Pro-Lifer Throws Incendiary Device at PP

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
561

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

Because I’d be anticipating fatherdom.
[/quote]

But you would let your wife kill your child? Doesn’t sound like you are anticipating it that much. Or am I missing something here?[/quote]

Yes, you are missing something. You seem to be assuming that on some level I agree with your concept of personhood, when in reality, I don’t.

[/quote]

I know we ostensibly disagree on that point. Believe me, I know exactly where I’m going with this.

Since you appear either to not get where I’m leading or to not want to cooperate, I’ll just come to the point: Why would you be disappointed at the removal of a clump of cells? Or, if you don’t like the description, call it what you will, but you have yet to define for me just exactly what you think that thing in her womb is, exactly, if not a “person.”

If it is not a person, then I don’t see why you should feel, “gutted,” from my understanding a rather strong expression of the word “disappointed.”

Secondly, if it is indeed not a person as you say, then when does it transform from whatever it is into a full fledged person?

I’m not asking for anything but reasonable answers to natural questions, but you don’t appear to want to cooperate with me by answering the questions I am asking forthrightly. I’m asking you for an honest answer, or at the very least to explain yourself. [/quote]

‘Gutted’ is an English colloquialism. It’s used in many different contexts. It’s doesn’t neccessarily mean: Emotionally devastated/deeply traumatized etc.

Slightly bad choice of wording on my part.

Like I said before, I see this as a matter of degrees.

Also, condider the possibility of a pregnant mother accidently killing her unborn child (assuming she didn’t even know she was pregnant), would you have the same moral objection to this as any other termination?

Again, practicality. [/quote]

I can’t have a moral objection to an accident. There was no will involved.

So which is it then, you would be kinda like, “Oh well, that sucks but cool babe, it’s your call. Feel like Chinese tonight?” More upset than this? Less?

Keep in mind that the object she is tearing limb from limb will almost certainly become your actual, real child should she choose not go go through with it.
[/quote]

If I really had my mind set on fathering her child it would be difficult. We may even separate.

If I didn’t have my mind set on fathering her child it would be more a relief/I’d feel it was for the best/the right thing to do.
[/quote]

ZEB nailed it, but to reiterate: So the only substantial difference in either scenario is just you. What’s more, you really tip your hand when you reveal that your decision making process does not even involve your wife, whose “choice” it supposedly is. For instance, you could have said, “If I really had my mind set on fathering her child it would be difficult. We may even separate. But I would do my best to understand the decision from her point of view as, ultimately, it really is her choice.”

But you didn’t say that.

And so we see this: Whether a budding life, with all the potential to be born, and grow, and live, and thrive, to become her own person, author of her own story and master of her fate, will be allowed to live indeed, or be snuffed out, torn apart before she even has the chance to draw her first breath, is ultimately decided by one thing; Pure, postmodern, narcissistic selfishness.

I appreciate your honesty.[/quote]

You are reading WAAAAAAAAAAY too much into what I’m saying here dude.

Obviously my thought proccesses in such a scenario wouldn’t just simply be one of relief.

562

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Having kids when you are really young & not in the best possible position to be a parent= VERY SELFISH!!

See how this works:) [/quote]

But killing them is far better? See how that works? :slight_smile:

563

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Having kids when you are really young & not in the best possible position to be a parent= VERY SELFISH!!

See how this works:) [/quote]

But killing them is far better? See how that works? :)[/quote]

Yes, I believe killing them would be better in many scenarios.

This debate has already gone beyond ridiculous!!!

I izz out.

564

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Having kids when you are really young & not in the best possible position to be a parent= VERY SELFISH!!

See how this works:) [/quote]

Having kids <> killing kids.

565

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Having kids when you are really young & not in the best possible position to be a parent= VERY SELFISH!!

See how this works:) [/quote]

But killing them is far better? See how that works? :)[/quote]

Yes, I believe killing them would be better in many scenarios.

This debate has already gone beyond ridiculous!!!

I izz out.

[/quote]

Really not much more to be said after this, is there?

