The Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1001

[quote]pat wrote:

That’s rich, I am not the one trying to attach pretty words to abominable practices. It is what it is.
[/quote]

And the mental gymnastics continue.

[quote]pat wrote:

Lousy analogy. Getting fat and killing somebody other than yourself are very different things. I am not concerned with what people do to themselves, I am concerned what people, callously, do to others.
[/quote]

Actually I already pointed out that you making yourself fat effects other people. The taxpayer, your family, friends etc. So no it’s an apt analogy.

[quote]pat wrote:

Killing is wrong and it is illegal already.[/quote]

Certain forms of killing are wrong and certain forms are illegal. Not all. A distinction is purposely made.

[quote]pat wrote:

Some immoral things, like killing, should be illegal. [/quote]

Okay

[quote]pat wrote:

The law has established in many places already that killing an unborn child outside the confines of an abortion clinic will land your ass in prison for murder.[/quote]

Again, there’s a distinction purposely made for abortions done in clinics. Under the law it’s not considered murder.

[quote]pat wrote:

So there is already a legal precedent set. I am not for legislation morality either, but killing should be outlawed as it already is.[/quote]

No there’s not and if there were, abortion would be made illegal again. Every time abortion rights are challenged, they are deemed unconstitutional.

The point being, not everyone who considers abortion immoral ALSO believes it should be illegal.

1002

Glad you fail to grasp a simple subject. When a woman has her child slaughtered of her own choice, you are then trying to tell me that her mental health is not effected. No matter what your statistics say, I know countless women who are effected by those decisions.

Killing a child of her own creation is acceptable by women who have been duped with self imposed ignorance. I am simply shedding light upon the subject of abortion.

[quote]This just speaks to your lack of understanding of statistics. It would be close to impossible to survey every single woman whoever had an abortion. What you’re asking for is completely unrealistic and if we held that standard, no study every posted here would be considered valid.

Look up “sampling” if you’re interested.[/quote]

If you support a woman who kills her child, you support abortion.

You can tell yourself whatever you like. Next, you will tell me that Germans never regretted the slaughter of the innocent Jews. You have never actually proved your “case.” Can you explain your position succinctly? I can summarize the position of life in five simple words. Can the case for abortion ever be summarized succinctly? Do you realize why that will never be the case?

1003

I know many things about life. My apologies if I am failing to explain them clear enough.

Why does there have to be an acceptable contraception? Life should always be celebrated, never any alternatives.

1004

Obama administrationâ??s harassment of pro-lifers gets personal
by Jill Stanek Tue Jul 17, 2012

On July 13 FBI agents Conrad Rodriguez and William Sivley paid a visit to my son-in-law, Andy Moore, at his home.

Andy is a pro-life activist who prays and protests outside the Southwest Womenâ??s Surgery Center abortion mill in Dallas, where late-term abortionist Curtis Boyd freely acknowledges he â??kill[s]â?? children.

Agents Rodriguez and Sivley told Andy three red flags prompted their visit:

1) His use of a megaphone outside the mill, a one-time event on March 31, which he stopped and never repeated after police told him he was violating a noise ordinance.

2) A complaint by the clinic manager that Andy trespassed, which he did not. There was no evidence, yet police gave Andy a warning: â??I asked the officer multiple times, â??Why are you giving me this warning, as I did not trespass?â?? All he would tell me was, â??Iâ??m giving you this warning.â?? He did not answer my question.â??

3) Unsubstantiated complaints that Andy may be too aggressive. â??One of the agents told me it is acceptable to be aggressive, however there is a line. He gave examples of things which would cross the line, such as making threats of violence, or obstructing vehicle access â?? violations of the FACE act. I told him in no uncertain terms that I had never done anything like this and had not considered anything like this either.â??

