Anti-lifers

[KittenKoder]

Which is why most of them are big-government leftists

That's the same thing as when pro-choice people say that all pro-life people are mother killers ...

The irony is that you don't see the irony in that.

 

[JBeukema]

Wrong, you idiot. Most of the pro-abortion crowd is 'liberals' who support the nanny state and the modern Democratic party as well as other neoliberal ideologies.


Why can't you go ten posts without showing how dishonest you really are?

 

[KittenKoder]

Wrong, you idiot. Most of the pro-abortion crowd is 'liberals' who support the nanny state and the modern Democratic party as well as other neoliberal ideologies.


Why can't you go ten posts without showing how dishonest you really are?

Neolibs are not liberals ... here's a hint, true liberals do not like having people tell us what to do ... ever, unless we are paid to do it, or have a personal interest in it.

 

[JBeukema]

You're an idiot. I never said neliberals were true liberals, you twit. If you're going to agree with me, just admit that I'm right and stop trying to make yourself look good.

 

[KittenKoder]

You're an idiot. I never said neliberals were true liberals, you twit. If you're going to agree with me, just admit that I'm right and stop trying to make yourself look good.

Then next time say neolibs

To keep the stroke more accurate instead of making it so broad, because true liberals do not like nanny states, at all. The true liberals and conservatives have the same core ideal on that subject actually, neither likes being told what to do, the only difference is how we preach it and what private "missions" we have. Generally true liberals prefer a more balanced system of government, one that allows freedoms to all but also protects those freedoms, while the conservatives prefer to be allowed to take the defending of freedoms into their own hand more often. The only huge and vehement difference between the true liberals and conservatives is how budgets are made. Liberals like more social programs while conservatives like more economic stimulus. This is why I am often labeled and independent by the true liberals and conservatives, I agree with both ideals

Neolibs are the ones that like the banning of everything to "protect" people from themselves, while neocons like the banning of things that "protect" them from the uniqueness of life. You however come across as something completely new, you deserve a hand for this because I thought they didn't exist, you are a neoindependent.

 

[JBeukema]

Then next time say neolibs

as well as other neoliberal ideologies.

moron

 

[JBeukema]

The true liberals and conservatives have the same core ideal on that subject actually, neither likes being told what to do, the only difference is how we preach it and what private "missions" we have.

conservatism simply refers to reactionary movements, not to any real ideology

Liberals like more social programs

No, they don't. 'Progressives' (which is what you're describing) are not liberals

Neolibs are the ones that like the banning of everything to "protect" people from themselves,

Modern neoliberalism is, just like modern neoconservatism founded upon social authoritarianism.

you are a neoindependent.

You're a fucking idiot. 'neoindependent' in nonsensical. An independent is an independent, not an old or a new independent. Nor is independence from political parties directly related to one's ideology other than as evicence that one's ideology is not strictly blind loyalty to a given party or title.

 

[KittenKoder]

The true liberals and conservatives have the same core ideal on that subject actually, neither likes being told what to do, the only difference is how we preach it and what private "missions" we have.

conservatism simply refers to reactionary movements, not to any real ideology

Liberals like more social programs

No, they don't. 'Progressives' (which is what you're describing) are liberals

Neolibs are the ones that like the banning of everything to "protect" people from themselves,

Modern neoliberalism is, just like modern neoconservatism founded upon social authoritarianism.

you are a neoindependent.

You're a fucking idiot. 'neoindependent' in nonsensical. An independent is an independent, not an old or a new independent. Nor is independence from political parties directly related to one's ideology other than as evicence that one's ideology is not strictly blind loyalty to a given party or title.

You are still incapable of posting without being a troll, even when you are trying to discuss something. Crossing labels doesn't make them the same, progressives are not liberals, same species but different breeds. Also, you only used a partial quote of your post to dishonestly make me look bad, that's the same as lying.

But this fits perfectly with your original topic at least, your contention that pro-choice means anti-life. You are crossing labels just to make another look bad, since most pro-choice do have limits. I say most because there are the extremists in every group, clinic bombers ring any bells? The pro-choice extremists think there should be no restrictions, them you could consider anti-responsibility, but they are still not technically anti-life, unless you want to call all humans such, since we do kill, a lot, for many reasons. Yes, I can play semantics very well.