566

You are fogetting one alternative here: Adoption. Killing a kid = having a kid you can’t take care of as far as selfishness is concerned, but that isn’t the point here at all. The question is: When does life begin?

Take a few scenarios:

  1. I’m a knife wielding maniac who stabs a pregnant woman in the belly, killing the child. I go to prison for murder.

  2. I’m a knife wielding maniac who stabs a pregnant woman in the belly, almost killing the child. I go to prison for attempted murder. A week later the same woman has an abortion. No big deal.

  3. Woman gets pregnant. Gives the baby a name, oh I can feel him kick, blah blah blah. Husband is found to be a closet pedophile. Woman has abortion. No big deal.

Either it is a human life or it isn’t, and it isn’t up to just random people to decide. Either it is, or it isn’t, whether you think it is or not. A woman can’t just decide that it is a human life and afford it all kinds of protections, and then later decide that it isn’t and just take away all those rights. That isn’t how “rights” work.

If it isn’t a human life, then why do “pro choicers” say that there are too many abortions? If a fetus is just some inconvenient thing, like a tumor, and it isn’t a big deal at all, why all so emotional about abortions?

So, first we (society) must just decide whether “it” is a human life. If so, are there protections we should extend to them. This should be based on what is best for society. We sacrifice human life all the time (war, cars, speed limits, the death penalty, ect) because we believe the benefits are worth it. I just don’t think that anybody has actually had an honest discussion about abortion in the context of what is important about the underlying issues surrounding it.

567

[quote]gerby wrote:
You are fogetting one alternative here: Adoption. Killing a kid = having a kid you can’t take care of as far as selfishness is concerned, but that isn’t the point here at all. The question is: When does life begin?

Take a few scenarios:

  1. I’m a knife wielding maniac who stabs a pregnant woman in the belly, killing the child. I go to prison for murder.

  2. I’m a knife wielding maniac who stabs a pregnant woman in the belly, almost killing the child. I go to prison for attempted murder. A week later the same woman has an abortion. No big deal.

  3. Woman gets pregnant. Gives the baby a name, oh I can feel him kick, blah blah blah. Husband is found to be a closet pedophile. Woman has abortion. No big deal.

Either it is a human life or it isn’t, and it isn’t up to just random people to decide. Either it is, or it isn’t, whether you think it is or not. A woman can’t just decide that it is a human life and afford it all kinds of protections, and then later decide that it isn’t and just take away all those rights. That isn’t how “rights” work.

If it isn’t a human life, then why do “pro choicers” say that there are too many abortions? If a fetus is just some inconvenient thing, like a tumor, and it isn’t a big deal at all, why all so emotional about abortions?

So, first we (society) must just decide whether “it” is a human life. If so, are there protections we should extend to them. This should be based on what is best for society. We sacrifice human life all the time (war, cars, speed limits, the death penalty, ect) because we believe the benefits are worth it. I just don’t think that anybody has actually had an honest discussion about abortion in the context of what is important about the underlying issues surrounding it.[/quote]

Great post gerby! ^

I wouldn’t phrase the last paragraph the same about the best for society per say, necessarily the same way. Science defines the embryo as alive, look up any credible embryology text. My desire would be to talk about respecting life, from start to finish and ALL the steps between. When we respect life of everyone, I know GOOD things will happen. Yet we are human and because of that I am honestly scared. At the same time though, I will try!! :o ]

568

GREAT post Cortes!! I even bolded my favorite part! [ =

[quote]Cortes wrote:
…

And so we see this: Whether a budding life, with all the potential to be born, and grow, and live, and thrive, to become her own person, author of her own story and master of her fate, will be allowed to live indeed, or be snuffed out, torn apart before she even has the chance to draw her first breath, is ultimately decided by one thing; Pure, postmodern, narcissistic selfishness.

I appreciate your honesty.[/quote]

569

[quote]gerby wrote:
You are fogetting one alternative here: Adoption. Killing a kid = having a kid you can’t take care of as far as selfishness is concerned, but that isn’t the point here at all. The question is: When does life begin?