Obviously, the charges rose to the level of nada to begin with, certainly not above local law enforcementâ??s pay grade. Andy videotaped his one and only foray into megaphoning, which was obviously tame and polite:

But the FBI used them as an excuse to knock on the door, nerve-wracking to begin with, and followed by asking totally inappropriate questions clearly aimed at intimidating Andy, while also launching into a fishing expedition about me. Per Andy and my daughter, who was home at the time, here were questions the agents asked:

What affiliations do you have including church groups?
How long have you known your wife?
What belief system makes you believe in your cause?
What is your goal in protesting?
Do you know why people would make complaints against you?
Are there friends of yours or people youâ??re connected with that you could confidentially tell us are aggressive or abrasive? â??Donâ??t be afraid to tell us.â??
Are you involved in activism in Austin, since we noticed some entries on abortionwiki?
They were REALLY interested in the connection to Jill Stanek â?? details of internship, New Zealand speaking tour visit, did you get your activist and pro-life ideas from her? Did she train or teach you? Did you meet Jill before or after you became involved in the movement? Was it Jill who â??fired you upâ?? to become so active in the movement?
They were overly nice saying he wasnâ??t in trouble and feel free to tell us anything. Encouraged him to keep going back out there, that they represent both sides. ++they are protecting his freedom of speech++ is what they kept saying.
They said their task force that deals with these abortion cases also handles Hate Crimes and White Supremacy. Odd grouping with pro-lifers.
They knew he was an immigrant.  They said a felony on his record could/would get him deported. â??You wouldnâ??t want to be apart from your wife and newborn.â??

Life Legal Defense Fund, one of the pro-life legal firms that has successfully defended pro-lifers against prosecution by Obamaâ??s Department of Justice, has now taken Andy under its wing. Senior Staff Counsel, Allison Aranda, shared her insights in an email:

The Obama administration is essentially engaging in a witch hunt.  From the moment the new administration took office, the DOJ has been targeting peaceful pro-life sidewalk counselors.  They have come out guns blazing on several occasions often bringing allegations that could later not be substantiated or in some cases clearly proven to be false.  Their weapon of choice â?? the FACE act.  The DOJ is using tactics that amount to legal extortion.  They have filed these frivolous claims against innocent people who donâ??t have the finances to hire big shot attorneys.  The DOJ then kindly offers to settle the case if the counselor simply agrees to stay so many yards away and pay a couple thousand dollar fine.

Pro-bono legal foundations like LLDF, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Liberty Counsel have taken a stand to defend these innocent pro-lifers.  Thankfully the sidewalk counselors have either had witnesses or video evidence to defend their actions.  The DOJ has outright dismissed charges in two cases, walking away with egg on their face.  In one case, a federal court judge issued a scathing opinion questioning the motives of the DOJ for bringing such unsubstantiated charges in the first place.  The judge suggested that there might have been a conspiracy between the government and the abortion clinic to violate the free speech rights of the pro-life advocates.

It now seems that the unscrupulous Eric Holder is at it again.  This time when the government determined that the evidence wasnâ??t quite what they thought it would be to proceed on a FACE claim against Andy, they turned their intimidating interrogation into a fishing expedition about the personal life of Jill Stanek.  Targeted bullying by our government because of an individualâ??s viewpoint and willingness to share that message in the public square is intolerable.  LLDF is committed to aggressively defending the rights of pro-life advocates.  We will not back down, and we will not be threatened.  We will continue to fight so that the freedoms of all are protected and preserved.

It stands to reason that the Obama administration would be interested in me. This has probably been a long time coming. But to reiterate Allisonâ??s point, we will not back down, and we will not be threatened.

Reprinted from JillStanek.com

1005

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t have to try… You’re the one all frazzled and hung up on labels and terminology, in order to sound less bad. Writing pages of tortured logic to support a phony label. It doesn’t bother me, not one bit… Whether you call me pro-life or anti-abortion or whatever, doesn’t actually matter. You can call me ‘Sally’ for all I care.

You’re pro-abortion, act like a man and own it.[/quote]

If you’ll remember, I had non-semantic based arguments too, you just stopped responding to them and instead focused on this.

I agree to your terms. I’ll be pro-abortion and you’ll be anti-freedom.

