Abortion

Mott the Hoople said:
No. You fool. I'm saying it's not a choice at all.
Click to expand...
Ummm, let's see..... some women CHOOSE to have the abortion. Some CHOOSE to attempt to carry the child to term. Some actually succeed in carrying the child to term, despite medical advice to not even try. Now, explain how that is "not a choice at all"?

Mott the Hoople said:
If one has to choose between life and an unnecessary death (which is not a choice at all) then yes, one is morally obligated to chose life.
Click to expand...
But whose life? Some believe that a .0001% chance of saving a child's life is worth risking and losing one's own life. Also, does this mean you are against assisted suicide?

Mott the Hoople said:
That would be an immoral choice then.
Click to expand...
Let's get our terms straight shall we? Just a couple sentences ago you were describing it as "not a choice at all". Now it is an "immoral choice"? Which is it? Immoral (by your standards) or "not at all"? Is all the world to blindly accept your definitions of morality and moral obligation?

Mott the Hoople said:
Sorry but you're utterly clueless if you think choosing a needless and unnecessary death over life is a moral choice. That's not a choice at all. It's suicide and I know no moral person that advocates suicide.
Click to expand...
Now you are strawmanning my points. Not once did I claim any kind of morality in these choices - I simply pointed out that the choice is there, and it is real, moral obligation or not. In fact I definitely pointed out that people quite often choose the "immoral" choice of neglecting their moral obligations. Though there are those who believe that giving their life in the attempt to save a child's life - even if futile - is a moral choice. By what standards (other than your own egocentrism) do you claim their judgment of morality is wrong?

BTW: you still haven't answered my question: how is it moral to use law to deny human rights to a class of living humans?
 
Last edited:
augustino5150 said:
Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.
Click to expand...
Scientists would have nothing to study in your case. Chocolate pudding yields little data on brain function.

augustino5150 said:
Are you still in grammar school? Before civilization law was capture based. Do you understand capture? Do you even know what capture is? Hint: You can take as much as you want. You can keep as much as you can hold. That's the first law and is still in use today by tribes in primitive places.
Click to expand...
Last I looked, we are not living in a primitive society - therefore applying their standards of morality with respect to possession and ownership is invalid. Your claims do nothing to refute the FACT that our laws are functionally the codification of our society's morals.

NOTE: (since the pudding you call a brain has trouble with real thought) that refers to OUR society, NOT some theoretical primitive society.

augustino5150 said:
That is patently the law.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the LAW is based on a flat out LIE. Science PROVES the law to be wrong. The law was written by liars. It's that simple.

augustino5150 said:
The Kosovo war? Ever heard of it? It was when Clinton was president, back when you were starting school. Here's a link to the official data: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/
Want more? There's plenty including bogus prosecutions of women right here in America. Like I said, I don't trust your good intentions.
Click to expand...
And how does that prove that abortion laws are intended to enslave women? According to you own reference, abortions were still legal. ("The siege has also had a profound effect on the psyche and future of the city's population. The BiH Government has reported a soaring suicide rate by Sarajevans, a near doubling of abortions and a 50 per cent drop in births since the siege began.")

The references were to women incarcerated for the purposes of rape, gotten pregnant and held "until it is too late in the pregnancy to obtain an abortion." (another indication that abortion was still legal). Sick and despicable as that is, it is complete strawman to the argument about legalized abortion and the purpose of anti-abortion laws. In short, your claim about the purpose of anti-abortion laws is still a flat out lie. One more in the multitude of lies and misinformation spread by pro-abortion fans.

Anti-abortion laws are about PROTECTING INNOCENT CHILDREN. That you subhuman simpletons have bought into the dehumanization of the unborn does not change that basic fact.
 
Sacrifice And Suffer

Threedee said:
Yes, its almost as funny a concept as not protecting them.
Click to expand...
Exactly the same argument made for the War On Drugs. Protect the Children!

The War On Drugs has killed more kids than the drugs we're protecting them from. Outlaw abortion and you will only increase business for the drug dealers. Mixing chemicals to induce abortion is much easier than cooking meth or crack.

Another high profit business for the drug lords and the prison industrial complex! How many people do we have to throw in the dungeon before your need for sacrifice and suffering is satisfied?
 
augustino5150 said:
Exactly the same argument made for the War On Drugs. Protect the Children!

The War On Drugs has killed more kids than the drugs we're protecting them from. Outlaw abortion and you will only increase business for the drug dealers. Mixing chemicals to induce abortion is much easier than cooking meth or crack.

Another high profit business for the drug lords and the prison industrial complex! How many people do we have to throw in the dungeon before your need for sacrifice and suffering is satisfied?
Click to expand...
LOL 'Its all one big conspiracy.'
 
augustino5150 said:
Exactly the same argument made for the War On Drugs. Protect the Children!

The War On Drugs has killed more kids than the drugs we're protecting them from. Outlaw abortion and you will only increase business for the drug dealers. Mixing chemicals to induce abortion is much easier than cooking meth or crack.

Another high profit business for the drug lords and the prison industrial complex! How many people do we have to throw in the dungeon before your need for sacrifice and suffering is satisfied?
Click to expand...

The people we are "saving" in the war on drugs are not at risk of being murdered. When they die, they die at their own hands, from their own choices.

No infant ever made the decision to murder itself. You are comparing apples to tactical nuclear devices.
 
BOOM!!!

Threedee said:
The people we are "saving" in the war on drugs are not at risk of being murdered. When they die, they die at their own hands, from their own choices.

