Dick Cheney Was Right

Dungheap said:
When it's an abortion we hear about "killing a child," but when it's a fertility clinic destroying and discarding fertilized eggs we hear about "embryos in stasis."

Interesting.
Click to expand...

And to think that, if not for the stasis thing, we could have the next Einstein or Bach...
 
Superfreak said:
Stop. Think. I know that can be hard for a lawyer, but do try. In the above you are equating the Jews and the Women who have the abortions. That is not the correct relationship. The VICTIMS are the Jews and the UNBORN children.

The dehumanization is NOT of the women. It is of the children. The dehumanization allows for pro-abortionists to justify taking that innocent life.

I am not saying that every aspect is the same as what Hitler did. But the dehumanization of a group of people to justify being able to kill them.... THAT is most certainly the same.

So.... do you believe an abortion ends a human life or do you, like Darla and others, pretend that it isn't human and thus the woman should have a 'choice' as to whether or not to kill the child?
Click to expand...
Genetically and mechanistically it is human life. But we live in a country where decisions about the life of "innocents" are made regularly. Grandpa's life support is removed because he MOST LIKELY isn't coming back and keeping him on it will bankrupt grandma, Women in vegetative states are taken off life support even though they breath, and their heart beats and they have human dna. We do it all the time. At the same time our country has allowed women to seek abortions we have also stiffened our child abuse laws. We protect children in this country as we have in no time in our previous history. 4.1 million live births occur every year in this country to parents that want a child very much. But there are some who have abortions in this country, MOST that already have one child already BEFORE getting an abortion. Your equating a fetus at 6 weeks gestation to a four year old and then equating the termination of that 6 week old fetus to putting a gun in the mouth of a four year old and blowing her away, is sheer emotionalism. They are not the same, any more than the 900,000 miscarriages in this world are the same as the children that die in their bed from SIDS.
 
Dungheap said:
When it's an abortion we hear about "killing a child," but when it's a fertility clinic destroying and discarding fertilized eggs we hear about "embryos in stasis."

Interesting.
Click to expand...

Sigh....if the egg is already fertilized, then it is still a child you dolt. That doesn't change. What changes is that it is in stasis.

Your desperation is quite pathetic.

Side note.... at fertility clinics, when the eggs are frozen, are they already fertilized or do they fertilize them once they are ready for implant?
 
Superfreak said:
This is where you fail. Because it most certainly IS the same as pulling that trigger on a 4 year old. Both are unique human lives. In both cases you are choosing to end that life.

I beleive they are both entitled to basic human rights protections. You don't.

That is not nanny state, that is protecting the innocent. If some group of psychotics were running around killing new-borns, you would rise up and defend them against the psychotics.

What changes in that minute that the child emerges that makes you defend one and not the other?
Click to expand...
For me it is not emergence, there is a point where the child has achieved a viability so that it's rights supersede the mothers. The Jews of the old testament called in quickening. We are a rational society. We are also Cartesian, Cogito Ergo Sum, A four year old child and an in utero anacephalic are not the same. But in your world they are because to be consistent EVERY child in utero must be given the same treatment. So if your mother or wife is raped, that child is an innocent, unique and she should be forced to carry it. I can't and won't live in that world. The world you want already failed in Romania. That is the sort of country you MUST have to make abortion illegal. I won't live there either.

And I find it funny that you have no REAL words for the psychotics on YOUR side that would enter a church and kill a man in front of his family.
 
Ice Dancer said:
And you either in ignorance or in stubborness miss the actual analogy of the comparison.

Hitler stated that Jews were less than human so he could rally support to mass murder them. Get the connection yet?
Click to expand...

Yes now Chritian terrorist are condeming dr's and getting republican gun nuts to murder them.
 
Socrtease said:
Genetically and mechanistically it is human life. But we live in a country where decisions about the life of "innocents" are made regularly. Grandpa's life support is removed because he MOST LIKELY isn't coming back and keeping him on it will bankrupt grandma, Women in vegetative states are taken off life support even though they breath, and their heart beats and they have human dna. We do it all the time. At the same time our country has allowed women to seek abortions we have also stiffened our child abuse laws. We protect children in this country as we have in no time in our previous history. 4.1 million live births occur every year in this country to parents that want a child very much. But there are some, MOST that already have one child already BEFORE getting an abortion. Your equating a fetus at 6 weeks gestation to a four year old and then equating the termination of that 6 week old fetus to putting a gun in the mouth of a four year old and blowing her away, is sheer emotionalism. They are not the same, any more than the 900,000 miscarriages in this world are the same as the children that die in their bed from SIDS.
Click to expand...

