Anti-lifers

[xsited1]

I meant free from it as far as the subject under discussion.

Either way, it doesn't really matter. If you really feel I am going to hell and you are a Christian, then say a prayer for me.

In my experience, and this thread is in many ways a good example, far too many Christians are quite happy to sit in judgement of others on this subject, many of them using the most vile names while they do so. Not many ever remember to say a prayer for those they feel are sinning. I'm familiar with your posts and, to a degree, the kind of person you are, and I'm sure you're not one of these.

You're hilarious! Psychological Projection, eh? I've got to thank one of the posters on here for reminding me about this. It's been so long since College Psychology, I had forgotted about it. It seems to happen all the time on message boards.

In classical psychology projection is always seen as a defense mechanism which occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.

Another thing that happens is that people automatically assume they know exactly what you believe and what you're thinking. For example, if you're against Obama, YOU MUST HAVE VOTED FOR BUSH! If you are pro-Life, YOU MUST THINK PRO-CHOICERS ARE GOING TO HELL! If you think Global Warming might not be as bad as Al Gore says it is, YOU MUST HATE THE ENVIRONMENT AND BE A MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.



I never said you were going to Hell, I never said I was without sin and I never said that pro-choicers are going to Hell. I just wouldn't want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.

Well, that's cleared things up.

And with regard to the bolded comment above, your implication is as clear as crystal but now you're backing away from it while accusing me of psychological projection. Classic.

When I first started reading your posts, I thought you were serious. Now I realize you're just trolling. But just in case you're not, understand that I am not backing away from anything. It's clear that you have taken what I have written and projected your own interpretation of it. Spin it all you want, but you can't make a judgement based on something you believe I implied unless you ask me for clarification which you did not. And I find it hilarious that you want me to pray for you because you are pro-choice. The insanity never ends.

Good luck.

 

[KittenKoder]

Since JB is not going to answer the question, we will assume he would kill the mother and possibly the child instead of allowing an abortion, so he is a "mother killer".

JB is officially a mother killer. See Allie, they do exist.

 

[tigerbob]

You're hilarious! Psychological Projection, eh? I've got to thank one of the posters on here for reminding me about this. It's been so long since College Psychology, I had forgotted about it. It seems to happen all the time on message boards.



Another thing that happens is that people automatically assume they know exactly what you believe and what you're thinking. For example, if you're against Obama, YOU MUST HAVE VOTED FOR BUSH! If you are pro-Life, YOU MUST THINK PRO-CHOICERS ARE GOING TO HELL! If you think Global Warming might not be as bad as Al Gore says it is, YOU MUST HATE THE ENVIRONMENT AND BE A MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.



I never said you were going to Hell, I never said I was without sin and I never said that pro-choicers are going to Hell. I just wouldn't want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.

Well, that's cleared things up.

And with regard to the bolded comment above, your implication is as clear as crystal but now you're backing away from it while accusing me of psychological projection. Classic.

When I first started reading your posts, I thought you were serious. Now I realize you're just trolling. But just in case you're not, understand that I am not backing away from anything. It's clear that you have taken what I have written and projected your own interpretation of it. Spin it all you want, but you can't make a judgement based on something you believe I implied unless you ask me for clarification which you did not. And I find it hilarious that you want me to pray for you because you are pro-choice. The insanity never ends.

Good luck.

I'm not spinning anything. It's you that started this point about projection IMO, but let's ignore that perspective and try to encapsulate our recent exchanges into a series of succinct facts.

I'm pro choice. You think that's a sin. Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners. I asked you to pray for me. You think that's hilarious. Does that sum it up clearly or am I projecting? If so, why don't you have a go? This is me asking you for clarification.

Or was the "Good luck" meant to bring the conversation to a close?

 

[KittenKoder]

Since JB is not going to answer the question, we will assume he would kill the mother and possibly the child instead of allowing an abortion, so he is a "mother killer".

JB is officially a mother killer. See Allie, they do exist.

JB, you wrongly called my question "stupid" and still refuse to answer it or even offer a reason for calling it stupid.

 

[xsited1]

Well, that's cleared things up.

And with regard to the bolded comment above, your implication is as clear as crystal but now you're backing away from it while accusing me of psychological projection. Classic.

When I first started reading your posts, I thought you were serious. Now I realize you're just trolling. But just in case you're not, understand that I am not backing away from anything. It's clear that you have taken what I have written and projected your own interpretation of it. Spin it all you want, but you can't make a judgement based on something you believe I implied unless you ask me for clarification which you did not. And I find it hilarious that you want me to pray for you because you are pro-choice. The insanity never ends.

Good luck.

I'm not spinning anything. It's you that started this point about projection IMO, but let's ignore that perspective and try to encapsulate our recent exchanges into a series of succinct facts.

I'm pro choice. You think that's a sin. Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners. I asked you to pray for me. You think that's hilarious. Does that sum it up clearly or am I projecting? If so, why don't you have a go? This is me asking you for clarification.

