Good Luck and abortion

Addendum:
I believe you have a very biased - and false - view of the pro-life movement as a whole. Yes, there are our share of pro-life advocates who come from a religious-fundamentalist background who fit a lot of the beliefs you attribute to what you call "usually". But in fact a majority of pro-life advocates do NOT come from such a rigid, narrow minded background.
 
blackascoal said:
I don't disagree with you brother .. but I understood where King was coming from .. and it should be an expected response when anyone compares someone to the KKK and Hitler. It doesn't advance the argument .. which I'm sure you'll agree.
Click to expand...
Just to make things clear, Raw is deliberately misrepresenting what I said. At least before he started his childish rantings which I got quickly tired of and decided to play into just to piss him off more.

What I did say, originally, is that the justification for pro-choice (the unborn are either not human at all, or are not human "enough" to be considered "persons") stems from the same type of dehumanizing that took place when justifying slavery or anti-semetism. The original statement was not and is not meant to imply pro-choice advocated are the same or even similar to KKK members or Nazis. The motivations of racists ans nazis are based in evil - no denying that. The motivations of pro-choice advocates is based in idealism. But there IS a common link of dehumanizing members of the human race in order to justify treating them in a desired way.

The facts are that most pro-choice advocates refuse to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn, or if they do acknowledge the proven science of their humanity, go on to claim that simply being human is not good enough to claim human rights. (Why isn't being human good enough?) But pro-choice advocates continue to dehumanize the unborn as much as possible.

Case in point is the insistence with which pro-choice advocates refer to the unborn by the scientific description of their developmental level. Other than pro-choice advocates talking abortion, one does not hear unborn children being referred to by those terms. One do not ask a friend or relative (or even stranger on the street) "when is your fetus due?" or "How old is your fetus?" You ask "when is your BABY due?" Everyone, in common use, calls the unborn "babies". (ie: a generic, humanistic word that acknowledges them as part of the human race, and does not distinguish between born or unborn.)

Even doctors refer to the unborn as "babies" unless they are discussing some scientific or medical aspect between themselves - or preparing to kill them. And the ONLY times lay people use the scientific labels are in science classes, or when talking about abortion. The way the terms are used, and under what circumstances, makes it plain that the reason for pro-choice advocates to use those terms is to dehumanize the unborn so as to justify denying them human rights.

And the additional fact is that with all other times a group of humans have been targeted and dehumanized to justify denying them their human rights, society has judged those actions to be unjust.
 
Good Luck said:
Addendum:
I believe you have a very biased - and false - view of the pro-life movement as a whole. Yes, there are our share of pro-life advocates who come from a religious-fundamentalist background who fit a lot of the beliefs you attribute to what you call "usually". But in fact a majority of pro-life advocates do NOT come from such a rigid, narrow minded background.
Click to expand...
It's easier to dismiss them as less than intelligent if they do, therefore making such an assumption is a sign of an inadequate argument.
 
Good Luck said:
The fact is unborn human children are living humans. You acknowledge that the unborn are scientifically living humans.

The fact is you admitted you are using opinion to deny human rights to the unborn. You stated, in your own words, that IN YOUR OPINION, they are not "human enough" to be granted human rights.

Another fact is that using opinion to dehumanize groups of humans has been used through out history as justification for subjugating the targeted group of humans.

Enslavement of Blacks in America prior to the Civil War is one example of when a group of humans were dehumanized through opinion to justify their enslavement. That is a historical fact.

Racism against blacks, including Jim Crow laws and the "equal but separate" SCOTUS decision are other examples when the opinion "they aren't human enough" was used as justification to deny and/or limit human rights to blacks in this country. That is a historical fact.

Hitler's "Final Solution" for the Jewish population of Europe is another example when a group of humans were deliberately dehumanized through manipulation of popular opinion. Again, it is historical fact that the use of opinion to dehumanize the Jewish population was the method used to justify subjugation of the Jews to enslave them and slaughter them.

And one more fact is that every time in history, to include racism in the U.S., the anti-semetism of Nazi Germany, and every single other instance when opinion has been used to lable a group of humans "not human enough for human rights", society has labeled those events as unjust.