 

[tigerbob]

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:



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.

I didn't intend to come back to this thread, but your last post makes me feel I had to respond. I'll try and take it one step at a time and apologize in advance as a fear I'm going to be long winded..

1. I have never intended to project. If you feel I've been doing that then be assured it was not my intention.

2. My comment of "the most upsetting thing I've ever read" was an emotional reaction to an individual post that, for some reason, I found exceptionally upsetting. That said, it was a toned down version of my first draft. In essence, as a Christian, I don't like to be told I am going to hell (I take your point about that not being what you said, but I took "wouldn't like to be in their shoes on judgement day" as having that implication, rightly or wrongly) and I reacted against it. Once again if I am misquoting you slightly it is not my intent to do so or indeed to deliberately misrepresent your views. You have now indicated this was not your intention, which I accept completely. I won't go over the rest of our exchange point by point as I don't think it would achieve anything, save to say I think there's been a misunderstanding.

3. It is generally accepted that the heart starts beating somewhere in the first trimester (JB has mentioned 3 weeks, I think probably about 6, some people say 8 or 10), so yes, I would probably have a problem with the vast majority of abortions. I'd guess 90% or more. I'm not the kind of person that would try to ram that view down the throats of those who disagree, but if I were to be asked to vote on the matter that timeline would shape the way I would cast my vote. I could certainly not vote for legislation that supported abortions in the second trimester or thereafter. In fact, even though I want to be compassionate towards the mother, even that slightly different timeframe is probably completely unacceptable to me from a voting perspective. Despite these 'caveats', I describe myself as pro choice, even though the choice I advocate is less broad than most who describe themselves in similar vein. I suspect that sometimes people see the term 'pro-choice' and make assumptions. BTW, correct, I think the morning after pill is not only acceptable, but a huge benefit for those who are sexually active but don't want a child.

4. I read the bible the way I read it. If I find it unclear then I try and draw my own conclusions. This generally means not relying on dogma or the views of religious scholars who I'm sure could run rings about me in a debate. As such, I agree with you the bible is not clear on this (despite the interpretation of passages where someone feels "the babe leap within her"). If God wants me to understand something, he'll help me. I'm not going to rely on theologians whose motives I don't understand. If the bible is not clear I'll try and make up my own mind. In this regard, we seem to be broadly in the same area.

5. I have honestly never intended to put you down. You may not believe this, but there's nothing I can do about that - if you don't believe me then you don't believe me. Nor did I ever intend to make snide comments. I'm truly sorry if they came across that way. For the purpose of comparison, I'll happily admit that I've intended to make snide comments to JB who I think is an unmitigated horse's arse on almost every subject.

One thing has become clear to me. I should probably never post my views on an abortion thread again. Perhaps the taunts of "baby killer" from others have influenced the way I have responded to your views. Perhaps I have been projecting after all.

One last observation. Having spent the last 10 years of my career crafting corporate communication for a Fortune 500 company, I have always thought that the words I choose to use are clear and unambiguous. However, I just read this response to my wife who said "Sounds like you're still being combative". My wife is pro-life. Clearly perception and reality are as well separated as ever. So I've re-drafted this again to tone in down. I wonder what you'll make of it.....

 

[AllieBaba]

The true liberals and conservatives have the same core ideal on that subject actually, neither likes being told what to do, the only difference is how we preach it and what private "missions" we have.

conservatism simply refers to reactionary movements, not to any real ideology

No, they don't. 'Progressives' (which is what you're describing) are liberals

Modern neoliberalism is, just like modern neoconservatism founded upon social authoritarianism.

you are a neoindependent.

You're a fucking idiot. 'neoindependent' in nonsensical. An independent is an independent, not an old or a new independent. Nor is independence from political parties directly related to one's ideology other than as evicence that one's ideology is not strictly blind loyalty to a given party or title.

You are still incapable of posting without being a troll, even when you are trying to discuss something. Crossing labels doesn't make them the same, progressives are not liberals, same species but different breeds. Also, you only used a partial quote of your post to dishonestly make me look bad, that's the same as lying.

