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

[G.T.]

Si Modo is a murderer. She knows she is a murderer and that she promotes murder. She knows there is no excuse for what she advocates.

That's why she must declare anyone on a ventilator to be something other than human in order to avoid admitting what it is she advocates. She cannot be honest with us because she cannot be honest with herself. Her denial and willful stupidity is a defense mechanism to prevent her from facing what it is she advocates.

In surrendering her working mind to this higher cause, she has made a religion out of abortionism. It has become a matter of faith to her which is why she cannot discuss the matter honestly or acknowledge reality any more than a communist can face the reality of communism or a Catholic can can acknowledge biblical contradiction.

Here, indeed, is the explanation of a phenomenon which has puzzled many observers. How could the intellectuals accept [this dogma]? ... The [dogmatic] novice, subjecting his soul to the canon law of [their leaders], felt something of the release which Catholicism also brings... Once the renunciation has been made, the mind, instead of operating freely, becomes the servant of a higher and unquestioned purpose. To deny the truth is an act of service. This, of course, is why it is useless to discuss any particular aspect of politics with a[n adherent of dogma]. Any genuine intellectual contact which you have with him involves a challenge to his fundamental faith, a struggle for his soul. For it is very much easier to lay the oblation of spiritual pride on the alter of [dogma] than to snatch it back again

Amazon.com: The God That Failed (9780231123952): Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Richard Wright, André Gide, Louis Fischer, Stephen Spender, Richard Howard Stafford Crossman, David Engerman: Books

Projection.

 

[JBeukema]

No. I'm claiming that a human blastocyst is not a human being (independent of outside life support)

In what biology book does it say you cease to be a human being when you're on a ventilator?

More straw from you?

I never said that

Yes you did. Right now. You just quoted it. You said that to be a human being, you must not need any outside life support.

They had already met the state of being. Life support in this case is to return them to being not to get them there.

Returning to is getting to. That's the very meaning of the term. To get to a place one once was before.

 

[Si modo]

Si Modo is a murderer. She knows she is a murderer and that she promotes murder. She knows there is no excuse for what she advocates.

....

I think you've gone off of the deep end at this point.

.... That's why she must declare anyone on a ventilator to be something other than human ....

Of course, that never happened, but I can join you in pummeling your strawman if you'd like.

 

[Immanuel]

Maybe, but pro choice does not equal being pro abortion. That's inaccurate.

I agree and neither does pro life equal being anti-woman or even anti-choice, but you won't hear many liberals acknowledge that fact.

Of course, it is true that the "choice" we are discussing here is really only one choice. There are many "choices" that the pro choice crowd do not believe should be allowed.

I happen to be for the choice of smoking cigarettes even though I don't smoke myself and find the smell of it to be utterly disgusting. The same goes for marijuana. There are some on the left that happen to be against the right to pass on one's wealth to one's children. We all support and oppose different choices. What makes the so called pro choice crowd more pro choice than me? Fact is, they are no more pro choice than I am.

Immie

None of that applies to me. Good point in the 1st sentence.

It should not apply to any of us. We should realize that most of us in this discussion, on both sides, want the same thing... fewer abortions. Since that is the case, why the heck are we fighting each other? We should be working together to bring about that admirable goal.

Instead we are fighting over whether or not the fetus is human! Let me ask these questions of those on the other side of the debate. If your goal is, as many have said, fewer abortions, (remember your slogan? Safe, legal and rare) what difference does it make whether or not the fetus is a "human being"? Do you want fewer abortions or do you want to win a political debate?

Immie

 

[Ravi]

The sperm can be compared to flour, perhaps. By the time we have a blastocyst, there's nothing 'incomplete' about the matter. The child exists and is developing as it will (barring any unforeseens) for many years before dying.

Point taken.

A blastocyst is not a human being just as cake batter is not a cake.

Yes, because a blostocyst has to be baked at 325-degrees before we decide it's 'finished'

Kind of, why do you think it is sometimes called having a bun in the oven you fucking idiot?

Hey Buttemia, are you human or just a digitally remastered version of the earth's stupidest person?

 

[G.T.]

I agree and neither does pro life equal being anti-woman or even anti-choice, but you won't hear many liberals acknowledge that fact.

Of course, it is true that the "choice" we are discussing here is really only one choice. There are many "choices" that the pro choice crowd do not believe should be allowed.

I happen to be for the choice of smoking cigarettes even though I don't smoke myself and find the smell of it to be utterly disgusting. The same goes for marijuana. There are some on the left that happen to be against the right to pass on one's wealth to one's children. We all support and oppose different choices. What makes the so called pro choice crowd more pro choice than me? Fact is, they are no more pro choice than I am.

Immie

None of that applies to me. Good point in the 1st sentence.

It should not apply to any of us. We should realize that most of us in this discussion, on both sides, want the same thing... fewer abortions. Since that is the case, why the heck are we fighting each other? We should be working together to bring about that admirable goal.