Take a few scenarios:

  1. I’m a knife wielding maniac who stabs a pregnant woman in the belly, killing the child. I go to prison for murder.

  2. I’m a knife wielding maniac who stabs a pregnant woman in the belly, almost killing the child. I go to prison for attempted murder. A week later the same woman has an abortion. No big deal.

  3. Woman gets pregnant. Gives the baby a name, oh I can feel him kick, blah blah blah. Husband is found to be a closet pedophile. Woman has abortion. No big deal.

Either it is a human life or it isn’t, and it isn’t up to just random people to decide. Either it is, or it isn’t, whether you think it is or not. A woman can’t just decide that it is a human life and afford it all kinds of protections, and then later decide that it isn’t and just take away all those rights. That isn’t how “rights” work.

If it isn’t a human life, then why do “pro choicers” say that there are too many abortions? If a fetus is just some inconvenient thing, like a tumor, and it isn’t a big deal at all, why all so emotional about abortions?

So, first we (society) must just decide whether “it” is a human life. If so, are there protections we should extend to them. This should be based on what is best for society. We sacrifice human life all the time (war, cars, speed limits, the death penalty, ect) because we believe the benefits are worth it. I just don’t think that anybody has actually had an honest discussion about abortion in the context of what is important about the underlying issues surrounding it.[/quote]

You keep forgetting the key issue, which is that abortion is already here and entrenched in society. If you are really that outraged, start looking for a solution that will reduce and eventually eradicate rather than engaging in what is effectively pointless circular debate.

I’ve offered one solution, but it becomes painfully clear that there are people who would let their own religious sexual hangups get in the way of a potential solution. To say abstinence is the only solution is to deny human nature, and therefore not a solution. To offer methods of contraception that have up to a 25% failure rate is still not a solution.

570

Wrong Mak!! People are scared of what they don’t understand, I will give you that. There is even a developed country somewhat close to you, which appears to be doing just fine with NO abortion on the roster. Chickens littles like yourself are simply scared of being so blatantly and obviously wrong they can’t let go of their beliefs because that would mean they are wrong about so much. I am talking directly about you in case you couldn’t tell.

Still waiting for you to define: the unborn -

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]gerby wrote:
You are fogetting one alternative here: Adoption. Killing a kid = having a kid you can’t take care of as far as selfishness is concerned, but that isn’t the point here at all. The question is: When does life begin?

Take a few scenarios:

  1. I’m a knife wielding maniac who stabs a pregnant woman in the belly, killing the child. I go to prison for murder.

  2. I’m a knife wielding maniac who stabs a pregnant woman in the belly, almost killing the child. I go to prison for attempted murder. A week later the same woman has an abortion. No big deal.

  3. Woman gets pregnant. Gives the baby a name, oh I can feel him kick, blah blah blah. Husband is found to be a closet pedophile. Woman has abortion. No big deal.

Either it is a human life or it isn’t, and it isn’t up to just random people to decide. Either it is, or it isn’t, whether you think it is or not. A woman can’t just decide that it is a human life and afford it all kinds of protections, and then later decide that it isn’t and just take away all those rights. That isn’t how “rights” work.

If it isn’t a human life, then why do “pro choicers” say that there are too many abortions? If a fetus is just some inconvenient thing, like a tumor, and it isn’t a big deal at all, why all so emotional about abortions?

So, first we (society) must just decide whether “it” is a human life. If so, are there protections we should extend to them. This should be based on what is best for society. We sacrifice human life all the time (war, cars, speed limits, the death penalty, ect) because we believe the benefits are worth it. I just don’t think that anybody has actually had an honest discussion about abortion in the context of what is important about the underlying issues surrounding it.[/quote]

You keep forgetting the key issue, which is that abortion is already here and entrenched in society. If you are really that outraged, start looking for a solution that will reduce and eventually eradicate rather than engaging in what is effectively pointless circular debate.

I’ve offered one solution, but it becomes painfully clear that there are people who would let their own religious sexual hangups get in the way of a potential solution. To say abstinence is the only solution is to deny human nature, and therefore not a solution. To offer methods of contraception that have up to a 25% failure rate is still not a solution.[/quote]

571

Basically what you’re saying is that women are naturally born with less control over their destiny than men are.

