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

[MikeK]

If you are advocating a practice that targets the infants of the black population, then you are advocating genocide.

What exactly do you mean by "targeted?"

Can you cite a single example of a pregnant Black woman who was forced, coerced, or aggressively encouraged by some non-Black persons or organizations to abort her fetus? Or would you say these Black women abort for essentially the same reasons as do White women, which are socio-economic circumstances or simply because they don't wish to be encumbered by a baby?

A woman, Black or White, who is not married to a man who can support her and her babies but who gets pregnant and has no one to help with caring for the infant is in a socially precarious situation. If there is a proportionately higher rate of abortion by Black women I suggest the reason is absence of a responsible male parent and the lack of available family assistance.

Paranoid Jew..nice.

I make no apology for that observation. And if you'd like to understand the reasoning behind it I suggest you read, The Holocaust Industry, by Professor Norman Finkelstein, himself a Jew and the son of pogrom survivors.

 

[koshergrl]

I mean the majority of abortion clinics are plopped in the middle of poor, black neighborhoods.

I mean the majority of abortions are obtained by poor, black women.

I mean that the advertisement is geared towards black women.

That's what I mean.

Spare me further justification of your support of wiping out the poor, black population. I've already heard it all, and so has everybody else. You aren't spouting anything new.

 

[Dragon]

If you are advocating abortion as a method to reduce population, you are advocating genocide

Not only am I not advocating genocide, I'm not even advocating "killing babies." Both of those are deceptive expressions designed to create a false impression about the destruction of an insentient bit of human protoplasm without a brain.

Who do you think are getting abortions? I can tell you. Primarily black women.

When you can show me that this is deliberate, and intended to reduce the black population, I will grant you, not genocide (because it would have to be accompanied at least by forced sterilization en masse to merit that word), but at least a nefarious conspiracy. Fail to show that, and all you have is a coincidence.

 

[koshergrl]

Yawn.

Like I said, nothing new under the sun, and this certainly isn't new. I don't have to prove intent, the facts are what they are. The facts are that the majority of abortions are performed on black women, in black neighborhoods, and you think that's a good thing because there are too many "people" on teh earth.

Apparently you have no problem with eliminating primarily people of the black persuasion in your master plan to de-populate the earth, illustrated by your adamant support of abortion, and that is genocide when taken with the fact that most abortions are taking place in the black population. Not just here, but abroad as well, incidentally.

And your dichotonomy works both ways...you saying that they aren't babies doesn't mean they aren't. Just as saying it's not a human rights violation doesn't change the fact that abortion is, in fact, a human rights violation. Whether it's lawful, or accepted, or not. It's perfectly acceptable to stone women under Sharia, too...and it's still a human rights violation.

 

[Dragon]

I don't have to prove intent, the facts are what they are.

Yes, you DO have to prove intent, because intent is what you're CLAIMING. You used the word "targeted." That implies that someone is deliberately, and with malice, INTENDING that lots of abortions be done among black pregnant women. You used the word "genocide." That most certainly DOES imply intent. There is no such thing as "accidental genocide."

Now, if you want to take back those words, and just say, "Oh, look, it seems that a disproportionate number of abortions are being done involving pregnant black women, wonder why that is?" then you're not claiming intent and so you don't have to show intent. But as things are, you do.

And your dichotonomy works both ways...you saying that they aren't babies doesn't mean they aren't.

Well, see, I have a certain thing in mind when I use the word "baby," and that certain thing is a human infant that has a functioning brain, among other things. So by that definition, yes, absolutely and without any doubt an embryo at conception is not a baby. Now, if you want to present a completely idiosyncratic, radical, and weird definition of the word, well, words are just tags, and I guess we could use the word "baby" to include an insentient lump of human protoplasm without a brain, but if we do then "baby" loses all of its emotional connotations.

Whatever word we put on it, though, an embryo at conception is a lump of insentient protoplasm without a brain. It has no thoughts. It has no feelings. It does not wiggle or crap its pants or burp or throw up or cry or make faces or laugh or shake rattles or put things in its mouth or wake its parents up in the middle of the night three or four times or do any of the other things that we think of babies as doing. And while I would have real qualms about killing a human organism that DOES do all of those things -- 'cause that, to me, is what the word "baby" means -- I have no problem at all with killing an insentient lump of protoplasm without a brain.

