Pro-Lifer Throws Incendiary Device at PP

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]joutmez wrote:
This debate is 12 pages too long. I only got like four pages in before I gave up. Anyways Roe vs. Wade ruled in favor of a womens right to privacy and thus protecting and allowing her to make her own decesion regarding her pregnacy. That was almost forty years ago and overturning such a ruling would create such a new precedent allowing for other cases to be reexamined and new rulings to be made. Rest assured the Supreme Court and the rest of the Gov does not want that. So I feel it safe to say abortion is here to stay. I guess were going to have to agree to disagree and learn to cope with each others opposing viewpoints. Really though the problem lies in our culture. Rates of unwanted pregancy and abortion are startingly lower in Europe and else where were sex is openly discussed and viewed as a normal part of life unlike here in the states where it is a taboo subject. Minimize occurance of unwanted pregnancy and you get rid of abortion. [/quote]

Don’t want unwanted pregnancies, don’t have sex. And, this is the same logic as well, if we over turn slavery then it’ll create new precedent to allowing other cases to be reexamined.[/quote]

All of the pro-lifers like this argument, because free-will and equality are paramount to their argument. However, not everyone is born with the same amount of self control. Terrible life circumstances add to the negative, uncontrolled aspects of a person’s actions as well. If these people do not want to be parents, who are you to force that one them? And if they don’t want to take the chance on adoption, why are you forcing them to complete what they started?

You want to take away the conscious choice to abort, but refuse to address the fact that your body naturally aborts at any point in the process when conditions are not favorable that it can sense. If the child’s genes are messed up, the body often aborts it. If the parent isn’t eating right, the body aborts it. Sometimes, for no reason that can be sensed, the body aborts.

[b] When the body consciously does this (as in the case of messed up genes such or unfavorable conditions in the middle of pregnancy), is it committing a crime, or is it furthering it and it’s offspring’s survival for the good of the species? [/b][/quote]

Are you seriously arguing this?

Are you that desperate?

Why don’t we put children in jail for manslaughter when they’ve committed a crime? How about dogs? Should we put dogs in jail for biting people? If you bit someone, they’d call it assault put you in jail? Well why not dogs, gosh darnit? Dogs are people, too, right?

Oh, and factory machinery. Responsible for more death and maiming than Elizabeth Bathory herself. Any factory equipment that has drawn a single milliliter of blood should be locked up and the key thrown away.

Good gravy. Go back to SAMA, please.

342

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]joutmez wrote:
This debate is 12 pages too long. I only got like four pages in before I gave up. Anyways Roe vs. Wade ruled in favor of a womens right to privacy and thus protecting and allowing her to make her own decesion regarding her pregnacy. That was almost forty years ago and overturning such a ruling would create such a new precedent allowing for other cases to be reexamined and new rulings to be made. Rest assured the Supreme Court and the rest of the Gov does not want that. So I feel it safe to say abortion is here to stay. I guess were going to have to agree to disagree and learn to cope with each others opposing viewpoints. Really though the problem lies in our culture. Rates of unwanted pregancy and abortion are startingly lower in Europe and else where were sex is openly discussed and viewed as a normal part of life unlike here in the states where it is a taboo subject. Minimize occurance of unwanted pregnancy and you get rid of abortion. [/quote]

Don’t want unwanted pregnancies, don’t have sex. And, this is the same logic as well, if we over turn slavery then it’ll create new precedent to allowing other cases to be reexamined.[/quote]

All of the pro-lifers like this argument, because free-will and equality are paramount to their argument. However, not everyone is born with the same amount of self control. Terrible life circumstances add to the negative, uncontrolled aspects of a person’s actions as well. If these people do not want to be parents, who are you to force that one them? And if they don’t want to take the chance on adoption, why are you forcing them to complete what they started?

You want to take away the conscious choice to abort, but refuse to address the fact that your body naturally aborts at any point in the process when conditions are not favorable that it can sense. If the child’s genes are messed up, the body often aborts it. If the parent isn’t eating right, the body aborts it. Sometimes, for no reason that can be sensed, the body aborts.