Unlike a man, by your reasoning, a woman is not always allowed to choose when she has a child by trying to refrain from sex. If she’s raped, she loses control over her future in addition to those moments that she was forced to give up control over her body.

Thus, men are given control over their own destiny as to when they have children, but women are not in the case that they’re raped.

572

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Having kids when you are really young & not in the best possible position to be a parent= VERY SELFISH!!

See how this works:) [/quote]

But killing them is far better? See how that works? :)[/quote]

Yes, I believe killing them would be better in many scenarios.

This debate has already gone beyond ridiculous!!!

I izz out.

[/quote]

Killing a child instead of what? Bringing that child into the world and putting it up for adoption? Or maybe even (GASP) paying for your own child?

You should run from this post and any other debate that causes a mirror to be held up to your horrific thought process.

Maturity is not an easy thing for some, but necessary for all.

573

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Having kids when you are really young & not in the best possible position to be a parent= VERY SELFISH!!

See how this works:) [/quote]

But killing them is far better? See how that works? :)[/quote]

Yes, I believe killing them would be better in many scenarios.

This debate has already gone beyond ridiculous!!!

I izz out.

[/quote]

Killing a child instead of what? Bringing that child into the world and putting it up for adoption? Or maybe even (GASP) paying for your own child?

[quote]

How fair is it to expect a woman to go through a nine month process, during which her body is thoroughly deconditioned, and then go through the excruciating pain of child birth after she was raped and allude to the fact that she should pay for the child she was given no choice in having?

Would you be okay with this if it could happen to you, but not to over half of the population? In other words, you had no control at all over when in your life you might have a child and who the person might be that you have it with.

574

I didn’t forget anything, nor did I indicate whether I supported abortion. I only made points about which to think, and I didn’t even bring religion into it. “Pro choicers” always try to obscure the argument by bringing something up that isn’t there, which is why “Joe the Plumber” is a douchebag because Obama wants to “spread the wealth” (after all, he had overdue library books).

Scientifically speaking, an embryo is alive immediately following conception and before it attaches to the wall of the uterus. An embryo also contains every chromosome that it will ever have. It is, in fact, human. It is alive (no debate) it is human (no debate) but somehow there is still debate as to whether it is a human life. Ok, I get it.

Liberals and “pro choicers” are starting to lose that debate, but as I’ve said this isn’t the only debate. I’d rather they just be honest and say, “yes, abortion terminates a human life, which is bad, but so are the alternatives and therefore we’re keeping it legal.” Then the “pro lifers” and the “pro choicers” could just agree to disagree, and the voting public could decide in some sort of, I don’t know, democratic vote thing (if those still exist).

Public policy affects human behavior. Change is not made in a vacuum, which is why raising the tax rates often result in less revenue for the government, and lowering tax rates often results in higher revenues for the government (true fact, libtards should look that shit up). So, arguing for what’s “best for society” has to include an examination of how behavior would change. Would the pregnancy rate stay the same? Would STI rates rise or fall? Would people change their behavior if abortion just wasn’t an option anymore, if they didn’t have that emergency “get out of jail free card?” I don’t know, I’m just asking questions here.

Also, we’re talking about normal pregnancies here, not rape. I would never tell a raped woman what she could or couldn’t do. If we agree that an embryo is a human life and that abortion terminates that human life, then, yes, abortion committed by a pregnant woman would still constitute the termination of a human life, but my previous post explains that we make this decision all the time. Someone who is raped should not have any options taken away from her. However, this is America in the 21st century. Whoever says that education or contraception isn’t available enough are delusional. Pregnancy, by and large, is a choice. There are birth control methods that are safe, effective, and available. What most people call “accidents” are merely choices, the consequences of which were well known and not unexpected. These choices are made, in part, because there is a way out. According to the best research that we have, abortion increases crime, rape, and costs society in so many ways.

