I think those that are aghast at the concept of aborting a zygote should explain why they don’t have any problem killing and eating the flesh of other animals.
What, other than religion, makes a person so special? I realize there are differences… so what are they? Elucidate them. Why is it that we don’t protect the innocent food animals, but instead raise them solely for the purpose of slaughter?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Ironic, because that’s how the whole country comes off to the rest of the world.
[/quote]
No one cares about that. They just don’t want a man in office who would dare scream at a loud convention with enthusiasm. People who can’t pronounce words correctly are ok, but not screamers.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
You keep making this argument that the state should not intervene in sort of a libertarian absolutist way - so there should be no punishment for me exercising my choice to fire a black employee simply because I hate blacks?
This logic is faulty. You are comparing a woman’s OWN body to the effect you can have on someone outside of yourself and outside of your family. The two are not the same. If your actions negatively affect someone else outside of your own person that you have no biological control over, there should most definitely be laws against it. A woman’s body is not someone else’s.
[/quote]
Prof. X, I think that YOUR logic is faulty here…
“Biological control” – is this what was once called “motherhood” had degenerated to? As much as the pro-abortion (or if you want to say the pro-choice)advocates wish to couch this debate in terms of a woman having control over “her own body,” in reality the debate is about a woman having the ability to kill her unborn baby.
Ridiculous logic! A newborn baby is not its own viable entity either, but I am sure nobody would advocate that a woman has a right to kill it. Therefore, just because the baby needs the womb to incubate and grow, he or she is free game to kill? What sense is this?
Also, 50 years ago, the “age of viability” was much much longer than it is today. Millions of premature children are living today due to increased medical ability to care and nuture these children. Who is to say that the age of viability will not continue to go down? Then what would be the excuse here?
Prof X – c’mon! Most abortions are not about aborting “zygotes.” Nice try to deflect the real argument, but the TRUTH of the matter is that by the time a woman (or girl) figures out she is pregnant, the baby really looks like a human being – because (I’ll let you in on a secret) – he or she is!. Nobody is aborting their zygotes, they are aborting (killing) their children, which is despicable.
So laws protecting people from looking at some naked nut job wandering on the streets are OK, but laws to prevent killing of one’s unborn children are not? Huh???
Well, here I agree with both of you. However, the far left feminist movement would say that YOU don’t have a choice in the matter because “It is her body.” Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways. If this is about a “woman’s reproductive rights,” and her “right to do with her body what she wishes,” then we men have no say. That truly is ridiculous!
You know, I almost cannot believe men on a website dedicated to improving our health and strengthing our bodies would be so for abortion, which is the antithesis of what we are all about here at T-Nation.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I think those that are aghast at the concept of aborting a zygote should explain why they don’t have any problem killing and eating the flesh of other animals.
What, other than religion, makes a person so special? I realize there are differences… so what are they? Elucidate them. Why is it that we don’t protect the innocent food animals, but instead raise them solely for the purpose of slaughter?
[/quote]
And you call me a clown?
I am posting this to correct some of my typos…sorry!
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
You keep making this argument that the state should not intervene in sort of a libertarian absolutist way - so there should be no punishment for me exercising my choice to fire a black employee simply because I hate blacks?
This logic is faulty. You are comparing a woman’s OWN body to the effect you can have on someone outside of yourself and outside of your family. The two are not the same. If your actions negatively affect someone else outside of your own person that you have no biological control over, there should most definitely be laws against it. A woman’s body is not someone else’s.
[/quote]
Prof. X, I think that YOUR logic is faulty here…
“Biological control” – is this what was once called “motherhood” has degenerated into? As much as the pro-abortion (or if you want to say the pro-choice)advocates wish to couch this debate in terms of a woman having control over “her own body,” in reality the debate is about a woman having the ability to kill her unborn baby.
Ridiculous logic! A newborn baby is not its own viable entity either, but I am sure nobody would advocate that a woman has a right to kill it. Therefore, just because the baby needs the womb to incubate and grow, he or she is free game to kill? What sense is this?
Also, 50 years ago, the “age of viability” was much much lower than it is today. Millions of premature children are living today due to increased medical ability to care and nuture them. Who is to say that the age of viability will not continue to go down? Then what would be the excuse here?