[b] When the body consciously does this (as in the case of messed up genes such or unfavorable conditions in the middle of pregnancy), is it committing a crime, or is it furthering it and it’s offspring’s survival for the good of the species? [/b][/quote]

Are you seriously arguing this?

Are you that desperate?

Why don’t we put children in jail for manslaughter when they’ve committed a crime? How about dogs? Should we put dogs in jail for biting people? If you bit someone, they’d call it assault put you in jail? Well why not dogs, gosh darnit? Dogs are people, too, right?

Oh, and factory machinery. Responsible for more death and maiming than Elizabeth Bathory herself. Any factory equipment that has drawn a single milliliter of blood should be locked up and the key thrown away.

Good gravy. Go back to SAMA, please.
[/quote]

So you’re saying it’s okay for your body to make a choice because it was programmed that way, but when someone doesn’t feel that they want to bring a child into the world, they aren’t allowed to make that choice?

The difference between your examples, and mine, which I’m surprised you missed, was that people do exact the same judgement on the processes harming as themselves. We just either kill it (as in the dog) or try to improve on it. I don’t see anyone blaming the uterus for aborting an extremely genetically messed up fetus or trying to fix it because it did. Therefore, people don’t consider that harmful, while they do consider all of the things in your examples negative/harmful/must be eliminated. They understand that it has to happen sometimes.

What you’re saying is that you trust the uterus to make a judgement as to when life circumstances aren’t good, and you’re okay with that because it’s natural, but you don’t consider it natural or trust them to do it at the right time when the human consciously tries to end their own pregnancy, even though human women have been consciously killing their babies in bad circumstances and with defects since the start of the species. Abortion herbs are common.

Lastly, if you don’t want to discuss this with me, don’t. Your dickheaded personal comments are unnecessary if you have a brain to debate with.

343

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Life begins at the very moment of conception.

[/quote]

Do you consider it a negative thing, then, that the human body aborts far more than 20% of the embryos after conception? Is it a terrible thing that the body is killing because it senses that the embryos life wont turn out well? Should we try to stop this process? Is it negative?

344

I should add that I believe that in the current day and age in a non-third-world, if a person needs more than one abortion, they should be sterilized if it wasn’t the result of rape.

345

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Lastly, if you don’t want to discuss this with me, don’t. Your dickheaded personal comments are unnecessary if you have a brain to debate with.
[/quote]

This is the first thing you’ve been right about so far.

I’m done wasting my time with your narcissistic relativism.

346

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Lastly, if you don’t want to discuss this with me, don’t. Your dickheaded personal comments are unnecessary if you have a brain to debate with.
[/quote]

This is the first thing you’ve been right about so far.

I’m done wasting my time with your narcissistic relativism.
[/quote]

Very well.

347

If the number is truly that high, why even have the option to abort?

Is there a conscious choice to end the pregnancy? The CHOICE to kill a life/person is wrong.

Define the unborn if you have all the answers Olee.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Life begins at the very moment of conception.

[/quote]

Do you consider it a negative thing, then, that the human body aborts far more than 20% of the embryos after conception? Is it a terrible thing that the body is killing because it senses that the embryos life wont turn out well? Should we try to stop this process? Is it negative?
[/quote]

348

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
YOU are arguing for the whole [populous vote] to decide the rights of all. I know ALL people deserve their own rights, regardless of what the population believes. Infringement upon the individuals rights are what I have a problem with.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Yup, argue for the whole population because that percent of a number is SO large, it doesn’t even total a single whole numerical value.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
choosing not to bring a child into the world.
[/quote]

I’ll stop you right here, there is a very easy and very non-lethal way to do this. If we’re going to act like gods, should we not have the responsibility of gods then?

If you wish not to bring a child into the world, then you should abstain from sex as we know sex leads to making babies. You can throw road blocks in the way, but the road ultimately leads to the same destination with or without road blocks: making babies. If you wish not to reach that destination, then don’t make that turn. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]

Excellent post, Chris.

/thread
[/quote]

Yeah, fuck all those woman who get raped and should no longer have a choice. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]
[/quote]

Oh so by your logic only those who represent the vast majority deserve rights? [/quote]
[/quote]

You got that completely backwards. I am arguing that EVERYONE should have the RIGHT to decide for themselves. Its called freedom to decide what to do with their own bodies. You on the other hand are wanting to limit those rights. Did you miss that or are you just trying to play word games to make your position seem valid?

