pro-life people, is abortion okay here?

[sangha]

sangha assumed:


Careful there, Sangha. You've allowed your prejudices about people who question abortion to get the better of you. I never mentioned anything about God or whether or not s/he should be involved in the abortion debate. In fact, I consider myself a libertarian - you've pretty much gotten every single thing about me wrong by assuming based on a very short post...and made yourself look like a bit of an ass in the process.

What I asked was - if I am willing to say that ending a life in its very earliest stages should be legal is some circumstances...why can't people at least acknowledge that they are, in fact, ending a life?

Now, take a deep breath and try again...without the thinly-veiled prejudices regarding Conservatives and Christians.

I'm not buying what you're trying to sell

There is no reason to limit abortions in any way without bringing God into it.

And you have a strange idea of libertarianism if you think it supports giving the power to decide who has a baby to the govt.

And abortions end pregnancies.

That's weird cuz I know some people who don't believe in God, but they are certainly against murder, and heck some of them DO consider abortion to be murder, even though God didn't tell them that.

The fact that you know lots of stupid people does not surprise anyone, I'm sure.

But I noticed that you couldn't justify the "abortion is murder" without bringing God into it.

 

[sangha]

No, THE definition is different than yours

Actually, the definition is different than Wikipedia's.

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: \ˈchī(-&#601ld\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren \ˈchil-drən, -dərn\
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jaṭhara belly
Date: before 12th century
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3usually childe \ˈchī(-&#601ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : descendant
5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6 : product, result <barbed wire…is truly a child of the plains — W. P. Webb>
— child·less \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601l(d)-l&#601;s\ adjective
— child·less·ness noun
— with child : pregnant



Child - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But keep spouting your erroneous one, it adds so much credibility to your opponents.

Rule of thumb for you in the future: If you have to lie to make your point, your point is probably wrong.

Sangha is suddenly silent as to the definition of Fetus.

Thats right little boy, you have been schooled. Take your place in the corner, get your pacifier and try to educate yourself before speaking.

Keep telling yourselves that. Maybe someday, even you'll beleive it

 

[Gem]

Sangha Wrote:

I'm not buying what you're trying to sell

I wasn't aware that I was selling anything...I thought I was discussing abortion.

There is no reason to limit abortions in any way without bringing God into it.

Sure there is. There is a human being developing inside another human being. At some point in time, the smaller human beings rights need to be considered. The abortion debate should address at what point in time the small human's rights come into question. That has nothing to do with God...and everything to do with human rights - which is very libertarian.

And you have a strange idea of libertarianism if you think it supports giving the power to decide who has a baby to the govt.

And I find the idea that a woman could kill a viable human because it "inconveniences" her to be a violation of that human's rights.

I don't think that there is a set definition for what makes a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian. If some libertarians disagree with me on this matter, thats fine...there are others who will agree with me that at some point in a pregnancy - the rights of BOTH humans involved need to be considered.


You need to get away from this notion that the only people questioning abortion are Conservative Christian fanatics. Polls show conclusively that while most people identify themselves as pro-choice...when questioned most people support abortion with limits - I'm not the unusual one here...people arguing that a woman should be able to abort at any time for any reason are.

 

[ConHog]

Sangha Wrote:

I'm not buying what you're trying to sell

I wasn't aware that I was selling anything...I thought I was discussing abortion.

There is no reason to limit abortions in any way without bringing God into it.

Sure there is. There is a human being developing inside another human being. At some point in time, the smaller human beings rights need to be considered. The abortion debate should address at what point in time the small human's rights come into question. That has nothing to do with God...and everything to do with human rights - which is very libertarian.

And you have a strange idea of libertarianism if you think it supports giving the power to decide who has a baby to the govt.

And I find the idea that a woman could kill a viable human because it "inconveniences" her to be a violation of that human's rights.

I don't think that there is a set definition for what makes a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian. If some libertarians disagree with me on this matter, thats fine...there are others who will agree with me that at some point in a pregnancy - the rights of BOTH humans involved need to be considered.


You need to get away from this notion that the only people questioning abortion are Conservative Christian fanatics. Polls show conclusively that while most people identify themselves as pro-choice...when questioned most people support abortion with limits - I'm not the unusual one here...people arguing that a woman should be able to abort at any time for any reason are.

Your failure is in trying to deal with Sangha like he's an adult capable of adult like discussion. He is not.

 

[sangha]

Sangha Wrote:

I'm not buying what you're trying to sell

I wasn't aware that I was selling anything...I thought I was discussing abortion.

There is no reason to limit abortions in any way without bringing God into it.

