'Abortion' and religious strawmen

[Father Time]

I'll pass.

FT, one wonders if you award the present of "persondom" to those who are disabled, diminished capacity, or ugly?

Do we get to kill all those we find offensive? Because I have a list.....

... That's the dumbest straw man I've ever heard. How the **** can you possibly be offended at a fetus which can barely express itself (if at all)?

And please do me a favor and don't use PC jargon. I honestly have no idea what person of diminished capacity means. Retarded? Handicapped? Midget?

 

[Kalam]

I've always opposed abortion on non-religious grounds. In addition to causing the often unnecessary destruction of a life or a potential life, abortion can encourage sexual irresponsibility. If you fail to take advantage of all the readily available methods of birth control such as condoms, the pill, etc., you shouldn't be able to simply avoid the consequences of your irresponsibility by terminating your pregnancy. If you have sex, pregnancy may result. You knew that going into it. Live with the consequences instead of destroying a potential life.

Abortion should obviously be an option in cases of rape or serious threats to the mother's health.

 

[Father Time]

kalam I wonder how do you feel about the morning after pill?

 

[Kalam]

Oh, no, it didn't fly over my head. However, my application did over yours..so I will dumb it down even more for you in the future.

It will be difficult, but I'm pretty sure I'm up for the task.

I have the utmost confidence in your ability to make things dumber.

 

[Kalam]

kalam I wonder how do you feel about the morning after pill?

I think taking it is responsible unless you're trying to become pregnant.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'll pass.

FT, one wonders if you award the present of "persondom" to those who are disabled, diminished capacity, or ugly?

Do we get to kill all those we find offensive? Because I have a list.....

... That's the dumbest straw man I've ever heard. How the **** can you possibly be offended at a fetus which can barely express itself (if at all)?

And please do me a favor and don't use PC jargon. I honestly have no idea what person of diminished capacity means. Retarded? Handicapped? Midget?

Wow. Your intelligence blows me away. Whether or not it's PC jargon, it's pretty self-explanatory, and it's the recognized term among people who actually deal with those people.

And you proved my point. If a person doesn't have the capacity to offend, they don't really exist.

 

[AllieBaba]

So to paraphrase, once again for the village idiots....if you're beneath our radar, you deserve to die.

 

[Father Time]

I'll pass.

FT, one wonders if you award the present of "persondom" to those who are disabled, diminished capacity, or ugly?

Do we get to kill all those we find offensive? Because I have a list.....

... That's the dumbest straw man I've ever heard. How the **** can you possibly be offended at a fetus which can barely express itself (if at all)?

And please do me a favor and don't use PC jargon. I honestly have no idea what person of diminished capacity means. Retarded? Handicapped? Midget?

Wow. Your intelligence blows me away. Whether or not it's PC jargon, it's pretty self-explanatory, and it's the recognized term among people who actually deal with those people.

And you proved my point. If a person doesn't have the capacity to offend, they don't really exist.

Where the hell did I say that they don't exist? All I said was they can't be offensive nothing more.

And no person of diminished capacity is not self-explanatory, like all PC crap it's vague. It can easily apply to the retarded, the cripples, or to midgets.
So can you tell me what it means in lay-mans terms.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh, no, it didn't fly over my head. However, my application did over yours..so I will dumb it down even more for you in the future.

It will be difficult, but I'm pretty sure I'm up for the task.

I have the utmost confidence in your ability to make things dumber.

I'm used to dealing with diminished capacity and retarded people. Which is why you're glad I have the ability.

While an idiot can never speak up, a genius can always speak down.

I got the highest score possible on the comprehension segment of my sat. THat's why I'm good at explaining things to idiots.

I'm pleased to be of some service to those who are less cerebreally endowed.

 

[AllieBaba]

... That's the dumbest straw man I've ever heard. How the **** can you possibly be offended at a fetus which can barely express itself (if at all)?

And please do me a favor and don't use PC jargon. I honestly have no idea what person of diminished capacity means. Retarded? Handicapped? Midget?

Wow. Your intelligence blows me away. Whether or not it's PC jargon, it's pretty self-explanatory, and it's the recognized term among people who actually deal with those people.

And you proved my point. If a person doesn't have the capacity to offend, they don't really exist.

Where the hell did I say that they don't exist? All I said was they can't be offensive nothing more.

And no person of diminished capacity is not self-explanatory, like all PC crap it's vague. It can easily apply to the retarded, the cripples, or to midgets.
So can you tell me what it means in lay-mans terms.

Oh, so you mean one doesn't even have to be offensive to deserve death, if one is deemed to be unnecessary.

Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt; it's a terrible flaw in my character.

 

[JBeukema]

No just your idiotic claim that keeping abortion legal is somehow forcing morality onto people since they don't have to actually get one nor do they have to concern themselves with people who do.