How can you say that you believe all people deserve individual rights when you are trying to take someones right to choose away? On that note, who do you think more deserves to have their rights taken away? A women who has already been put in a situation she does not desire, or a couple of cells resting inside her? Im guessing that if this happened to a loved one of yours and she did not desire it that you would not have the balls to fight this hard to stop her, and if you did its too bad she has you in her life and you choose to support those couple of cells rather than her. Think you could tell your sister, mom, aunt, wife or whoever else ‘well fuck you. its too bad you got raped but you have no right to decide what to do with your body anymore. Im making that decision for you’?

349

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Extermination of any and all human life is wrong in my mind!

Where did I wish to exterminate life?

When you define the unborn you can then tell me how you justify the killing of another person.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
“playing God” is when you exterminate any life when you deem necessary or in the way. Creating life should be given the same reverence.

Now please define the unborn for me.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
So I have a question for all you anti-abortion fellas. How would you all define “playing god” in a general sense? Interfering with the nature process of life perhaps?[/quote]
[/quote]

First, why is it that you can only “play god” when it comes to exterminating life? Why is it that saving a life that otherwise would have ended is not considered the same? Second, go back and read where I clearly told you how I was using unborn and finally, you failed to answer my question as to why the definition of unborn has any relevance to this argument.[/quote]
[/quote]

You are a broken fucking record. I have responded to that question several times now DIRECTLY. If you want to keep asking it over and over for whatever reason then fine, but im done answering it.

350

You are going two different routes, two separate cases.

  1. If it were my sister who became pregnant, I know she was fully aware of the choice to create the life. Instead of throwing the gift away, she would cherish the gift and raise the child to be a productive part of society.

  2. First let me say that I would never wish anything horrible upon anyone, even to my worst enemy. Especially such a horrible and disgusting act such as rape. Yet you have never once told me how a violent act is made better by perpetuating the situation, with an even more violent act. On a defenseless child none the less. Where are the rights of the child?

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
YOU are arguing for the whole [populous vote] to decide the rights of all. I know ALL people deserve their own rights, regardless of what the population believes. Infringement upon the individuals rights are what I have a problem with.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Yup, argue for the whole population because that percent of a number is SO large, it doesn’t even total a single whole numerical value.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
choosing not to bring a child into the world.
[/quote]

I’ll stop you right here, there is a very easy and very non-lethal way to do this. If we’re going to act like gods, should we not have the responsibility of gods then?

If you wish not to bring a child into the world, then you should abstain from sex as we know sex leads to making babies. You can throw road blocks in the way, but the road ultimately leads to the same destination with or without road blocks: making babies. If you wish not to reach that destination, then don’t make that turn. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]

Excellent post, Chris.

/thread
[/quote]

Yeah, fuck all those woman who get raped and should no longer have a choice. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]
[/quote]

Oh so by your logic only those who represent the vast majority deserve rights? [/quote]
[/quote]

You got that completely backwards. I am arguing that EVERYONE should have the RIGHT to decide for themselves. Its called freedom to decide what to do with their own bodies. You on the other hand are wanting to limit those rights. Did you miss that or are you just trying to play word games to make your position seem valid?

How can you say that you believe all people deserve individual rights when you are trying to take someones right to choose away? On that note, who do you think more deserves to have their rights taken away? A women who has already been put in a situation she does not desire, or a couple of cells resting inside her? Im guessing that if this happened to a loved one of yours and she did not desire it that you would not have the balls to fight this hard to stop her, and if you did its too bad she has you in her life and you choose to support those couple of cells rather than her. Think you could tell your sister, mom, aunt, wife or whoever else ‘well fuck you. its too bad you got raped but you have no right to decide what to do with your body anymore. Im making that decision for you’?[/quote]

351

Quote and place in BOLD or even underline your response to the following:

The unborn - " . . . . "

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Extermination of any and all human life is wrong in my mind!

Where did I wish to exterminate life?

When you define the unborn you can then tell me how you justify the killing of another person.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
“playing God” is when you exterminate any life when you deem necessary or in the way. Creating life should be given the same reverence.