 

[Newby]

I don't have to prove intent, the facts are what they are.

Yes, you DO have to prove intent, because intent is what you're CLAIMING. You used the word "targeted." That implies that someone is deliberately, and with malice, INTENDING that lots of abortions be done among black pregnant women. You used the word "genocide." That most certainly DOES imply intent. There is no such thing as "accidental genocide."

Now, if you want to take back those words, and just say, "Oh, look, it seems that a disproportionate number of abortions are being done involving pregnant black women, wonder why that is?" then you're not claiming intent and so you don't have to show intent. But as things are, you do.

And your dichotonomy works both ways...you saying that they aren't babies doesn't mean they aren't.

Well, see, I have a certain thing in mind when I use the word "baby," and that certain thing is a human infant that has a functioning brain, among other things. So by that definition, yes, absolutely and without any doubt an embryo at conception is not a baby. Now, if you want to present a completely idiosyncratic, radical, and weird definition of the word, well, words are just tags, and I guess we could use the word "baby" to include an insentient lump of human protoplasm without a brain, but if we do then "baby" loses all of its emotional connotations.

Whatever word we put on it, though, an embryo at conception is a lump of insentient protoplasm without a brain. It has no thoughts. It has no feelings. It does not wiggle or crap its pants or burp or throw up or cry or make faces or laugh or shake rattles or put things in its mouth or wake its parents up in the middle of the night three or four times or do any of the other things that we think of babies as doing. And while I would have real qualms about killing a human organism that DOES do all of those things -- 'cause that, to me, is what the word "baby" means -- I have no problem at all with killing an insentient lump of protoplasm without a brain.

See Margaret Sangor and what her reasons for developing Planned Parenhood were.

The Truth About Margaret Sanger

http://www.blackinformant.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/quotes.pdf

 

[Dragon]

See Margaret Sangor and what her reasons for developing Planned Parenhood were.

I couldn't care less, frankly. No one is without flaws. One might as well condemn the emancipation of the slaves on the grounds that Lincoln was demonstrably a racist.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't have to prove intent, the facts are what they are.

Yes, you DO have to prove intent, because intent is what you're CLAIMING. You used the word "targeted." That implies that someone is deliberately, and with malice, INTENDING that lots of abortions be done among black pregnant women. You used the word "genocide." That most certainly DOES imply intent. There is no such thing as "accidental genocide."

Now, if you want to take back those words, and just say, "Oh, look, it seems that a disproportionate number of abortions are being done involving pregnant black women, wonder why that is?" then you're not claiming intent and so you don't have to show intent. But as things are, you do.

And your dichotonomy works both ways...you saying that they aren't babies doesn't mean they aren't.

Well, see, I have a certain thing in mind when I use the word "baby," and that certain thing is a human infant that has a functioning brain, among other things. So by that definition, yes, absolutely and without any doubt an embryo at conception is not a baby. Now, if you want to present a completely idiosyncratic, radical, and weird definition of the word, well, words are just tags, and I guess we could use the word "baby" to include an insentient lump of human protoplasm without a brain, but if we do then "baby" loses all of its emotional connotations.

Whatever word we put on it, though, an embryo at conception is a lump of insentient protoplasm without a brain. It has no thoughts. It has no feelings. It does not wiggle or crap its pants or burp or throw up or cry or make faces or laugh or shake rattles or put things in its mouth or wake its parents up in the middle of the night three or four times or do any of the other things that we think of babies as doing. And while I would have real qualms about killing a human organism that DOES do all of those things -- 'cause that, to me, is what the word "baby" means -- I have no problem at all with killing an insentient lump of protoplasm without a brain.

Ho hum.

Like I said, your intent is clear. Of course you won't own it, the people who propose genocide and support state-sanctioned killing never do.

 

[koshergrl]

PS...doesn't look like a glob of cells to me. Looks pretty complex and specialized...

