Rape does not justify abortion

[Quantum Windbag]

That has nothing to do with Obama, dummy

My thread has nothing to do with Obama either. what's your point?

You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.

You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So QW wants a world where even though a rapist may go to prison, he gets to continue to victimize his victim with the aid of a government that forces his victim - at point of a gun if necessary - to bear his offspring. And while the rapist sits in prison having his needs taken care of by the people's taxes, QW favors a world where the government programs that may have helped his victim raise his child have been defunded to nothing, so she has to beg on the streets to put food into her rapsit's child's mouth.

So to QW - "small government" means government teaming up with rapists to force women to bear children against their will - and then casting them off into the world without any help at all to raise the child the rapist and government forced them to have.



I'm guessing QW has no daughters.

Is using strawmen the only way you can counter my argument? I guess my position is a lot stronger than I thought.

As the Constitution in no way guarantees a right to life, your position has always been one based on a false premise.

Dont feel bad though. Most of the threads original posts lately seem to be based on a false premise.

I quoted the 5th Amendment in my OP, I suggest you go back and read it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's when it goes well. When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster. I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal. Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became. The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love. She committed suicide at 17. Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism. A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption. She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.

I knew the woman and her daughter. It was a total tragedy. Years and years of tragedy.

The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.

By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?

We need a licence to marry, to drive, hell, to FISH...but any idiot can procreate.

Maybe thats not always best.

The last time I looked you were the one that was arguing that the right to choose trumps the power of the state, did you change your mind?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1) If they have no cognitive response or brain waves, then they are a vegetable and the machine usually gets switched off
2) If there are brainwaves then they are cognitive, but we just can't see it because their mind is trapped. Here's an example of a man who was overtly cognitive, but in a very, very limited way. However, his brain function was was far from limited.. UK man who failed to overturn euthanasia law dies - Yahoo! News

IOW, your example is comparing apples and oranges...

Cognitive brain function implies that the brain is processing information. That is something that is entirely separate from brain function. Comatose patients have brain function, not cognition.

In other words, you are redefining, and ignoring science, cognition to support your position.

Um no. There have been many instances where people have been in comas or seemingly unresponsive, that once they have regained their faculties have told people that they could see and hear everything going on around them, but couldn't say or do anything due to their condition.

THAT aside, we are getting sidetracked. You example is, and will remain, a strawman to this argument...

There 8 levels of coma, some people are more responsive than others. The deepest comas have no cognitive response at all.

You are the one that used cognition as a definition of human. Asking you to be specific about what you mean by that is not a strawman, it is entirely appropriate to determine exactly what you mean. It appears to me that what you meant was that you don't have a definition, you just used the term because you though I am anti science and ignorant. Unfortunately, for you, I am neither.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I specifically pointed out which definition of soul I am using, You denied it was valid, and I proved it is. Now you are trying to pretend you were making another point, but I am not going to let you.

No, I disagree with that definition and would love to know who decided that that was the definition. Meanwhile, you miss the other four or five that came before it on the scale to suit your own purpose...funny how that works...

Oh, I see, you decided you didn't like me using a perfectly valid definition of soul, even when I proved that the dictionary lists my definition. I know it is not the first definition, I never said it was. That does not make it invalid, something anyone that actually understands English understands. You don't get to insist that I use your definition just because you prefer it over mine. I am sticking with soul as being the entire person because that is the biblical one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would argue that somebody who actively wants everybody to abort due to world over population is pro-abortion. I know women who have had abortions. Not one of them was 'pro' it in any way, shape or form....

If I am to take your argument literally, you are saying that your personal experience encompasses the entire world, and that anything that you have not personally experienced has not happened. Strangely enough, I don't believe you.

You don't have to believe me and you do not have to take my argument literally. What you do have to do, because it is a fact, is believe that if somebody has an abortion it doesn't mean that they are pro abortion.

I eat Brussell sprouts. I don't eat them because I am pro them, I eat them because I know vegetables are good for me. In fact, I hate the taste of them.

You use the term pro-abortion so as to be emotive and somehow you think it supports your argument. It doesn't.

Talk about strawmen. Please feel free to point out where I ever said that. Since I didn't, I will simply point out that you are still wrong.

 

[Dr Grump]

I specifically pointed out which definition of soul I am using, You denied it was valid, and I proved it is. Now you are trying to pretend you were making another point, but I am not going to let you.

No, I disagree with that definition and would love to know who decided that that was the definition. Meanwhile, you miss the other four or five that came before it on the scale to suit your own purpose...funny how that works...