Sorry if you cannot handle those basic facts.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of examples of as you call it, "using opinion to deny human rights" to plenty of humans, not just the unborn.
 
Now wait a minute Good Luck. I'm not done with you yet! You told me that all you are doing to stop the murdering of innocent babies is voting for a few anti-murder bills. You told me that we are worse than Hitler and the kkk so why are you doing so little to stop the murdering terrorists from killing babies? No I want to know why you stand back and pretty much do nothing while defensless babies are being killed as we speak. These people are worse than the nazis and you aren't taking any higher actions to stop us?!
 
Why ain't you answering? Could it be that you don't care enough about poor little babies to actually do something about it? I mean you said this is worse than what Hitler did so why not take action. Voting for a bill is about as effortless as you can get man. Let me try it.


1943


KingRaw!- You know frank, I sure do hate how Hitler is killing all the jews. It's murder! This is the ultimate crime against humanity. This is as bad as it gets. Nothing tops this except abortion!


Frank- Well, what are you going to do about it?


KingRaw!- I.....am going to vote on a bill that would ban Hitler from killing the jews!


Frank- I've gotta say Raw, that's pretty half-ass.


KingRaw!- What do you mean?


Frank- Well you just told me how this is the worst thing in history and nothing tops it except abortion, and all you're doing about it is voting on some bill?


KingRaw!- Hey, I think we've got enough votes to pass it.


Frank- No...you don't. Look even if you did have enough votes to pass it, it won't take effect right away. Plus, there's 5 months till the election! What about all the jews that Hitler's gonna kill between now and then?


KingRaw!- ....look! I am for Life! I am doing something about it. What about you?


Frank- I'm getting a bunch of people together and we are going to save the jews ourselves. Screw bills and amendments, people are dying and we are going to force Hitler to let them go or we will destroy him.


KingRaw!- whatever...........I'm going to go hide somewhere and act like I'm saving jews by voting for a bill 5 months from now.
 
Your silence tells it all. You make such a big deal about us murdering poor little babies, but you do as little as possible to actually do something about it. We may be murderers and terrorists but you let us get away with it. You are just as bad!
 
I think the claim that he is just as bad because he does not use force to stop abortions is just an attempt to bait him.

If he is proceeding within the legal means, he is doing something. He is not sitting idly by and ignoring the problem.

Perhaps he has just grown tired of an endless cycle this argument has taken.
 
But voting on something is so half-assed. This guy said we are worse than the nazis so why isn't he really doing something about it?
 
I think the claim that he is just as bad because he does not use force to stop abortions is just an attempt to bait him.


Just like his comaprisons of pro-choicers to the KKK and Hitler were an attempt to bait me. He tried to punk me out and now I'm returning the favor. I'm going to ALL kinds of websites and telling people about him. 9 out of ten times everyone is upset by his remarks and agree with me.


If he is proceeding within the legal means, he is doing something. He is not sitting idly by and ignoring the problem.


But voting for something or signing a petition isn't good enough if you really think abortion is worse than what Hitler did to the jews.


Perhaps he has just grown tired of an endless cycle this argument has taken.


I recall him running away when other people started taking my side.
 
I completely understand the mechanistic life position that the biological totalitarians have adopted. It is true, mechanistically from the beginning of conception zygotes are genetic human life. But lets take one of these zygotes to the end of pregnancy, one that will be born anacephalitic. When that "child" is born, it will have no ability EVER to gain consciousness. Many of them die before birth but some make it to birth. MOST women when informed that their child will be born without a brain choose NOT to carry the child to term. Your logic would FORCE that woman to carry the child to term and then FORCE hospitals to provide MAXIMUM care for the child once born thereby causeing the parents to incure HUGE medical bills and hospitals to use valuable resources. An anacephalitic child has NO chance of ever achieving personhood. This is the flaw in your mechanistic life argument.
 