Embryonic development of the nervous system

 

[koshergrl]

I wonder...do hangnails have neural tubes?

 

[Dragon]

Like I said, your intent is clear. Of course you won't own it, the people who propose genocide and support state-sanctioned killing never do.

And like I said, you are talking out your ass. You are making outlandish, highly insulting, incendiary claims and refusing to back them up, because you CAN'T back them up, because they are garbage.

If my intent is "clear" to you, it is not because it would be clear to any reasonable person possessed with the same information. It is, rather, "clear" to you because you are an irrational, dogmatic bigot. And that give you far more in common with real, historical genocidists than I will ever have.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't have to prove intent, the facts are what they are.

Yes, you DO have to prove intent, because intent is what you're CLAIMING. You used the word "targeted." That implies that someone is deliberately, and with malice, INTENDING that lots of abortions be done among black pregnant women. You used the word "genocide." That most certainly DOES imply intent. There is no such thing as "accidental genocide."

Now, if you want to take back those words, and just say, "Oh, look, it seems that a disproportionate number of abortions are being done involving pregnant black women, wonder why that is?" then you're not claiming intent and so you don't have to show intent. But as things are, you do.

And your dichotonomy works both ways...you saying that they aren't babies doesn't mean they aren't.

Well, see, I have a certain thing in mind when I use the word "baby," and that certain thing is a human infant that has a functioning brain, among other things. So by that definition, yes, absolutely and without any doubt an embryo at conception is not a baby. Now, if you want to present a completely idiosyncratic, radical, and weird definition of the word, well, words are just tags, and I guess we could use the word "baby" to include an insentient lump of human protoplasm without a brain, but if we do then "baby" loses all of its emotional connotations.

Whatever word we put on it, though, an embryo at conception is a lump of insentient protoplasm without a brain. It has no thoughts. It has no feelings. It does not wiggle or crap its pants or burp or throw up or cry or make faces or laugh or shake rattles or put things in its mouth or wake its parents up in the middle of the night three or four times or do any of the other things that we think of babies as doing. And while I would have real qualms about killing a human organism that DOES do all of those things -- 'cause that, to me, is what the word "baby" means -- I have no problem at all with killing an insentient lump of protoplasm without a brain.

Would that leftist hypocrite dimwits were so stringent in their evidentiary requirements when routinely accusing conservatives of complicity in genocide and various other atrocities.

It is funny, however, to hear such a scientific ignoramus spouting utter garbage as "fact" after demanding proof of something, though. Irony, thy name is liberal. Of course, the same could be said for idiocy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

PS...doesn't look like a glob of cells to me. Looks pretty complex and specialized...

Embryonic development of the nervous system

Leftist idiots tend to forget that, technically speaking, THEY are "blobs of cells" as well. As with most things that spew from their headholes, this is an utterly meaningless phrase.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm a bigot because I don't want black babies slaughtered?

 

[Dragon]

I'm a bigot because I don't want black babies slaughtered?

No, you're a bigot because you say I do.

 

[Dragon]

[Pro-choice advocates] tend to forget that, technically speaking, THEY are "blobs of cells" as well.

[Phrase in brackets inserted to replace infantile, pointless insult that adds nothing to the conversation and that Cecilie really should have been embarrassed to post.]

I am, however, a blog of cells WITH a functioning brain. I have feelings, I have thoughts, I have a personality. Having a personality makes me a person, and we have a cultural aversion to killing persons except in very restricted circumstances.

An embryo at conception is not a person, because it has no brain.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[Pro-choice advocates] tend to forget that, technically speaking, THEY are "blobs of cells" as well.

[Phrase in brackets inserted to replace infantile, pointless insult that adds nothing to the conversation and that Cecilie really should have been embarrassed to post.]

I am, however, a blog of cells WITH a functioning brain. I have feelings, I have thoughts, I have a personality. Having a personality makes me a person, and we have a cultural aversion to killing persons except in very restricted circumstances.

An embryo at conception is not a person, because it has no brain.

You deal with what I say the way I say it, or you puss out and don't deal. Either way, I don't require editing from garbage like you. Write your own goddamned posts and leave mine alone, *****.

