Pro-Lifer Throws Incendiary Device at PP

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
581

[quote]gerby wrote:
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.[/quote]

Can you show me the stats on that last one about abortion increasing crime?

582

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Because they control whether or not they put their semen in someone else. A woman being raped has the semen dumped in her by force and thus has the right to her body taken away, and by your argument, the right to her future for at least the next 9 months.

583

Please do not forget the number you present is LESS than one percent of the whole.

[quote]Oleena wrote:
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.[/quote]

584

Answer the questions: do you believe women are born with less control over their choice to have children and when than men? 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?

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please do not forget the number you present is LESS than one percent of the whole.

[quote]Oleena wrote:
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.[/quote]
[/quote]

BTW: The adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%. This information, in conjunction with estimates based on the U.S. Census, suggest that there may be 32,101 annual rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.
Taken from Center for Diseases Control Rape Fact Sheet 2/2000

I expect this number is much higher in teenagers.

Edit: Turns out I was right:

15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 12.3

â?¢29% are age 12-17.
â?¢44% are under age 18.3

585

Also, the man who forced the child on her will not be held accountable in 15 out of 16 cases. In addition, the numbers I include above don’t include unreported rapes; an estimated 60% of rapes, ~5% of which also result in pregnancy, don’t get reported. Therefore, you can estimate that the 4% number should actually be around 10%. This means that realistically ~10% of adult pregnancies result from rape, and that’s leaning toward the low side of the estimate while also not including teenagers.

586

I have never said women shouldn’t have control over their bodies. In fact pregnant women deserve the best of the best, in every choice they have. Yet when another life is involved her rights are superseded by the infant’s.

I am by no means saying the option of abortion should be taken away from a woman who was raped. Yet I know the women who were raped were educated about the procedure of abortion, she would then be informed about the effects of the abortion process. Education is key. Yet you are still arguing the case for a group [even if we use your higher numbers] which is far smaller than the total.

Your figures are over a decode old Olee. Keep fishing though. In addition, my gut tells me the women whose “body is thoroughly deconditioned” are NOT the ones being raped. And now you want to solve social problems with minors and the scum which prey on the children with abortion? Impressive thoughts you are bringing to the table. May I sit in awe?

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Answer the questions: do you believe women are born with less control over their choice to have children and when than men? 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?

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please do not forget the number you present is LESS than one percent of the whole.

[quote]Oleena wrote:
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.[/quote]
[/quote]

BTW: The adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%. This information, in conjunction with estimates based on the U.S. Census, suggest that there may be 32,101 annual rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.
Taken from Center for Diseases Control Rape Fact Sheet 2/2000

I expect this number is much higher in teenagers.

Edit: Turns out I was right:

15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 12.3

â?¢29% are age 12-17.
â?¢44% are under age 18.3
[/quote]

587

Your figures are still growing in age.

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Also, the man who forced the child on her will not be held accountable in 15 out of 16 cases. In addition, the numbers I include above don’t include unreported rapes; an estimated 60% of rapes, ~5% of which also result in pregnancy, don’t get reported. Therefore, you can estimate that the 4% number should actually be around 10%. This means that realistically ~10% of adult pregnancies result from rape, and that’s leaning toward the low side of the estimate while also not including teenagers.

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates[/quote]

588

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Because they control whether or not they put their semen in someone else. A woman being raped has the semen dumped in her by force and thus has the right to her body taken away, and by your argument, the right to her future for at least the next 9 months.[/quote]

Okay, well let’s first establish that rape is nothing to joke or kid about, and that if anyone has been raped I am deeply sorry they had two dear things taken away from them, their innocence and their choice to relations with that person.

Now…are you arguing that the rule should be based on an exception to the rule?

589

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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?[/quote]

You are putting words in my mouth.

It is extremely unrealistic to expect it to disappear without providing alternatives.

Stick to that. Just that.

590

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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?[/quote]

I’m saying we should ignore your (and any) religious sexual hangups.

591

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Because they control whether or not they put their semen in someone else. A woman being raped has the semen dumped in her by force and thus has the right to her body taken away, and by your argument, the right to her future for at least the next 9 months.[/quote]

Okay, well let’s first establish that rape is nothing to joke or kid about, and that if anyone has been raped I am deeply sorry they had two dear things taken away from them, their innocence and their choice to relations with that person.