Instead we are fighting over whether or not the fetus is human! Let me ask these questions of those on the other side of the debate. If your goal is, as many have said, fewer abortions, (remember your slogan? Safe, legal and rare) what difference does it make whether or not the fetus is a "human being"? Do you want fewer abortions or do you want to win a political debate?

Immie

I don't want fewer abortions in terms of Rape, to be honest. All else, yes I do want it fewer.

 

[JBeukema]

Si Modo is a murderer. She knows she is a murderer and that she promotes murder. She knows there is no excuse for what she advocates.

....

I think you've gone off of the deep end at this point.

.... That's why she must declare anyone on a ventilator to be something other than human ....

Of course, that never happened, but I can join you in pummeling your strawman if you'd like.

You defined a human being as

independent of outside life support

 

[Si modo]

Point taken.

A blastocyst is not a human being just as cake batter is not a cake.

Yes, because a blostocyst has to be baked at 325-degrees before we decide it's 'finished'

Kind of, why do you think it is sometimes called having a bun in the oven you fucking idiot?

Hey Buttemia, are you human or just a digitally remastered version of the earth's stupidest person?

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

But, he is not dumb in the least. He is just in an argument where his emotions are stronger than his thought processes.

 

[Si modo]

Si Modo is a murderer. She knows she is a murderer and that she promotes murder. She knows there is no excuse for what she advocates.

....

I think you've gone off of the deep end at this point.

Of course, that never happened, but I can join you in pummeling your strawman if you'd like.

You defined a human being as

independent of outside life support

And you ignore the rest of what I write? Does that always work for you, or just when your logic is clouded by emotions?

 

[Immanuel]

None of that applies to me. Good point in the 1st sentence.

It should not apply to any of us. We should realize that most of us in this discussion, on both sides, want the same thing... fewer abortions. Since that is the case, why the heck are we fighting each other? We should be working together to bring about that admirable goal.

Instead we are fighting over whether or not the fetus is human! Let me ask these questions of those on the other side of the debate. If your goal is, as many have said, fewer abortions, (remember your slogan? Safe, legal and rare) what difference does it make whether or not the fetus is a "human being"? Do you want fewer abortions or do you want to win a political debate?

Immie

I don't want fewer abortions in terms of Rape, to be honest. All else, yes I do want it fewer.

I want fewer rapes, thus fewer abortions in terms of rape. I suspect you are in agreement with that. I also want fewer abortions in terms of the life of the mother being in jeopardy. That requires improving the medical profession in ways that reduces the risk of having a baby.

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

The only emotional ones are you pro-abortionists pretending most women get abortions for rape, comparing personal responsibility to slavery, declaring that only serial killers can have an opinion on serial murder, and refusing to acknowledge basic facts of biology- even going so far as to declare that one can become a non-human when in the hospital and then magically be a human again when they get off life support- all in an effort to avoid admitting what it is you support.

If killing an unborn child isn't wrong, why can't you admit you support killing unborn children?

 

[G.T.]

It should not apply to any of us. We should realize that most of us in this discussion, on both sides, want the same thing... fewer abortions. Since that is the case, why the heck are we fighting each other? We should be working together to bring about that admirable goal.

Instead we are fighting over whether or not the fetus is human! Let me ask these questions of those on the other side of the debate. If your goal is, as many have said, fewer abortions, (remember your slogan? Safe, legal and rare) what difference does it make whether or not the fetus is a "human being"? Do you want fewer abortions or do you want to win a political debate?

Immie

I don't want fewer abortions in terms of Rape, to be honest. All else, yes I do want it fewer.

I want fewer rapes, thus fewer abortions in terms of rape. I suspect you are in agreement with that. I also want fewer abortions in terms of the life of the mother being in jeopardy. That requires improving the medical profession in ways that reduces the risk of having a baby.

Immie

Actually, I forgot if the mom's life is in Danger.

Yes, I'd both like to see Rape and Danger-to-Pregnant-Moms significantly decreased, and I also favor allowing them the choice to abort in those cases here and forever. I don't necessarily favor them aborting, that's on them.

 

[manifold]

I emphatically agree that abortion is terminating human life.

But life expires all the time for a variety of reasons.

Convince me that I should value the life of someone else's fetus more than the child's own mother? So much more in fact that I'm willing to incarcerate a pregnant woman and force her to give birth to her child? Because if it's really about the 'value' of life, this is the trade-off we're talking about. Don't tell me that putting people in jail after the fact on this one is for the greater good, because it isn't.

 

[Bfgrn]

Methinks a manslaughter charge would be more probable. The entire system of first-, second-, and third-degree murder and manslaughter is, in my opinion, a complex system that emerges primarily as a compromise between society's varying views of how various acts of homicide should be punished. That particular question is one I'm not sure I can answer. How can we know what's best for society as a whole in this regard? I am very much open to input, opinion, and debate on that detail.