No infant ever made the decision to murder itself. You are comparing apples to tactical nuclear devices.
Click to expand...

I'm not comparing. I'm pointing out that your good intentions will kill kids. You want to justify your murderous dogma by claiming you'll be saving more than you kill. Can't you come up with a plan that doesn't include murder and mayhem?
How about teaching by example? You could try that. Some guy named Jesus had pretty good luck with that method, or so it's claimed.
 
augustino5150 said:
Exactly the same argument made for the War On Drugs. Protect the Children!

The War On Drugs has killed more kids than the drugs we're protecting them from. Outlaw abortion and you will only increase business for the drug dealers. Mixing chemicals to induce abortion is much easier than cooking meth or crack.

Another high profit business for the drug lords and the prison industrial complex! How many people do we have to throw in the dungeon before your need for sacrifice and suffering is satisfied?
Click to expand...
And now we get to the usual liberal emo bullshit. You just continue to show yourself to be a pudding brained moron.

There is no relationship between the war on drugs (which I agree has been a massive waste of money which should be ended) and legalized abortion.

And the old "you'll only increase illegal abortions" argument has been debunked a million times. Laws have never meant to eliminate the actions being prohibited. Laws are about giving society the authority to prosecute those who break the law, thus protecting any future victims from future criminal actions. Unlike the drug war, which is law against crime which effectively has no victim (both the user and the supplier enter into a mutually satisfying agreement) abortions DO have a victim: the unborn human who is killed.
 
Last edited:
augustino5150 said:
I'm not comparing. I'm pointing out that your good intentions will kill kids. You want to justify your murderous dogma by claiming you'll be saving more than you kill. Can't you come up with a plan that doesn't include murder and mayhem?
How about teaching by example? You could try that. Some guy named Jesus had pretty good luck with that method, or so it's claimed.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll play along. HOW will regulating abortion to necessary (ie: mother's life is in grave danger) abortions KILL children? Or, to be more specific, how will it kill MORE children than the million+ children killed by abortions every year?
 
augustino5150 said:
I'm not comparing. I'm pointing out that your good intentions will kill kids. You want to justify your murderous dogma by claiming you'll be saving more than you kill. Can't you come up with a plan that doesn't include murder and mayhem?
How about teaching by example? You could try that. Some guy named Jesus had pretty good luck with that method, or so it's claimed.
Click to expand...

I haven't put anyone's life in danger. If you mean the mother, then I accept that it is legally proper to perform abortions when her health/life is at risk. I also accept that embryos developing outside of the uterus, such as in the Fallopian Tube, will both die and cause unnecessary damage to the woman.

Also, I don't recall any one of the pro-lifers bringing up Jesus. I find it both puzzling and unprecedented that the pro-abortion side continues to do so in this thread.
 
Good Luck!

Threedee said:
I haven't put anyone's life in danger. If you mean the mother, then I accept that it is legally proper to perform abortions when her health/life is at risk. I also accept that embryos developing outside of the uterus, such as in the Fallopian Tube, will both die and cause unnecessary damage to the woman.

Also, I don't recall any one of the pro-lifers bringing up Jesus. I find it both puzzling and unprecedented that the pro-abortion side continues to do so in this thread.
Click to expand...

I have Dish Network with the Faux News package. Faux News comes with the religion channels. You have no choice in this. If you want Fox you must pay for the religion channels. I watch a couple of them because they're great comedy and they tell me exactly what you boys are up too. You've been instructed to play down the religious aspect and run with science and ethics.
It ain't gonna work!
 
augustino5150 said:
I have Dish Network with the Faux News package. Faux News comes with the religion channels. You have no choice in this. If you want Fox you must pay for the religion channels. I watch a couple of them because they're great comedy and they tell me exactly what you boys are up too. You've been instructed to play down the religious aspect and run with science and ethics.
It ain't gonna work!
Click to expand...

I don't watch religion channels. The only religious programming I have ever tuned into for more than 2 min. is EWTN Catholic Radio. Enjoy your painfully boring television.
 
Women Should Not Ride Bikes!

Good Luck said:
Okay, I'll play along. HOW will regulating abortion to necessary (ie: mother's life is in grave danger) abortions KILL children? Or, to be more specific, how will it kill MORE children than the million+ children killed by abortions every year?
Click to expand...
It is impossible to make a law that will not be abused. Abortion Law in this country was so commonly abused that even the American Medical Association demanded an end to Abortion Law. I'm old enough to remember the abortion debates. Roe v Wade didn't just pop up out of nowhere. There were years of legal battles. Innocent women were persecuted all over the country by religious crackpot prosecuters. Any woman who miscarried was in danger of prosecution. She should have known that riding that bike would cause her to miscarry! Every man my age remembers schoolgirls dying from botched abortions. I don't want to return to those barbaric times.

I know you have good intentions and believe you're saving lives. You're not saving. You're trading and that is playing God. I will not play God and I will not vote for anyone who will order a woman to bear a child against her will.
 
Get 'Em Helga!

Threedee said:
I don't watch religion channels. The only religious programming I have ever tuned into for more than 2 min. is EWTN Catholic Radio. Enjoy your painfully boring television.
Click to expand...

Painfully boring television is all some of us have. I live sixty miles from the nearest entertainment. The only excitement I have is watching my wife chase the bear out of her garden...that hot babe in the polka dot bikini grew into bear chasing Helga the Hun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top