Abortion should be banned in the United States

[Canon Shooter]

You have now defined literally everyone as "pro-choice" such as to make the distinctive label meaningless.

I've done no such thing, as there's no shortage right-wing zealots who would not allow for abortion under any circumstances.

But you? Yes, you're pro choice. You said so yourself...

 

[gfm7175]

Tell that to someone who's pregnant as a result of being raped...

It is trivial statistically, regardless of your appeal to emotion. Nobody has said that the trauma resulting from rape is trivial. Do try to be honest.

No, not "might not survive",

Yes, might not survive. You are now denying the existence of miracles. There are numerous people alive and perfectly healthy today who were "deemed not to survive".

and it's dishonest to suggest that's what I said.

No, it's what you said.

Let me remind you what I actually said:

"What if a fetus was so malformed that survival outside the womb was not even a remote possibility."

That's not what you originally said (you've changed what you've said multiple times now). You originally said, and I quote, "...if the fetus was so horrible malformed that survival outside the womb wouldn't be possible?" --- That is a belief determined by a doctor. A doctor isn't all knowing.

So, yeah, not "might not". It's "not even a remote possibility".

No, it is "might not" (your original statement). It is a BELIEF that survival "isn't possible". There are numerous people who were deemed "won't live" who are actually living perfectly healthy lives as we speak.

Your dishonesty is noted, though...

The dishonesty belongs to YOU, dude. YOU are the one who moved away from your original statement.

Answered...

You have now defined everyone as "pro-choice", thus making the distinction meaningless.

Again, the rarity of something doesn't mean it should be ignored...

Why hyper focus on something that basically never happens instead of focusing on something that almost always happens?

Again, just because something is rare doesn't mean it should be ignored, yet that's exactly what pro-life pinheads want to do.

So now I'm "pro-life" again? Make up your mind, dude...

They want to totally ignore it, and that's evidenced by the fact that they'll never bring it up...

They want to discuss what the actual problem is, which is the condoning of MURDERING UNBORN CHILDREN FOR CONVENIENCE.

Do you condone the killing of living humans who have not committed a crime nor have expressed any desire to die?

 

[playtime]

Dear playtime,
You are still a blatantly dishonest, imbecilic, fuckstick socialist pro-abort (man that all seems quite redundant) who doesn’t know the definition of the word “hypocrisy.”

**** you - taxes should pay for none of those things, none of the time, for anyone. Murder should also be banned all of the time for everyone.

The same standard, in both cases, for everyone, on two very different political questions that have no relation.

Consistency is not hypocrisy.

Stop being a dishonest piece of shit.

Very sincerely,
Someone with at least triple your IQ.

^^^

or:

 

[playtime]

We are doing this already. State, local and the federal governments keep increasing the number of resources given to what you typed. A collapse is going to be not nice.

then don't blame the pro choice ideology when it happens.

 

[Blaster]

then don't blame the pro choice ideology when it happens.

There is only pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Pro-choice is just a cop out.

 

[Canon Shooter]

It is trivial statistically, regardless of your appeal to emotion. Nobody has said that the trauma resulting from rape is trivial. Do try to be honest.

I am absolutely honest.

You just don't like inconvenient facts...

Yes, might not survive.

Your resolve at being dishonest is mind-numbingly profound.

I did not say "might", and every time you try to change what I said you only make yourself look more pathetic...

You are now denying the existence of miracles.

So a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term because there might be a miracle?

******* seriously?

Well, you say you permit a woman the CHOICE of terminating a pregnancy in the case of the woman's life being in jeopardy.

Why not allow for a potential miracle in that instance?

There are numerous people alive and perfectly healthy today who were "deemed not to survive".

I'm talking about a horribly malformed fetus; one where, let's say, the brain or the lungs or the heart failed to develop.

Give me examples of those people who are among the "numerous people alive"...

No, it's what you said.

If you insist on being a lying scumbag, you'll be treated with that level of requisite respect.