Again, your example is not valid with the four year old. That is no different than saying that putting a gun to a 10 year olds head is somehow different than the 4 year old simply due to the childs age. It is not emotionalism, it is a failure in logic on your part. You are drawing an arbitrary line based on your emotions.

As for the other examples, there is a difference. An old man on life support that is NOT expected to make it vs. a child that IS expected to make it.

The woman in a vegatative state again is not expected to recover. Thus, this again is just another bogus example.

In your other post, you brought up what happened to one of Tillers clients. In THAT case, it is no different than pulling the plug on someone on life support. The child has no chance of survival or recovery.

Talk to woman who has had a miscarriage... talk to psychiatrists about what those women go through. It is the loss of their child and they typically respond in that manner.
 
Topspin said:
Yes now Chritian terrorist are condeming dr's and getting republican gun nuts to murder them.
Click to expand...
and this guy would have murdered tiller with a gun if they were legal or not. This is NOT the guns fault. This is the fault of the right wingers that tell people that murdering abortion providers is defense of others.
 
Socrtease said:
For me it is not emergence, there is a point where the child has achieved a viability so that it's rights supersede the mothers. The Jews of the old testament called in quickening. We are a rational society. We are also Cartesian, Cogito Ergo Sum, A four year old child and an in utero anacephalic are not the same. But in your world they are because to be consistent EVERY child in utero must be given the same treatment. So if your mother or wife is raped, that child is an innocent, unique and she should be forced to carry it. I can't and won't live in that world. The world you want already failed in Romania. That is the sort of country you MUST have to make abortion illegal. I won't live there either.

And I find it funny that you have no REAL words for the psychotics on YOUR side that would enter a church and kill a man in front of his family.
Click to expand...

I have already stated that the guy should be fully prosecuted, already stated that he does nothing but hurt the pro-life movement and have already stated that he is a friggin nut. What else should I say?

The whole viability issue is a very slippery slope. I truly hate that argument as who decides what is viable? Technology keeps increasing to where every decade younger and younger pre-mature births are able to survive. So how can you draw that line? WHO gets to decide where that line is?

As for the case of rape, it always comes back to this point for pro-abortionists, because they know this is the one case in which the woman did not choose to have sex and thus it creates the lesser of two evils situation... do you force her to carry the kid to term? or do you kill the child? Neither is fair, neither is just.
 
Superfreak said:
Again, your example is not valid with the four year old. That is no different than saying that putting a gun to a 10 year olds head is somehow different than the 4 year old simply due to the childs age. It is not emotionalism, it is a failure in logic on your part. You are drawing an arbitrary line based on your emotions.

As for the other examples, there is a difference. An old man on life support that is NOT expected to make it vs. a child that IS expected to make it.

The woman in a vegatative state again is not expected to recover. Thus, this again is just another bogus example.

In your other post, you brought up what happened to one of Tillers clients. In THAT case, it is no different than pulling the plug on someone on life support. The child has no chance of survival or recovery.

Talk to woman who has had a miscarriage... talk to psychiatrists about what those women go through. It is the loss of their child and they typically respond in that manner.
Click to expand...

First off most miscarriages occur before 12 weeks gestation and women think they are having an unusually heavy period, so there is NOT a lot of psychological trauma to a heavy period, regardless of what some women want to tell you ;). Less than 1% of them occur AFTER 20 weeks, and those women I am sure do suffer greatly, for the vast majority of them, it is NOT like walking in to your baby's room and finding the child dead from SIDS.

As to the four year old ten year old analogy, they are both alive as determined by the law and the constitution of this country. You think the founders had never heard of abortions, didn't know there were midwives out there helping women abort their pregnancy? If they had wanted to protect the unborn as citizens of this country they could have. They chose not to.
 
Socrtease said:
and this guy would have murdered tiller with a gun if they were legal or not. This is NOT the guns fault. This is the fault of the right wingers that tell people that murdering abortion providers is defense of others.
Click to expand...

You are doing the same thing toppy is. He is trying to blame guns. You are trying to blame 'right wingers'. There is ONE person to blame. He is in custody. Trying to expand that blame onto an entire group of people is just as ridiculous as doing so to an inanimate object.
 