But this fits perfectly with your original topic at least, your contention that pro-choice means anti-life. You are crossing labels just to make another look bad, since most pro-choice do have limits. I say most because there are the extremists in every group, clinic bombers ring any bells? The pro-choice extremists think there should be no restrictions, them you could consider anti-responsibility, but they are still not technically anti-life, unless you want to call all humans such, since we do kill, a lot, for many reasons. Yes, I can play semantics very well.

You just talk yourself in circles and end up meaning nothing.

Pro-choice is anti-life. Because no matter how you dance around it, only one side of the abortion equation results in the loss of life.

 

[JBeukema]

progressives are not liberals

That was actually my point, but it was lost to a typographical error The context should have made the intent clear despite the error, but you're clearly not smart enough to figure that out.

 

[joeyc]

Don't worry I didn't forget about you.

You haven't shown how the law is unequal,

It has been shown numerous times; you simply keep your eyes closed

Yeah, that must be it.

It's obvious to anyone with a brain who the idiot is here, and it's you.

That's rich.

J
wait for it...


in other words, Modern Christian Marriage...



YOU'RE THE IDIOT WHO'S BEEN GOING ON ABOUT A MANDATE THIS WHOLE TIME

BECAUSE YOU'RE THE IDIOT WHO THINKS THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO REGULATE WHO IT GIVES SUBSIDIES TO.

If you serve and earn it, yes. Anyone who serves and earns it qualifies, regardless of sex, race, etc.

Also, you're lying once again. You can't even state what 'my mentality' is The legal recognition of contract has nothjing to do with the welfare state, you idiot. Once again, you show the utter stupidity and dishonest nature of right-wing ideology

By the way, most of what you listed shouldn't even exist.

I guess understanding analogy avails you. I'm not surprised. There is no right to "legal recognition of [a] contract". You saying there is doesn't mean there is. I don't know why you'd need to be reminded of that. There's more to the legal issue of marriage than recognition of a contract. I know it's easy to ignore everything else and just focus on that, because that way you don't have to answer for the rest of the issue.

 

[JBeukema]

There is no right to "legal recognition of [a] contract"

Yes, there is. That is why we have the phrase 'legally binding contract'.

There's more to the legal issue of marriage than recognition of a contract

not really

 

[Yurt]

No ... now you are being dishonest by telling the truth ..

wow

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

They can't win an argument WITH IT EITHER... Thus all the angst...

They know they're losing; so they just frail at everything like a thresher... there's no sound reasoning behind abortion as birth control... NONE! It's all one ridiculously obvious lie; but it's accepted because it's easier to accept than taking responsibility.

THe left says it's OK to have casual sex... "ITS FUN!" And No "HUMAN RIGHTS CRAP CAN INTERFERE WITH FUN!"

Of course many a Nazi had a blast plinking those targeted by their rationalizations and when the planet came to it's senses... "FUN" didn't quite cut a viable defense.

They know they're wrong... they're just suffering a strong illusion that 'because they're good people, what they are doing can't be 'THAT WRONG.'

This world is truly turning surreal...

Er, several points.

Firstly "they".. Can you stop grouping everyone together and try dealing with individual opinions instead?

"They" is a rhetorical device which groups those INDIVIDUALS who share a common understanding... that you erroneously feel that your understanding is unique, is as irrelevant as it is wrong. So no... I will not cease the practice of accurately grouping commonalities... and I have a decades long record of tending to every individual argument which is placed before me; and the implication that such is not the case is quite ironically, another fallacious attempt to undermine the opposition's argument without having to speak directly to it...

Second, we're not "losing", nor do we "frail [sic] at everything". Opinion is pretty much split down the middle about abortion. As for flailing at everything, pro-choice arguments tend to be defensive not aggressive - the flailing usually comes from the "let the mother die" (deliberate, despite my earlier point) lobby.

Oh you're most incontrovertibly losing... and the assertion that you do not 'frail at everything' is dripping in the sweet irony that this very response is a CLASSIC and quite irrefutable example of you 'frailing at everything'... And opinion is not split down the middle of anything... There is not a single American who does not know that the taking the life of a pre-born baby, on the grounds that the HUMAN LIFE WHICH THE MOTHER CONCEIVED THROUGH HER WILLFULL DETERMINATION TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, IS DEEMED TO BE AN INCONVENIENCE, IS WRONG; that it is MURDER.

