Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[Cecilie1200]

I already told you, I don't care what the law says about whether a baby can be killed or not.

glad to see you care about the law

More than your side does, since WE respect the proper, LEGAL way of changing laws, rather than imposing our will by illegal judicial fiat.

What I've never understood is how you hypocrites can have so little concern for laws you don't want to listen to, and can turn around and think that laws you DO like can take the place of a moral standard.

 

[Cecilie1200]

im out, enjoy the shortned life due to the high blood pressure and stress

And right on schedule, the talking-point troll blows through the last one on the list and runs away, to be replaced by the next troll on the rotation.

I wonder if they're at least getting minimum wage for this.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

More than your side does, since WE respect the proper, LEGAL way of changing laws…

One of the many advantages of a Constitutional Republic is that we are subject to the rule of law, not the rule of men; because, per the evidence in this thread, men are incapable of ruling justly. Reading your posts and those of your ilk, I am very thankful for this.

…rather than imposing our will by illegal judicial fiat.

A subjective and ignorant statement – per Marbury v Madison (1803), the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means; it is quite legal and appropriate in the context of the rule of law.

Your only response to this may be you citing a case decided by the Supreme Court overturning Marbury.

 

[Dr Grump]

im out, enjoy the shortned life due to the high blood pressure and stress

And right on schedule, the talking-point troll blows through the last one on the list and runs away, to be replaced by the next troll on the rotation.

I wonder if they're at least getting minimum wage for this.

Pot meet kettle....

 

[Dr Grump]

More than your side does, since WE respect the proper, LEGAL way of changing laws…

One of the many advantages of a Constitutional Republic is that we are subject to the rule of law, not the rule of men; because, per the evidence in this thread, men are incapable of ruling justly. Reading your posts and those of your ilk, I am very thankful for this.

…rather than imposing our will by illegal judicial fiat.

A subjective and ignorant statement – per Marbury v Madison (1803), the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means; it is quite legal and appropriate in the context of the rule of law.

Your only response to this may be you citing a case decided by the Supreme Court overturning Marbury.

You don't get it do you? Cesspit is the be-all and end-all of the law. She thinks she is the law when all she is just another poster flapping her gums on the internet....offering not much but a foul mouth, insipid 'insights' and trolling one liners that aren't even funny.

 

[Cecilie1200]

More than your side does, since WE respect the proper, LEGAL way of changing laws…

One of the many advantages of a Constitutional Republic is that we are subject to the rule of law, not the rule of men; because, per the evidence in this thread, men are incapable of ruling justly. Reading your posts and those of your ilk, I am very thankful for this.

…rather than imposing our will by illegal judicial fiat.

A subjective and ignorant statement – per Marbury v Madison (1803), the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means; it is quite legal and appropriate in the context of the rule of law.

Your only response to this may be you citing a case decided by the Supreme Court overturning Marbury.

I'm sorry, it's just . . . the irony . . . ::cough:: Can't breathe . . . Back when I can stop . . .

 

[Dr Grump]

More than your side does, since WE respect the proper, LEGAL way of changing laws…

One of the many advantages of a Constitutional Republic is that we are subject to the rule of law, not the rule of men; because, per the evidence in this thread, men are incapable of ruling justly. Reading your posts and those of your ilk, I am very thankful for this.

…rather than imposing our will by illegal judicial fiat.

A subjective and ignorant statement – per Marbury v Madison (1803), the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means; it is quite legal and appropriate in the context of the rule of law.

Your only response to this may be you citing a case decided by the Supreme Court overturning Marbury.

I'm sorry, it's just . . . the irony . . . ::cough:: Can't breathe . . . Back when I can stop . . .

Translation: I've just been handed my arse to me on a plate so I'll back out while I can...

 

[AllieBaba]

im out, enjoy the shortned life due to the high blood pressure and stress

And right on schedule, the talking-point troll blows through the last one on the list and runs away, to be replaced by the next troll on the rotation.

I wonder if they're at least getting minimum wage for this.

It depends...do you count the $$ their pimps let them keep?

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

But abortion apparently is not illegal in any state because it happens everyday and is supported by most Democrats. So how is she a victim by willingly walking in and doing the devils deed? She is not a victim, if anyone is the victim it is the child because it's mother was too big of a piece of shit to take responsibility for spreading her legs, and there is no way you can justify what you are saying so knock it off already.
If a female was made to bear her child, she might feel an obligation to love and raise it, which would create a family environment and prosperity, and we all know that progressive liberals hate a family environment because it symbolizes liberty and free will without government intrusion, it basically lets families know "Hey, we love each other enough to weather any type of storm and as long as we have faith in god we can do this and not have to rely on government", and also "Because a child is seen as a gift from god" which we all know liberals dont believe in a god.
You go ahead and prepare for hell, that or let hell stoke the fires hot for you, either way your friends will be toasting to you while you stay there....for eternity.