Are you going to continue to go down the lying road you are on, hon? :D

I thought you said you didn't even know Ice's name. I do believe you were the first to post it on the board.:toilet: :D

Darla said:
I fail to see what working in the pig farming fields has to do with this, abba you cheerleading shit stirring 60 year old developmentally retarded fool.

A high school drop out, who got knocked up at 16 years of age and doesn't even have a ged did not "work in this field".

Jesus Christ on a cross you people never stop with your bullshit stories.
Click to expand...
 
Socrtease said:
First off most miscarriages occur before 12 weeks gestation and women think they are having an unusually heavy period, so there is NOT a lot of psychological trauma to a heavy period, regardless of what some women want to tell you ;). Less than 1% of them occur AFTER 20 weeks, and those women I am sure do suffer greatly, for the vast majority of them, it is NOT like walking in to your baby's room and finding the child dead from SIDS.

As to the four year old ten year old analogy, they are both alive as determined by the law and the constitution of this country. You think the founders had never heard of abortions, didn't know there were midwives out there helping women abort their pregnancy? If they had wanted to protect the unborn as citizens of this country they could have. They chose not to.
Click to expand...


Then I stand slightly corrected, I was unaware the majority occured that early. That said, the fact that there wasn't enough time for an EMOTIONAL attachement to form doesn't alter one bit that it was a kids life that ended.

LAWS do not dictate who is human and who is not. Going back to the founders is a very poor example. Because they also failed to outlaw slavery and when slaves were freed they became 3/5 of a person. So please tell me you are not going to hang your argument on that. Again, it is an arbitrary line in the sand that you are drawing. Those lines are based on EMOTION. You know, the thing you keep accusing me of relying upon. Whereas my line is based on scientific FACT.
 
Superfreak said:
I have already stated that the guy should be fully prosecuted, already stated that he does nothing but hurt the pro-life movement and have already stated that he is a friggin nut. What else should I say?

The whole viability issue is a very slippery slope. I truly hate that argument as who decides what is viable? Technology keeps increasing to where every decade younger and younger pre-mature births are able to survive. So how can you draw that line? WHO gets to decide where that line is?

As for the case of rape, it always comes back to this point for pro-abortionists, because they know this is the one case in which the woman did not choose to have sex and thus it creates the lesser of two evils situation... do you force her to carry the kid to term? or do you kill the child? Neither is fair, neither is just.
Click to expand...
You are right, viability does keep moving further and further back. At some point, we will have the technology to remove the fetus from the woman and plant it in an artificial womb. Then we will all have that brave new world to contend with.

I still as of yet have to see a study that says the US is worse off because there are 40 million less people since Roe in the US than there should be. Like I said, it is the last worst choice a woman should have to make, but your side has worked its ass off to make reducing the number of unintended pregnancies harder to do. Your side, and they are YOUR SIDE, want to teach kids to just ignore that innate drive they feel to breed. Go take a cold shower, go play baseball but for god sake don't buy that condom, don't get on the pill. Don't teach kids how to NOT get pregnant because if you teach them that you are teaching them it is ok to have sex. The right has busted its ass to make this problem worse, they get all defensive of the fetus while it is in utero, but then when born it is the mothers fault she has a child she can't feed, it is the mothers fault that he child doesn't have insurance, this remarkable gift become "the mother's fault" almost at birth.
 
"The whole viability issue is a very slippery slope. I truly hate that argument as who decides what is viable? Technology keeps increasing to where every decade younger and younger pre-mature births are able to survive. So how can you draw that line? WHO gets to decide where that line is? "

Viability is as clear a compromise as there will ever be between the pro-life and pro-choice sides, lest God weigh in on the subject in some sort of definitive way.

We have been harping on you about frozen embryos, and for good reason. You have your spin on that, and it's fine. Do you really consider all of those frozen embryos, "in statis", to be babies? To be the equivalent of living, independent 4-year-olds?

The equation you're ignoring, and which is also scientific FACT, is that the continued existence & development of a zygote, embryo or fetus depends ENTIRELY on the use of someone else's body. It's your inconvenient truth. Even if you see a zygote a fully developed 4-year-old with all the rights of any living human, but no human has the right to use another human's body in order to sustain their development.
 
Superfreak said:
True, but that would result in a natural death would it not? Again, this is why I am not a fan of science venturing into creating life in artificial manners.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. What, really, is the difference, unless you're acknowledging a supernatural involvement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top