Prof X – c’mon! Most abortions are not about aborting “zygotes.” Nice try to deflect the real argument, but the TRUTH of the matter is that by the time a woman (or girl) figures out that she is pregnant, the baby really looks like a human being – because (I’ll let you in on a secret) – he or she is!. Nobody is aborting their zygotes, they are aborting (killing) their children, which is despicable.
So laws protecting people from looking at some naked nut job wandering on the street are OK, but laws to prevent killing of one’s unborn children are not? Huh???
Well, here I agree with both of you. However, the far left feminist movement would say that YOU don’t have a choice in the matter because “it is her body.” Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways. If this debate is about a “woman’s reproductive rights,” and her “right to do with her body what she wishes,” then we men have no say. That truly is ridiculous!
You know, I almost cannot believe men on a website dedicated to improving our health and strengthing our bodies would be so pro-abortion, which is the antithesis of what we are all about here at T-Nation.
[/quote]
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Prof. X, I think that YOUR logic is faulty here…
“Biological control” – is this what was once called “motherhood” had degenerated to? As much as the pro-abortion (or if you want to say the pro-choice)advocates wish to couch this debate in terms of a woman having control over “her own body,” in reality the debate is about a woman having the ability to kill her unborn baby. [/quote]
I am not “PROabortion”. I am PROCHOICE. I have no intention of promoting the idea that abortions are great. However, I am completely against the idea that it is YOUR business what every woman chooses to do with her body.
[quote]
Ridiculous logic! A newborn baby is not its own viable entity either, but I am sure nobody would advocate that a woman has a right to kill it. Therefore, just because the baby needs the womb to incubate and grow, he or she is free game to kill? What sense is this?[/quote]
Common sense along with the scientific knowledge that a ZYGOTE is not a baby or a newborn. It is a group of cells that each could potentially form the exact same genetic structure. It is a factory producing every gene that could POTENTIALLY form a baby. This is also the point at which the cells could split off and form twins and also the point at which clones have been made. That means for you to call this “a baby” is illinformed. It has the potential to be one, two, three or more different clones with the same genetic structure, but it is not a baby.
[quote]
Also, 50 years ago, the “age of viability” was much much longer than it is today. Millions of premature children are living today due to increased medical ability to care and nuture these children. Who is to say that the age of viability will not continue to go down? Then what would be the excuse here?[/quote]
There is a huge difference between aborting a fetus that can not survive on its own within the first trimester and aborting after that point. There would also be a huge ethical delimmma if babies could be regularly incubated artificially outside of the womb considering the potential for exploitation. I remind you again of the ability to clone individuals. These concepts are not science fiction any longer.
[quote]
Prof X – c’mon! Most abortions are not about aborting “zygotes.” Nice try to deflect the real argument, but the TRUTH of the matter is that by the time a woman (or girl) figures out she is pregnant, the baby really looks like a human being – because (I’ll let you in on a secret) – he or she is!. Nobody is aborting their zygotes, they are aborting (killing) their children, which is despicable.[/quote]
It is not your choice to decide where that line should be cut off. It should be looked at scientifically to avoid the use of personal religious beliefs as the soul reason to control the choices of others.
[quote]
So laws protecting people from looking at some naked nut job wandering on the streets are OK, but laws to prevent killing of one’s unborn children are not? Huh???[/quote]
Prove that a fetus is a viable child that can survive on its own. Until you do, your argument is strictly from your own personal morals or values and nothing more. That is not justification enough to control every other person who disagrees with you unless those who agree with you are the overwhelming majority.
Quit the bullshit. Keeping government or the general public from controlling every aspect of human choice and decision is what I believe in. You live by your morals and uphold them. I live by mine. I am not PRO-abortion. I am pro-keeping you and everyone else out my personal business as much as humanly possible. That signifies pro-CHOICE, which to me, means above all worry about yourself more than you worry about everyone else. Work on increasing sexual awareness in youth. Work on teaching birth control practices. Work on helping the millions of children already alive who are living in unbelievably bad conditions. Work on social programs designed to help these situations. How much volunteer work have you done in between fussing about what other people can or can’t do? How many kids have you mentored? I know what I have done on these issues, and I seriously doubt that the majority of the people making so much noise about controlling what all women do are doing the same.