My reply to Grump’s remark about “Good luck on getting a conviction…” started with the phrase “If abortion were illegal,” so it was a hypothetical.

My point is, should abortion ever become illegal, it will the the abortionist breaking the law and not necessarily the woman seeking the abortion.

I say this because, if abortion ever does become illegal on grounds that it is the taking of a human life, it would be the person doing the actual killing who commits the crime.

In some places there is "being an accessory" which carries the same penalty..

That aside, abortion is not, nor ever should be, illegal....Bad choice to made IMO, but a choice nonetheless..

Your remark about “being an accessory” helps advance the conversation about how abortion may be treated should/when it becomes illegal but I can’t see any scenerio where we would make anyone but the abortionist actually pay for the “crime”.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

And do you believe in the abortion of babies that have medical issues, genetic abnormalities or limited capacity?

Whether or not it's needed is up to the mother and whether she feels she needs it done.

I still see you're stuck on the eugenics thing, I don't know how many times I can tell you it has nothing to do with it.

...

I will take your word, Dr. Drock, that eugenics has nothing to do with your personal views on this issue but I think you are dreaming if you believe eugenics does not play any role at all in this matter.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

why are you so worried about what another person does or doesnt do to their body? this is technically a medical decision, why do you feel that you should be able to have a say in what an individual does with their doctor?

if youre argument is simply because there is a "life" involved, its a bad argument, as your life is not affected and a fetus is dependent on its mother for life for up to 9 months. Again your defiinition of life is thin as well, seeing as how the youngest premature baby to ever survive was 22 weeks, and i believe (you can correct me if im wrong) abortion in most states is illegal after 20 weeks.

another question i ask, refers to what happens to that child if they are born and the parent does not want the child? the child goes into the system and becomes a ward of the state. now you may say that well there are many people who want to adopt children, to which i would say there are currently over 500,000 children waiting to be adopted in the US who sit in foster care, why arent people who want families adopting these children?

personally, i do not care if a women chooses to have an abortion, or chooses to have a child as this is none of my business and most notably does not affect my personal well being.

what gives you the right to tell anyone anywhere what to do?

You are correct about the fetus being dependent on its mother but so isn’t a born baby (so trying to make “dependence” a justification for abortion really doesn’t work).

And the pro-life definition of “life” is not “thin” and it's really not even subject to debate because someone is either alive or they are not. There is really no middle ground.

Also, Pro-Lifers don’t approach this issue as having a right to tell a woman what to do, nope, we simply believe we have the right to petition our government to come up with a remedy for what we view to be a flagrant civil rights violation.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

I don't care what people do with their own bodies.

I am however, concerned about what they do to children. If you don't want to take care of your own baby, other people are going to intercede for it. That's the way this works. People who victimize vulnerable populations tend to come under unfavorable scrutiny.

this difference is that pro lifers and pro choicers have a differing opinion on when life begins whether it is at conception, or at birth and i do not think this will ever change.

...

It is much better to stick to scientifically-provable facts when defining things like “when life begins”. Using personal beliefs and opinions only adds confusion to the debate.

Also, just in case you really don’t know the answer to that question, here’s a good test to determine when you first became alive:

Since you can’t kill something that is not alive to begin with, simply trace back the thread of your own life to the earliest point when you could have been killed.

And, if you are honest about this, it should be obvious that, as soon as you were created (not in the biblical sense), you were doomed to eventually die.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

I think parental responsibility starts with not killing your children.

like i said your definition of children and the pro choicer definition of children is different and will never change.

i do enjoy how have ignored 90% of my argument, it seems to me like you have a very narrow focus of solely advocating for fetuses and not actual living breathing children.

a child is not a child until it can live and breathe on its own, not while it is still dependent on its mother for life.

im not telling you what to do with your life, im simply stating that you claim to be such an advocate for unborn children, why are you not an advocate for living children? i dont see you crusading for parental responsibility.....

Are you even reading this thread?

As far as I can tell, AllieBaba responded to all your arguments even going as far as to mention he/she actually works in human services.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

You don't even have an argument. Is telling me I should be involved in child advocacy an "argument"?

no...

it seems to me that all you do is campaign against abortion, but you dont follow that same passion when it comes to actually affecting the lives of children.