That there are US Citizens who lack the intellectual means to deal with that FACT and thus need to milk these untenable rationalizations... is irrelvant.

With regard to 'the imminent death of the Mother, due to the Pre-born baby's existance'... sound moral justification for taking that pre-born baby's life exist in the principle that where one life threatens the other, it is the DUTY of the other to defend itself...

Now is there room for debate on this point? Sure... But if it were my life which WERE ACTUALLY BEING THREATENED... Odds are I'd defend it by taking the life of that which manifested the threat. Some may disagree... as is their right. But I rarely consult with others in matter of my imminent safety.

With that said... such instances (where the Mother's life is actually at substantial risk by a pregnancy) are indiscernible in terms of a percentage of abortions.

And ROE is not about such RIGHTS... ROE is about ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL... THE TAKING OF INNOCENT LIFE WHICH IS DEEMED A PERSONAL INCONVENIENCE... and THAT IS THE ISSUE here.

The imminent threat argument is a damnable LIE.

I have NO PROBLEM with the Mother and a Doctor making such a decision... NONE what so ever; as long as that decision is based upon tangible medical facts and can be sustained by a reasonable reveiw of those facts; and where such decisions are found to rest on dubious grounds, those Doctors who came to such should be held to account and suffer the consequences for their malpractice of their art; which resulted in the death of an innocent human life.

Just like any other homicide...

Third, much of the pro choice lobby would never advocate abortion as birth control.

Yet that is INCONTROVERTIBLY, PRECISLY THAT WHICH "MOST" OF THE PRO-ABORTION LOBBY ADVOCATES; PERIOD!

You simply do so, through these flaccid little sophistries which conclude that the pre-born human is a parasite; which by its very existance 'threatens' the mother's life...'

Which is not a reasonable position; and this despite your strong feelings to the contrary.

A threat to the Mother's life rests upon the MEDICAL CERTAINTY, BASED UPON REASONABLE MEDICAL FACTS; which determine that if left to it's natural course, the mother will not survive through the term of the pregnancy; thus the imminent death of BOTH MOTHER AND BABY.

Fourth, it is OK to have casual sex. But if you're not using protection be aware that you are risking more than just an STD.

Ahh... sure... because it's the transmission of the STD... (Which FTR; many in the Medical field believe accurately defines pregnancy; the transmission of a parasite which mutates into a fetus once established in the mother's uterus...)

Interesting... But here's the thing... If one KNOWS that such actiivty is going to breed the likelihood of such a transmission, one can't escape the RESPONSIBILITY of the RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT ACT.

You simply want to skip over that part...

Now where the transmitted STD is NON-HUMAN LIFE... it is perfectly justifiable to treat that STD for TERMINATION.

Where it IS HUMAN LIFE: THE RESPONSIBILITY SPIKES TO A LIFE LONG COMMITTMENT TO THE HUMAN BEING YOU CONCEIVED...

What I find coming from your argument is the accusation that to hold one to account for that responsibility is, as the BOY KING put it... "PUNISHING THEM WITH A BABY!"

And that argument is absurd on its face...

It's the same argument to claim that wherein someone goes to the Car lot and engages in a contract to buy a new car; that they shouldn't be PUNISHED WITH A CAR PAYMENT!, even IF and WHEN, in the wake of that heady shopping spree they 'come to their senses' and decide to CRUSH THE CAR!

Fifth, your parallel between people viewing casual sex as "fun" and nazis viewing the annihilation of the jewish race as "fun" is outrageous.

Is it? So the Nazis engaging in the wholesale slaughter of innocents, due to the NAZIS misguided OPINIONS on the subject, is in no way analogous to the wholesale slaughter of innocents as a result of the MISGUIDED OPINIONS of those who the engage in casual sex and slaughter the innocent life which they conceive through their willful actions?

Golly... I have to disagree.

I'm sure the casual sex side of the comparison can deal with it but how can you trivialize the holocaust in such a manner? That's fucked up.