There are kids already on this planet not getting the attention they deserve. They should be getting priority over some half assed concern that apparently only encompasses the point up to which a baby is born and then it gets silenced into “fend for yourself” or “poor people are lazy”.
Do any of you pro-choice people have children of your own?
I’m not trying to make a point, I’m just genuinely curious.
In my liberal days I was pro-choice. I’d go so far as referring to the fetus as a parasite. Now that I have kids I am very anti-abortion. It is impossible for me to see it any way other than baby killing. I have no religious beliefs; I just can’t stomach the idea of killing a baby.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Do any of you pro-choice people have children of your own?
I’m not trying to make a point, I’m just genuinely curious.
In my liberal days I was pro-choice. I’d go so far as referring to the fetus as a parasite. Now that I have kids I am very anti-abortion. It is impossible for me to see it any way other than baby killing. I have no religious beliefs; I just can’t stomach the idea of killing a baby.[/quote]
The real question should be, why do you feel that your opinion should be forced on others? I have stated several times that I would never allow an abortion if I had any say in the matter of my own child. That doesn’t mean that I try to get everyone on the planet to legally be forced to do the same. I feel that efforts towards social consciousness, birth control and sexual education could go much further to helping the situation than potentially sending this underground simply because some are deluded enough to think that abortions will stop because they are illegal. There are always coat hangers.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Prof. X, I think that YOUR logic is faulty here…
“Biological control” – is this what was once called “motherhood” had degenerated to? As much as the pro-abortion (or if you want to say the pro-choice)advocates wish to couch this debate in terms of a woman having control over “her own body,” in reality the debate is about a woman having the ability to kill her unborn baby.
I am not “PROabortion”. I am PROCHOICE. I have no intention of promoting the idea that abortions are great. However, I am completely against the idea that it is YOUR business what every woman chooses to do with her body.
[/quote]
Pro-choice = Pro-abortion because you allow for the choice to kill.
OK, it is not a baby. It is a “pre-formed” HUMAN BEING with as much right to live as you or I. Why can’t you see that? Calling it a ‘group of cells,’ might salve your conscience, but a human being is a human being – either before birth.
My point exactly – we are heading for an ever reduced “age of viability.” So if this is the criterion for and if a fetus is a “baby” then I am saying quite clearly that medical science is redrawing these lines right now!
Totally disagree! The people of the several states have every right to draw that line for the people of that state. This is what the Constitution says despite the ridiculous 1973 decision which decided that the Founders (who were for the most part either true Bible-believers or God fearers) actually intended for a woman to have this “right.” C’mon – “emanations from penumbras…” Need we say more???
I already dealt with this and showed that this is a strawman argument. The age of viability is decreasing, so this cannot be the criterion that we should be looking at.
Really? We do it all the time. A person has every “right” to take the position that killing a sick loved one is OK. The state says it is not. Guess what – Dr. Kevorkian is in prison right now (AS HE SHOULD BE). Moral decisions are made by the legislatures all the time and enacted into Law. This is nothing new – you only want to take away that right (which IS a right granted by the US Constitution) away from the people of the several states and say that all women have a right to terminate the lives of their unborn babies. How very very sad…
Ditto to you…with all due respect Prof. X…
Quite a bit actually? Would you like an estimate of the hours over the past 10 years or so? I could give it to you if you wish…
About 22 during the past 3 years or so…
Well, in my case, you are WRONG…but I really don’t like to toot my own horn, if you know what I mean Prof…
[quote]
There are kids already on this planet not getting the attention they deserve. They should be getting priority over some half assed concern that apparently only encompasses the point up to which a baby is born and then it gets silenced into “fend for yourself” or “poor people are lazy”.[/quote]
Nothing like playing the “poverty card” Prof. You pro-abortion (oh, excuse me) Pro-‘choice’ libs always take the argument back to how we should be giving more money from the rich and give it to the poor…nothing like a good 'ol government sponsored “Robin Hood.”
Hey, didn’t you just say that you were AGAINST government getting into our lives. Apparently, you and the rest of your liberal friends have no problem with government in other people’s wallets!
Think about it BEFORE you knee-jerk reply to this post, Prof. You are a very intelligent and well spoken person, but you are dead wrong on the issue at hand. Morally, ethically, and constitutionally…
[quote]doogie wrote:
Do any of you pro-choice people have children of your own?