Sure there is. There is a human being developing inside another human being. At some point in time, the smaller human beings rights need to be considered. The abortion debate should address at what point in time the small human's rights come into question. That has nothing to do with God...and everything to do with human rights - which is very libertarian.

I see!! Abortion IS murder, except when you think it's not.

You claim that a fetus has rights. This has no basis in law. None.

That's why no one has ever been convicted for murder for an abortion. Even when abortion was illegal, no one was convicted of murder. The entire history of our legal system shows you are wrong, but you will continue to insist that "abortion is murder" except when it's not.

Like I said, you can't justify opposition to abortion without bringing God into it. You didn't bring God into it, but you didn't justify your opposition to some abortions either. All you did was claim you are right because you mistakenly believe that a fetus has rights.

They don't. That's why it is legal to kill them. For any reason the mother chooses to kill them.

And you have a strange idea of libertarianism if you think it supports giving the power to decide who has a baby to the govt.

And I find the idea that a woman could kill a viable human because it "inconveniences" her to be a violation of that human's rights. [/quote]

A fetus has no rights. None.

I don't think that there is a set definition for what makes a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian. If some libertarians disagree with me on this matter, thats fine...there are others who will agree with me that at some point in a pregnancy - the rights of BOTH humans involved need to be considered.

Libertarianism is a word with an actual meaning. It does not mean "whatever I want it to mean"


You need to get away from this notion that the only people questioning abortion are Conservative Christian fanatics. Polls show conclusively that while most people identify themselves as pro-choice...when questioned most people support abortion with limits - I'm not the unusual one here...people arguing that a woman should be able to abort at any time for any reason are.[/QUOTE]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't see how "abortion is OK in certain cases" can be justified.

I can prove you are lying about that if you want me to, but I prefer to allow you to admit you misspoke and leave it at that.

Before you offer a knee jerk response like you typically do, consider that the only way your statement can possibly be true is if you support on demand abortions at any time during pregnancy, which would include third trimester and extremely late term abortions, up to and including after labor starts. Unless you can categorically state that you are willing to kill a child while it is being born you can think of times when it is not justified to allow a mother to abort.

Before you jump up and make a real fool of yourself by claiming that no one anywhere believes that, that is exactly the official policy in China regarding abortions.

The question now is, are you going to retract that statement, or are you going to force me to prove you are a liar?

The anti-choice crowd lies all the time when they call abortion "murder", but says its OK to murder sometimes, even though they believe God is against murder

The anti abortion side is not subject to your definitions of their motives. I know atheists who are anti abortion, are you going to try to claim they think it is wrong because God says it is? If so, I will gladly invite them to come here and mock you until you never make a post on this board again.

The opinions of reasonable people can be supported by facts. The anti-choice crowd has nothing but faith, and they ignore the facts. And it's the anti-choice Talibornagains who are trying to limit other peoples' options.

You just proved that you are unreasonable.

The facts are that the anti abortion side is much more complex than you want to admit, but your opinion of them does not change even though they are acting contrary to you beliefs. You are disregarding facts and refusing to admit your opinion does not explain the observed events. There is a phrase I like to use to explain your actions here, it is blind faith. You are your enemy.

The idea that anyone is limiting the anti-choicers ability or right to express their opinion is just the whiny delusions of those who can't bear to be criticized by people with differing opinions.

One of the hardest lessons for anyone to learn is how easy it is to see the faults in others that they have themselves. What you are describing here is yourself, you are even claiming that their views are wrong because they do not fit your definition of them. If anyone in this thread is unable to accept differing opinions it is you, because almost everyone here is agreeing with you that abortion is justified here, yet you are still arguing with them that they are wrong.

It's the anti-choice crowd that passes laws that limit a doctors ability to express their opinions to their patients. It's the anti-choice crowd that want to limit the discussion about sex ed to abstinence. It's the anti-choice talibornagains who want to limit choice BY LAW; not the pro-choice crowd

It is the pro abortion poster here who is lying about the motives of others. The anti abortion group is being honest, and has so far not accused anyone here of not meaning what they are saying. But go on, keep defending your faith, it amuses me to ridicule you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sangha... I agree... if abortion is murder... it is murder in every case.

I have stated that.... so I am not a hypocrite in this matter. You may not like or agree with my view, but I am not a hypocrite.

I believe he is, we will see shortly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So pro-life people are willing to "murder" an unborn child. I guess they're not so pro-life after all

And every abortion is birth control. Only a moron, like you, would think it's not birth control.