That's not what you originally said (you've changed what you've said multiple times now). You originally said, and I quote, "...if the fetus was so horrible malformed that survival outside the womb wouldn't be possible?" --- That is a belief determined by a doctor. A doctor isn't all knowing.

Perhaps not, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that an obstetrician knows a **** of a lot more about horribly malformed fetuses than some zealot who believes that relying on miracles is a sound option...

No, it is "might not" (your original statement). It is a BELIEF that survival "isn't possible".

A "belief" which is based on experience.
Believe it or not, we have technology which can allow a doctor to determine whether a fetus will be viable outside the womb. They can determine whether or not vital (and that means "necessary to survive") organs are undeveloped or absent...

There are numerous people who were deemed "won't live" who are actually living perfectly healthy lives as we speak.

Give me a single example of someone who was born with a horribly malformed brain or lungs or a heart who is living a "perfectly healthy" life.

I challenge you. Do it. You say it's so, so throw me a miracle. Just one...

The dishonesty belongs to YOU, dude. YOU are the one who moved away from your original statement.

The dishonesty comes from you being too big a chickenshit to simply answer the original question...

You have now defined everyone as "pro-choice", thus making the distinction meaningless.

No, I haven't. You've defined yourself as pro-choice, not me...

Why hyper focus on something that basically never happens instead of focusing on something that almost always happens?

Because it still happens. In fact, the fact that it is so rare is exactly why it should be discussed and not ignored, as is clearly what you'd like to do...

So now I'm "pro-life" again? Make up your mind, dude...

Oh, I'll grant you some "settle in" time. I knnow you're still coming to grips with the fact that you're pro-life...

They want to discuss what the actual problem is, which is the condoning of MURDERING UNBORN CHILDREN FOR CONVENIENCE.

The emotional approach of calling it "murder" is wasted on me. It's not murder. Being a law abiding guy, I know what murder is, and it's not abortion...

Do you condone the killing of living humans who have not committed a crime nor have expressed any desire to die?

Of course not. That would be stupid.

Why would you allow a woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy if taking it to term could end her life?

 

[Canon Shooter]

There is only pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Pro-choice is just a cop out.

Horseshit.

If we can agree that "pro-life" is to take the position that every pregnancy should be carried to term.

Accordingly, "pro-abortion" would be the advocacy of terminating every single pregnancy and carrying no pregnancy to term.

I know of no one who's doing that...

 

[gfm7175]

No, I haven't. You've defined yourself as pro-choice, not me...

No, you did.

Oh, I'll grant you some "settle in" time. I knnow you're still coming to grips with the fact that you're pro-life...

So I'm "pro-life"?? You still can't make up your mind... and you've still defined absolutely everyone as "pro-choice".

The emotional approach of calling it "murder" is wasted on me. It's not murder. Being a law abiding guy, I know what murder is, and it's not abortion...

Abortion is murder.

Of course not. That would be stupid.

So all abortion should be outlawed outside of your list of permitted exceptions?

 

[Canon Shooter]

No, you did.

I asked you if you would allow a woman to choose an abortion in certain circumstances.

You indicated that you would.

Like it or not, that's the very definition of "pro choice"...

So I'm "pro-life"?? You still can't make up your mind...

Like I said, you're still getting used to the reality that you're pro choice, so I can allow for those little slip ups...

and you've still defined absolutely everyone as "pro-choice".

Hardly, and saying it doesn't make it so.

There are people who want no exceptions. Period. No matter the reason, abortion is completely off the table for these people.

How have I defined them as "pro choice"?

Abortion is murder.

Sorry, but it's not. Your attempts to emotionalize the issue isn't too compelling...

So all abortion should be outlawed outside of your list of permitted exceptions?

I've never said anything remotely similar to that.

Why have you decided to continue with your blatant dishonesty?