Now can we continue, Sally? [/quote]

Prove I am anti-freedom.[/quote]

Oh for fuck sakes…

You’re not anti-freedom. At least, you’re no more anti-freedom than I am pro-abortion. I’m pro-abortion to the extent that there are cases where I support abortion. You are anti-freedom to the extent that there are cases where you do not support free choice.

More often than not, I am anti-abortion, but I am always for the choice, so pro-choice is the more appropriate term. More often than not, you are pro-freedom, but you are always against abortion (savour for when the mother’s life is at risk), so anti-abortion is the more appropriate choice. I’d even concede that pro-life is a more appropriate choice than anti-freedom, so whichever rules you’re willing to play by, I’ll agree to them, but I won’t agree to a double-standard, especially one against my own position.

Hell, even if you don’t agree with my reasoning, it’s a matter of basic respect for your opponent’s position. You want to go by a particular term? Fine, so do I and I’ll agree to your’s if you agree to mine. You don’t think the term “pro-choice” is accurate? Guess what? I don’t think “pro-life” is accurate, but it doesn’t fucking matter. If you want to be petty, fine, I’ll match your ‘pettiness’ and raise you ‘basic logic’. If you want to actually debate the issues, great! Grow up and let’s move on then.

It’s your choice, but make it quick because I’m out of patience.

1006

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
I missed this earlier.

  • Then it’s a matter of them turning you into a violent criminal, then shooting you. Yes, each “let’s say” is another choice. That’s the point I’m making. Each “choice” is backed by a progressively worse punishment until they have to kill you over it. Eventually, the only way to not comply is to violently defend yourself, to which the police will use as justification to get violent right back.

Maybe you think this guy deserves it for breaking a “social contract” (I don’t remember ever signing one of these, but whatever) or putting himself above the law, but that doesn’t change the fact that ultimately the punishment for not complying with the law is death.

  • Pushing the gun back behind several progressively less ‘free’ choices doesn’t mean the guns aren’t there, they’re just hidden. The problem here is that this choice is not a free choice, well it is right now, but you don’t like that. It’s a choice that you want to see backed by an artificial punishment and you think if if these women absolutely refuse to be punished for not meeting your personal standards, then they should be killed. You say it’s a long series of choices, and in a way it is, but really it’s the same choice over and over again, it’s just that the threats get worse and worse until that choice becomes “accept the punishment or die”.

  • And what if they’re only shooting at police because they don’t want to go to prison for smoking marijuana? – The assumption here is that he’s refused punishment as a form of protest until the point has been reached where he either violently defends himself himself or get hauled away forcefully. [/quote]

-you have no right to “not comply” to the law. Because it’s the law. By definition.
-no one turn you into a violent criminal. If you do, it’s your choice, and your fault.
-laws are not “personal standards”.

that being said, you’re right : if we legalize everything, violent crime would instantly disappear. [/quote]

“Rights” are imaginary things. Arguing for or against something by appealing to “rights” means nothing to me.

Actually, everything you’ve said here is a non-sequitur. My point is that all laws are ultimately backed by the threat of death, some laws just give you more “chances” to roll over. Whether you actually take these chances or not doesn’t change this. Without this ultimate threat of death, there’s no real reason to comply with the punishments for breaking said laws.

To deny this is to be wilfully ignorant of the world you live in.

But it really doesn’t matter if you want to see this or not because you think abortion is murder and the mother’s who commit abortion should be punished as murderers, do you not?

So then, is it the death sentence or life in prison, kamui?

1007

LOL at the label ‘sidewalk counselor’. What if I objected to anabolic steroids, and stood outside your doctor’s office with a megaphone? Go home, you fucking assholes. Mind your own business you fucking freaks. These idiots are as bad as the God Hates Fags assholes. Get off the sidewalk, go home. Maybe if these fundamentalist idiots would allow adequate sex education in the schools, the abortion rate would go down. But they don’t want to teach kids about condoms. They want people to be punished for having sex. That’s why they hate AIDS education too.