Furthermore, I would personally challenge the whole "functioning brain" issue in your case, but that's actually irrelevant to the point. You don't seem to understand that words like "life" and "baby" are not defined by your paltry comprehension of what they are, or whatever false parameters you personally want to set on them. It doesn't matter that you "picture something different when you think of babies", nor does it matter that you want to impose some artificial construct of "personhood" on the question because you don't have the scientific acumen to understand and argue on the facts.

An embryo is a living human organism, and exactly what a living human organism is supposed to be at that stage of development. Trying to insist that he is not living, not human, or not an organism because he is not an ADULT - which is really all you're doing with your artificially-imposed requirements - is ludicrous on the face of it. Not, you understand, that I would expect anything else from you.

I also think you should probably back away from making any argument based on the erroneous assumption that YOU have a personality.

 

[Dragon]

You deal with what I say the way I say it

You don't say anything when you toss around pointless insults, and I felt that needed to be said. Or well, you do say something: you identify yourself as a poorly-socialized child. As I said, you really should be embarrassed to post such tripe.

Now, let's see if this latest post actually has any cognitive content to it, or if it's nothing BUT childish, pointless invective.

Hmm, it appears there is something real here. Good for you. Most of your post can be dismissed as unworthy of a response, but there seem to be a couple of exceptions.

words like "life" and "baby" are not defined by you.

Sure they are, especially when the way I'm defining them is the way most people think of them, and avoids the deliberate deception employed by anti-abortion people to apply the feelings people have for real babies that can be held and loved, to not-yet-babies that can't. And that is deceptive. If you describe the medical procedure properly, as the termination of a pregnancy or the abortion of an embryo, that doesn't generate much in the way of negative feelings. But if you mis-describe an embryo as a "baby," and call it "killing babies," then you generate a mental image of taking a newborn or a toddler and chopping its head off or some such.

Now, anyone with normal feelings is going to react badly to the image of chopping a toddler's head off, but nobody has the same instinctive reaction to aborting an embryo; that reaction has to be crafted, and it's crafted through deception. Think of how most people react to a spontaneous, natural abortion, also known as a miscarriage. One feels sorry -- for the mother, because the mother had hoped to have a baby and now she won't. But it isn't normal or instinctive to feel sorry for the fetus or embryo.

An embryo is a living human organism, and exactly what a living human organism is supposed to be at that stage of development. Trying to insist that he is not living, not human, or not an organism because he is not an ADULT

That's not what I'm doing. An embryo is certainly a living human organism. So is every cell of my body. But the cells of my body are not persons, and neither is an embryo.

The term "human life" is another deception, because human life, or when life begins, isn't what matters. What matters is when a person emerges from human life. Because we don't have any problem with destroying human life, not at all.

If a man cuts himself shaving, he destroys human life -- his own, to be exact. But he has not committed suicide, because he has not destroyed a person. If two guys get into a fight in a bar, and one of them breaks the other's nose, he has destroyed human life -- but again, he has not killed a person, and that means he has not committed murder or manslaughter (although he may have committed a lesser crime, depending on who threw the first punch).

An embryo at conception is definitely human life; so were the ovum and sperm cell before the conception occurred. So is every cell of the mother's body. But destroying human life isn't a problem; we do that all the time on a daily basis. What matters is whether we destroy a person. And an embryo is not a person.

 

[logical4u]

Neither side is more moral than the other, or holier than thou.

A lot on both sides pretend to be, but that's not the case.

I'm sure that's a comforting thought to someone trying desperately to rationalize killing babies. Truly, your only hope is if there's no morality at all, huh?

Overly emotional post. Big surprise. Exaggerated as usual.

Funny, the anti-war person claims people are "emotional" when they say killing children in the womb is murder (obviously she has NO problem with that), yet people fighting to defend themselves, their families and way of life, is terribly WRONG. They should just accept the bullies will, and lay down their arms to be butchered with their families.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm a bigot because I don't want black babies slaughtered?

No, you're a bigot because you say I do.

Calling somebody a bigot isn't the definition of bigotry, you retard.