Wrap your head around this: You and I both don't want abortions to be a thing. We both detest abortion. The difference between us is that you want the government to step in and legislate someone's morality, and that has failed every single time it's been tried...

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

.

Sister Joan is a shitty authoritarian and a horrible human being. She clearly doesn’t give a **** about human rights.

Meanwhile Jesus advised people to give voluntarily, unlike whatever this shitty evil nun “thinks.” Jesus didn’t advocate for just having the Romans provide everything cradle to grave and raising taxes to do it.

 

[gfm7175]

I asked you if you would allow a woman to choose an abortion in certain circumstances.

You indicated that you would.

Like it or not, that's the very definition of "pro choice"...

No, it isn't.

Like I said, you're still getting used to the reality that you're pro choice, so I can allow for those little slip ups...

I'm not pro-choice.

Hardly, and saying it doesn't make it so.

You should take your own advice.

There are people who want no exceptions. Period. No matter the reason, abortion is completely off the table for these people.

Who?

How have I defined them as "pro choice"?

RQAA.

Sorry, but it's not. Your attempts to emotionalize the issue isn't too compelling...

Yes, it is. Continued projection.

I've never said anything remotely similar to that.

What ARE you saying?? ... What IS your position? That's what I'm asking you.

Why have you decided to continue with your blatant dishonesty?

Your issue, not mine.

Wrap your head around this: You and I both don't want abortions to be a thing. We both detest abortion.

Lie. You condone abortion (see below).

The difference between us is that you want the government to step in and legislate someone's morality,

YOU want that too, and it's even a necessary thing to do (as it can't be avoided). Murder laws are laws legislating morality. Theft laws are laws legislating morality.

and that has failed every single time it's been tried...

No, it's worked quite well, actually (see above).

 

[Canon Shooter]

Sister Joan is a shitty authoritarian and a horrible human being. She clearly doesn’t give a **** about human rights.

Well, the Catholic Press Association sure seems to like her.

What make her an authoritarian?

 

[Canon Shooter]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is...

I'm not pro-choice.

I asked you if you would allow a woman to make the CHOICE to obtain an abortion in a certain situation, and you said you would.

How is that not pro-choice?

You should take your own advice.

You admitted you were pro-choice.

You just hate the fact that reality just smacked you in the face...

Who?

Nice try, but a fail.

Earlier, I asked about a profoundly malformed fetus; barin, lungs, heart or other vital organs, and you said something along the lines of I was discounting the possibility of a miracle. You followed that up by saying that a lot of people like that are living healthy lives.

I asked you who those people were. I asked for even one example, and you've avoided that question like the plague.

So, yeah, you can eat a dick if you think I'm going to answer your question "Who?"

RQAA.

Meaningless to me...

Yes, it is. Continued projection.

Nope...

What ARE you saying?? ... What IS your position? That's what I'm asking you.

Do you have a learning disability?

I've stated my position several times in this thread...

Your issue, not mine.

Insomuch as I detest scumbag liars like you, yeah, I guess it is my issue...

Lie. You condone abortion (see below).

I don't want the government making the decision. That's not the same thing as condoning it at all...

YOU want that too, and it's even a necessary thing to do (as it can't be avoided). Murder laws are laws legislating morality. Theft laws are laws legislating morality.

Very different things.

Murder and theft are illegal. If you kill a person or steal from them, you should be punished because you've broken the law.

But if a woman goes to New York to get an abortion, she should not be punished because she's broken no law.

If someone kills you, that person has adversely affected your life (obviously). If I steal all of your money from you, I've adversely affected your life. If a woman in Portland gets an abortion, the impact on you is nil; nada, zip-squat-shit...

No, it's worked quite well, actually (see above).

Well, seeing as I've ground that silly argument into the ground with my boot heel, you'll really have to try harder...

 

[Esdraelon]

I will openly argue that it ought to be banned.

