A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[Dr.Drock]

Again, long sentences and this time big words to try to convince the fundamentalists on this board that you aren't pro-choice or pro-abortion as you say, even though you've already admitted you're ok with abortion up to 6 weeks.

But hey if you need to pretend I'm the one who's insecure about my position and not you, by all means go on. Whatever I can do to help those in need.

ROFL

Who is it I'm going to confuse with big words? Foxfyre? Newby?

Be serious.

You're not confusing anyone. You said you want abortion legal up to 6 weeks. Hence you being pro choice in my opinion, hence you being pro abortion in your own opinion.

It's very simple and black and white, that's why you're typing long sentences to try and cloud your pro-choice position so you don't have your fundamentalists disagreeing with you.

 

[Foxfyre]

No it wouldn't be baby killing in my mind.

But you view it as a baby in those cases so I'll stick with your perspective.

Why is it the baby's fault how it was conceived? Whether it be through love during marriage or through hate during rape? Why should the baby be held responsible for other's actions? Why do you think so called baby killing should be legal in this instance?

You really do have a reading comprehension problem don't you. I thought I was quite clear that it is not the baby's fault and whether the baby was conceived and in hopes of a child or whether it was conceived via brutal rape or unconscionable incest, it is still a human life.

The ones held responsible for the choices made in such cases do not include the baby. And I at no time and in no way or form suggested it was. In fact it is purely because the baby had no choice in the matter so far as we know, is totally helpless, and totally innocent, the choice to end its life is of even greater consequence than is the choice to impose the death penalty on those who commit the most heinous of sins against other humans.

If it's a baby, and you view abortion as baby killing, wouldn't the abortion make the baby the one being held ultimately responsible? Wouldn't the mother and doctor be committing murder?

That doesn't even make sense. How can the one being murdered be the one responsible for committing the murder? Try again.

 

[koshergrl]

No it wouldn't be baby killing in my mind.

But you view it as a baby in those cases so I'll stick with your perspective.

Why is it the baby's fault how it was conceived? Whether it be through love during marriage or through hate during rape? Why should the baby be held responsible for other's actions? Why do you think so called baby killing should be legal in this instance?

Again, that's not the point. The point is, there's no need for "legalized" abortion to make it possible for the victims of rape/incest to obtain abortion, so why do you insist on dragging this argument into the mix?

Again, it's because it's the only way you have of deflecting from the truth..there is absolutely no reason for legalized abortion or abortion slaughterhouses. You are obfuscating.

I don't insist, if you're too insecure to answer it I'll stop asking. I rarely ever get a straight answer to that question, so I certainly expect you to deflect from answering it.

What place does the question have in the abortion debate? None at all. It's just deflection.

Myself, I don't judge people on their sins. I've got my own sins to worry about. My whole issue with legalized abortion is based upon the conviction that it is WRONG to legalize the killing of humans, PARTICULARLY young and/or vulnerable humans. The civilizations that have allowed such murder to become mainstream have slid into depravity, before collapsing. I don't support the death penalty, or euthanasia either.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again, that's not the point. The point is, there's no need for "legalized" abortion to make it possible for the victims of rape/incest to obtain abortion, so why do you insist on dragging this argument into the mix?

Again, it's because it's the only way you have of deflecting from the truth..there is absolutely no reason for legalized abortion or abortion slaughterhouses. You are obfuscating.

I don't insist, if you're too insecure to answer it I'll stop asking. I rarely ever get a straight answer to that question, so I certainly expect you to deflect from answering it.

What place does the question have in the abortion debate? None at all. It's just deflection.

Myself, I don't judge people on their sins. I've got my own sins to worry about. My whole issue with legalized abortion is based upon the conviction that it is WRONG to legalize the killing of humans, PARTICULARLY young and/or vulnerable humans. The civilizations that have allowed such murder to become mainstream have slid into depravity, before collapsing. I don't support the death penalty, or euthanasia either.

And while I am usually mostly aligned with KG on these issues, there are some differences.

I am not pro-abortion because I do see abortion as ending an innocent human life and, unless that is necessary, I do see it as an indefensible choice. I like her do not judge anybody as to what is in their hearts and what they see as defensible, but I can make a reasonable judgment, based on science, logic, and common sense, that a human life is at stake when the choice for abortion is made. And I think a moral society protects the most innocent and helpless among us.

I can also see abortion as a necessary procedure in very rare circumstances and would always want that to be accessible and legal for anybody. I cannot see aborting a healthy developing baby because it is inconvenient to the mother as a moral choice.

I can see a person's right to choose euthanasia when there is no quality of life left as also a moral choice, but I don't ever want doctors being put in the position of having to do that. It is sometimes the right thing to do to 'pull the plug' on life support when there is no chance the person can recover or have any quality of life. But I never want a right to die becoming a duty to die. There is a fine line that can be crossed there.

And I can support the death penalty as the ultimate consequence for crimes that go beyond any sense of human decency.

None of these things are without trauma, struggles with conscience (at least for those who still have one), and severe consequence. But I still want every state and every community to be able to follow its own conscience in these matters and form the sort of society they want. I want the federal government to stay out of it.