Well first you will have to overturn the law of the land. .

No, I don't

Yes you do, abortion is legal. Unless you are referring to the pro-death wing of the pro-life crowd.

 

[JBeukema]

I emphatically agree that abortion is terminating human life.

But life expires all the time for a variety of reasons.

Convince me that I should value the life of someone else's fetus more than the child's own mother?

Do you care if a woman drowns her three-year-old son in a bathtub? Should society step up and say that's wrong? Should it be illegal? After all, she didn't care about his life.

Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. Either you think society needs to take collective action against those who commit such deeds or you do not.

 

[JBeukema]

Well first you will have to overturn the law of the land. .

No, I don't

Yes you do

No, I don't

, abortion is legal.

Within certain limits, yes it is

 

[G.T.]

I emphatically agree that abortion is terminating human life.

But life expires all the time for a variety of reasons.

Convince me that I should value the life of someone else's fetus more than the child's own mother?

Do you care if a woman drowns her three-year-old son in a bathtub? Should society step up and say that's wrong? Should it be illegal? After all, she didn't care about his life.

Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. Either you think society needs to take collective action against those who commit such deeds or you do not.

It's not an either or, there's gray area that you're being pompass about. Life is all about circumstances. If a man with a Gun comes running at me, I'm going to blow his head off.

If a man Rapes my wife, I'm going to blow his seed away.

If my wife's about to die giving birth and could be saved, I'd rather terminate the not yet self-aware being than terminate my wife who's fully self aware and understands what she would lose(life) so can actually experience the fright that comes with the horror of death.

You can call it murder in the derragatory sense all you want, but that's sensationalism as a ploy to ignore ACTUAL life circumstances. Who's being dishonest?

 

[JBeukema]

I emphatically agree that abortion is terminating human life.

But life expires all the time for a variety of reasons.

Convince me that I should value the life of someone else's fetus more than the child's own mother?

Do you care if a woman drowns her three-year-old son in a bathtub?
Should society step up and say that's wrong? Should it be illegal? After all, she didn't care about his life.

Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. Either you think society needs to take collective action against those who commit such deeds or you do not.

It's not an either or, there's gray area that you're being pompass about.

Under what circumstances would drowning your three-year-old child in a bathtub be okay?

Life is all about circumstances. If a man with a Gun comes running at me, I'm going to blow his head off.

And? The distinction between justifiable and criminal homicide was made by myself and others some time back

If a man Rapes my wife, I'm going to blow his seed away.

Understandable, but likely criminal if you do so after the fact (as opposed to catching him the act)

If my wife's about to die giving birth and could be saved, I'd rather terminate the not yet self-aware being than terminate my wife.

Giving birth? She's likely past the end of the first trimester. Barring any extenuating circumstances, the child's brain has given rise to a new mind. Why do you feel the need to lie about that?

You're being sensationalistic and trying to avoid dealing with the reality.

If what you pro-abortionists support isn't wrong, why can't you admit what it is?

 

[G.T.]

Do you care if a woman drowns her three-year-old son in a bathtub?
Should society step up and say that's wrong? Should it be illegal? After all, she didn't care about his life.

Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. Either you think society needs to take collective action against those who commit such deeds or you do not.

It's not an either or, there's gray area that you're being pompass about.

Under what circumstances would drowning your three-year-old child in a bathtub be okay?


And? The distinction between justifiable and criminal homicide was made by myself and others some time back

If a man Rapes my wife, I'm going to blow his seed away.

Understandable, but likely criminal if you do so after the fact (as opposed to catching him the act)

If my wife's about to die giving birth and could be saved, I'd rather terminate the not yet self-aware being than terminate my wife.

Giving birth? She's likely past the end of the first trimester. Barring any extenuating circumstances, the child's brain has given rise to a new mind. Why do you feel the need to lie about that?

You're being sensationalistic and trying to avoid dealing with the reality.

If what you pro-abortionists support isn't wrong, why can't you admit what it is?

Umm, it's never justifiable to drown a 3 year old, it's ridiculous and pompass to even raise the question as if it's a genuine correlation to a non self-aware being.

Part II. by his "seed," I meant aborting what he had done inside of my wife. That's not criminal.

Part III. I have no problem calling abortion in the case of rape, or woman in danger of dying, Justifiable Homicide.

 

[manifold]

I emphatically agree that abortion is terminating human life.

But life expires all the time for a variety of reasons.

Convince me that I should value the life of someone else's fetus more than the child's own mother?

Do you care if a woman drowns her three-year-old son in a bathtub? Should society step up and say that's wrong? Should it be illegal? After all, she didn't care about his life.

Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. Either you think society needs to take collective action against those who commit such deeds or you do not.

IMO, the event of birth elevates the value of a human life, so much so, that your comparisan is moot.

Got anything else?