Anti-lifers

[Montrovant]

Why must they constantly lie? They lied to SCOTUS about two women being raped, thereby spitting in the faces of all real rape victims to push their money-making libertine agenda. They tel bald lies (ravi and Anguille come to mind) about forcing women to carry when it'll kill them. They lie about the scientifically verified fact that a fetus is a human life, being both alive and human. They lie about the fact that a rape victim can take Plan B to prevent a pregnancy in the first place and that very few abortions involve rape and incest. they lie to women about their being pregnant and the development of the child inside them and rail against showing them sonograms or informing them about fetal development or adoption.


Why must they base their entire case on lies if they support a 'good thing'?

I'm fairly certain I've never lied about any of those things, yet I'm still in favor of abortion being legal.
For me, the issues are viability and thought. I consider the ability to think to be the more important distinction, although I have no idea how to accurately gauge it. Basically, in the same way I don't feel any compunction about 'pulling the plug' when it comes to people in a vegetative state, I don't care about abortions performed on a fetus who's brain has not yet developed enough to think. Unfortunately I have no idea if our understanding of the brain and ability to monitor it are such that we can determine such things in a developing fetus.

I also believe that what will make abortion eventually become, if not obsolete, at least much less frequent than it is now, is technology, not morality. I think more advanced and easily accessible forms of birth control will be what reduces abortions to very minor levels. People are going to continue to have sex, and many will be very cavalier about the consequences; that seems unavoidable. If we end up with safe, extremely effective, long-term birth control, which is both affordable for all and easily and safely reversible or removable, that will have a much greater impact than morality, which is so variable.

I'm rambling and not paying that much attention to what I'm typing, so I'll just stop now

 

[AllieBaba]

So we should be able to dispose of anyone who are incapable of communication? Because you have no idea at what point a baby "thinks". Newborns don't "think". They're babies.

 

[JBeukema]

Why does OR assume we're all 'conservatives' and where does he get off questioning our credibility?

 

[Luissa]

Ah, so men aren't allowed to opine about the slaughter of children.

Therefore, women shouldn't be allowed to opine about rape. After all, what does a woman know about the urge to rape?

He wasn't stating his opinion, he was refering to it as a fact when he stated what health care workers do at abortion clinics. With him not being able to have an abortion, he has no clue what goes on.

 

[JBeukema]

With him not being able to have an abortion, he has no clue what goes on.

So you can't know what it means to hang someone 'til you've been hanged?

 

[Luissa]

How about we discuss your lies!
"they lie to women about their being pregnant and the development of the child inside them and rail against showing them sonograms or informing them about fetal development or adoption."

For starters you must have a signed paper stating that you are pregnant by a health care official that you are pregnant before getting an abortion. YOu also must have an ultra sound before you have that abortion. You also have to go in a day or two before you have the abortion and go through a counceling session regarding your decision, where they go over every option you have. THey also tell you what stage you are at in your pregnancy when you do have an ultra sound. And they also give you reading on adoption while you are at your counseling session.
You want to tell more lies about something you nothing about Buttermilk?
Why don't you explain to people how you believe in postive eugenics again.

 

[Luissa]

With him not being able to have an abortion, he has no clue what goes on.

So you can't know what it means to hang someone 'til you've been hanged?

Have you been to an abortion clinic? Have you watched an abortion being performed?
And no you will have no idea what it means to hang someone until you do so or it happens to you. You may have an opinion, but not one based on experiece or knowledge.

 

[JBeukema]

The anti-lifers say they're not pregnant, that it's not a baby, that they just have some of cells from their own body to remove

Ultrasounds are discouraged

Stop with your lies and evasions

 

[JBeukema]

With him not being able to have an abortion, he has no clue what goes on.

So you can't know what it means to hang someone 'til you've been hanged?

Have you been to an abortion clinic? Have you watched an abortion being performed?

Have you? do you know that I haven't?

 

[JBeukema]

I love how you basically argue that noone can condemn the Nazis until they've thrown a jew in an oven or been in a gas chamber- since your opinion's not based on experience

 

[DiveCon]

So you can't know what it means to hang someone 'til you've been hanged?

Have you been to an abortion clinic? Have you watched an abortion being performed?