I do not support abortion but your argument would be just about as effective if you said "murder should be made illegal in the country". It's a wonderful sentiment but so long as human nature exists, neither of those will ever be truly outlawed. I am extremely pleased that Roe was overturned but I refuse to be a hypocrite and now say the feds should outlaw the procedure nationally. This issue should remain within the purview of the states. I also believe that no state should pass laws to make an abortion-seeker who travels outside their state to have one, a criminal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am pro-life,

So are those who support and defend a woman’s right to privacy.

The issue of abortion won’t be resolved by unwarranted government excess and overreach at the expense of individual liberty – more government, bigger government isn’t the answer.

 

[gfm7175]

Very different things.

Nope. The very same thing.

Murder and theft are illegal.

... because they have been deemed "immoral". Hence, they are laws based on morality, something that you claim to not support. Additionally, in my state of Wisconsin, abortion is currently illegal outside of the exception of saving the life of the mother.

If you kill a person or steal from them, you should be punished because you've broken the law.

... and in Wisconsin, if you have an abortion for any reason besides protecting the life of the mother, you should be punished because you've broken the law.

But if a woman goes to New York to get an abortion, she should not be punished because she's broken no law.

But if a woman goes to Wisconsin to get an abortion, she should be punished because she's broken the law.

If someone kills you, that person has adversely affected your life (obviously).

Right. Thus, if someone kills an unborn child, that person has adversely affected that child's life (obviously).

If I steal all of your money from you, I've adversely affected your life.

Right. And if someone kills an unborn child, that person has adversely affected that child's life.

If a woman in Portland gets an abortion, the impact on you is nil; nada, zip-squat-shit...

What if I was that woman's husband? What if I was that woman's boyfriend? What if I was that woman's family member? It might very well have an impact on me, actually. And what about the impact upon the child being aborted?

Well, seeing as I've ground that silly argument into the ground with my boot heel, you'll really have to try harder...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you've done nothing of the sort... In fact, I've just stomped YOUR silly argumentation into the ground with MY boot heel (see above).

 

[Canon Shooter]

Nope. The very same thing.

Nope. Quite different...

... because they have been deemed "immoral".

By who?

Do you want your government dictating to you what's moral and what's not?

Sex before marriage is considered immoral by many, as is extra-marital sex.

Should we make those illegal, too? If so, why? If not, why not?

I won't hold my breath waiting for an actual answer, because you and I both know you're going to dodge and obfuscate...

Hence, they are laws based on morality, something that you claim to not support. Additionally, in my state of Wisconsin, abortion is currently illegal outside of the exception of saving the life of the mother.

Again, this goes back to the question of who decides what's moral.

I was 17 years old when I got laid for the first time. After that, I couldn't get laid enough.

Immoral? Maybe in the eyes of some, sure. But if premarital sex was made illegal because of it being immoral, I'd still be in prison...

...and in Wisconsin, if you have an abortion for any reason besides protecting the life of the mother, you should be punished because you've broken the law.

Um, okay.
Why would a woman who wants an abortion go to Wisconsin? That'd be stupid...

But if a woman goes to Wisconsin to get an abortion, she should be punished because she's broken the law.

Again, why would a woman go to Wisconsin to get an abortion?

Right. Thus, if someone kills an unborn child, that person has adversely affected that child's life (obviously).

And this goes back to when is it a "child".

For me, it's when it's viable outside the womb. If a woman has an abortion at ten weeks, there's not a whole Helluva lot there which would survive outside the womb...

Right. And if someone kills an unborn child, that person has adversely affected that child's life.

And, again, this comes down to morality, and not legality...

What if I was that woman's husband? What if I was that woman's boyfriend?

I swear to God, I thought you were a woman. My apologies.

If you were that woman's husband, I would have to imagine that there would be a discussion between you and your wife if she wanted to terminate the pregnancy; the same if it was your girlfriend, so that's a VERY different scenario than what I stated. You're just afraid to acknowledge that a woman having an abortion in Portland has zero effect on YOUR life, living wherever you are and doing whatever it is you do.