What you fail to grasp is that the arguments for abortion- 'forcing' a woman to bear a child, an 'invasion of her body', restricting 'her right to choose' are moral arguments. They are arguing from their morality, same as the other side. Just ask them why it is 'good' to 'protect' her 'right to choose' or why 'violating' her body or 'infringing her rights' is 'bad'.

Clearly you're not smart enough to see that, so I'll thank you to excuse yourself from intelligent discussion.

Quit trying to change their subject.

I'm not the one who brought it up

I was refuting your bone-headed idea that legalized abortion somehow forces morality onto those who don't like it.

It is in that it forces others to bend to their morality and surrender their own. The abortion industry and their useful idiots (eg: neofeminists) try to force others to accept the described leftist moral arguments and legislate them, while forcing others to surrender their own moral, ethical, and legal arguments for protecting human life.

If it's legal you can still follow the idea that it's wrong and immoral and choose to not do it

Wrong. If one considered the protection of life moral, then one cannot act on one'
s morality; instead, one must end to the amorality of the libertines.

, same as pornography, or racist jokes. Nobody's forcing your hand nor forcing you to live with the mentality that abortion's ok

This 'noone's forcing you to do it' argument is bullshit and has already shwn to be such. Replace 'abortion' with rape, murder, theft, or just about anything else and you'll realize that is, ljust like 'making it illegal won't stop it' is actually an argument borrowed wholesale from anarchist ideology- and which support only anarchist philosophies when their logical implications are followed..

FETUSES CANNOT CONSENT.

Interesting. You said that homicide and the taking of another's things are unjustifuiable without consent and unjustifiable without it. This is the same argument that says sex with a consenting woman is okay and sex with an non-consenting woman is not. So, the inverse- that sex, the taking of property, and the ending of life without such consent is unjustifiable- must al;so apply to, well, the ending of life. (Very redundant, but apparently things must be explained to you as though you were a child.)

Now, since you say that a child cannot give consent, that means that sex with a child and the ending of a child's life are unjustifiable (see the above). Yes you cite the child's inability to consent as evidence that ending the child's life is somehow justifiable? Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how many milliseconds into the pregnancy this somehow goes from justifiable to unjustifiable and how you reached this conclusion.

Although the whole reason for responding to you was the whole dumb idea that pro-choicers are somehow forcing morality onto you by keeping abortion illegal.

Wait, so no 'pro-choicers' want to keep abortion illegal? You are confused, aren't you?

And no person of diminished capacity is not self-explanatory, like all PC crap it's vague.

Really? it seems to be pretty well understood when it comes to matters of law

 

[JBeukema]

Oh, so you mean one doesn't even have to be offensive to deserve death, if one is deemed to be unnecessary..

The state has no further use for you...

Apparently the only crime worse than obsolescence is to be unnecessary or undesired

 

[AllieBaba]

By all means, feel free to come to my home and try to dispatch me so you will be that much closer to the New World Order.

Of course, I'll be waiting....

And btw, I don't count my value to the "state" as superior to my value as an individual.

Re-read the definition of fascism there, genius.

 

[Father Time]

It is in that it forces others to bend to their morality and surrender their own. The abortion industry and their useful idiots (eg: neofeminists) try to force others to accept the described leftist moral arguments and legislate them, while forcing others to surrender their own moral, ethical, and legal arguments for protecting human life.

It's not legislating morality, it's a lack of legislation. Also there's no legislation against opinion so you can still have ethical moral legal arguments against someone having an abortion just like you're doing right now. It's really simple you have a right to have whatever ******* opinion you want even if your opinion doesn't become law of the land.

Oh and please point me to a widespread movement trying to get people to have pro-choice beliefs by force.

Although that line of reasoning 'if I don't get to decide what's moral for everyone it's legislating moral against me' is stupid. Replace the word abortion with the word pornography in your "oh those bastards are forcing me to accept they're morality woe is me" tripe (also human life with family values). What's the difference between the two arguments?

Wrong. If one considered the protection of life moral, then one cannot act on one'
s morality; instead, one must end to the amorality of the libertines.

Well gee the pro-lifers sure have no trouble bothering and judging abortion doctors or their patients. How is that not acting on their belief

This 'noone's forcing you to do it' argument is bullshit and has already shwn to be such. Replace 'abortion' with rape, murder, theft, or just about anything else and you'll realize that is, ljust like 'making it illegal won't stop it' is actually an argument borrowed wholesale from anarchist ideology- and which support only anarchist philosophies when their logical implications are followed..

By itself it's worthless and bullshit. But couple it with 'and it doesn't effect you in any significant way' and that's your reason. You don't have to do it and it has very little effect on you, just like the myriad of things that we have legal that people have serious objections to morally. I take it you don't want to ban all those things as well.

Interesting. You said that homicide and the taking of another's things are unjustifuiable without consent and unjustifiable without it. This is the same argument that says sex with a consenting woman is okay and sex with an non-consenting woman is not. So, the inverse- that sex, the taking of property, and the ending of life without such consent is unjustifiable- must al;so apply to, well, the ending of life. (Very redundant, but apparently things must be explained to you as though you were a child.)