Oh, I see, you decided you didn't like me using a perfectly valid definition of soul, even when I proved that the dictionary lists my definition. I know it is not the first definition, I never said it was. That does not make it invalid, something anyone that actually understands English understands. You don't get to insist that I use your definition just because you prefer it over mine. I am sticking with soul as being the entire person because that is the biblical one.

No, I don't like the fact you cherry pick answers to suit yourself. At best is delusionary, at worst dishonest. Take your pick

 

[Dr Grump]

Cognitive brain function implies that the brain is processing information. That is something that is entirely separate from brain function. Comatose patients have brain function, not cognition.

In other words, you are redefining, and ignoring science, cognition to support your position.

Um no. There have been many instances where people have been in comas or seemingly unresponsive, that once they have regained their faculties have told people that they could see and hear everything going on around them, but couldn't say or do anything due to their condition.

THAT aside, we are getting sidetracked. You example is, and will remain, a strawman to this argument...

There 8 levels of coma, some people are more responsive than others. The deepest comas have no cognitive response at all.

You are the one that used cognition as a definition of human. Asking you to be specific about what you mean by that is not a strawman, it is entirely appropriate to determine exactly what you mean. It appears to me that what you meant was that you don't have a definition, you just used the term because you though I am anti science and ignorant. Unfortunately, for you, I am neither.

Not at all with regard to ignorance (although you do show that from time to time).

Just like my last post you are being dishonest. You yourself admit there are several levels of coma and - yet again - decide to use the 'deepest' version to suit your purposes and point while ignoring the others...

 

[Vidi]

Um no. There have been many instances where people have been in comas or seemingly unresponsive, that once they have regained their faculties have told people that they could see and hear everything going on around them, but couldn't say or do anything due to their condition.

THAT aside, we are getting sidetracked. You example is, and will remain, a strawman to this argument...

There 8 levels of coma, some people are more responsive than others. The deepest comas have no cognitive response at all.

You are the one that used cognition as a definition of human. Asking you to be specific about what you mean by that is not a strawman, it is entirely appropriate to determine exactly what you mean. It appears to me that what you meant was that you don't have a definition, you just used the term because you though I am anti science and ignorant. Unfortunately, for you, I am neither.

Not at all with regard to ignorance (or though you do show that from time to time).

Just like my last post you are being dishonest. You yourself admit there are several levels of coma and - yet again - decide to use the 'deepest' version to suit your purposes and point while ignoring the others...

QW will only take into account anything that supports his argument. Anything that denies his argument is considered a random post or a strawman argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I disagree with that definition and would love to know who decided that that was the definition. Meanwhile, you miss the other four or five that came before it on the scale to suit your own purpose...funny how that works...

Oh, I see, you decided you didn't like me using a perfectly valid definition of soul, even when I proved that the dictionary lists my definition. I know it is not the first definition, I never said it was. That does not make it invalid, something anyone that actually understands English understands. You don't get to insist that I use your definition just because you prefer it over mine. I am sticking with soul as being the entire person because that is the biblical one.

No, I don't like the fact you cherry pick answers to suit yourself. At best is delusionary, at worst dishonest. Take your pick

I was challenged to prove that men are souls. To do so I quoted from the Bible, which clearly states that man became a soul after God breather life into him. This definition offended you somehow, even though you are an atheist, probably because it does not gibe with your misinterpretation of what the Bible says. I made it clear I was sticking with that definition, and even pointed out that dictionaries list it as one definition of the word. That is not cherry picking, that is reasoning. Something you are obviously unwilling to do yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Um no. There have been many instances where people have been in comas or seemingly unresponsive, that once they have regained their faculties have told people that they could see and hear everything going on around them, but couldn't say or do anything due to their condition.

THAT aside, we are getting sidetracked. You example is, and will remain, a strawman to this argument...

There 8 levels of coma, some people are more responsive than others. The deepest comas have no cognitive response at all.

You are the one that used cognition as a definition of human. Asking you to be specific about what you mean by that is not a strawman, it is entirely appropriate to determine exactly what you mean. It appears to me that what you meant was that you don't have a definition, you just used the term because you though I am anti science and ignorant. Unfortunately, for you, I am neither.

Not at all with regard to ignorance (although you do show that from time to time).

Just like my last post you are being dishonest. You yourself admit there are several levels of coma and - yet again - decide to use the 'deepest' version to suit your purposes and point while ignoring the others...