Now…are you arguing that the rule should be based on an exception to the rule? [/quote]

No, I’m asking if you believe that women are naturally born with less control over their own destinies regarding having children than men? Yes or no. That is all.

592

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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?[/quote]

You are putting words in my mouth.

It is extremely unrealistic to expect it to disappear without providing alternatives.

Stick to that. Just that.[/quote]

No mak, you are just failing to UNDERSTAND the words even you speak.

593

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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?[/quote]

I’m saying we should ignore your (and any) religious sexual hangups.[/quote]

Okay, then don’t bring them into the argument if you should ignore them. However, how does sexual hang ups nullify that the means do not justify the end?

594

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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?[/quote]

You are putting words in my mouth.

It is extremely unrealistic to expect it to disappear without providing alternatives.

Stick to that. Just that.[/quote]

I’m trying to figure out what you are trying to say, absolutely not trying to put words in your mouth. Sorry about that.

Okay, so because it is extremely unrealistic to disappear, it is right to kill an unborn child?

595

[quote]Oleena wrote:
No, I’m asking if you believe that women are naturally born with less control over their own destinies regarding having children than men? Yes or no. That is all.[/quote]

No.

596

I swear that I typed a response previously, however it will NOT show. This might turn into a double post.

I can never wish the horrible effects of rape on any person in the world. Not even my worst enemy. I have said this before.

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Answer the questions: do you believe women are born with less control over their choice to have children and when than men?[/quote]
No, I never implied any such thing.

Do you honestly believe the woman who’s “body is thoroughly deconditioned” is frequently the victim of rape? And please do not tell me the child enjoys the process of birth! You fit through a hole so small your skull will deflect from the pressure. Next you will say that should justify their murder and slaughter in the womb.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please do not forget the number you present is LESS than one percent of the whole.

[quote]Oleena wrote:
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?[/quote]
Something tells me, she wouldn’t have to pay a penny. Especially with the Government we have in this country.

These numbers are over a decade old.

[quote]BTW: The adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%. This information, in conjunction with estimates based on the U.S. Census, suggest that there may be 32,101 annual rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.
Taken from Center for Diseases Control Rape Fact Sheet 2/2000

I expect this number is much higher in teenagers.

Edit: Turns out I was right:

15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 12.3

�¢?�¢29% are age 12-17.
�¢?�¢44% are under age 18.3
[/quote]
So we are supposed to solve social problems with the slaughter of innocent lives? I would never expect that to back fire like Obamacare will shakes head

597

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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?[/quote]

You are putting words in my mouth.

It is extremely unrealistic to expect it to disappear without providing alternatives.

Stick to that. Just that.[/quote]

I’m trying to figure out what you are trying to say, absolutely not trying to put words in your mouth. Sorry about that.

Okay, so because it is extremely unrealistic to disappear, it is right to kill an unborn child?[/quote]

Again, you are misreading. Whether on purpose or not I still cannot tell.

It is extremely unrealistic to expect it to disappear [b]without providing alternatives.[/b]

Without providing a viable means of access to contraception and education, abortion is not going anywhere. All I’ve read from your side is moral outrage, and yet no realistic solutions.

598

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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?[/quote]

I’m saying we should ignore your (and any) religious sexual hangups.[/quote]

Okay, then don’t bring them into the argument if you should ignore them. However, how does sexual hang ups nullify that the means do not justify the end?[/quote]

And yet your hangups are relevant because they stifle your own goals. You asked me what I was saying and now you try to merge it with what you previously thought I was saying? I’m not making this unclear.

  1. Education and availability/development of contraception will be what ends the need for abortion.
  2. Your willingness to stifle availability/development of contraception due to religious reasons is contrary to the goal above.
  3. For all the hand-wringing and moral debate, I have yet to see a viable solution put forward by you for this conundrum that would be realistic given the human condition and our desire to have sex.

Clear?

599

[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 just summed up in one succinct package what I’ve been dragging through 10 pages.

Excellent post.

600

Brother Chris needs no help, but please visit a country very close to your side of the globe and tell me they suffer from any problems which you speak of. There is a law in place which allows for ZERO abortions.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

  1. Education and availability/development of contraception will be what ends the need for abortion.[/quote]
    Says only YOU. If the procedure is not available I fail to see how this is a problem?

Again says only YOU.

So we should be all about instant gratification? That I guarantee will end in a glorious route, one which has never been seen before.

Only because you have some serious skillz Mak.