Many, many anti-choice people are just one unplanned pregnancy away from becoming pro-choice. I can only hope that it will happen more often.

To me, this issue is the height of conservative hypocrisy: we don’t want the government telling us what to do (except when it comes to a woman’s uterus, then the sky’s the limit). Just like they are so worried if consenting adults are having homosexual activities. Then, they think the government can’t do enough to stop it! Mind your own business, you assholes.

1008

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Glad you fail to grasp a simple subject. When a woman has her child slaughtered of her own choice, you are then trying to tell me that her mental health is not effected. No matter what your statistics say, I know countless women who are effected by those decisions.
[/quote]

That’s great.

Then stop posting statistics to support your position as well.

If you only accept statistics that agree with your pre-conceived notions and reject all that oppose them, then you are nothing more than an ignoramus.

1009

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Glad you fail to grasp a simple subject. When a woman has her child slaughtered of her own choice, you are then trying to tell me that her mental health is not effected. No matter what your statistics say, I know countless women who are effected by those decisions.
[/quote]

That’s great.

Then stop posting statistics to support your position as well.

If you only accept statistics that agree with your pre-conceived notions and reject all that oppose them, then you are nothing more than an ignoramus.

[/quote]

If he really cared about women’s mental health he would be advocating for a bunch of weird laws to save them from emotional stress. Really the best solution is to just keep them at home so they can be limited to the worlds problems. We know that is not the case so it is laughable that he keeps bringing up the mental health argument.

1010

[quote]K2000 wrote:
LOL at the label ‘sidewalk counselor’. What if I objected to anabolic steroids, and stood outside your doctor’s office with a megaphone? Go home, you fucking assholes. Mind your own business you fucking freaks. These idiots are as bad as the God Hates Fags assholes. Get off the sidewalk, go home. Maybe if these fundamentalist idiots would allow adequate sex education in the schools, the abortion rate would go down. But they don’t want to teach kids about condoms. They want people to be punished for having sex. That’s why they hate AIDS education too.

Many, many anti-choice people are just one unplanned pregnancy away from becoming pro-choice. I can only hope that it will happen more often.

To me, this issue is the height of conservative hypocrisy: we don’t want the government telling us what to do (except when it comes to a woman’s uterus, then the sky’s the limit). Just like they are so worried if consenting adults are having homosexual activities. Then, they think the government can’t do enough to stop it! Mind your own business, you assholes.[/quote]

The most ridiculous thing is they offer no other alternatives. As mentioned earlier, no contraception at all is acceptable. Those kind of comments are right in line with the Westboro line of thinking, crazy people which are a complete waste of time to argue or debate without bringing yourself down to their level.

1011

^^ What’s worse is that that the guy in the video has no idea why the women are there.

Since late term abortions are illegal in many states (with a few exceptions), there’s a good chance the surgery could’ve been medically necessary.

1012

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t have to try… You’re the one all frazzled and hung up on labels and terminology, in order to sound less bad. Writing pages of tortured logic to support a phony label. It doesn’t bother me, not one bit… Whether you call me pro-life or anti-abortion or whatever, doesn’t actually matter. You can call me ‘Sally’ for all I care.

You’re pro-abortion, act like a man and own it.[/quote]

If you’ll remember, I had non-semantic based arguments too, you just stopped responding to them and instead focused on this.

I agree to your terms. I’ll be pro-abortion and you’ll be anti-freedom.

Now can we continue, Sally? [/quote]

Prove I am anti-freedom.[/quote]

Oh for fuck sakes…

You’re not anti-freedom. At least, you’re no more anti-freedom than I am pro-abortion. I’m pro-abortion to the extent that there are cases where I support abortion. You are anti-freedom to the extent that there are cases where you do not support free choice.

More often than not, I am anti-abortion, but I am always for the choice, so pro-choice is the more appropriate term. More often than not, you are pro-freedom, but you are always against abortion (savour for when the mother’s life is at risk), so anti-abortion is the more appropriate choice. I’d even concede that pro-life is a more appropriate choice than anti-freedom, so whichever rules you’re willing to play by, I’ll agree to them, but I won’t agree to a double-standard, especially one against my own position.