Or was the "Good luck" meant to bring the conversation to a close?

There you go projecting again.

I said:

If you're a religious person who believes in Hell and you're also pro-choice, killing the unborn sounds like a very serious sin to me. I would not want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.

Sounds like.

You responded with:

You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Yes, I'm pro-life. However, I never said or implied that I was free from sin nor did I say I would be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day. --> Projection.

Now this:

Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners. I asked you to pray for me. You think that's hilarious.

I think it's hilarious that you don't see killing the unborn as a sin and you want me to pray for you. You obviously don't see the irony here. Anyway, it made me .

Believe me, I pray for myself, my family, our leaders, the country, all sinners. All fall short of the glory of God. That includes me.

 

[tigerbob]

When I first started reading your posts, I thought you were serious. Now I realize you're just trolling. But just in case you're not, understand that I am not backing away from anything. It's clear that you have taken what I have written and projected your own interpretation of it. Spin it all you want, but you can't make a judgement based on something you believe I implied unless you ask me for clarification which you did not. And I find it hilarious that you want me to pray for you because you are pro-choice. The insanity never ends.

Good luck.

I'm not spinning anything. It's you that started this point about projection IMO, but let's ignore that perspective and try to encapsulate our recent exchanges into a series of succinct facts.

I'm pro choice. You think that's a sin. Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners. I asked you to pray for me. You think that's hilarious. Does that sum it up clearly or am I projecting? If so, why don't you have a go? This is me asking you for clarification.

Or was the "Good luck" meant to bring the conversation to a close?

There you go projecting again.

I said:



Sounds like.

You responded with:

You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Yes, I'm pro-life. However, I never said or implied that I was free from sin nor did I say I would be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day. --> Projection.

Now this:

Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners. I asked you to pray for me. You think that's hilarious.

I think it's hilarious that you don't see killing the unborn as a sin and you want me to pray for you. You obviously don't see the irony here. Anyway, it made me .

Believe me, I pray for myself, my family, our leaders, the country, all sinners. All fall short of the glory of God. That includes me.

If you had really been reading my posts as you say you have, you would know that I believe life begins at the first heartbeat.

After that point I do not believe abortion should be legal.

Before that point I don't believe life has begun.

As such, I don't believe my position is a sinful one. You clearly disagree (or maybe you don't - I could be unintentionally projecting again). There's no irony here, merely a different view.

Why don't you drop the whole "killing the unborn" thing since it accomplishes nothing, and simply take issue with my view on where life begins. Who knows, you might convince me that I'm wrong and get me to change my view. Of course, I'm presupposing that you view this board as a place to debate and not just to fire off glib one liners and put downs.

This is my last attempt to engage with you on this matter. Either (a) make it worthwhile, (b) post some more snappy comebacks, or (c) ignore it. If you go for b or c I promise you'll hear no more from me on this particular exchange of views.

 

[JBeukema]

Bob won't change his mind , no matter the evidence. He has ignored all evidence thus far, and he will continue to do so.

 

[tigerbob]

Bob won't change his mind , no matter the evidence. He has ignored all evidence thus far, and he will continue to do so.

What evidence has been posted that life begins before the first heartbeat? If there's so much of it, perhaps you can provide a link or the post #?

(Oooh! Xsited! I've just thought - is JB projecting here?)

 

[JBeukema]

as i posted before, the most commonly cited scientific defintion of life

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms.

To say life begins with a heartbeat is just stupid. There are life forms with no heart, yet which are still alive.

 

[Diuretic]

A foetus is a living thing (yes I did pinch that from ELO).

Now what?

 

[tigerbob]

as i posted before, the most commonly cited scientific defintion of life

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms.

To say life begins with a heartbeat is just stupid. There are life forms with no heart, yet which are still alive.

Now,you see, I think that's stupid. We're talking about a living human, not an amoeba. But of course you are right. Technically life does not require a heartbeat. And if you believe that masturbation is in effect the murder of sperm I'll concede the point.

 

[JBeukema]

Sperm are not human organisms; your idiocy is irrelevant.

 

[JBeukema]

What is ELO?

 

[tigerbob]

Sperm are not human organisms; your idiocy is irrelevant.

Oh for fuck's sake.

She ran across the field after it, and fortunately was just in time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge.

I'll leave you to it.

 

[Anguille]

Talk about spin!!!

Technically any woman who gets pregnant while she is under the age of consent has been raped.

JBeuk-Enema gave me neg rep for this post but no comment other than an indecipherable emoticon. Must be he hates when a valid point is made.

Naw ... he just hates and has nothing else.

He probably needed to spread it around before he could neg rep someone else again and my post was handy. Or maybe he noticed that I read about .1 percent of everything he posts and was trying to get me to notice him.

 

[Anguille]

Since JB is not going to answer the question, we will assume he would kill the mother and possibly the child instead of allowing an abortion, so he is a "mother killer".

JB is officially a mother killer. See Allie, they do exist.