There are two sides to the abortion debate, you are either pro abortion or anti abortion. The other labels that keep popping up, ie pro life and pro choice are just political slogans to pander to emotions. People can easily have a position on the abortion issue that opposes abortion in most cases, but recognizes that there is a medical need for it in some cases. You do not get to label your opponents as hypocrites my applying labels to them and then claiming they are not following your labels. My biggest problem is that pro abortion side routinely lies about their position, and then claims the other side is hypocritical because they do not fit the false labels opposed upon them.

I would also like to point out that you often praise the ability of your side to have their own opinions, to bad you do not allow your opponents the same options. Are you actually afraid to debate with people who can demonstrate an ability to think for themselves?

No. It all boils down to being pro Constitution or anti Constitution. Either you are a strict conservative and believe in limiting the power of government or you want a liberal interpretation to allow government more power.
A liberal interpretation of the Constitution gives the power to government to stop SOME women, and allow the wealthy ones, from having an abortion.
A strict conservative never wants to give power to government, which always abuses it, and take away the rights of the people.

Bullshit

 

[Nonelitist]

No, THE definition is different than yours

Actually, the definition is different than Wikipedia's.

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren \&#712;chil-dr&#601;n, -d&#601;rn\
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jat&#803;hara belly
Date: before 12th century
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3usually childe \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : descendant
5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6 : product, result <barbed wire…is truly a child of the plains — W. P. Webb>
— child·less \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601l(d)-l&#601;s\ adjective
— child·less·ness noun
— with child : pregnant



Child - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But keep spouting your erroneous one, it adds so much credibility to your opponents.

Rule of thumb for you in the future: If you have to lie to make your point, your point is probably wrong.

Not according to the law
law.com Law Dictionary

child
n. 1) a person's natural offspring. 2) a person 14 years and under. A "child" should be distinguished from a "minor" who is anyone under 18 in almost all states.

See also: minor

And we are talking about the law

And not according to the medical dictionary
Medical Dictionary Online

Child
A person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is CHILD, PRESCHOOL.

And we are talking about a medical issue

Again, I'll repeat that you dont know how to read a dictionary

No... we are talking about my opinion... we were never discussing the legal definition.

Try again little boy. Actually.. you should stop... you are looking more and more like and idiot the more you say.

 

[ConHog]

I don't see how "abortion is OK in certain cases" can be justified.

I can prove you are lying about that if you want me to, but I prefer to allow you to admit you misspoke and leave it at that.

Before you offer a knee jerk response like you typically do, consider that the only way your statement can possibly be true is if you support on demand abortions at any time during pregnancy, which would include third trimester and extremely late term abortions, up to and including after labor starts. Unless you can categorically state that you are willing to kill a child while it is being born you can think of times when it is not justified to allow a mother to abort.

Before you jump up and make a real fool of yourself by claiming that no one anywhere believes that, that is exactly the official policy in China regarding abortions.

The question now is, are you going to retract that statement, or are you going to force me to prove you are a liar?

The anti-choice crowd lies all the time when they call abortion "murder", but says its OK to murder sometimes, even though they believe God is against murder

The anti abortion side is not subject to your definitions of their motives. I know atheists who are anti abortion, are you going to try to claim they think it is wrong because God says it is? If so, I will gladly invite them to come here and mock you until you never make a post on this board again.



You just proved that you are unreasonable.

The facts are that the anti abortion side is much more complex than you want to admit, but your opinion of them does not change even though they are acting contrary to you beliefs. You are disregarding facts and refusing to admit your opinion does not explain the observed events. There is a phrase I like to use to explain your actions here, it is blind faith. You are your enemy.

The idea that anyone is limiting the anti-choicers ability or right to express their opinion is just the whiny delusions of those who can't bear to be criticized by people with differing opinions.

One of the hardest lessons for anyone to learn is how easy it is to see the faults in others that they have themselves. What you are describing here is yourself, you are even claiming that their views are wrong because they do not fit your definition of them. If anyone in this thread is unable to accept differing opinions it is you, because almost everyone here is agreeing with you that abortion is justified here, yet you are still arguing with them that they are wrong.

It's the anti-choice crowd that passes laws that limit a doctors ability to express their opinions to their patients. It's the anti-choice crowd that want to limit the discussion about sex ed to abstinence. It's the anti-choice talibornagains who want to limit choice BY LAW; not the pro-choice crowd

It is the pro abortion poster here who is lying about the motives of others. The anti abortion group is being honest, and has so far not accused anyone here of not meaning what they are saying. But go on, keep defending your faith, it amuses me to ridicule you.

Damn, I must wait to rep QW again.............


Sangha, you have been rooted out as the lying scum that you are.