Socrtease said:
I completely understand the mechanistic life position that the biological totalitarians have adopted. It is true, mechanistically from the beginning of conception zygotes are genetic human life. But lets take one of these zygotes to the end of pregnancy, one that will be born anacephalitic. When that "child" is born, it will have no ability EVER to gain consciousness. Many of them die before birth but some make it to birth. MOST women when informed that their child will be born without a brain choose NOT to carry the child to term. Your logic would FORCE that woman to carry the child to term and then FORCE hospitals to provide MAXIMUM care for the child once born thereby causeing the parents to incure HUGE medical bills and hospitals to use valuable resources. An anacephalitic child has NO chance of ever achieving personhood. This is the flaw in your mechanistic life argument.
Click to expand...
So, since a very few children may be born with severe disabilities, that makes it OK to dehumanize all unborn children as a class, so they can be killed at will regardless of their health or makeup.

Good call.

But typical of the pro-choice argument. When you are forced by facts to admit the humanity of the unborn, you start using extremely remote circumstances to continue to justify your stance. Since one in ten thousand (or less) unborn children may develop without a brain, it is justice to classify all unborn children as "not human enough" for "personhood".

Sorry. You are still defending the dehumanization of an entire class of humans for your own purposes.
 
And you of course being totally mesmerized by the thought of mechanistic life miss the point entirely. You want to give full rights to a 4 cell blastocyst, which are possessed by a feet out fully born, human being. But you ingnore all the complications that go with that. You are no different that those on the otherside that say until born, a mother's choice should trump all else. Your world, of equal rights for persons regardless of where they are in the scheme of life means that EVERY unattended death, which would include a miscarriage would require an full investigation, like the death of any other child, and maybe even moreso, the mother would be the prime suspect in foul play. And whether or not she knew she was pregnant would not excuse the death of her 8 week old fetus, only the level of her culpability. Birth defects would become the perview of the state. IF mom drank too much or ingested drugs that caused birth defects, just like a mom that did something to her born child causing it harm, the mother would have to be tried in court.

A four cell blastocyst is NOT equal to fully formed feet out born child, it has not brain, it has no eyes ears nose or toes. It is, according to science human life. It is NOT equal to the child and a mother's right to NOT be pregnant at that point trumps its "right" to be allowed to fully develope and be born and the state has NO BUSINESS being involved. The question is WHEN does the state have the right to interfere. And just how far are you willing to allow the state to interfere with procreation. Romania under communism was also very pro biological imperative. All Romanian fetuses MUST become Romanian citizens. The effect of their laws, which were probably the most intrusive in the history of pregnancy, was 1.3 million illegal abortions per year, costing their medical system huge sums to treat the women who got those botched illegal abortions. Also the state became a nanny state, literally. After the fall of communism the west got to go into the State run orphanages and see the tens of thousands of abandoned children, which was also a substantial economic strain on Romania. The system that you want would do the same to the United States. Women would NOT stop having abortions, the small group that the law did stop would begin to clog our system with children. We already have a surplus of what agencies define as unadoptable. Your "ideal" system already failed in Romania and it would equally fail here.
 
And of course, you, who are so intent on dehumanizing a class of humans for your own purposes, would choose to claim science is not good enough for you. (But, in a different arena, try to mention the possibility of a creator, and suddenly science is the purest of the pure and cannot tolerate being corrupted.)

The bottom line is the ONLY reason a scientific definition of humanity is not good enough is BECAUSE it would disallow you to exclude whom you desire to exclude. An all inclusive definition of humanity cannot be tolerated. Who knows whom you will want to exclude next year.

"Blastocycsts do not have a noses. They don't have feet." (In another time - they're skin is different color, they don't believe as we do, their eyes are shaped funny.....) I mean MY GOD!!! They are actually DIFFERENT from OUR group of humans!! How can you POSSIBLY look at a human who is DIFFERENT and claim they deserve the same rights as we REAL humans? (Never mind the differences in the unborn are temporary - that just clouds the issue.)

The result is no different than any other time in history that a class of humans has been deliberately removed from humanity. They are different, so they are not equal. And the arguments through history, for all that they focus on varying REASONS the targeted class is different, are still the same pathetically, lame excuse that these humans are not WORTHY of rights, because they are DIFFERENT.
 
