/quote]

For the mother fucking 3rd time YES it mother fucking changed. IT NO LONGER REQUIRES A HOST ORGANISM FOR SURVIVAL. CAN YOU NOT FUCKING READ?! HOLY FUCK MY PATIENCE IS SHOT.[/quote]

Repeating something ad nauseum is not the equivalent to winning an argument.

Okay. So you admit that there is no physical transformation that occurs within the organism itself. The only thing that changes are its conditions. If you disagree, I’m sorry to inform you that you’ve already played your trump card. There is no “louder” function than the CAPS LOCK key. The only option you’ve left yourself with is to actually answer the question.

So: The organism physically changes, yes or no?
[/quote]

Oh wow this has now gone from banal to comical. You do not give up on the same question no matter how many times I answer it.

I cannot believe what you are typing. You have taken selective reading to a completely new level… I might as well not even respond to you as you so clearly only hear what you want… Fucking scary. Your trying to pull something out of me that I am not saying while rejecting what I actually am saying.

To be honest however I saw this trait waaaay back when I told you that you were clever with your questions. I didn’t lie when I said that but think about what I was really implying there…

228

Just looking for a yes or a no. Not that hard.

229

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]flores87 wrote:
I would say that a life begins with the parents decision to have sex. As I stated earlier the purpose of sex is to create children. So if two people decide to have sex they are choosing to create children. I know it takes time for the fetus to fully develop, however the child’s parents decided to mix their genetic material to create this life. It all starts with the parents decision so the moment the sperm penetrates the egg and the development process begins, this is where I believe a human life begins. [/quote]

I give you:

the Bonobo!

Who, incidentally, fucks like a demented rabid on speed, for all kinds of reasons, with procreation being the least of his worries.

[/quote]

Nature of Man is not the savage or beast, sorry orion.[/quote]

Says you, but stapling two unfounded assumptions on top of each other do not a convincing argument make.

[/quote]

Says 2400+ years of history.[/quote]

No, that actually says that we have a rather beastly and savage streak.

[/quote]

That doesn’t even make sense. So, we have gone towards beastly and savageness?[/quote]

No, there was no need to go towards it, we were always there.

230

These are your words deorum - “Using this logic if she doesn’t choose to have sex she doesn’t assume the responsibility of parenthood and abortion becomes justified for her.” Wrong, abortion is NEVER justified. If a girl does not want to get pregnant, then she can avoid the whole situation by NOT HAVING sex. Amazing, I know!! When she doesn’t want to be responsible, she simply does not have sex. This world is NOT about immediate gratification. There is one method that guarantees she will NOT become pregnant. If she wants sex, she assumes the responsibilities.

If you want to argue for the less than one percent of the total, well please explain to me how a violent act is made better by another, even more violent act?

BTW the word parasite does NOT apply. You can look the word up in a dictionary. Here is the word for you in case you lack the ability to do this simple task, all on your own. This was taken from: PARASITE Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com and I placed the applicable words in bold for for you, this was also the first definition found.

par·a·site - an organism that lives on or in an [u]organism of another species[/u], known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

When you want to change the definition of a word, you have to do way more than just use it because you want to word to mean something. Because you speak English, use the applicable word. If you refuse, I simply refuse to address your points.

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So you are arguing for the number of less than one percent of the total?

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please tell me how the problems and trauma of a rape is made better by the continuation of an activity that is even worse than the original act?
[/quote]

But I already responded to that question in a different word form. It doesn’t make the act any better, however it can be justified. Ironically it can be justified using the very logic you are using to argue against it; you are saying because the women decides to have sex she assumes the responsibility of parenthood. Using this logic if she doesn’t choose to have sex she doesn’t assume the responsibility of parenthood and abortion becomes justified for her. I wouldn’t use this logic at all but I cannot see how those using it can overlook that gaping flaw.[/quote]
[/quote]

No, It is just I am not ignoring any 1% of anything here… While you are. I’m not speaking for any 1% I just wanted to bring attention to an instance that you insist on ignoring because it destroys your logic.

That is what you are saying right? We should ignore rape and assume that all sex is consensual so that your theory has some sort of integrity? Well you can’t do that, sorry to say. That is not how logic works… You can’t just ignore things when they contradict yourself -_-"

Edit: I just re-read my post and saw it wasn’t very clear and happened to edit it as you were responding to it.[/quote]

231

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
These are your words deorum - “Using this logic if she doesn’t choose to have sex she doesn’t assume the responsibility of parenthood and abortion becomes justified for her.” Wrong, abortion is NEVER justified. If a girl does not want to get pregnant, then she can avoid the whole situation by NOT HAVING sex. Amazing, I know!! When she doesn’t want to be responsible, she simply does not have sex. This world is NOT about immediate gratification. There is one method that guarantees she will NOT become pregnant. If she wants sex, she assumes the responsibilities.[/quote]

You say this a lot.

Amazing how rape throws that spanner into the argument.

232

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
These are your words deorum - “Using this logic if she doesn’t choose to have sex she doesn’t assume the responsibility of parenthood and abortion becomes justified for her.” Wrong, abortion is NEVER justified. If a girl does not want to get pregnant, then she can avoid the whole situation by NOT HAVING sex. Amazing, I know!! When she doesn’t want to be responsible, she simply does not have sex. This world is NOT about immediate gratification. There is one method that guarantees she will NOT become pregnant. If she wants sex, she assumes the responsibilities.[/quote]

You say this a lot.

Amazing how rape throws that spanner into the argument.[/quote]

The problem with throwing rape into the argument is that it doesn’t go against the fact that no innocent person should be hurt or killed at anytime. It gives more evidence that it is true. Your revolt towards rape is the same revolt in which others find about hurting other forms of innocent persons including unborn children.