Now please define the unborn for me.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
So I have a question for all you anti-abortion fellas. How would you all define “playing god” in a general sense? Interfering with the nature process of life perhaps?[/quote]
[/quote]

First, why is it that you can only “play god” when it comes to exterminating life? Why is it that saving a life that otherwise would have ended is not considered the same? Second, go back and read where I clearly told you how I was using unborn and finally, you failed to answer my question as to why the definition of unborn has any relevance to this argument.[/quote]
[/quote]

You are a broken fucking record. I have responded to that question several times now DIRECTLY. If you want to keep asking it over and over for whatever reason then fine, but im done answering it.[/quote]

352

Columbo, YOU are that humanitarian award winner are you not? Can I say that I am honored to have debated with you. The way you ignore my points and insult me by saying that I ‘repeat myself over and over like a broken fucking record’ is humbling and then you ignore the point. Amazing skill set you have. The science you provide about how genetics determining behavior is awesome. You even justify killing children using proven science to back your claims. All I had on my side was logic! What was I thinking in debating with a child of your caliber?!? Seriously, WTF??

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
And yes of course [u]I believe killing toddlers whose father is a rapist is fine[/u] because obviously a walking, breathing child is exactly the same as a multi-cellular mass the size of a pencil head. [/quote]

353

Ok chief that is not what I was saying at all. Just stating that the more time that passes after a supreme court ruling the less likely it is to be overturned. That is just the way it has worked throughout the history of our country. I can provide examples if you like but if your half as gifted as me you can take some initiative and find them yourself.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I am so glad you believe we can NOT disagree with the government. Are she-people like yourself taught to think in a box? Can I ever be as gifted as you?

Travel down to Chile with olee and you two can then tell me the problems they have down there. Abortion is outlawed there in case you could not figure out what I was talking about.

[quote]joutmez wrote:
This debate is 12 pages too long. I only got like four pages in before I gave up. Anyways Roe vs. Wade ruled in favor of a womens right to privacy and thus protecting and allowing her to make her own decesion regarding her pregnacy. That was almost forty years ago and overturning such a ruling would create such a new precedent allowing for other cases to be reexamined and new rulings to be made. Rest assured the Supreme Court and the rest of the Gov does not want that. So I feel it safe to say abortion is here to stay. I guess were going to have to agree to disagree and learn to cope with each others opposing viewpoints. Really though the problem lies in our culture. Rates of unwanted pregancy and abortion are startingly lower in Europe and else where were sex is openly discussed and viewed as a normal part of life unlike here in the states where it is a taboo subject. Minimize occurance of unwanted pregnancy and you get rid of abortion. [/quote]
[/quote]

354

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You are going two different, two separate cases.

  1. If it were my sister who became pregnant, I know she was fully aware of the choice to create the life. Instead of throwing the gift away, she would cherish the gift and raise the child to be a productive part of society.

  2. First let me say that I would never wish anything horrible upon anyone, even to my worst enemy. Especially such a horrible and disgusting act such as rape. Yet you have never once told me how a violent act is made better by perpetuating the situation, with an even more violent act. On a defenseless child none the less. Where are the rights of the child?

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
YOU are arguing for the whole [populous vote] to decide the rights of all. I know ALL people deserve their own rights, regardless of what the population believes. Infringement upon the individuals rights are what I have a problem with.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Yup, argue for the whole population because that percent of a number is SO large, it doesn’t even total a single whole numerical value.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
choosing not to bring a child into the world.
[/quote]

I’ll stop you right here, there is a very easy and very non-lethal way to do this. If we’re going to act like gods, should we not have the responsibility of gods then?

If you wish not to bring a child into the world, then you should abstain from sex as we know sex leads to making babies. You can throw road blocks in the way, but the road ultimately leads to the same destination with or without road blocks: making babies. If you wish not to reach that destination, then don’t make that turn. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]

Excellent post, Chris.

/thread
[/quote]

Yeah, fuck all those woman who get raped and should no longer have a choice. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]
[/quote]

Oh so by your logic only those who represent the vast majority deserve rights? [/quote]
[/quote]

You got that completely backwards. I am arguing that EVERYONE should have the RIGHT to decide for themselves. Its called freedom to decide what to do with their own bodies. You on the other hand are wanting to limit those rights. Did you miss that or are you just trying to play word games to make your position seem valid?