Have you? do you know that I haven't?

both, good questions

 

[Diuretic]

What's your problem with abortion JB?

 

[tigerbob]

The anti-lifers say they're not pregnant, that it's not a baby, that they just have some of cells from their own body to remove

Ultrasounds are discouraged

Stop with your lies and evasions

Of course they are pregnant. Of course it's a baby.

I love the way you make an untrue blanket statement and then tell others to stop lying.

 

[AllieBaba]

Anguille says it's not a baby. She says it's just a part of the mother's body until it suddenly becomes its own person magically, sometime in the first 6 months of life.

 

[Diuretic]

What's a "baby"?

 

[JBeukema]

What's your problem with abortion JB?

I oppose needless homicide. Homicide is only to be allowed in instances of self-defense (extending this to soldiers who kill in war to defend themselves and/o others), capital punishment, and 'assisted suicides'. Of course, once someone accepts this principle (either consciously or pe4r the social contract that every society has adopted that prohibits homicide), the logical extrapolation of this principle can only lead one to oppose the 'abortion' of an unborn human child.

A rough breakdown of how reason leads one to this conclusion:

-----

(A)
-as a rule those who are sane and rational do not want to be killed. Society defines unlawful homicide as 'murder'

-We define 'murder' as the intentional ending of human life by another individual (willful homicide) when not done
--during war
--in self-defense
--as an 'assisted suicide'*
--as a last-ditch effort to save another life, in such a scenario where to refuse to terminate one life is to endanger another along with it**
--by the State, as capital punishment for grievous crimes in order to maintain a lawful and just society
--in occordance with the will of the individual or as determined to be the best or only course of actuion by competent and impartial medical professionals to end suffering or halt the delaying or xtension of the dying process (as with the braindead)

-We therefore call for the legal protection of all human life, save for the aforementioned exceptions. This has led to a social condemnation of murder (the individual moral reasoning of the people is not important to this examination

(B) For the purpose of this examination,. 'Human life' will be used interchangeably with 'a human life'; this should not be misconstrued so as to imply that individual cells of one's anatomy should be treated as equal to the welfare of the individual as a whole. Human life is defined as:
-Being alive
-Being human
-being a distinct and discernible organism unto itself

Together these, three traits define an distinct living human

(C) A child, from conception is alive- at any point of development
A search for the scientific definition of life reveals the following::

... the follwing characteristic:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment (within the organism)

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components ...

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment....

6. Response to stimuli

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
derived from

(The question of sentience has no bearing on the classification of something as 'alive')

(D) Since a human child is, by definition, alive from conception, any purposeful destruction of that life is willful hiomicide, and therefore murdered, as outlined in brief in (A) and cannot be allowed.

One cannot condemn murder and simultaneously condoning the killing of an unborn child (save for the noted exceptions), for that would be logically contradictory

*for those who support such a clause; this is currently a matter of debate

**such as rare forms of conjoined twins or the medical termination of ectopic or other medically dangerous pregnancy that endangers the life of mother and/or child

Before any of the libs call a baby a 'tumor'
-A tumor has the same genetic code as the host, and is therefore their body
-A child has a different genetic code from with parent, therefore a child is not a part of a woman's body. Since the child is by definition alive, is genetically human, and is not a part of the woman's body, it is- by definition- a separate human life.

 

[Diuretic]

The wrongfulness or otherwise of the act of killing a human being depends on the context. Of itself it's simply an act, without morality. A disease kills a human being, we don't call the disease immoral.

Is killing a baby immoral? Why? Could there any instances where killing a baby could be moral?

 

[JBeukema]

Diuretic is too stupid to see that what i have outlined is not remotely a moral argument, but an ethical argument that starts with the basis of the existing social contract prohibiting homicide and following the logical implications thereof to the
criminalization, condemnation, and prohibition of the killing of the unborn that anti-lifers euphemistically call 'abortion'

 

[Diuretic]

JB I can address your argument point by point if you like. And if you like you can actually try to address my questions. I'm sure the thread can take it.

 

[JBeukema]

Dis: if you don't want to be addressed, stop posting in my threads. Also, stop sending me your little love notes; I don't want you.

Now, we still await an anti-lifer to explain how denying basic facts and dealing in lies shows their position to be something they can defend.