I doubt there is an end to the things which you're sure about that are just as absurd as this conclusion... if you'd like to specify a few, I'll deal with'em as you trot'em out.

But in this instance, what you've done is to admit by default, that you do not recognize the Pre-born human life as being at equity with any other human life... thus undermining the whole of your argument.

On the one hand you want to come off as a wise moderate who is defending the right of women whose lives are at risk due to pregnancy... but otherwise respect the humanity of the pre-born human life... and on the other, you overtly declare that the taking of that human life, in numbers which DWARF the holocaust by many orders of magnitude; that this "trivializes" the lessor atrocity...

When in point of fact; they are both atrocious acts of unspeakable cruelty, unbridled ignorance and incomprehensible crimes against humanity.

Sixth, your "illusion" comment is a double edged sword. I'll bet those who kill abortion doctors think of themselves as "good people". Does that make them right?

And the Abortion doctors think of themselves as good people... despite their livelihood being founded upon the death of the most innocent of human life.

But what makes those who take the lives of such Doctors, right; is that they are protecting innocent human life; which is the duty of every individual.

Where I disagree with them, is in their not being present at the abortion; where the life is present and the threat is imminent.

Again the issue is not distinct from any other taking of human life... If one is present where another's life is threatened... it is the duty of every free sovereign to defend that innocent life.

But one cannot justifiably take action in retribution...

Such is a judgement call on the part of the individual; and for such, where one takes the life of another, which they reasonably believe is willfully engaged in the wholesale slaughter of the innocent; they will pay with their own life... where that wholesale slaughter of innocent life has been sanctioned by the prevailing power of the State.

You believe that because it's "LEGAL" that it's RIGHT... other's disagree in the strongest terms.

Again, this will all work itself out in the looming civil war... A war which will inevtiably come as a result of a divided culture, where diametrically oppossing 'OPINIONS' can no longer sustain any means to compromise...

The Ideological left advances with every compromise and with every advance the culture slides further into decay... sadly, that which the left attacks is the culture's principled foundation. In this case, the principle that human life is sacred.

Now when you add the natural tendency of mankind to resolve such contention through war; with the cultural ramifications of DECADES of indoctrination which has undermined any sense of the sanctity of human life... or the moral obligations common to devine human rights... the only potential result is a war which will realize unspeakable, dare I say, incomprehensible... brutality.

Now my position is now, what it always has been... which is, that to the extent of my means, I advocate for a cessation of the advancement of the addle-minded notions of the left... I present, again to the extent of my means, intellectually sound, logically valid, well reasoned arguments FOR THOSE IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLES WHICH SUSTAIN A SOUND CULTURE...

You take, at least on this instance, the countering point of view...

Now the problem comes when one realizes that such wars rarely come with a ton of warning... Oh sure, in hindsight there seems a clear enough set of indications; but foresight rarely enjoys that perspective.

So feel free to keep pushing TB... its your 'RIGHT'... unless you believe as do I, that one's RIGHTS come with RESPONSIBILITY to not violate the rights of others as one exercises those rights; if you DO... well then ya might want to reconsider that... as the civil war which inevitably results from this, is going to be a MAJOR VIOLATION OF ALL OF THEM and for EVERYONE; and from where I sit... its 100% the responsibility of the ideological left and for that, every single one of them is going to be held to account.

 

[JBeukema]

The probability of someone reading the entirety of your rantings is negatively correlated with the use of caps lock...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The probability of someone reading the entirety of your rantings is negatively correlated with the use of caps lock...

There is actually no potential correlation between the use of devices which accentuate emphasis and the likelihood of those with an interest in and the intellectual means to reason through the issue at hand, to read an advocacy of such an issue.

Such rationalizations are typical of those saddled with sub-par intellectual means; who would otherwise love to engage the argument, but who desperately need something to which they can cling, as they fail to sustain their addle-minded, but closely held feelings... and this as a means to spare their sagging self esteems.

 

[tigerbob]

They can't win an argument WITH IT EITHER... Thus all the angst...