How can you say that you believe all people deserve individual rights when you are trying to take someones right to choose away? On that note, who do you think more deserves to have their rights taken away? A women who has already been put in a situation she does not desire, or a couple of cells resting inside her? Im guessing that if this happened to a loved one of yours and she did not desire it that you would not have the balls to fight this hard to stop her, and if you did its too bad she has you in her life and you choose to support those couple of cells rather than her. Think you could tell your sister, mom, aunt, wife or whoever else ‘well fuck you. its too bad you got raped but you have no right to decide what to do with your body anymore. Im making that decision for you’?[/quote]
[/quote]

  1. I said any female you hold dear to you. Again you miss the point. You failed to answer the question yet again. What would you do if…

  2. No one wishes that apon someone, nor did I say you would, but yet again you did not answer a question of mine. Who deserves their rights taken away more? The woman or the potential child? One of them is going to lose out and of course you are trying to avoid picking one to make it seem like you are taking the moral high ground. Answer the question.

355

Brother Chris brought perfect examples to the table. Slavery was common place for decades in this country, along with segregation and even women’s rights did NOT exist. Did the laws stand or FALL after all the time that passed?

[quote]joutmez wrote:
Ok chief that is not what I was saying at all. Just stating that the more time that passes after a supreme court ruling the less likely it is to be overturned. That is just the way it has worked throughout the history of our country. I can provide examples if you like but if your half as gifted as me you can take some initiative and find them yourself.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I am so glad you believe we can NOT disagree with the government. Are she-people like yourself taught to think in a box? Can I ever be as gifted as you?

Travel down to Chile with olee and you two can then tell me the problems they have down there. Abortion is outlawed there in case you could not figure out what I was talking about.

[quote]joutmez wrote:
This debate is 12 pages too long. I only got like four pages in before I gave up. Anyways Roe vs. Wade ruled in favor of a womens right to privacy and thus protecting and allowing her to make her own decesion regarding her pregnacy. That was almost forty years ago and overturning such a ruling would create such a new precedent allowing for other cases to be reexamined and new rulings to be made. Rest assured the Supreme Court and the rest of the Gov does not want that. So I feel it safe to say abortion is here to stay. I guess were going to have to agree to disagree and learn to cope with each others opposing viewpoints. Really though the problem lies in our culture. Rates of unwanted pregancy and abortion are startingly lower in Europe and else where were sex is openly discussed and viewed as a normal part of life unlike here in the states where it is a taboo subject. Minimize occurance of unwanted pregnancy and you get rid of abortion. [/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

356

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No, because biologically it is not a human.[/quote]

Who are you to dictate this?[/quote]

Who are you to dictate that it isn’t?

357

  1. Place whom ever you would like there. My mother, my sister, my cousin, my aunts or even my neighbors. The outcome is NOT going to change.

  2. Is the ‘clump of cells’ a person, or a scab? If the answer is a person, I would hope to give life to the person rather than kill them before we can hear their silent screams. If it were a scab, why would you care about one ‘clump of cells’ over the other? I sure wouldn’t worry about some dried blood. Even if it are a ‘clump of cells’.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You are going two different, two separate cases.

  1. If it were my sister who became pregnant, I know she was fully aware of the choice to create the life. Instead of throwing the gift away, she would cherish the gift and raise the child to be a productive part of society.

  2. First let me say that I would never wish anything horrible upon anyone, even to my worst enemy. Especially such a horrible and disgusting act such as rape. Yet you have never once told me how a violent act is made better by perpetuating the situation, with an even more violent act. On a defenseless child none the less. Where are the rights of the child?

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
YOU are arguing for the whole [populous vote] to decide the rights of all. I know ALL people deserve their own rights, regardless of what the population believes. Infringement upon the individuals rights are what I have a problem with.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Yup, argue for the whole population because that percent of a number is SO large, it doesn’t even total a single whole numerical value.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
choosing not to bring a child into the world.
[/quote]

I’ll stop you right here, there is a very easy and very non-lethal way to do this. If we’re going to act like gods, should we not have the responsibility of gods then?