Hell, even if you don’t agree with my reasoning, it’s a matter of basic respect for your opponent’s position. You want to go by a particular term? Fine, so do I and I’ll agree to your’s if you agree to mine. You don’t think the term “pro-choice” is accurate? Guess what? I don’t think “pro-life” is accurate, but it doesn’t fucking matter. If you want to be petty, fine, I’ll match your ‘pettiness’ and raise you ‘basic logic’. If you want to actually debate the issues, great! Grow up and let’s move on then.

It’s your choice, but make it quick because I’m out of patience. [/quote]

Ok, it’s settled, I am not anti-freedom and you are pro-abortion. No amount of retarded reasoning is going to change that fact.
You already conceded that ‘abortion is obviously murder’, that’s all I am interested in establishing. The rest takes care of itself. If it’s murder than it should be illegal like murder is.

You can come and go as you please, I don’t really give a shit if you are out of patience or not.

1013

[quote]therajraj wrote:
^^ What’s worse is that that the guy in the video has no idea why the women are there.

Since late term abortions are illegal in many states (with a few exceptions), there’s a good chance the surgery could’ve been medically necessary.[/quote]

It’s one sided propaganda so what do you expect. I can’t even read/watch stuff like that on topics I agree with.

1014

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

That’s rich, I am not the one trying to attach pretty words to abominable practices. It is what it is.
[/quote]

And the mental gymnastics continue.
[/quote]
Oh brother.

Actually I already pointed out that you making yourself fat effects other people. The taxpayer, your family, friends etc. So no it’s an apt analogy.
[/quote]
You’re on a slippery slope with that one. Technically breathing affects other people. Getting fat and killing somebody are not the same game, much less in the same ball park.

Oh there’s not? So how is it in the famous case of Scott Peterson, he was convicted of double murder. One for his wife, the other for his unborn child. So yes there is. All somebody has to do is press these issues to the supreme court. They haven’t, but somebody will one day. Somebody will attempt to get out of jail based on the fact that abortion is legal and killing an unborn baby is therefore legal.

The challenges presented before the court have largly been on the case itself which is closed.
Actually, it was Norma McCorvey who brought for one of those challenges. She was the infamous ‘Jane Roe’ and is now an anti-abortion crusader. If Jane Roe realizes abortion is murder what’s wrong with the rest of you?

1015

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Many, many anti-choice people are just one unplanned pregnancy away from becoming pro-choice. I can only hope that it will happen more often.

[/quote]

Wrong, we’re not as weak minded, selfish and petty as that. If we have an unplanned pregnancy, we have another child, that’s all.
One of my best friends in the world had his son at 16. He didn’t run away, kill it or anything else. He did what he had to do and he raised his son. It wasn’t easy, but he did it.

It’s never easy to have a child, that’s no reason to kill it.

1016

Killing an unborn baby is not necessarily illegal, murdering one is so there is a huge difference if someone tried to get out of jail based on one of those 2 cases.

1017

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Many, many anti-choice people are just one unplanned pregnancy away from becoming pro-choice. I can only hope that it will happen more often.

[/quote]

Wrong, we’re not as weak minded, selfish and petty as that. If we have an unplanned pregnancy, we have another child, that’s all.
One of my best friends in the world had his son at 16. He didn’t run away, kill it or anything else. He did what he had to do and he raised his son. It wasn’t easy, but he did it.

It’s never easy to have a child, that’s no reason to kill it.[/quote]

HE gave birth to a son, wow that is impressive.

1018

[quote]pat wrote:

You’re on a slippery slope with that one. Technically breathing affects other people. Getting fat and killing somebody are not the same game, much less in the same ball park. [/quote]

It still fits in the “callously do to others” category. Becoming an alcoholic would also fit this category.