They know they're losing; so they just frail at everything like a thresher... there's no sound reasoning behind abortion as birth control... NONE! It's all one ridiculously obvious lie; but it's accepted because it's easier to accept than taking responsibility.

THe left says it's OK to have casual sex... "ITS FUN!" And No "HUMAN RIGHTS CRAP CAN INTERFERE WITH FUN!"

Of course many a Nazi had a blast plinking those targeted by their rationalizations and when the planet came to it's senses... "FUN" didn't quite cut a viable defense.

They know they're wrong... they're just suffering a strong illusion that 'because they're good people, what they are doing can't be 'THAT WRONG.'

This world is truly turning surreal...

Er, several points.

Firstly "they".. Can you stop grouping everyone together and try dealing with individual opinions instead?

"They" is a rhetorical device which groups those INDIVIDUALS who share a common understanding... that you erroneously feel that your understanding is unique, is as irrelevant as it is wrong. So no... I will not cease the practice of accurately grouping commonalities... and I have a decades long record of tending to every individual argument which is placed before me; and the implication that such is not the case is quite ironically, another fallacious attempt to undermine the opposition's argument without having to speak directly to it...




Oh you're most incontrovertibly losing... and the assertion that you do not 'frail at everything' is dripping in the sweet irony that this very response is a CLASSIC and quite irrefutable example of you 'frailing at everything'... And opinion is not split down the middle of anything... There is not a single American who does not know that the taking the life of a pre-born baby, on the grounds that the HUMAN LIFE WHICH THE MOTHER CONCEIVED THROUGH HER WILLFULL DETERMINATION TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, IS DEEMED TO BE AN INCONVENIENCE, IS WRONG; that it is MURDER.

That there are US Citizens who lack the intellectual means to deal with that FACT and thus need to milk these untenable rationalizations... is irrelvant.

With regard to 'the imminent death of the Mother, due to the Pre-born baby's existance'... sound moral justification for taking that pre-born baby's life exist in the principle that where one life threatens the other, it is the DUTY of the other to defend itself...

Now is there room for debate on this point? Sure... But if it were my life which WERE ACTUALLY BEING THREATENED... Odds are I'd defend it by taking the life of that which manifested the threat. Some may disagree... as is their right. But I rarely consult with others in matter of my imminent safety.

With that said... such instances (where the Mother's life is actually at substantial risk by a pregnancy) are indiscernible in terms of a percentage of abortions.

And ROE is not about such RIGHTS... ROE is about ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL... THE TAKING OF INNOCENT LIFE WHICH IS DEEMED A PERSONAL INCONVENIENCE... and THAT IS THE ISSUE here.

The imminent threat argument is a damnable LIE.

I have NO PROBLEM with the Mother and a Doctor making such a decision... NONE what so ever; as long as that decision is based upon tangible medical facts and can be sustained by a reasonable reveiw of those facts; and where such decisions are found to rest on dubious grounds, those Doctors who came to such should be held to account and suffer the consequences for their malpractice of their art; which resulted in the death of an innocent human life.

Just like any other homicide...




Yet that is INCONTROVERTIBLY, PRECISLY THAT WHICH "MOST" OF THE PRO-ABORTION LOBBY ADVOCATES; PERIOD!

You simply do so, through these flaccid little sophistries which conclude that the pre-born human is a parasite; which by its very existance 'threatens' the mother's life...'

Which is not a reasonable position; and this despite your strong feelings to the contrary.

A threat to the Mother's life rests upon the MEDICAL CERTAINTY, BASED UPON REASONABLE MEDICAL FACTS; which determine that if left to it's natural course, the mother will not survive through the term of the pregnancy; thus the imminent death of BOTH MOTHER AND BABY.



Ahh... sure... because it's the transmission of the STD... (Which FTR; many in the Medical field believe accurately defines pregnancy; the transmission of a parasite which mutates into a fetus once established in the mother's uterus...)

Interesting... But here's the thing... If one KNOWS that such actiivty is going to breed the likelihood of such a transmission, one can't escape the RESPONSIBILITY of the RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT ACT.

You simply want to skip over that part...

Now where the transmitted STD is NON-HUMAN LIFE... it is perfectly justifiable to treat that STD for TERMINATION.

