Why Can't The So-Called Pro-Life Crowd Be Honest?

[Dr.Drock]

I am pro life but I still think women should have the right to abort their baby.

I'm against the way pro choice propaganda lies to women by telling them their baby is not a life.

The government tells us what to eat smoke to wear seatbelts helmets taxes things it believes are bad for us, extorts money from us in anyway they can, It lies to us, says we have freedom of speech yet punishes us for anything we say that they don't like.

Using abortion as an example of government control is ridiculous.

They control us all over the place.

This is a good post, my point on the first page of this thread is that it's a matter of whether or not you think government should be able to take this choice away from someone. Has nothing to do with morals, one person in favor of killing, or one person valuing life more etc etc.

It's 2 simple questions having nothing to do with morality.

1.) Do you view 1st trimester pregnancies as babies or fetuses?
2.) Should a woman have a choice in whether she can have an abortion or not?

If you're pro-life I'm not going to accuse you of "hating liberty" or "being anti-woman." Just the same as those who are pro-choice aren't "baby killing" or "pro abortion."

Take the emotion and religious aspects out of it and think of it purely from an intellectual standpoint. Then you've found what you think the law should be, and either conclusion can be made by rational/moral adults (pro choice or pro life).

On a side note I'm against government forced seatbelt wearing, helmets, most taxes. In other words one instance of government controlling something doesn't make it right or that it should be ok in another issue.

 

[DaGoose]

Good posts one and mostly all.

But it's an unescapable fact that whether it's abortion, euthanasia or even gay marriage, if you want the government to involve itself in the most private decisions that really is no business of yours or the government then you support more government control over our private lives. Because you can't have it both ways my friends.

And the government aside you have no right to try and force others to live according to YOUR morals.

Decisions like abortion or euthanasia belong to the person, the doctor and God. You have NO BUSINESS sticking your fat nose in where it's not wanted.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because if they were they would admit that they are in favor of government control over American citizens private decisions. THEY are the real enemies of liberty and freedom.

Because unless you are the woman, her doctor or her God you need to stay the fuck out of her business.

.

Let me ask you a question here.

Do you have a problem with government protecting the right to live of a person who cannot speak for them self? If so, why do you object to them protecting the right of a person who is not yet born? Should we be like China and mandate abortions for anyone who has more children than is allowed? Should we preform abortions on fetuses that are viable just because they have not been born yet? Should we just leave a baby to die because the idiot preforming the abortion fucked up?

 

[DaGoose]

Because if they were they would admit that they are in favor of government control over American citizens private decisions. THEY are the real enemies of liberty and freedom.

Because unless you are the woman, her doctor or her God you need to stay the fuck out of her business.

.

Let me ask you a question here.

Do you have a problem with government protecting the right to live of a person who cannot speak for them self? If so, why do you object to them protecting the right of a person who is not yet born? Should we be like China and mandate abortions for anyone who has more children than is allowed? Should we preform abortions on fetuses that are viable just because they have not been born yet? Should we just leave a baby to die because the idiot preforming the abortion fucked up?

Funny you should mention that. Because forced government intervention is what we got with the Terri Schiavo case. Remember that fiasco? Do you think THAT was a proper role of government?

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because if they were they would admit that they are in favor of government control over American citizens private decisions. THEY are the real enemies of liberty and freedom.

Because unless you are the woman, her doctor or her God you need to stay the fuck out of her business.

.

Let me ask you a question here.

Do you have a problem with government protecting the right to live of a person who cannot speak for them self? If so, why do you object to them protecting the right of a person who is not yet born? Should we be like China and mandate abortions for anyone who has more children than is allowed? Should we preform abortions on fetuses that are viable just because they have not been born yet? Should we just leave a baby to die because the idiot preforming the abortion fucked up?

Funny you should mention that. Because forced government intervention is what we got with the Terri Schiavo case. Remember that fiasco? Do you think THAT was a proper role of government?