In the not so far off past, when there was no modern form of birth control or early stage abortion available, if a woman became very ill from her pregnancy and it became apparent that she would most likely die if the fetus was not aborted. But if it was also of the doctor's opinion that she might last till the moment of birth, long enough to give birth to a baby likely to survive even if the effort would be enough to kill her, in many of those cases, the doctor, usually being a man, consulted the husband rather than the wife and asked him to make the decision. Shall I save your wife or your future child.

 

[xsited1]

I'm not spinning anything. It's you that started this point about projection IMO, but let's ignore that perspective and try to encapsulate our recent exchanges into a series of succinct facts.

I'm pro choice. You think that's a sin. Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners. I asked you to pray for me. You think that's hilarious. Does that sum it up clearly or am I projecting? If so, why don't you have a go? This is me asking you for clarification.

Or was the "Good luck" meant to bring the conversation to a close?

There you go projecting again.

I said:



Sounds like.

You responded with:



Where do you come up with this stuff? Yes, I'm pro-life. However, I never said or implied that I was free from sin nor did I say I would be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day. --> Projection.

Now this:

Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners. I asked you to pray for me. You think that's hilarious.

I think it's hilarious that you don't see killing the unborn as a sin and you want me to pray for you. You obviously don't see the irony here. Anyway, it made me .

Believe me, I pray for myself, my family, our leaders, the country, all sinners. All fall short of the glory of God. That includes me.

If you had really been reading my posts as you say you have, you would know that I believe life begins at the first heartbeat.

After that point I do not believe abortion should be legal.

Before that point I don't believe life has begun.

As such, I don't believe my position is a sinful one. You clearly disagree (or maybe you don't - I could be unintentionally projecting again). There's no irony here, merely a different view.

Why don't you drop the whole "killing the unborn" thing since it accomplishes nothing, and simply take issue with my view on where life begins. Who knows, you might convince me that I'm wrong and get me to change my view. Of course, I'm presupposing that you view this board as a place to debate and not just to fire off glib one liners and put downs.

This is my last attempt to engage with you on this matter. Either (a) make it worthwhile, (b) post some more snappy comebacks, or (c) ignore it. If you go for b or c I promise you'll hear no more from me on this particular exchange of views.

If you want to make this exchange worthwhile, you need to stop projecting and assuming you know my position. You obviously did not. You also stated that you were pro choice 'up to a point'. Now you've explained that to me. I'm only reading your posts as they pertain to our exchange. There are far too many posts in this thread for me to read each and every one of them.

You started this exchange off with "In nearly 2 years that's the most upsetting thing I've read." I obviously struck a nerve with you to the point that you posted "You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day." Wow.

Since you believe life begins when the heart starts beating, I would guess that you are against almost all abortions. However, I'm sure a form of the morning after pill would be acceptable. True? I don't know when life begins. Perhaps when the heart starts beating, perhaps before. Since you're a Christian, you know that the Bible is not clear on this issue. Some quote the verse that God 'knew him before he was born' to mean that all abortions are wrong. I don't read it that way, but stopping a beating heart does indicate to me that murder has been committed.

Look, I'm just responding to your posts. You're the one who began this exchange and you're the one who started making assumptions and making snide comments. I simply followed your lead. What is sad is that we may have the same views on this subject, yet you say idiotic things like "you view yourself as free from sin." All I've said is "I would not like to be in (pro-choicer's) shoes come Judgement Day."

If you want to put me down, fine. Just don't expect me to sit here and take it. I realize that is not the Christian way, but I will promise you this: I will pray for you.

 

[KittenKoder]

JBeuk-Enema gave me neg rep for this post but no comment other than an indecipherable emoticon. Must be he hates when a valid point is made.

Naw ... he just hates and has nothing else.

He probably needed to spread it around before he could neg rep someone else again and my post was handy. Or maybe he noticed that I read about .1 percent of everything he posts and was trying to get me to notice him.

He hit me twice for this thread

So I hit him back for the same reasons he accused me of ... Compare rep values ... a little math .... yeah. Negging me just because you disagree, make sure you have more than I do.

 

[KittenKoder]

Since JB is not going to answer the question, we will assume he would kill the mother and possibly the child instead of allowing an abortion, so he is a "mother killer".

JB is officially a mother killer. See Allie, they do exist.

In the not so far off past, when there was no modern form of birth control or early stage abortion available, if a woman became very ill from her pregnancy and it became apparent that she would most likely die if the fetus was not aborted. But if it was also of the doctor's opinion that she might last till the moment of birth, long enough to give birth to a baby likely to survive even if the effort would be enough to kill her, in many of those cases, the doctor, usually being a man, consulted the husband rather than the wife and asked him to make the decision. Shall I save your wife or your future child.

Most people just want to forget how far we have actually come and how quickly.

 

[JBeukema]

KK, you really need to stop taking your issues out on other people. I'm sorry your mom was punished with a kid like you, really, I feel for her, but you need to stop your lying, projecting,and general bitchiness you ever want to have life you can live for any reason other than because you're afraid you'll go to hell.