 

[IanC]

Abortion is the choice to refuse responsibility for a life. If no one is willing to sponsor that fetus, and the main person is the mother, then that fetus is out of luck. It is still murder but we as a society have decided that abortion is the best of typically bad options. I don't want someone else's unwanted child, and I don't want the govt to have to take care of the unwanted child, so I look away and wash my hands. That is the ugly reality of abortion. I am not proud of the decision of the individuals involved that produce the unwanted child, or society's decision to abort unwanted children because they are inconvenient, or my decision to want to spend my resources on my own family rather than some nameless unknown potential child.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

sangha assumed:

Another conservative who is OK with killing an unborn even though they believe God says it's wrong to do so

Careful there, Sangha. You've allowed your prejudices about people who question abortion to get the better of you. I never mentioned anything about God or whether or not s/he should be involved in the abortion debate. In fact, I consider myself a libertarian - you've pretty much gotten every single thing about me wrong by assuming based on a very short post...and made yourself look like a bit of an ass in the process.

What I asked was - if I am willing to say that ending a life in its very earliest stages should be legal is some circumstances...why can't people at least acknowledge that they are, in fact, ending a life?

Now, take a deep breath and try again...without the thinly-veiled prejudices regarding Conservatives and Christians.

I'm not buying what you're trying to sell

There is no reason to limit abortions in any way without bringing God into it.

And you have a strange idea of libertarianism if you think it supports giving the power to decide who has a baby to the govt.

And abortions end pregnancies.

Another example of blind faith, denying that facts exist because doing so would change your world view so much that you would be incapable of handling the cataclysm. This is exactly the mentality that led to creation science, maybe you should move to Texas and join them. They probably need more help in teaching people to ignore facts.

 

[Gem]

Sangha,

You continue to attribute statements and beliefs to me that I do not have, nor have said. If you want to debate with imaginary "pro-life" people that is fine, but I'm not going to indulge you by continuing to tell you what I think, only to have you respond by arguing against someone else's points.

 

[sangha]

I don't see how "abortion is OK in certain cases" can be justified.

I can prove you are lying about that if you want me to, but I prefer to allow you to admit you misspoke and leave it at that.

Before you offer a knee jerk response like you typically do, consider that the only way your statement can possibly be true is if you support on demand abortions at any time during pregnancy, which would include third trimester and extremely late term abortions, up to and including after labor starts. Unless you can categorically state that you are willing to kill a child while it is being born you can think of times when it is not justified to allow a mother to abort.

Before you jump up and make a real fool of yourself by claiming that no one anywhere believes that, that is exactly the official policy in China regarding abortions.

I see you can't justify opposition to abortion without bringing God into it, so you are trying to divert with nonsense questions

The question now is, are you going to retract that statement, or are you going to force me to prove you are a liar?

Give it your best shot

The anti-choice crowd lies all the time when they call abortion "murder", but says its OK to murder sometimes, even though they believe God is against murder

The anti abortion side is not subject to your definitions of their motives. I know atheists who are anti abortion, are you going to try to claim they think it is wrong because God says it is? If so, I will gladly invite them to come here and mock you until you never make a post on this board again.

I'm sure there are plenty of atheist morons in the anti-choice mob. I still don't see a justification for being opposed to abortion without bringing God into it

The idea that anyone is limiting the anti-choicers ability or right to express their opinion is just the whiny delusions of those who can't bear to be criticized by people with differing opinions.

One of the hardest lessons for anyone to learn is how easy it is to see the faults in others that they have themselves. What you are describing here is yourself, you are even claiming that their views are wrong because they do not fit your definition of them. If anyone in this thread is unable to accept differing opinions it is you, because almost everyone here is agreeing with you that abortion is justified here, yet you are still arguing with them that they are wrong.

My expressing my opinion does not limit the ability of the anti-choice Talibornagains to express their opinion. You lied when you claimed the pro-choice movement was trying to limit the talibornagains right to express their opinion.

And now you're running away from what you actually said and trying to pretend you whined about the pro-choice criticisms of the anti-choice crowd.

It's you who is trying to limit the expressions of opinions by lying and mischaracterizing the pro-choicers criticism as censorship.

It's the anti-choice crowd that passes laws that limit a doctors ability to express their opinions to their patients. It's the anti-choice crowd that want to limit the discussion about sex ed to abstinence. It's the anti-choice talibornagains who want to limit choice BY LAW; not the pro-choice crowd

It is the pro abortion poster here who is lying about the motives of others.