.

Which part?

Should the parents not have the right to petition the courts to keep their daughter alive?

Should the husband not have the right to petition the courts to allow his wife to die with dignity?

It seems to me that, no matter which side you are on in that, you can make a valid argument for government intervention. If she had a living will on file her wishes would have been clear, without it it is inevitable that the government is involved. In fact, they are involved even with the living will.

The only way to eliminate government invovlement in cases like Terry Shialvo is to eliminate the government. I am pretty sure you do not think that is a good idea, which means you must support government involvement in it.

That is the problem with trying to stereotype your opponents, you always paint yourself into a corner. Not everyone is quick enough to see the trap you made for yourself, but when they do, you look really stupid. In the future you should just remember that, just because you think someone is an idiot, that is not proof they are.

 

[DaGoose]

Let me ask you a question here.

Do you have a problem with government protecting the right to live of a person who cannot speak for them self? If so, why do you object to them protecting the right of a person who is not yet born? Should we be like China and mandate abortions for anyone who has more children than is allowed? Should we preform abortions on fetuses that are viable just because they have not been born yet? Should we just leave a baby to die because the idiot preforming the abortion fucked up?

Funny you should mention that. Because forced government intervention is what we got with the Terri Schiavo case. Remember that fiasco? Do you think THAT was a proper role of government?

.

Which part?

Should the parents not have the right to petition the courts to keep their daughter alive?

Should the husband not have the right to petition the courts to allow his wife to die with dignity?

It seems to me that, no matter which side you are on in that, you can make a valid argument for government intervention. If she had a living will on file her wishes would have been clear, without it it is inevitable that the government is involved. In fact, they are involved even with the living will.

The only way to eliminate government invovlement in cases like Terry Shialvo is to eliminate the government. I am pretty sure you do not think that is a good idea, which means you must support government involvement in it.

That is the problem with trying to stereotype your opponents, you always paint yourself into a corner. Not everyone is quick enough to see the trap you made for yourself, but when they do, you look really stupid. In the future you should just remember that, just because you think someone is an idiot, that is not proof they are.

Now YOU'RE the one who is looking stupid. You really don't have a clue as to what was going on with that case, do you?

Within a week, when the Schindlers' final appeal was exhausted, State Rep. Frank Attkisson and the Florida Legislature hastily passed "Terri's Law," giving Governor Jeb Bush the authority to intervene in the case. Bush immediately ordered the feeding tube reinserted. Bush sent the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to remove Schiavo from the hospice. She was taken to Morton Plant Rehabilitation Hospital in Clearwater, where her feeding tube was surgically reinserted.[39] She was then returned to the hospice. Part of the legislation required the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL), Dr. Jay Wolfson, to "deduce and represent the best wishes and best interests" of Schiavo, and report them to Governor Bush.

I was satisfied with the family fighting it out in COURT. What I am opposed to, and you profess to favor, is an activist government attempting to force a particular moral belief on the citizens.

So finally you have made it clear that you favor big government involving itself in the private lives of the citizens.

Now see? That wasn't so hard, was it? I knew you'd get there eventually.

.

Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ravi]

^^^
One reason why I'm in favor of this issue being devolved to the states.

Totally agree

Why? That is just trading one government control for another.

No answer?

 

[DaGoose]

Totally agree

Why? That is just trading one government control for another.

No answer?

Nope. Your ultra-right wacko conservatives don't care which government is controlling our lives. They just agree that government control of our private lives is a good thing.

.

 

[kaz]

Because if they were they would admit that they are in favor of government control over American citizens private decisions. THEY are the real enemies of liberty and freedom.

Because unless you are the woman, her doctor or her God you need to stay the fuck out of her business

And unless you're me, my accountant or God you should stay the fuck out of my wallet...

so unless your taxes pay for the abortion, STFU

I'm pro choice, I'm consistent.