 

[koshergrl]

Ah, but euthanasia is not the same as assisted suicide, foxy. Euthanasia is giving the docs or somebody else the right to determine FOR SOMEBODY ELSE that their quality of life no longer justifies their continued existence. Two different terms.

And I always think abortion is taking a human life, and always wrong. But I'm not overly concerned with a woman and her doctor finding a way to terminate a pregnancy based upon medical or psychological hardship....but it should be done with a degree of secrecy and privacy, and with an eye to the fact that they are actually taking a life...what I will not support is the institutionalization of child killing, and the whole mechanic of changing the definition of what a baby is, in order to justify killing them for convenience, or to end world hunger, or whatever.

And the whole idea that we have to have "legalized abortion" via Roe v Wade to allow for necessary (medically necessary) abortions is a straw man. Women had medically necessary abortions (only they called them D&Cs) long before RvW, and RvW was not needed to protect that procedure when it was necessary. The idea that we have to allow PP free reign to protect women from dying in medically dangerous pregnancies is a false construct.

 

[logical4u]

Chilling is the correct adjective, and all pro-abortionists have the same disdain of life...not only disdain of life (usually they want to see those who kill people protected to the nth degree...whether terrorists or butchers) but even worse, their belief that they have some superior insight into who is worthy of life.

Nazis and monsters, each and every one. I do mean every one. They don't admit it or own it, and they will obfuscate and lie about what they defend..but Nazis always do.

Koshergrl, you have just called me a Nazi. That means I put you on ignore, as there are some things that are flatly inexcusable, and that's one. I will not engage in a pretense of civilized discourse with someone who behaves like a dyspeptic baboon.

I will give you one chance to retract the statement.

All she has to go by are "your" words. It seems that you agree with the Nazi experimentation and genetics doctors on many things. You want to "classify" humans by age so those that murder the unborn will not feel guilt. I guess you are unwilling to accept that people can tell what type of person you are by the thoughts you post.

 

[koshergrl]

And they want to justify the killing of humans by de-humanizing them.

 

[logical4u]

He is a Nazi.

And he put me on ignore because I call him on his bs in this and other threads. The only troll here is Dragon. He is putting me on ignore because, as I pointed out, he can't address the issue honestly.

Pro-abortionists are Nazis and monsters, whether they admit it or not. He's no different than any of a dozen on this site. They provide dishonest "reasons" for abortion, but it comes down to this...they think the elimination of a certain group of children will provide their own group with a better chance of survival and advancement. It's that simple. They think that by eliminating the poor, the halt, the lame, the dysfunctional, their own little "acceptable" population will do better and be stronger.

That's nazism.

You're a very confusing person. You have kosher in your name but you spit on the grave of every victim of the Holocaust by equating an anonymous message board poster to a nazi, knowing full well what kind of atrocities the nazis were guilty of.


Are you like the Uncle Tom of the jewish faith?

When someone is supporting the destruction of millions of unborn babies (since Roe vs Wade), what do you say to them to get their attention. Logic was presented. History was presented. The Biblical dragon was cunning and slippery as well. It seems the dragon does have "weak" spots though. It is okay with him to experiment on the newest humans (embryos), it is okay to mix DNA of animals and humans. But to call him a "nazi", that is just too much to bear. Wonder if he ever asked his daughters if it was okay to murder any future siblings (so they could have more stuff!)? Wonder if the children have more wisdom.

 

[logical4u]

Pro-abortionists are Nazis and monsters, whether they admit it or not.

And this is the arrogance and ignorance common among those opposed to privacy rights.

You're a very confusing person.

Which makes sense considering she’s confused.

How is opposing tax dollars paying for abortions, a right to "privacy"? After all, do you think the gov't agency that is paying doesn't document every aspect of their patient? If it was about "privacy", these females would go to doctors that were "discreet". That is not the case.

 

[logical4u]

Doesn't matter, it has always been legal to abort those babies, and it's a lie to pretend it hasn't. Kindly refrain from lying about the necessity of legalized abortion as if that's the only way women have been able to obtain medically necessary abortions or to end pregnancies that are the product of violence.

I never said a word about when and if it was legal to have an abortion in the case of rape and incest.


I thought you said whether or not abortion was legal was irrelevent? Abortion is legal now, does that stop you from talking about it? No and it shouldn't.

I see I've really struck a nerve about rape and incest with you, probably because you notice the hypocrisy when someone has no issue with abortion in those instances but has an issue with abortion in every other instance.

That was debated earlier in the thread, but for those of you that didn't pay attention or purposely ignoring it:
abortion is wrong. It is the willful murder of a child. There are cases where, in medical emergencies, it is necessary to save the mother by killing the child. In the cases of rape or incest, there are opinions that a child helps the victim recover, sooner, than without a child. That being said, the life of the victim is precarious after such a terrible ordeal, and should not be traumatized more by words of condemnation or guilt. It is a post-traumatic-stress situation, and should be handled, with compassion.