Where it IS HUMAN LIFE: THE RESPONSIBILITY SPIKES TO A LIFE LONG COMMITTMENT TO THE HUMAN BEING YOU CONCEIVED...

What I find coming from your argument is the accusation that to hold one to account for that responsibility is, as the BOY KING put it... "PUNISHING THEM WITH A BABY!"

And that argument is absurd on its face...

It's the same argument to claim that wherein someone goes to the Car lot and engages in a contract to buy a new car; that they shouldn't be PUNISHED WITH A CAR PAYMENT!, even IF and WHEN, in the wake of that heady shopping spree they 'come to their senses' and decide to CRUSH THE CAR!




Is it? So the Nazis engaging in the wholesale slaughter of innocents, due to the NAZIS misguided OPINIONS on the subject, is in no way analogous to the wholesale slaughter of innocents as a result of the MISGUIDED OPINIONS of those who the engage in casual sex and slaughter the innocent life which they conceive through their willful actions?

Golly... I have to disagree.

I'm sure the casual sex side of the comparison can deal with it but how can you trivialize the holocaust in such a manner? That's fucked up.

I doubt there is an end to the things which you're sure about that are just as absurd as this conclusion... if you'd like to specify a few, I'll deal with'em as you trot'em out.

But in this instance, what you've done is to admit by default, that you do not recognize the Pre-born human life as being at equity with any other human life... thus undermining the whole of your argument.

On the one hand you want to come off as a wise moderate who is defending the right of women whose lives are at risk due to pregnancy... but otherwise respect the humanity of the pre-born human life... and on the other, you overtly declare that the taking of that human life, in numbers which DWARF the holocaust by many orders of magnitude; that this "trivializes" the lessor atrocity...

When in point of fact; they are both atrocious acts of unspeakable cruelty, unbridled ignorance and incomprehensible crimes against humanity.

Sixth, your "illusion" comment is a double edged sword. I'll bet those who kill abortion doctors think of themselves as "good people". Does that make them right?

And the Abortion doctors think of themselves as good people... despite their livelihood being founded upon the death of the most innocent of human life.

But what makes those who take the lives of such Doctors, right; is that they are protecting innocent human life; which is the duty of every individual.

Where I disagree with them, is in their not being present at the abortion; where the life is present and the threat is imminent.

Again the issue is not distinct from any other taking of human life... If one is present where another's life is threatened... it is the duty of every free sovereign to defend that innocent life.

But one cannot justifiably take action in retribution...

Such is a judgement call on the part of the individual; and for such, where one takes the life of another, which they reasonably believe is willfully engaged in the wholesale slaughter of the innocent; they will pay with their own life... where that wholesale slaughter of innocent life has been sanctioned by the prevailing power of the State.

You believe that because it's "LEGAL" that it's RIGHT... other's disagree in the strongest terms.

Again, this will all work itself out in the looming civil war... A war which will inevtiably come as a result of a divided culture, where diametrically oppossing 'OPINIONS' can no longer sustain any means to compromise...

The Ideological left advances with every compromise and with every advance the culture slides further into decay... sadly, that which the left attacks is the culture's principled foundation. In this case, the principle that human life is sacred.

Now when you add the natural tendency of mankind to resolve such contention through war; with the cultural ramifications of DECADES of indoctrination which has undermined any sense of the sanctity of human life... or the moral obligations common to devine human rights... the only potential result is a war which will realize unspeakable, dare I say, incomprehensible... brutality.

Now my position is now, what it always has been... which is, that to the extent of my means, I advocate for a cessation of the advancement of the addle-minded notions of the left... I present, again to the extent of my means, intellectually sound, logically valid, well reasoned arguments FOR THOSE IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLES WHICH SUSTAIN A SOUND CULTURE...

You take, at least on this instance, the countering point of view...

Now the problem comes when one realizes that such wars rarely come with a ton of warning... Oh sure, in hindsight there seems a clear enough set of indications; but foresight rarely enjoys that perspective.