And you totally didn't get the point, moron. You demonstrated it. Your greedy fingers are in my wallet regardless, yet you're still giving the woman a choice as long as I don't pay for it.

Liberals are so fucking stupid.

 

[kaz]

Why? That is just trading one government control for another.

No answer?

Nope. Your ultra-right wacko conservatives don't care which government is controlling our lives. They just agree that government control of our private lives is a good thing.

.

Right, my wallet's not private...

 

[DaGoose]

No answer?

Nope. Your ultra-right wacko conservatives don't care which government is controlling our lives. They just agree that government control of our private lives is a good thing.

.

Right, my wallet's not private...

And according to the GOP neither are the personal decisions you choose to make in life.

.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, they are, EXCEPT WHEN THEY RESULT IN THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

Libs can't make that distinction because they don't understand or support human rights.

 

[DaGoose]

Yes, they are, EXCEPT WHEN THEY RESULT IN THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

Libs can't make that distinction because they don't understand or support human rights.

Bullshit.

How does someone else getting an abortion, gays getting married, someone commiting euthanasia, etc. affect you in the least?

Guess what? It doesn't. So that's why you need to stay the hell out of their life and leave them the hell alone.

But you know what? You can't. And the GOP can't. You have to intrude on sommeone else's right to make their personal choices.

Neo-Cons have absolutely NO concept of human rights.

.

 

[kaz]

Yes, they are, EXCEPT WHEN THEY RESULT IN THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

Libs can't make that distinction because they don't understand or support human rights.

Bullshit.

How does someone else getting an abortion, gays getting married, someone commiting euthanasia, etc. affect you in the least?

Guess what? It doesn't. So that's why you need to stay the hell out of their life and leave them the hell alone.

But you know what? You can't. And the GOP can't. You have to intrude on sommeone else's right to make their personal choices.

Neo-Cons have absolutely NO concept of human rights.

.

Right, but my wallet's not my private business, you use it as your ATM machine. The point is your hypocrisy. You don't support privacy, you support the privacy you support. And without respecting others right to privacy on principle rather then transactional issues, you are what you hate.

 

[JBeukema]

Because if they were they would admit that they are in favor of government control over American citizens private decisions. THEY are the real enemies of liberty and freedom.

Because unless you are the woman, her doctor or her God you need to stay the fuck out of her business.

.

Liberty has limits. Homicide generally falls outside the limits of personal liberty.

Of course, unless you have the Doughboys whispering in your ear until to find someone-anyone- and slash them to death with a spork so you can paint keep the wall wet with blood so Kthulu doesn't escape, you should just mind your own business

When I rape your mother, should you mind your own business?

When I break into your house and kill you with an axe, should everyone else mind their own business?

Or does it become a social matter when I harm another person?

 

[JBeukema]

Since when is taking the life of someone else a private decision?

I suppose we should decriminalize murder. After all, the government is punishing a person for their own private decision.

Of course, I don't expect you to actually recognize the inherent flaws of your argument. But perhaps someone who is reading will and will see how illogical your position is.

If you want to extend the meaning of murder to the abortion of a non-viable fetus, shouldn't we then refer to the purging of freezer space at a in vitro fertilization clinic as mass murder?

One silly rationalization deserves another.

If I shot you because I find your existence inconvenient yesterday, would it have been murder in the moral sense?

Last week?

Last year?

When you were two?

When you were one?

When you were three-weeks old?

Ten seconds after birth?

When you had one toe in you momma?

When you were halfway out?

When you were crowning?

Just after her water broke?

Just before here water broke?

One second before that?

One second before that?

One second before that?

One second before that?

One second before that?

One second before that?

One second before that?

One second before that?

One second before that?



Where, exactly, is the line?

 

[kaz]

Because if they were they would admit that they are in favor of government control over American citizens private decisions. THEY are the real enemies of liberty and freedom.