"I am however, concerned about what they do to children."

those are your exact words. if that is really your concern, what else are you doing to help the children beside campaigning against abortion?

The best way to find out if a pro-lifer is actually pro-life in principle is ask them their views on wars that aren't imminent to the defense of the United States.

Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.

That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

this difference is that pro lifers and pro choicers have a differing opinion on when life begins

...There is no room for 'what you think' when it comes to matters of scientifically verifiable facts about the universe.

whether it is at conception, or at birth and i do not think this will ever change.

So you freely admit that you will never stop lying or even consider the possibility of being honest because abortionism is a religion and it is a matter of faith to you?

Sorry, but evolution has been observed and creationism is not science. There is no rrom for your 'opinion' [religion] when it comes to matters of science

...

...obviously cant comprehend english as im a pro choicer not a pro lifer, which hence mean for me life begins at birth...

The word “life” is an absolute and its definition is not subject to anyone’s personal belief system. You are either alive or you are not.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

those are your exact words. if that is really your concern, what else are you doing to help the children beside campaigning against abortion?

Campaigning to save their lives isn't enough?

what if their quality of life is in the gutter? are you gonna take care of that child when a parent cant? what if they are neglected or abused? what if they die from poverty? what are you doing about that?

Contrary to what you believe, I have actually done volunteer work with battered and abused children and I can recall no case where one of them would have chosen death over the life they were born into.

Nope, they were all just kids and fairly happy to-boot and all they really wanted was for their home life to be like everyone else’s.

Also, there are some on this thread that don’t think abortion has anything to do with eugenics but, every time I see one of these “poverty” or “quality of life” arguments, I just gotta wonder.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

what if their quality of life is in the gutter?...

...

And why do I have to volunteer to take care of the children you want dead?

There is no justification for killing children. You don't kill children because you don't like the life you think they might eventually live. You don't kill children because you don't have the job you always dreamed of. You don't kill children because you have 2.3 other children already, and don't want anymore. You don't kill children because you want their money, and you don't kill children to protect your own money.

Because it still is just killing children. Murder is murder. Lots of murderers have justification, in their own minds, for the murder. So what? It's still murder.

You can die of poverty yes, its called affects of malnutrition or access to basic services such as shelter, clothing and medical care.

you should also read the definition of murder... since you probably havent here it is:

Murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

since not part of abortion meets this definition, abortion does not equal murder. you may think so in your mind, but in legal world and world in which we live they are not one in the same.

...

what gives you the right to tell a woman what to do with her body?

The discussion about murder and killing (and whatever) is not really about what a woman does with her body, it is about what an abortionist does to the other, smaller body growing inside it.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

im out, enjoy the shortned life due to the high blood pressure and stress

And right on schedule, the talking-point troll blows through the last one on the list and runs away, to be replaced by the next troll on the rotation.

I wonder if they're at least getting minimum wage for this.

Sounds like you’ve been down this path before.

 

[Dr.Drock]

no...

it seems to me that all you do is campaign against abortion, but you dont follow that same passion when it comes to actually affecting the lives of children.



those are your exact words. if that is really your concern, what else are you doing to help the children beside campaigning against abortion?

The best way to find out if a pro-lifer is actually pro-life in principle is ask them their views on wars that aren't imminent to the defense of the United States.

Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.

That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.

But Allie said she cherished life and many of the pro-lifers say the same thing, if someone supposedly has that principle than it should extend to all issues.

But more often than not the supposed pro-life people are the ones beating the war drum the loudest, which makes you think the only reason they're pro life is because either their bureacrats and talking heads tell them to be or because of their religion.

 

[manifold]

The best way to find out if a pro-lifer is actually pro-life in principle is ask them their views on wars that aren't imminent to the defense of the United States.

Since there was no such thing as a Pro-Live Movement until after the Roe opinion, I think it is fairly obvious that the term deals specifically with the life of those being aborted.

That said, there are many pro-lifers who are also anti-war but war and abortion are two different issues.

But Allie said she cherished life and many of the pro-lifers say the same thing, if someone supposedly has that principle than it should extend to all issues.

But more often than not the supposed pro-life people are the ones beating the war drum the loudest, which makes you think the only reason they're pro choice is because either their bureacrats and talking heads tell them to be or because of their religion.

I'll go ahead and delete this post once you've corrected the typo/freudian slip.