Wow.

I mentioned there are several levels of coma to counter your anecdotal evidence that some people in comas claim to have heard people talking. Not sure how that makes me dishonest, but I never claimed to understand how a deluded mind thinks. The deeper levels of comas have no cognitive functions, which you attempted to use to prove the a fetus is not alive. I am still waiting for an honest answer to my question about whether a comatose patient with no cognitive function is alive or not, but really do not expect you to provide one.

Why don't you surprise me?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There 8 levels of coma, some people are more responsive than others. The deepest comas have no cognitive response at all.

You are the one that used cognition as a definition of human. Asking you to be specific about what you mean by that is not a strawman, it is entirely appropriate to determine exactly what you mean. It appears to me that what you meant was that you don't have a definition, you just used the term because you though I am anti science and ignorant. Unfortunately, for you, I am neither.

Not at all with regard to ignorance (or though you do show that from time to time).

Just like my last post you are being dishonest. You yourself admit there are several levels of coma and - yet again - decide to use the 'deepest' version to suit your purposes and point while ignoring the others...

QW will only take into account anything that supports his argument. Anything that denies his argument is considered a random post or a strawman argument.

Really?

So far all anyone has said is that a fetus is not a person, something I never claimed. When a couple of people pointed out that, legally, the point is settled law, I actually agreed with them. When one poster said that he didn't care, he would support a rape victim's right to an abortion, I actually applauded his honesty. Can you explain how all of that adds up to me calling any argument that does not support my position a strawman? Could it be that you are the one using the strawman arguments?

 

[Article 15]

Abortion doesn't need to be justified.

End thread.

 

[Ravi]

My thread has nothing to do with Obama either. what's your point?

You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.

You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.

No, I said it was never legal.

 

[Ravi]

There 8 levels of coma, some people are more responsive than others. The deepest comas have no cognitive response at all.

You are the one that used cognition as a definition of human. Asking you to be specific about what you mean by that is not a strawman, it is entirely appropriate to determine exactly what you mean. It appears to me that what you meant was that you don't have a definition, you just used the term because you though I am anti science and ignorant. Unfortunately, for you, I am neither.

Not at all with regard to ignorance (or though you do show that from time to time).

Just like my last post you are being dishonest. You yourself admit there are several levels of coma and - yet again - decide to use the 'deepest' version to suit your purposes and point while ignoring the others...

QW will only take into account anything that supports his argument. Anything that denies his argument is considered a random post or a strawman argument.

I have noticed that.

 

[editec]

Smell the misogyny?

Note how these folks who claim they love freedom think nothing about telling women what they must do with THEIR bodies?

Lovers of freedom, my ass.

 

[Valerie]

You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.

You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.

No, I said it was never legal.

Gawd that was like pulling teeth. I doubt he'll get it...

 

[Valerie]

That's when it goes well. When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster. I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal. Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became. The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love. She committed suicide at 17. Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism. A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption. She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.

I knew the woman and her daughter. It was a total tragedy. Years and years of tragedy.

The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.

By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?

^ Making fun of QW and his avatar!

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 377
User Name Posts
Quantum Windbag 110

 

[JakeStarkey]

Red Herring applies to your argument: fallacy of false analogy.

So QW wants a world where even though a rapist may go to prison, he gets to continue to victimize his victim with the aid of a government that forces his victim - at point of a gun if necessary - to bear his offspring. And while the rapist sits in prison having his needs taken care of by the people's taxes, QW favors a world where the government programs that may have helped his victim raise his child have been defunded to nothing, so she has to beg on the streets to put food into her rapsit's child's mouth.

So to QW - "small government" means government teaming up with rapists to force women to bear children against their will - and then casting them off into the world without any help at all to raise the child the rapist and government forced them to have.



I'm guessing QW has no daughters.

Is using strawmen the only way you can counter my argument? I guess my position is a lot stronger than I thought.

Actually, it is more of a red herring argument, but let's take it a step further: If you discovered that one of your grandchildren had been conceived during a rape, would you want that child put to death? Exactly where do you draw the line for infanticide?

 

[Foxfyre]

My thread has nothing to do with Obama either. what's your point?

You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.

You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.

They are left to die if deemed unviable following the abortion. After reading up, Ravi is right. Even in Illinois, a viable baby who survives an abortion is given proper care and every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf. Obama was falsely accused that he wanted to kill those babies. What he voted against was legislation that would have required the doctor to try to save the unviable baby who survived the abortion.