I’m not trying to make a point, I’m just genuinely curious.
In my liberal days I was pro-choice. I’d go so far as referring to the fetus as a parasite. Now that I have kids I am very anti-abortion. It is impossible for me to see it any way other than baby killing. I have no religious beliefs; I just can’t stomach the idea of killing a baby.[/quote]
Thank you for your very honest post. Believe it or not, I have no children of my own, but I am very involved in the lives of very many – especially teenagers.
This is actually not about religion at all. Human beings that have compassion cannot help but see this issue as you do.
Take care!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Do any of you pro-choice people have children of your own?
I’m not trying to make a point, I’m just genuinely curious.
In my liberal days I was pro-choice. I’d go so far as referring to the fetus as a parasite. Now that I have kids I am very anti-abortion. It is impossible for me to see it any way other than baby killing. I have no religious beliefs; I just can’t stomach the idea of killing a baby.
The real question should be, why do you feel that your opinion should be forced on others? I have stated several times that I would never allow an abortion if I had any say in the matter of my own child. That doesn’t mean that I try to get everyone on the planet to legally be forced to do the same. I feel that efforts towards social consciousness, birth control and sexual education could go much further to helping the situation than potentially sending this underground simply because some are deluded enough to think that abortions will stop because they are illegal. There are always coat hangers.[/quote]
Prof X,
[THIS IS AN ARGUMENT ONLY – I DON’T BELIEVE IN THIS, BUT TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT I AM STATING THE FOLLOWING]
So if I owned my own business, and I wanted to hire only white males for the various jobs, you would have no problem with that because that would be MY CHOICE to make, and obviously from your posts you believe that nobody else has the right to force their choices on my choices, right?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The real question should be, why do you feel that your opinion should be forced on others? [/quote]
Because I truly believe that the fetus IS a baby. What kind of piece of shit human being could sincerely believe the fetus was a baby and NOT try to stop the killing?
There were once plenty of people who thought Blacks weren’t human. Thankfully others knew better in their heart of hearts and fought to change things. Should they have just said, “Well, just because I believe slaves are people and not animals it doesn’t mean I should force my opinions on others”? I know you are going to come back with your line about it being the mother’s body, but it was also once the slave master’s property.
[quote]
I have stated several times that I would never allow an abortion if I had any say in the matter of my own child.[/quote]
Why? If you don’t believe it is actually a child, what difference would it make to you? I don’t get that.
I don’t think the women (mostly young teens and young women) who get abortions are evil or should be punished. At least not the ones who don’t use it as a primary form of birth control.
I know too many of them who had abortions and regret it and live with their horrible guilt everyday. I think they are victims of feminists with a fucked up agenda that tricked these young women into believing that they were just getting rid of “some cells”. Once you’ve killed your kid (and feel in your heart that you did), you can never take that back. They could have always given their kid up for adoption at any point, but they can never bring it back to life. That’s a horrible trick to pull on a young scared girl in order to promote some skewed agenda.
Maybe if you took off the red nose and floppy shoes?
The post you had no comment on was a very reasonable post… have you no ability to talk to the points raised?
[quote]vroom wrote:
And you call me a clown?
Maybe if you took off the red nose and floppy shoes?
The post you had no comment on was a very reasonable post… have you no ability to talk to the points raised?[/quote]
It doesn’t even deserve a comment! You want me to actually tell you why I think comparing Human Beings to animals is ridiculous? We are just another animal in your view? If you think that is reasonable, that is your opinion. Of course it IS the natural outgrowth of your evolutionary beliefs. You know, if you can kill a cow for a McDonald’s hamburger, then how can you complain about killing an unborn baby…
…again, you call ME a clown…
…take care Bozo 
[quote]doogie wrote:
I have stated several times that I would never allow an abortion if I had any say in the matter of my own child.