Because unless you are the woman, her doctor or her God you need to stay the fuck out of her business.

.

Liberty has limits. Homicide generally falls outside the limits of personal liberty.

Of course, unless you have the Doughboys whispering in your ear until to find someone-anyone- and slash them to death with a spork so you can paint keep the wall wet with blood so Kthulu doesn't escape, you should just mind your own business

When I rape your mother, should you mind your own business?

When I break into your house and kill you with an axe, should everyone else mind their own business?

Or does it become a social matter when I harm another person?

There is a fundamental difference between abortion and murder in that when you kill someone, you could walk away and not do it and they live. The baby is entirely contained within the woman and it's her body. She can't remove the fetus and not kill it.

You can personally believe it's murder, but for the government to tell you not to stab someone is completely different then saying for the balance of nine months she has to carry the baby inside her body. If you or someone believes it's murder, you have to convince her to carry the baby. Running to government and saying they have to use their absolute power to force her to carry a baby to term isn't their role. Convincing her and providing her with options is the job of the people who think it's murder.

 

[JBeukema]

If you want to extend the meaning of murder to the abortion of a non-viable fetus, shouldn't we then refer to the purging of freezer space at a in vitro fertilization clinic as mass murder?

One silly rationalization deserves another.

So I guess a newborn is "non-viable"?

It should be able to walk and feed itself right?

You libs are baby killers.... just sayin'

If he's having a heart-attack, does he become 'non-viable'?

 

[Avatar4321]

Since when is taking the life of someone else a private decision?

I suppose we should decriminalize murder. After all, the government is punishing a person for their own private decision.

Of course, I don't expect you to actually recognize the inherent flaws of your argument. But perhaps someone who is reading will and will see how illogical your position is.

If you want to extend the meaning of murder to the abortion of a non-viable fetus, shouldn't we then refer to the purging of freezer space at a in vitro fertilization clinic as mass murder?

One silly rationalization deserves another.

Shocking. You didn't understand one word I just said.

 

[JBeukema]

Because if they were they would admit that they are in favor of government control over American citizens private decisions. THEY are the real enemies of liberty and freedom.

Because unless you are the woman, her doctor or her God you need to stay the fuck out of her business.

.

Liberty has limits. Homicide generally falls outside the limits of personal liberty.

Of course, unless you have the Doughboys whispering in your ear until to find someone-anyone- and slash them to death with a spork so you can paint keep the wall wet with blood so Kthulu doesn't escape, you should just mind your own business

When I rape your mother, should you mind your own business?

When I break into your house and kill you with an axe, should everyone else mind their own business?

Or does it become a social matter when I harm another person?

There is a fundamental difference between abortion and murder in that when you kill someone, you could walk away and not do it and they live.

Babies also tend to live when you don't kill them.

The baby is entirely contained within the woman and it's her body. She can't remove the fetus and not kill it.

And? She had plenty of opportunity to not be in that position. Now you want to kill a child because she find it inconvenient that she can't go to the club anymore and she's going to have buy diapers and have stretch marks?

And yes, that's an argument the pro-abortionists have made

victims have rights to AT LEAST not be raped for 18 years, or even nine months, or have their figures wrecked, damaging their chances of ever finding a man that would care about them again

Wait... Did you just compare every day you spend with your child to being raped?


And did you just cry that you should allowed to kill your baby because you like guys who beat you (as you said in another thread) and they don't like you having stretch marks?

So your own desire to get gangbanged by shallow guys is more important than the life of your child...

And they let you keep your kid?

Anyone else waiting for her to be the next woman in the news to drown her kid because the guy she wants doesn't want a child around?

You can personally believe it's murder, but for the government to tell you not to stab someone is completely different then saying for the balance of nine months she has to carry the baby inside her body

She made the decision. She had plenty of opportunity to take measures to prevent pregnancy.

And yes, preventing murder and punishing those who commit murder is part of the government's role.