And whatever libtard keeps insinuating that I’m some sort of religious nut, you need to shut your fucking mouth. Philosophically, I’m agnostic.

575

Way to way over read into a post! A woman chooses to knowingly partake in an activity which creates life and you feel she should deserve the right to kill a defenseless child which she knowingly created?

In trying to argue the abortion case you are presuming them to be the same where this is obviously NOT true! And please tell me how a violent act is made better and resolved by perpetuating the violence with an even more atrocious act?

*edit - And please do NOT forget that rape constitutes less than a single percent of the whole number of procedures performed.

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Basically what you’re saying is that women are naturally born with less control over their destiny than men are.

Unlike a man, by your reasoning, a woman is not always allowed to choose when she has a child by trying to refrain from sex. If she’s raped, she loses control over her future in addition to those moments that she was forced to give up control over her body.

Thus, men are given control over their own destiny as to when they have children, but women are not in the case that they’re raped.[/quote]

576

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[/quote]

Sorry, I didn’t exactly pick up on that, mia culpa.

So, it depends on the medical technology as to when you can kill the child. Why does it matter about the technology? Is it because the unborn is not a person before it can survive outside the womb?[/quote]

Because abortion is already here. It is extremely unrealistic to expect it to disappear without providing alternatives.[/quote]

It is right to kill a child because it is already established? That is the determinate of when it is okay to kill a child?

577

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m very interested in any response to this. Especially the bolded part. Would you let your qualms about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage get in the way of reducing abortion rates, or even making it a thing of the past?[/quote]

No, because both are considered evil by the Church. Its teachings will not change about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage and therefore we would not let go of our qualms in order to reduce abortion rates.

This is because we hold that the means can never justify the end. So, if the end is good, but the means to that end are evil, then it is still considered evil.[/quote]

Then you are allowing religious feelings to let abortion as a practice continue. Here is where we will vastly differ.[/quote]

Can you explain to me how I am allowing religious feelings influence me on this subject?[/quote]

You claim to want to see an end to abortion. You allow religious teachings to influence your opinion on a potential solution.

I will say it again, education and availability of contraception will be what ends the need for abortion.[/quote]

Are you saying we should ignore morality and what is reasonable; that the means can never justify the end?

578

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Having kids when you are really young & not in the best possible position to be a parent= VERY SELFISH!!

See how this works:) [/quote]

How is it selfish?

579

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Way to way over read into a post! A woman chooses to knowingly partake in an activity which creates life and you feel she should deserve the right to kill a defenseless child which she knowingly created?

In trying to argue the abortion case you are presuming them to be the same where this is obviously NOT true! And please tell me how a violent act is made better and resolved by perpetuating the violence with an even more atrocious act?

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Basically what you’re saying is that women are naturally born with less control over their destiny than men are.

Unlike a man, by your reasoning, a woman is not always allowed to choose when she has a child by trying to refrain from sex. If she’s raped, she loses control over her future in addition to those moments that she was forced to give up control over her body.

Thus, men are given control over their own destiny as to when they have children, but women are not in the case that they’re raped.[/quote]
[/quote]

I’m proposing that woman is raped. You’ve answer the rape scenario in past posts, but what you haven’t answered is this:

Do you believe that women are born with less right to control their own destiny regarding when to have children than men are? Because if a woman is raped, she did not chose to have a child, she didn’t even chose who she had it with or when, yet, by your argument she has to carry the child, give birth, and change her life. She has no control over this if she’s raped, and since there is a 1 in 4 chance that a woman will be raped throughout her lifetime, you are saying that 1 in 4 women will not get to decide when they have a baby.

Therefore, you’re saying that women have less control over their destinies than men.

580

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Basically what you’re saying is that women are naturally born with less control over their destiny than men are.

Unlike a man, by your reasoning, a woman is not always allowed to choose when she has a child by trying to refrain from sex. If she’s raped, she loses control over her future in addition to those moments that she was forced to give up control over her body.

Thus, men are given control over their own destiny as to when they have children, but women are not in the case that they’re raped.[/quote]

How are men in more control if they have a baby than a woman?