Why? If you don’t believe it is actually a child, what difference would it make to you? I don’t get that.[/quote]
You don’t get that because you don’t understand how I could believe in something and still also believe that it is up to others to choose for themselves. I would never jeopardize the gift of having a child if I helped create that possibility. It has nothing to do with whether a fetus is considered a baby or not. For my own life, I would rather give the possibility every chance of becoming a healthy baby. This isn’t about what I believe. It is about whether what I believe should be forced on everyone else. THAT is the issue. Making abortions illegal will not end abortions. What will help end that is increasing public awareness. People who are “anti-abortion” want to give the government even more power over the people in this country instead of realizing that if they truly want to make a change, it is up to them personally to put in more leg work, not the government.
[quote]
I don’t think the women (mostly young teens and young women) who get abortions are evil or should be punished. At least not the ones who don’t use it as a primary form of birth control. [/quote]
Then stop trying to make the act illegal and help people make better decisions before they ever reach that point.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
[THIS IS AN ARGUMENT ONLY – I DON’T BELIEVE IN THIS, BUT TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT I AM STATING THE FOLLOWING]
So if I owned my own business, and I wanted to hire only white males for the various jobs, you would have no problem with that because that would be MY CHOICE to make, and obviously from your posts you believe that nobody else has the right to force their choices on my choices, right?
[/quote]
Dude, do yourself a favor and read this fucking thread. Your point has been answered because, guess what, it is not original. Quit repeating shit.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
OK, it is not a baby. It is a “pre-formed” HUMAN BEING with as much right to live as you or I. Why can’t you see that? Calling it a ‘group of cells,’ might salve your conscience, but a human being is a human being – either before birth.[/quote]
You are showing yourself to be a little slow on the uptake. If each individual cell of a dividing zygote holds the information of an entire human being (meaning several copies of the same genetic strands), then how can you call it “one baby”?
[quote]
My point exactly – we are heading for an ever reduced “age of viability.” So if this is the criterion for and if a fetus is a “baby” then I am saying quite clearly that medical science is redrawing these lines right now![/quote]
If babies ever begin going through the incubation process without a woman’s womb, there will be much larger ethical battles to be fought than whether someone should get an abortion. Think about that for a while.
[quote]
Totally disagree! The people of the several states have every right to draw that line for the people of that state. This is what the Constitution says despite the ridiculous 1973 decision which decided that the Founders (who were for the most part either true Bible-believers or God fearers) actually intended for a woman to have this “right.” C’mon – “emanations from penumbras…” Need we say more???[/quote]
What is your point with this? You are mad because all states don’t agree? So you are only for the power of the state if they agree with you?
[quote]
I already dealt with this and showed that this is a strawman argument. The age of viability is decreasing, so this cannot be the criterion that we should be looking at. [/quote]
Bullshit. The point at which the time of abortion matches the point at which a fetus could live on its own will be when there is more controversy. It is not a strawman to show you that this has not occurred.
[quote]
Really? We do it all the time. A person has every “right” to take the position that killing a sick loved one is OK. The state says it is not. Guess what – Dr. Kevorkian is in prison right now (AS HE SHOULD BE). Moral decisions are made by the legislatures all the time and enacted into Law. This is nothing new – you only want to take away that right (which IS a right granted by the US Constitution) away from the people of the several states and say that all women have a right to terminate the lives of their unborn babies. How very very sad…[/quote]
All states do not agree with you so what are you talking about?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And to doogie, I could have been an abortion very easily. My mother was 19 when she had me, and things couldn’t have been much worse for them. It could have very easily been me.
The fact is, I would still fight for her right to abort then to have folks like the religious right choose it for her.
If she hadnt chosen to have me, but the state had forced her too…well then where is your small government republican paradise then? Real freedom that is. [/quote]
What if she had chosen to abort you, because some feminist with an agenda who didn’t give a shit about your mother’s emotional health convinced her to kill you? What if your mother spent the rest of her life hating herself because she was tricked into believing you weren’t really a person?
Then you have:
You=dead
Mother=a mental case
Who would that have benefitted?
As far as the small government issue, you do understand that Roe v. Wade made it a federal issue, rather than a state issue, right? Republicans are for less federal control and more local control.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Republicans are for less federal control and more local control.[/quote]
At least that’s the way it used to be.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Ironic, because that’s how the whole country comes off to the rest of the world.
No one cares about that. They just don’t want a man in office who would dare scream at a loud convention with enthusiasm. People who can’t pronounce words correctly are ok, but not screamers.[/quote]
What about moaners?