Think about it: somewhere in this country, it's quite possible that a woman has had an abortion as I've been typing this. You don't know about it, and it has no effect on you. Not even a little bit. You'll never acknowledge that, though, because doing so would hurt your argument and help support mine...

What if I was that woman's family member? It might very well have an impact on me, actually.

Sorry, not your call. You could express an opinion, but that's it. You get no say, nor should you. And, again, you're trying to argue something completely different than what I said and it's making you look silly...

And what about the impact upon the child being aborted?

I think we've covered that ad nauseum...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you've done nothing of the sort... In fact, I've just stomped YOUR silly argumentation into the ground with MY boot heel (see above).

Boot? C'mon, man, admit it. You prefer pumps.

Here's how you can tell you're a failure: You've fail to address the points I made and start to argue your "what if" scenarios which have no bearing on the argument I made.

But, hey, I'm a fair guy. Lemme' give you another chance:

How are you, gfm7175, adversely affected by a woman you don't know, who lives in another state, terminating her pregnancy?

You're not affected at all. Prove me wrong...

 

[Coyote]

There is only pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Pro-choice is just a cop out.

So is pro-life.

 

[gfm7175]

By who?

The People, via their elected representatives.

Do you want your government dictating to you what's moral and what's not?

The government ALREADY DOES THIS... That's my whole point, dude. You are literally whining about something that ALREADY HAPPENS and CANNOT BE AVOIDED.

Sex before marriage is considered immoral by many, as is extra-marital sex.

Right. And so is murder and theft, and those are laws that The People have enacted via their elected representatives.

Should we make those illegal, too? If so, why? If not, why not?

Maybe we should...

I won't hold my breath waiting for an actual answer, because you and I both know you're going to dodge and obfuscate...

I've given you direct answers this whole time. You are describing yourself. You are dodging away from my whole point that you yourself already accept the premise of "legislating morality" because you support murder and theft laws. You've already lost this particular discussion, dude.

Again, this goes back to the question of who decides what's moral.

I'd say that the Christian God is the objective standard for what is moral, but that's just me.

I was 17 years old when I got laid for the first time. After that, I couldn't get laid enough.

I don't care.

Immoral? Maybe in the eyes of some, sure.

Right.

But if premarital sex was made illegal because of it being immoral, I'd still be in prison...

Right.

Um, okay.
Why would a woman who wants an abortion go to Wisconsin? That'd be stupid...

Right... but my point is that according to your own logic, one should be punished for abortion (at least in Wisconsin) because one has broken the law.

Again, why would a woman go to Wisconsin to get an abortion?

See above.

And this goes back to when is it a "child".

From the very moment of fertilization (conception). At that point, a new human life (a child) has been formed.

For me, it's when it's viable outside the womb.

So what is developing inside of the mother's womb for 9 months if not her child? What comes out of her womb after 9 months if not her child?

If a woman has an abortion at ten weeks, there's not a whole Helluva lot there which would survive outside the womb...

Irrelevant. What is inside of her womb is still human life (a child), regardless.

And, again, this comes down to morality, and not legality...

In Wisconsin, it comes down to both morality AND legality.

I swear to God, I thought you were a woman. My apologies.

Meh. My gender is irrelevant.

If you were that woman's husband, I would have to imagine that there would be a discussion between you and your wife if she wanted to terminate the pregnancy; the same if it was your girlfriend, so that's a VERY different scenario than what I stated.

No, it's not. It refutes your BS that you spouted.

You're just afraid to acknowledge that a woman having an abortion in Portland has zero effect on YOUR life, living wherever you are and doing whatever it is you do.

You are now shifting the goalposts from what you previously stated. You seem to really enjoy doing this.

Think about it: somewhere in this country, it's quite possible that a woman has had an abortion as I've been typing this. You don't know about it, and it has no effect on you. Not even a little bit. You'll never acknowledge that, though, because doing so would hurt your argument and help support mine...

