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

[misteroboto]

why should what some group of people who dont like abortion get be the rule for what everyone has to abide by?

if you dont like or dont agree with abortion you shouldnt be forced to have one everyone can agree with that

this irony is if you dont mind getting one you shouldnt be legally prevented from having one just because someone else doesnt like but those persons want to try like hell to prevent someone from doing something they would never do

the ethics of terminating a pregnancy are left to the individual - they should depend on what some other people like or dont like

 

[Gadawg73]

why should what some group of people who dont like abortion get be the rule for what everyone has to abide by?

if you dont like or dont agree with abortion you shouldnt be forced to have one everyone can agree with that

this irony is if you dont mind getting one you shouldnt be legally prevented from having one just because someone else doesnt like but those persons want to try like hell to prevent someone from doing something they would never do

the ethics of terminating a pregnancy are left to the individual - they should depend on what some other people like or dont like

It is all about wanting to control the reproductive rights of women and wanting government, at the point of a gun, to grow more power to enforce that.

 

[sinister59]

why should what some group of people who dont like abortion get be the rule for what everyone has to abide by?

if you dont like or dont agree with abortion you shouldnt be forced to have one everyone can agree with that

this irony is if you dont mind getting one you shouldnt be legally prevented from having one just because someone else doesnt like but those persons want to try like hell to prevent someone from doing something they would never do

the ethics of terminating a pregnancy are left to the individual - they should depend on what some other people like or dont like

It is all about wanting to control the reproductive rights of women and wanting government, at the point of a gun, to grow more power to enforce that.

and they did .women unions , people better wake up , the right is after our rights and the CR is not near done .
unions are under attack no compromise , to the end of it ,
women are under it by reproductive rights and all the steps forward , like equal pay and the rest , you vigina is just the start of it .

 

[AllieBaba]

what a joke.

 

[Agit8r]

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings." -- Ayn Rand

 

[Vast LWC]

why should what some group of people who dont like abortion get be the rule for what everyone has to abide by?

if you dont like or dont agree with abortion you shouldnt be forced to have one everyone can agree with that

this irony is if you dont mind getting one you shouldnt be legally prevented from having one just because someone else doesnt like but those persons want to try like hell to prevent someone from doing something they would never do

the ethics of terminating a pregnancy are left to the individual - they should depend on what some other people like or dont like

It is all about wanting to control the reproductive rights of women and wanting government, at the point of a gun, to grow more power to enforce that.

Now THAT is a purely Libertarian viewpoint. Well done sir. You are in fact exactly what you claim to be, and I have quite a good amount of respect for the true libertarian point of view, though I don't always necessarily agree with it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I cannot believe one accepts ALL doctrine of a church.

I don't agree with all doctrines of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of which I am a member. For instance, I disagree with "closed communion". Disagreeing with that particular doctrine of my church does not mean that I disagree with all doctrines of my church.

The only way, I can ever agree with all doctrines of my church would be to become the next David Koresh or Jim Jones. I'm really not into the playing god kind of games.

Immie

Is closed communion a doctrine, or just a practice? I'm not a Lutheran, so I have no idea.

As it happens, I believe all the doctrines and teachings of my church. I wouldn't be a member if I didn't. Now, I'll grant you, I don't agree with all of the beliefs that are prevalent among the members, but that's not the same thing.

For example, virtually everyone who is a member of the Assemblies of God (the church to which I belong) believes that drinking alcohol is a sin. I don't. But it's not an official church doctrine or teaching. IT IS a church teaching that because lowers your self-control and because it can be addictive, it can lead you into sin. I can agree with THAT wholeheartedly.

The doctrines of a church are the basic, bedrock things it teaches you about God and about your relationship to Him. I can't imagine belonging to a church if I thought it was founded on something dead wrong.

By the way, you don't have to be David Koresh or Jim Jones to start a church. After all, someone had to start each and every one of the mainstream churches out there, too. Y'know, like Martin Luther?

Is Closed Communion a doctrine? I think it is a doctrine, but maybe we need to define doctrine so that we are in agreement as to what it means. To me, doctrine is a belief taught and practiced by a church. My church believes in Closed Communion and I understand why, I simply disagree with the reasons, yet it is not a deal breaker for me.

doc·trine
   /ˈdɒktrɪn/ Show Spelled[dok-trin] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

It would not be possible for you to believe everything every member of your church believe as I suspect many of those beliefs are actually contradictory. Not to mention that there are too many beliefs for you to even know.

Nope, that's very true. People get a lot of very strange ideas into their heads. Fortunately, the beliefs of the individual members of my church are not the doctrines of the church itself, aka the body or system of teachings or principles upon which the church is based.

The doctrines of my church can be found here. These are the things which, if I did not agree with them, I would feel that I needed to find another church.