(FOR THOSE THAT ARE PRO-ABORTION, THAT MEANS WE DO NOT AGREE WITH ABORTION IN THE CASE OF RAPE OR INCEST, BUT UNDERSTAND THE VULNERABILITY OF THE VICTIM, AND DO NOT WANT THEM PUNISHED ON TOP OF THEIR EXPERIENCE)

 

[Dr.Drock]

So in summary, you guys aren't judging the pro-choice crowd when you call them Nazis, baby killers, monsters, genocidal, etc. Also abortion is baby killing, but baby killing is ok in the case of rape.



That all makes perfect sense, thank you for the discussion.

 

[Dragon]

All she has to go by are "your" words. It seems that you agree with the Nazi experimentation and genetics doctors on many things. You want to "classify" humans by age so those that murder the unborn will not feel guilt. I guess you are unwilling to accept that people can tell what type of person you are by the thoughts you post.

Very well, you are another one for the ignore list. Good riddance, you arrogant, self-righteous, deceitful asshole.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Very well, you are another one for the ignore list. Good riddance, you arrogant, self-righteous, deceitful asshole.

Congratulations Dragon, you now may converse with Truthinessmatters and Mr.Shaman.

Enjoy the company - they certainly are of your caliber.

 

[BDBoop]

All she has to go by are "your" words. It seems that you agree with the Nazi experimentation and genetics doctors on many things. You want to "classify" humans by age so those that murder the unborn will not feel guilt. I guess you are unwilling to accept that people can tell what type of person you are by the thoughts you post.

Very well, you are another one for the ignore list. Good riddance, you arrogant, self-righteous, deceitful asshole.

Logical4u, you should take a look at your own posts if you're going to make the "type of person you are by the thoughts you post" point. Today you have truly defined ironic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah, but euthanasia is not the same as assisted suicide, foxy. Euthanasia is giving the docs or somebody else the right to determine FOR SOMEBODY ELSE that their quality of life no longer justifies their continued existence. Two different terms.

And I always think abortion is taking a human life, and always wrong. But I'm not overly concerned with a woman and her doctor finding a way to terminate a pregnancy based upon medical or psychological hardship....but it should be done with a degree of secrecy and privacy, and with an eye to the fact that they are actually taking a life...what I will not support is the institutionalization of child killing, and the whole mechanic of changing the definition of what a baby is, in order to justify killing them for convenience, or to end world hunger, or whatever.

And the whole idea that we have to have "legalized abortion" via Roe v Wade to allow for necessary (medically necessary) abortions is a straw man. Women had medically necessary abortions (only they called them D&Cs) long before RvW, and RvW was not needed to protect that procedure when it was necessary. The idea that we have to allow PP free reign to protect women from dying in medically dangerous pregnancies is a false construct.

Points well taken. I know doctors were doing D&Cs in states in which abortion on demand was illegal in the 60's and 70's up until Roe v Wade and thereafter. Some got in trouble, in fact, when it was considered they were doing an excessive number of these. And on the other issues, we can legitimately argue the fine points and definitions. Because we humans are fallible, and because we won't always agree on these things, is my best argument for letting the local people decide the gray areas and trusting a free people to eventually get it right.

The Federal government should not be in the business of dictating morality on anything but rather should focus on protecting, defending, and fighting for the unalienable rights of the people to choose their own morality short of violating the rights of anybody else.

The issue of abortion is especailly a tough one because of the widely differing views of when life begins. The pro lifers will continue to insist that the aborted fetus is a human life while the pro abortionists will continue to insist that it is not. (Both groups can be pro choice in varying degrees.) I am inclined to believe there are far more pro lifers than pro abortionists however, and trust the American people, left to their own hearts and consciences, to mostly get it right. For me 'right' is to value the sanctity of life and protect it tempered by those rare but necessary circumstances when that beginning life must be terminated.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Back in the seventies, my view of when the soul entered the fetus was much later in the pregnancy.

I drove a woman out of state from Kentucky to NY so that she could get an abortion. It was only legal in NY and DC.

Now, I would never do that, because my view is that life or consciousness enters the fetus at conception.

I'm against abortion but pro-choice, because I don't feel I have a right to tell another woman what to do with her body, unless she asks me.

I'm not an anti-contraception fanatic like some "pro-lifers" are.

 

[koshergrl]

Who are the anti-contraception pro-lifers? Please list them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who are the anti-contraception pro-lifers? Please list them.

Shhhhhhhh..

If you take that straw man away, what does Sky Dancer have left? In your face homo-erotica in the avatar isn't going to win debates, she NEEDS the logical fallacies.....

 

[Gadawg73]

Who are the anti-contraception pro-lifers? Please list them.

Shhhhhhhh..

If you take that straw man away, what does Sky Dancer have left? In your face homo-erotica in the avatar isn't going to win debates, she NEEDS the logical fallacies.....

You may have a point there, I doubt it, but it has taken how many posts to hear even an iota of objection?

Now add in 2 males showing love and affection to another or a naked person of any kind as an avatar and the objections would have started within 2 seconds.

Americans are about as ass backerds as they come. Love is love. Who gives a rat's ass who they love? What business is it of ours, or YOURS?

 

[Father Time]

Who are the anti-contraception pro-lifers? Please list them.

They tried to get a bill passed in Mississippi recently that would've banned certain forms of contraception.