See above.

Sorry, not your call. You could express an opinion, but that's it. You get no say, nor should you. And, again, you're trying to argue something completely different than what I said and it's making you look silly...

Continued goalpost shifting. You were talking about whether or not it would affect me, and that's what I responded to.

I think we've covered that ad nauseum...

Nope. You haven't made a single mention about it in our exchanges... You've been ignoring that part of the discussion.

Boot? C'mon, man, admit it. You prefer pumps.

Here's how you can tell you're a failure: You've fail to address the points I made and start to argue your "what if" scenarios which have no bearing on the argument I made.

But, hey, I'm a fair guy. Lemme' give you another chance:

How are you, gfm7175, adversely affected by a woman you don't know, who lives in another state, terminating her pregnancy?

You're not affected at all. Prove me wrong...

Repetitive question already answered (RQAA).

 

[Canon Shooter]

The People, via their elected representatives.

So, our elected officials determine for us what is and is not moral?

The government ALREADY DOES THIS... That's my whole point, dude. You are literally whining about something that ALREADY HAPPENS and CANNOT BE AVOIDED.

Then why haven't they outlawed extra-marital sex?

Right. And so is murder and theft, and those are laws that The People have enacted via their elected representatives.

But not everything which is immoral should be illegal...

Maybe we should...

And there's you, being a monumental failure at explaining the "why" part of the question...

I've given you direct answers this whole time.

Horse shit. If you were, you'd have explained the "why" behind your answer of "Maybe we should"...

You are describing yourself. You are dodging away from my whole point that you yourself already accept the premise of "legislating morality" because you support murder and theft laws. You've already lost this particular discussion, dude.

Hardly. Unless you take the position that every immoral act should be illegal, you're a hypocrite...

I'd say that the Christian God is the objective standard for what is moral, but that's just me.

"Objective"??

A Christian God is about as subjective as it gets

Right... but my point is that according to your own logic, one should be punished for abortion (at least in Wisconsin) because one has broken the law.

Sure, why wouldn't she?

Then again, I didn't mention Wisconsin, you did, simply because you can't argue my point about a woman in Portland without your ignorant "What if I'm her husband" bullshit scenarios. You're NOT her husband, and you KNOW you're not affected by it...

From the very moment of fertilization (conception). At that point, a new human life (a child) has been formed.

We disagree, although I can acknowledge (and I'm assuming here) that your faith dictates that belief...

So what is developing inside of the mother's womb for 9 months if not her child? What comes out of her womb after 9 months if not her child?

Do you understand what "viable" is?

In Wisconsin, it comes down to both morality AND legality.

And if I were talking about what moral and legal in Wisconsin, you might actually have a point.

But I'm not, so you don't...

No, it's not. It refutes your BS that you spouted.

Wow.
I asked how a woman getting an abortion in Portland affects you and, instead of actually answering the question (which you remain being a pathetic failure at) You want me to consider "What if" scenarios like you being her husband or her boyfriend. Sorry, Chief, but that's not reality.

You can't answer my question because you're afraid to answer it honestly...

You are now shifting the goalposts from what you previously stated. You seem to really enjoy doing this.

Says the "What if I were her husband" guy...

See above.

Continued goalpost shifting. You were talking about whether or not it would affect me, and that's what I responded to.

No, you didn't. Please stop being such an idiot.

REAL CLEAR QUESTION: How does a woman that you don't know, getting an abortion in Portland, adversely affect you in Wisconsin?

That's the last time I'm going to ask. If you come back with some "What if I'm her boyfriend" bullshit I'll be left with no option than to label you a ******* retard and mock and taunt you.

I already know you won't answer it. I know that because I've asked it numerous times and each time you've cowardly avoided providing a direct, succinct answer...

Nope. You haven't made a single mention about it in our exchanges... You've been ignoring that part of the discussion.

Do you actually know how to read? I have to ask that because I've stated it several times...