Fundamental Truths (Condensed Statement)

Number 6 is a very good reason why, as much as I like and admire many of the things the Catholic Church has accomplished, I could never be a Catholic - just for example.

WE BELIEVE...and practice two ordinances—(1) Water Baptism by Immersion after repenting of one's sins and receiving Christ's gift of salvation, and (2) Holy Communion (the Lord's Supper) as a symbolic remembrance of Christ's suffering and death for our salvation.

The Catholic Church, for a start, teaches many more ordinances than this. They also have the baptism of infants as a doctrine, and Holy Communion as a literal act of deo-cannibalism, as opposed to a symbolic remembrance.

Now, I don't personally care whether a church uses actual wine or grape juice (as all AG churches I've ever attended do) in their Holy Communion. THAT is an issue of practice, not doctrine. The DOCTRINE - the part that actually matters - is whether you practice it as a remembrance, or believe you're ingesting the actual body and blood of Christ.

I'm somewhat familiar with the Assembly of God, but not enough to discuss their doctrine with you particularly. The Lutheran Church has the Book of Concord which lays out their doctrine. Some Presbyterian Churches have the Westminster Confession that lays out their doctrine. This is not a slam on you as a believer, but my guess is that if you delve into the doctrines of the Assemblies of God, you will find some things that you don't agree with and I say that knowing that you are just a little strong willed. Just a little.

As for Martin Luther, it was not his goal to start a new church. He simply wanted to reform the old. I, too, would like to reform the LCMS when it comes to closed communion.

Immie

I'm sure it wasn't Martin Luther's goal to start a new church. For some people it has been, because they felt it was easier than trying to fix the myriad problems in the old one, as the Protestants who became the Church of England did after Henry VIII started a schism with the Catholic Church over his divorce.

And no, I was raised by a long line of AG ministers. I'm very conversant with all of the fundamental doctrines of my church. I disagree frequently with other members on practices, and sometimes even application of doctrine. The doctrines themselves, though, I have no problem with.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think doctrine is just institutionalized practice.

So any practice that is not necessarily scriptural (in the case of Christianity) is doctrine.

No. Doctrine encompasses what your church considers to be the "fundamental truths" - as the AG calls them - upon which it founds all of its teachings. For example, the AG believes that the Scriptures are inspired directly by God. If you're inclined to believe the Bible was written by men, you have no business joining an AG church. The AG believes in the Triune Godhead. If the Trinity bugs you, you'll want another church. The deity of Jesus Christ is also not optional.

You get the idea. It's not that the AG will forbid you from attending, or even having an official membership, if you disagree on these points, but you can see why disagreeing with them on doctrine adds up, in my eyes, to finding another church that I DO agree with.

 

[Cecilie1200]

why should what some group of people who dont like abortion get be the rule for what everyone has to abide by?

if you dont like or dont agree with abortion you shouldnt be forced to have one everyone can agree with that

this irony is if you dont mind getting one you shouldnt be legally prevented from having one just because someone else doesnt like but those persons want to try like hell to prevent someone from doing something they would never do

the ethics of terminating a pregnancy are left to the individual - they should depend on what some other people like or dont like

If you really have this sort of confusion over the basic, fundamental issues under debate, you really have no business even wasting everyone else's time in this thread. It's obvious to me that you've never bothered to actually LISTEN to what the other side is saying and what their position is. It's just all you, alone in the echo chamber of your own head.

So go back there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings." -- Ayn Rand

Yes, because I care deeply about the opinion of a fiction writer. Hey, next why don't you quote to us from L. Ron Hubbard. THERE'S a fiction writer who actually managed to get all the way to founding his own church.

And coincidentally, I don't give a **** what HE thinks, either.

Next you'll be giving us quotes from Hollywood actors as though THEY settle the matter. God forbid the left ever get any of its "fundamental truths" from people who don't make a living making shit up.

 

[Agit8r]

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings." -- Ayn Rand

Yes, because I care deeply about the opinion of a fiction writer. Hey, next why don't you quote to us from L. Ron Hubbard. THERE'S a fiction writer who actually managed to get all the way to founding his own church.

And coincidentally, I don't give a **** what HE thinks, either.

Next you'll be giving us quotes from Hollywood actors as though THEY settle the matter. God forbid the left ever get any of its "fundamental truths" from people who don't make a living making shit up.

Tell that to the "Who is John Galt" crowd

 

[taichiliberal]

unless YOU are going to take of that child, pay that woman's FULL medical bills for 9 months and delivery, etc., etc.

So unless you're going to pay for my child for 16 years, you can't tell me not to kill my 16 year old?