233

One - I am NOT upset in the least. I am upset when people believe they have a right to kill someone who does not fit in their life plan. I am Catholic btw. Two - yes it is fruitless to argue some causes. I choose to come here and defend life because at the very least other people on the fence can read this discussion and make their own minds up with the information and logic shown. Besides going on marches, talking with whom ever will listen and writing on these forums. Where am I partaking in an action which is fruitless? Sorry, but the silent screams of the world deserves at least me writing on these boards. If others disagree, they do not have to read these words shrug

I challenge anyone to prove to me the embryo is NOT alive and separate from the mother at the very moment of conception.

Size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency, together define the difference between ALL people of the world . . . . including the unborn.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Aragorn - I was not trying to get people all wound up, but to simply defend their position along with my own. The deorum character is just that, a character who makes me lol. I simply cannot believe he ‘thinks’ people don’t offer counter examples to his points. Obviously we can see his moronic ways. I will admit to childish name calling but it appeared from the very beginning that deorum would only understand that same language. My fault and I will step above his behavior now. I hope you did not take any of my slang towards you, my fault if you did :o ]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
INcidentally kneedragger, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said I did not care to get involved in these “debates”. They are not debates, they are childish arguments spattered with name-calling, “fuck” (hey there’s an erudite and eloquent solution to your arguments fallaciousness /sarcasm), and general COMPLETE LACK of anything resembling a substantive argument. Look at the last page–it’s pretty much all “fuck you” “no, fuck you!” “No FUCK YOU” back and forth.

Although, yes, as the thread currently stands the pro-life crowd is the only one that has made any substantial points in between name calling–deorum keeps complaining and throwing exasperation and profanity around but has yet to actually do anything else in response to the opposition’s stance.[/quote]
[/quote]

No worries, I did not take it directed at me. I am as guilty as anyone here, both in the past and in this thread as my patience wore thin! Fine example I set haha :confused: .

But this is why I generally try to avoid these arguments now. There was a time not so long ago when I would have jumped into all of them–religious, political, and otherwise–with both feet. I like to think, I like to learn, and I like to have my views challenged. It either makes me change them or improve my rationale to adjust my current position.

However, I have too much stress in my life to want to get upset in an internet forum anymore. And besides that, I have found that there are few issues as divisive as religion and politics (or abortion!)…and I generally hate the devolvement into internet shouting wars that occurs with them. If there were a magical place where the threads stayed civil and well thought out, I would probably be a much heavier contributor.

In short, I am trying to preserve what little remains of my own sanity.

I do not recall, but I think you are a Christian from previous posts (incorrect?). In a nutshell, I am trying to follow their directive to “not argue for arguments sake” or " do not engage in fruitless arguments" more closely. I forget exactly what phrase was used but if I remember right it was probably Paul that said it, and probably somewhere in Proverbs too. It just doesn’t gain anyone anything and more often than not it makes you angry and less likely to be a good representative.

[/quote]

234

Watch out, that thing from lil ol’ kiwi land down under told me it was called a ‘spanner argument’. The funny thing, bet the term is not even understand and how it would be applicable in the discussion at hand. With nearly fourteen thousand posts tied to his name, he provided nothing more to add, just one more of his posts that mean nothing.

He could tell us about that pokemon game though! I sure as fuck know nothing about that. That could be one area where makky could teach me something. I’ll wait right here for the thing to peep up again and show me how to play that mindless dribble he knows so much about . . . .

Or he might come forward with an actual source for his mindless dumb fuck rants, but I doubt it. Now that would surprise me! lol

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
These are your words deorum - “Using this logic if she doesn’t choose to have sex she doesn’t assume the responsibility of parenthood and abortion becomes justified for her.” Wrong, abortion is NEVER justified. If a girl does not want to get pregnant, then she can avoid the whole situation by NOT HAVING sex. Amazing, I know!! When she doesn’t want to be responsible, she simply does not have sex. This world is NOT about immediate gratification. There is one method that guarantees she will NOT become pregnant. If she wants sex, she assumes the responsibilities.[/quote]

You say this a lot.

Amazing how rape throws that spanner into the argument.[/quote]

235

352×527 56.6 KB

Abortion is easy to argue against when everyone you know has had a great life and you think everyone deserves the chance for that.

Truth is, not everyone is born with that as a possibility. Some mothers realize that and want to spare their children.

236

What quality of life is worth being born for? Would you want your mother to have you if she knew this was what you would face for the entirety of your existence?

237

400×604 32.3 KB

If the mother knows her child will be economically disadvantaged and she will place her child at risk by her own behaviors, do you really say “Too bad. That was the mother’s choice. The child still has a right to live”? When you are not going to take her in and protect her from her mother selling the child’s body for drugs? (and let’s face it, you aren’t or you would already be)

238

I suppose you are also against suicide once the child has seen/experienced things that they will never fully recover from, hates their own life, and has given up hope of surviving any other way than what they saw their parents do. Then you get mad when they bust your BMW window in and hook your own kids on drugs so they can make a little cash.

239

There are many threads on whether the mother has the right to choose to kill, yet none that I saw about what to do when the life circumstances the mother knew she was baring her children into are threatening to kill.

240

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Abortion is easy to argue against when everyone you know has had a great life and you think everyone deserves the chance for that.

Truth is, not everyone is born with that as a possibility. Some mothers realize that and want to spare their children.[/quote]

I’m glad my mother didn’t “spare” me. Live is worth living, what’s the alternative? Being dead, no thanks.