Now, since you say that a child cannot give consent, that means that sex with a child and the ending of a child's life are unjustifiable (see the above). Yes you cite the child's inability to consent as evidence that ending the child's life is somehow justifiable? Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how many milliseconds into the pregnancy this somehow goes from justifiable to unjustifiable and how you reached this conclusion.

Spare me your incessant BS straw man, you demanded consent from a fetus, I told you that it cannot be done.

I never actually sided with abortion should be legal.

Although the whole reason for responding to you was the whole dumb idea that pro-choicers are somehow forcing morality onto you by keeping abortion illegal.

Wait, so no 'pro-choicers' want to keep abortion illegal? You are confused, aren't you?

You know blasting someone for making typos is really ******* desperate.

And no person of diminished capacity is not self-explanatory, like all PC crap it's vague.

Really? it seems to be pretty well understood when it comes to matters of law

Your point being? Are you completely fluent in legalese?

 

[Care4all]

in any given year, less than 2% of the female population of child bearing age, in this country has an abortion....

i just read that....(guttmacher institute figures) yet many many more women support choice?

so, it isn't as though the female population on the whole is irresponsible or just Ho's as some have implied in these type debates...

 

[Anguille]

Live with the consequences instead of destroying a potential life.

Abortion should obviously be an option in cases of rape or serious threats to the mother's health.

Why? Isn't the consequence of rape also a potential life?

 

[JBeukema]

It's not legislating morality, it's a lack of legislation.

Actually, it's more legislation. Willful homicide outside of self-defense, war, and similar extenuating circumstances is already illegal. By definition, this would include the unborn by simple logical extrapalation of its implications; for the abortion industry to survive required a legal ruling that added law by making an exception for killers who killed only their own children, did so quickly enough, and who of a certain sex.

By itself it's worthless and bullshit. But couple it with 'and it doesn't effect you in any significant way' and that's your reason.

If I kill you, it has no effect on my neighbor. If I find a lone shut-in and burn her to death, it effects noone. You are effectively arguing that one's right to life and legal protection thereof it is dependent upon how many friends and family members one has who will mourn their loss; of course, you ignore the father, who must stand by while his child is killed and has no legal means of stopping it.

You fail to extrapolate the logical implications of your arguments. That is why your ideology is so contradictory and inconsistent.

{Y}ou demanded consent from a fetus, I told you that it cannot be done.

Actually, you did. It was you who set consent as the standard by which homicide can be deemed justifiable (interesting that you don't consider self-defense to be justifiable)

 

[AllieBaba]

The numbers of rape-induced rape and the necessity of aborting a child to save the life of the mother are so tiny as to be inconsequential.

Besides which, those women have NEVER been denied the option of having D&C's and abortions.

It's a tiny issue which because it is the only one that can come close to justify the slaughter of innocents, the left has glommed onto, making it appear to be a much bigger problem than it is, or ever has been.

 

[Care4all]

It's not legislating morality, it's a lack of legislation.

Actually, it's more legislation. Willful homicide outside of self-defense, war, and similar extenuating circumstances is already illegal. By definition, this would include the unborn by simple logical extrapalation of its implications; for the abortion industry to survive required a legal ruling that added law by making an exception for killers who killed only their own children, did so quickly enough, and who of a certain sex.

By itself it's worthless and bullshit. But couple it with 'and it doesn't effect you in any significant way' and that's your reason.

If I kill you, it has no effect on my neighbor. If I find a lone shut-in and burn her to death, it effects noone. You are effectively arguing that one's right to life and legal protection thereof it is dependent upon how many friends and family members one has who will mourn their loss; of course, you ignore the father, who must stand by while his child is killed and has no legal means of stopping it.

You fail to extrapolate the logical implications of your arguments. That is why your ideology is so contradictory and inconsistent.

{Y}ou demanded consent from a fetus, I told you that it cannot be done.

Actually, you did. It was you who set consent as the standard by which homicide can be deemed justifiable (interesting that you don't consider self-defense to be justifiable)

the amount of men that want their girl to keep the baby while she wants to abort are so MINUSCULE that it doesn't even register 1 percentage point....imo and MOST MEN of the women that are aborting, want the girl to abort... that they got pregnant....

Maybe if this attitude of the men that impregnated the girls was different and more DID WANT to have their baby, abortions would be reduced? I would think that if these girls had a partner in the pregnancy and future rearing of the child, this part of their fear of pregnancy could be subdued....? I dunno...?

I think abortion can be a copout for men as well....and they FOR THE MOST PART, are perfectly fine with it....(with the exception to the rule, with just a handful or 2....)

What do you think? Do you think most single men that got a girl pregnant want to have this child of theirs?

Care

 

[Yukon]

I have invested in several Abortion Clinics and I have made a lot of money. My investments will increase in value now that Obama has permitted Stem Cell Research. Bravo Obama !