Only the convoluted logic of religiously fanatical anti-abortionist generally compare abortion to murder of a fully functioning young adult/adult. To date NO Supreme Court state or federal has equated the two as such. And since I made no such assertion/insinuation of the sort you are proposing here, you're just knee jerking propaganda responses.

Isn't the whole rape and incest thing the very appeal to emotion that some people in this thread keep complaining about?

Well bunky, I didn't make any such statement or alluded to such, so take your complaint to someone else.

an present no evidence whatsoever that it is a human being, a person, other than its 46 chromosomes which are nothing more than the plans for a human being.

The DNA might be 'the plans', but the unborn child is the human being made form those plans. This is basic stuff for anyone who took science class in school.

So now the chromosomes and the zygote are the same thing? Maybe you should look up the definitions, since you don't seem to know what any of the things are that you talk about.


It's also worth noting that in this post you equate 'human being' and 'person'. Hencwe, if the child is human, it is a person.


As opposed to a non-human person?

You deny that humans beget humans? What species is the zygote before it becomes a human? You define all humans as people without regard to age, yet you deny that we are people at our youngest?



How many years of a child's life are you willing to apply that argument? What about the elderly and people who develop Alzheimer's?



So is it "viability" or thought that's important? What definition of "viability" are we using? Modern science seems to make it possible to save the lives of the unborn earlier and earlier in pregnancy.



Two things. First, that's how we all looked at that age. Secondly, do you really mean that it should be okay to kill someone because they don't happen to look like you?

Because preventing the unborn from being killed trumps punishing the woman..

Punishing women? Do these people really think of themselves as a punishment? Maybe they should take that up with their psychiatrists?

Obama: I don't want my daughters "punished with a baby"

Now we're having science decided for us by lawyers? Really? We need laws to tell us what reality is? Jesus.

Dover Trial?

Again, with all the medical technology available to the public, if this country would get it's ideological head out of it's ass, abortion would be a rarity or a medical emergency procedure. Comparable, realistic sex education at all grade levels, junior license for contraceptives (parental approved) like you would a car, funding options on your tax return. But for many, it's an irrational emotion based argument with both sides claiming to know what God wants (or if there is a God to weigh in on the matter).....and the band played on.

 

[Chris]

An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.

There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.

None of them are human beings.

 

[Agit8r]

An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.

There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.

None of them are human beings.

Ayn Rand agreed, and her 'Atlas Shrugged' will "change the face of american politics"

 

[Chris]

It's worst than that.

Unwanted children are much more likely it be abused, so anti abortion advocates are pro child abuse.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings." -- Ayn Rand

Yes, because I care deeply about the opinion of a fiction writer. Hey, next why don't you quote to us from L. Ron Hubbard. THERE'S a fiction writer who actually managed to get all the way to founding his own church.

And coincidentally, I don't give a **** what HE thinks, either.

Next you'll be giving us quotes from Hollywood actors as though THEY settle the matter. God forbid the left ever get any of its "fundamental truths" from people who don't make a living making shit up.

Tell that to the "Who is John Galt" crowd

Consider that a generalized, blanket "**** off, moron" to ANYONE it applies to. I don't have time to tell every fucktard on the planet who can't separate fiction from reality to get a life.

 

[Zoom-boing]

An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.

There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.

None of them are human beings.

The consensus is that 97% of USMB members think you're a moron.

It's worst than that.

Unwanted children are much more likely it be abused, so anti abortion advocates are pro child abuse.

Make that 98%.

 

[Agit8r]

Yes, because I care deeply about the opinion of a fiction writer. Hey, next why don't you quote to us from L. Ron Hubbard. THERE'S a fiction writer who actually managed to get all the way to founding his own church.

And coincidentally, I don't give a **** what HE thinks, either.

Next you'll be giving us quotes from Hollywood actors as though THEY settle the matter. God forbid the left ever get any of its "fundamental truths" from people who don't make a living making shit up.

Tell that to the "Who is John Galt" crowd

Consider that a generalized, blanket "**** off, moron" to ANYONE it applies to. I don't have time to tell every fucktard on the planet who can't separate fiction from reality to get a life.

and now she starts in on the Birchers...

 

[Cecilie1200]

An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.

There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.

None of them are human beings.

Ayn Rand agreed, and her 'Atlas Shrugged' will "change the face of american politics"

"Atlas Shrugged" was published in 1957. I think it's done all the "changing the face of American politics" that it's going to. That ship has sailed.

 

[Agit8r]

An embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells without consciousness.

There are millions of frozen embryos in labs around the country.

None of them are human beings.

Ayn Rand agreed, and her 'Atlas Shrugged' will "change the face of american politics"

"Atlas Shrugged" was published in 1957. I think it's done all the "changing the face of American politics" that it's going to. That ship has sailed.

One can hope