[quote]pat wrote:

Oh there’s not? So how is it in the famous case of Scott Peterson, he was convicted of double murder. One for his wife, the other for his unborn child. So yes there is.[/quote]

He did not have his wife’s consent to kill the fetus. Different situation.

[quote]pat wrote:

All somebody has to do is press these issues to the supreme court. They haven’t, but somebody will one day. Somebody will attempt to get out of jail based on the fact that abortion is legal and killing an unborn baby is therefore legal.

The challenges presented before the court have largly been on the case itself which is closed.
Actually, it was Norma McCorvey who brought for one of those challenges. She was the infamous ‘Jane Roe’ and is now an anti-abortion crusader. If Jane Roe realizes abortion is murder what’s wrong with the rest of you?[/quote]

lol - if it’s so easy why have all these pro-life groups failed miserably at re-enacting abortion laws?

1019

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t have to try… You’re the one all frazzled and hung up on labels and terminology, in order to sound less bad. Writing pages of tortured logic to support a phony label. It doesn’t bother me, not one bit… Whether you call me pro-life or anti-abortion or whatever, doesn’t actually matter. You can call me ‘Sally’ for all I care.

You’re pro-abortion, act like a man and own it.[/quote]

If you’ll remember, I had non-semantic based arguments too, you just stopped responding to them and instead focused on this.

I agree to your terms. I’ll be pro-abortion and you’ll be anti-freedom.

Now can we continue, Sally? [/quote]

Prove I am anti-freedom.[/quote]

Oh for fuck sakes…

You’re not anti-freedom. At least, you’re no more anti-freedom than I am pro-abortion. I’m pro-abortion to the extent that there are cases where I support abortion. You are anti-freedom to the extent that there are cases where you do not support free choice.

More often than not, I am anti-abortion, but I am always for the choice, so pro-choice is the more appropriate term. More often than not, you are pro-freedom, but you are always against abortion (savour for when the mother’s life is at risk), so anti-abortion is the more appropriate choice. I’d even concede that pro-life is a more appropriate choice than anti-freedom, so whichever rules you’re willing to play by, I’ll agree to them, but I won’t agree to a double-standard, especially one against my own position.

Hell, even if you don’t agree with my reasoning, it’s a matter of basic respect for your opponent’s position. You want to go by a particular term? Fine, so do I and I’ll agree to your’s if you agree to mine. You don’t think the term “pro-choice” is accurate? Guess what? I don’t think “pro-life” is accurate, but it doesn’t fucking matter. If you want to be petty, fine, I’ll match your ‘pettiness’ and raise you ‘basic logic’. If you want to actually debate the issues, great! Grow up and let’s move on then.

It’s your choice, but make it quick because I’m out of patience. [/quote]

Ok, it’s settled, I am not anti-freedom and you are pro-abortion. No amount of retarded reasoning is going to change that fact.
You already conceded that ‘abortion is obviously murder’, that’s all I am interested in establishing. The rest takes care of itself. If it’s murder than it should be illegal like murder is.

You can come and go as you please, I don’t really give a shit if you are out of patience or not.[/quote]

That’s not what I said I’d settle on at all. I have no clue how you got to that conclusion.

If I am pro-abortion, you are anti-freedom. If I am pro-choice, you are anti-abortion (or pro-life, if you must be called that). No amount of retarded reasoning is going to change that fact, and unlike you I actually have reasoning for this instead of just assertions.

Do you concede that murder in self-defence is still killing? Then I guess that should be illegal too… Oh wait that’s stupid the argument is over exceptions and not the act itself. I guess I should know better than to assume your brand of logic has any sort of consistency to it.

1020

Finding statistics to argue the case for life is incredibly easy. To prove the case for abortion, you must prove the unborn are NOT alive. If unable to prove that portion of the debate you must prove that tearing another human apart is the solution to the supposed problem.

[quote]therajraj wrote: That’s great.

Then stop posting statistics to support your position as well.

If you only accept statistics that agree with your pre-conceived notions and reject all that oppose them, then you are nothing more than an ignoramus. [/quote]