I see you can't deny that it is the anti-choicers who are trying to limit the free speech rights of others BY LAW. Instead, you try to divert attention away from your cowardly refusal to address these FACTS with a dishonest accusation

The anti abortion group is being honest, and has so far not accused anyone here of not meaning what they are saying. But go on, keep defending your faith, it amuses me to ridicule you.

You lied when you claimed the pro-choice side was trying to limit the anti-choice freedom to express their opinions. That's why you're trying to pretend you never said it

 

[sangha]

There are two sides to the abortion debate, you are either pro abortion or anti abortion. The other labels that keep popping up, ie pro life and pro choice are just political slogans to pander to emotions. People can easily have a position on the abortion issue that opposes abortion in most cases, but recognizes that there is a medical need for it in some cases. You do not get to label your opponents as hypocrites my applying labels to them and then claiming they are not following your labels. My biggest problem is that pro abortion side routinely lies about their position, and then claims the other side is hypocritical because they do not fit the false labels opposed upon them.

I would also like to point out that you often praise the ability of your side to have their own opinions, to bad you do not allow your opponents the same options. Are you actually afraid to debate with people who can demonstrate an ability to think for themselves?

No. It all boils down to being pro Constitution or anti Constitution. Either you are a strict conservative and believe in limiting the power of government or you want a liberal interpretation to allow government more power.
A liberal interpretation of the Constitution gives the power to government to stop SOME women, and allow the wealthy ones, from having an abortion.
A strict conservative never wants to give power to government, which always abuses it, and take away the rights of the people.

Bullshit

Wingnuts think that taking the power to choose away from people, and giving it to the govt, is how to limit the govts power and get the govt out of people's lives

 

[sangha]

Actually, the definition is different than Wikipedia's.

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren \&#712;chil-dr&#601;n, -d&#601;rn\
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jat&#803;hara belly
Date: before 12th century
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3usually childe \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : descendant
5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6 : product, result <barbed wire…is truly a child of the plains — W. P. Webb>
— child·less \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601l(d)-l&#601;s\ adjective
— child·less·ness noun
— with child : pregnant



Child - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But keep spouting your erroneous one, it adds so much credibility to your opponents.

Rule of thumb for you in the future: If you have to lie to make your point, your point is probably wrong.

Not according to the law
law.com Law Dictionary



And we are talking about the law

And not according to the medical dictionary
Medical Dictionary Online

Child
A person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is CHILD, PRESCHOOL.

And we are talking about a medical issue

Again, I'll repeat that you dont know how to read a dictionary

No... we are talking about my opinion...

This may surprise you, but this thread is not about you and your opinion

we were never discussing the legal definition.

I guess you don't care about the Constitution.

 

[sangha]

sangha assumed:
Careful there, Sangha. You've allowed your prejudices about people who question abortion to get the better of you. I never mentioned anything about God or whether or not s/he should be involved in the abortion debate. In fact, I consider myself a libertarian - you've pretty much gotten every single thing about me wrong by assuming based on a very short post...and made yourself look like a bit of an ass in the process.

What I asked was - if I am willing to say that ending a life in its very earliest stages should be legal is some circumstances...why can't people at least acknowledge that they are, in fact, ending a life?

Now, take a deep breath and try again...without the thinly-veiled prejudices regarding Conservatives and Christians.

I'm not buying what you're trying to sell

There is no reason to limit abortions in any way without bringing God into it.

And you have a strange idea of libertarianism if you think it supports giving the power to decide who has a baby to the govt.

And abortions end pregnancies.

Another example of blind faith, denying that facts exist because doing so would change your world view so much that you would be incapable of handling the cataclysm. This is exactly the mentality that led to creation science, maybe you should move to Texas and join them. They probably need more help in teaching people to ignore facts.

Once again, QU whiffs on justifying opposition to abortion without bringing God into it

 

[sangha]

Sangha,

You continue to attribute statements and beliefs to me that I do not have, nor have said. If you want to debate with imaginary "pro-life" people that is fine, but I'm not going to indulge you by continuing to tell you what I think, only to have you respond by arguing against someone else's points.

And another one whiffs on providing a non-religious justification for opposing abortions

 

[ConHog]

Sangha is like a pitbull, just won't let go.

Listen dude, plenty of cultures consider murder to be wrong even without religion of any kind being involved.

 

[Nonelitist]

No... we are talking about my opinion... [/quote]

This may surprise you, but this thread is not about you and your opinion

we were never discussing the legal definition.

I guess you don't care about the Constitution.[/QUOTE]


Then why did you question my definition of Child to start this whole thing you stupid ****?

Constitution doesn't comment on the definition of child.. what is your point?