So feel free to keep pushing TB... its your 'RIGHT'... unless you believe as do I, that one's RIGHTS come with RESPONSIBILITY to not violate the rights of others as one exercises those rights; if you DO... well then ya might want to reconsider that... as the civil war which inevitably results from this, is going to be a MAJOR VIOLATION OF ALL OF THEM and for EVERYONE; and from where I sit... its 100% the responsibility of the ideological left and for that, every single one of them is going to be held to account.

Thanks for sending me a PM to tell me you had answered my earlier post.

This post is to confirm that I have read all your comments, that I understand most of them, don't understand some of them, disagree with pretty much all of them, and have determined that responding to them individually would be a waste of my time.

But thanks for letting me know. I had removed my subscription.

 

[Care4all]

The thing is, that a fetus is a separate individual, from pregnancy onward imo.

Is it a fully formed human being, NO!

BUT it is an individual human that IS BEING FORMED....in the Mother's womb.

The opposite sides always seem to make the claim with part of that statement as TRUTH....no one side seems to account for the other half of the statement.

What I mean is:

The prolife side will take hold on the fetus being an individual but not mention it is not a fully formed human for the most part when being aborted, or take the position that the mother is an individual as well and has her own individual decisions to make regarding her being the host for 9 months or not, to this separate individual offspring.

The prochoice will take hold of the position that the fetus is not fully formed and the mother's rights or concerns, outweigh those of the right to life of the forming fetus who has to be hosted by the offspring's mother in order to even exist, while truly ignoring the fact that all of us here today were fetuses and are here today because we were allowed to come in to fruition, being BORN and that when we ourselves were fetuses, we were no less human than we are now, though we may not have achieved the terms of personhood, or protection under the law...IT STILL IS a separate individual, which the mother is choosing the fate of, after the fetus's biological clock started ticking.

I don't think that abortion is taken as lightly as many proclaim on both sides of the aisle, by the mother to be....I think it would be a horrible position to be in, a heart wrenching and scary position to be in, especially if I were one of the 16 or 17 year olds that got themselves in to the position of being pregnant, out of wedlock, because you failed to protect yourself and went with the heat of the moment, or felt pressure of sorts to do such.

The problem of out of wedlock babies was not as dire in the good ole days because there was no birth control for the woman other than rhythmic method which was iffy at best, and single men fooling around KNEW that it was UP TO THEM to use protection or they would be seeing wedding bells down the road....most men did not want their own children to not have a father.....they seemed to own up to their own fatherhood responsibility more....wanted the best or more for their own kids, back then....but I could be wrong, just seems that way to this ole timer....

Anyway, ignoring the mother to be's individual decision, for whatever the reason she comes to, whether in panic, whether a mistake, whether well thought out...to abort HER CHILD to be, early on in pregnancy is not the answer to this very concerning issue of abortion...

and the slippery slope of trying to determine when another individual, in this case the growing and forming fetus, has some worth as a human being in process....as this forming human being, and not recognizing such could lead to (the slippery slope) of determining that disabled people have less worth than a healthy person, or a mentally retarded person has more worth than another healthy individual and it starts us down that slope of making our own decisions on someone elses worth, based on our own opinion and could lead to socialized programs enforcing such thoughts....or bigotted and racist measures?

I guess what I am trying to say is that although I am prolife and am not advocating the laws on the books to be reversed, I am advocating that we all search our souls and know when this is done that a fetus is something more than a glob of cells of nothingness...

i think it is important to not rewrite the semantics of what is occuring with abortion by calling it a glob of cells similar to a toenail etc because I feel that this will desensitize our public on the importance of every human life, including the disabled, mentally retarded, deformed or someone in need of assistance of a machine, like oxygen, to carry on....

We don't want every girl out there to think that an abortion is a light matter, because it is NOT a light matter, it is a very complicated and hard decision to make I would venture to say and it should STAY THAT WAY....not be thought of like this is just an alternative to the pill or using protection....imo.

 

[joeyc]

There is no right to "legal recognition of [a] contract"

Yes, there is. That is why we have the phrase 'legally binding contract'.

You might as well have just said, "hi, I'm a big dumbass with nothing left to say." That would've made more sense than this.

There's more to the legal issue of marriage than recognition of a contract

not really

How descriptive.

I'll leave you alone, since it's obvious you've run out of a counter-argument.