If you wish not to bring a child into the world, then you should abstain from sex as we know sex leads to making babies. You can throw road blocks in the way, but the road ultimately leads to the same destination with or without road blocks: making babies. If you wish not to reach that destination, then don’t make that turn. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]

Excellent post, Chris.

/thread
[/quote]

Yeah, fuck all those woman who get raped and should no longer have a choice. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]
[/quote]

Oh so by your logic only those who represent the vast majority deserve rights? [/quote]
[/quote]

You got that completely backwards. I am arguing that EVERYONE should have the RIGHT to decide for themselves. Its called freedom to decide what to do with their own bodies. You on the other hand are wanting to limit those rights. Did you miss that or are you just trying to play word games to make your position seem valid?

How can you say that you believe all people deserve individual rights when you are trying to take someones right to choose away? On that note, who do you think more deserves to have their rights taken away? A women who has already been put in a situation she does not desire, or a couple of cells resting inside her? Im guessing that if this happened to a loved one of yours and she did not desire it that you would not have the balls to fight this hard to stop her, and if you did its too bad she has you in her life and you choose to support those couple of cells rather than her. Think you could tell your sister, mom, aunt, wife or whoever else ‘well fuck you. its too bad you got raped but you have no right to decide what to do with your body anymore. Im making that decision for you’?[/quote]
[/quote]

  1. I said any female you hold dear to you. Again you miss the point. You failed to answer the question yet again. What would you do if…

  2. No one wishes that apon someone, nor did I say you would, but yet again you did not answer a question of mine. Who deserves their rights taken away more? The woman or the clump of cells? One of them is going to lose out and of course you are trying to avoid picking one to make it seem like you are taking the moral high ground. Answer the question.[/quote]

358

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No, because biologically it is not a human.[/quote]

Who are you to dictate this?[/quote]

Also, at what point is something biologically not human? We need a real definition here. How many gene deviations does it take? Is there a percentage? That whole not being able to breed with the original species thing is not a good enough definition, because in some species, all it’s taken is ONE deviation! We have humans deviated from each other further than that and we still consider them the same species.[/quote]

Um, because it’s biologically not a human with only 23 chromosomes. It also doesn’t have a metabolism, it’s own genome, and it doesn’t respond to stimuli.

359

[quote]Oleena wrote:
All of the pro-lifers like this argument, because free-will and equality are paramount to their argument.[/quote]

Um, no. Human dignity is the paramount to our argument. And, are you arguing that we do not have free will now?

Yes, I know we have jails for some types of people who lack self control.

I am not, they had sex. Did I force them to have sex, no I didn’t. They could have said no and waited until the negative wasn’t so negative.

Because, killing an innocent human being is not recourse to lack of control of one’s self.

Actually, I don’t. I argue that they shouldn’t kill innocent children just because they lack self-control.

What is ‘this’? Not killing innocent children? Yes, it has always sounded like a good and sound idea to me.

You be realistic.

Oh, so we should kill those children running around that their parents shouldn’t be parents and we can’t find someone to adopt them or foster them.

[quote]
You want to take away the conscious choice to abort,[/quote]

It’s still a conscious choice to abort if it’s illegal or legal.

A little fallacious isn’t there little lady, since I’m arguing against abortion, which is the willful termination/killing/murder/destroying of a life. Not the accidental miscarriage. Nice try, but better luck next time.

How is this comparable to willfully killing someone, it is not.

You’re missing the willful part little lady, maybe you should study up on your pro-life arguments.

[quote]Sometimes, for no reason that can be sensed, the body aborts.

[b] When the body consciously does this (as in the case of messed up genes such or unfavorable conditions in the middle of pregnancy), is it committing a crime, or is it furthering it and it’s offspring’s survival for the good of the species? [/b][/quote]

You again are bring up fallacious arguments, straw man to be exact. I’m not talking about miscarriage which is not the same as a willful termination of an unborn baby.

360

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
Its called freedom to decide what to do with their own bodies.[/quote]

Well, go ahead and tell that to the victims of heinous crimes. Well, the criminal really had the freedom to decide what to do with their own bodies, you just happened to get the blunt end of it.