Good Luck said:
And of course, you, who are so intent on dehumanizing a class of humans for your own purposes, would choose to claim science is not good enough for you. (But, in a different arena, try to mention the possibility of a creator, and suddenly science is the purest of the pure and cannot tolerate being corrupted.)

The bottom line is the ONLY reason a scientific definition of humanity is not good enough is BECAUSE it would disallow you to exclude whom you desire to exclude. An all inclusive definition of humanity cannot be tolerated. Who knows whom you will want to exclude next year.

"Blastocycsts do not have a noses. They don't have feet." (In another time - they're skin is different color, they don't believe as we do, their eyes are shaped funny.....) I mean MY GOD!!! They are actually DIFFERENT from OUR group of humans!! How can you POSSIBLY look at a human who is DIFFERENT and claim they deserve the same rights as we REAL humans? (Never mind the differences in the unborn are temporary - that just clouds the issue.)

The result is no different than any other time in history that a class of humans has been deliberately removed from humanity. They are different, so they are not equal. And the arguments through history, for all that they focus on varying REASONS the targeted class is different, are still the same pathetically, lame excuse that these humans are not WORTHY of rights, because they are DIFFERENT.
Click to expand...
Like I said your IDEAL of society was tried in a totalitarian Romania (the only place an ideal like yours can be tried) and failed miserably. Your ideal is ONLY suited for authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. I do not fault you for your beliefs, I only fault you for trying to implement what can ONLY be seen as a completely intrusive government control of reproduction. If you want to make Abortions go away, support programs that get people on birth control, that reward people for adopting children and that help poor people AFTER they have a child. The problem with MOST people who are on your side of the issue tell us god gave us the gift of a child and then out of the same side of their mouths tell us that they KNEW the consequences when they had sex. Child as gift and punishment.
 
Good Luck said:
And of course, you, who are so intent on dehumanizing a class of humans for your own purposes, would choose to claim science is not good enough for you. (But, in a different arena, try to mention the possibility of a creator, and suddenly science is the purest of the pure and cannot tolerate being corrupted.)

The bottom line is the ONLY reason a scientific definition of humanity is not good enough is BECAUSE it would disallow you to exclude whom you desire to exclude. An all inclusive definition of humanity cannot be tolerated. Who knows whom you will want to exclude next year.

"Blastocycsts do not have a noses. They don't have feet." (In another time - they're skin is different color, they don't believe as we do, their eyes are shaped funny.....) I mean MY GOD!!! They are actually DIFFERENT from OUR group of humans!! How can you POSSIBLY look at a human who is DIFFERENT and claim they deserve the same rights as we REAL humans? (Never mind the differences in the unborn are temporary - that just clouds the issue.)

The result is no different than any other time in history that a class of humans has been deliberately removed from humanity. They are different, so they are not equal. And the arguments through history, for all that they focus on varying REASONS the targeted class is different, are still the same pathetically, lame excuse that these humans are not WORTHY of rights, because they are DIFFERENT.
Click to expand...
The other place your argument fails is where you compare things like slavery and the holocaust to the aborting of fetuses. If this is such a huge tragedy why not rememberence days for the vastly larger number of children that are miscarried? Those deaths, in your realm are just as much of a loss as the aborted ones. But there is no great day of rememberance for ALL lost fetuses. The pro-life movement is equal parts concern for the unborn and desire to control the behaviors of people that you all see as lacking a moral compass. They fuck out of wedlock and then they abort babies.
 
Socrtease said:
Like I said your IDEAL of society was tried in a totalitarian Romania (the only place an ideal like yours can be tried) and failed miserably. Your ideal is ONLY suited for authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. I do not fault you for your beliefs, I only fault you for trying to implement what can ONLY be seen as a completely intrusive government control of reproduction. If you want to make Abortions go away, support programs that get people on birth control, that reward people for adopting children and that help poor people AFTER they have a child. The problem with MOST people who are on your side of the issue tell us god gave us the gift of a child and then out of the same side of their mouths tell us that they KNEW the consequences when they had sex. Child as gift and punishment.
Click to expand...
As is typical, your argument points out faults which I have already addressed and negated.

In the first place, I fully support programs that reduce unplanned pregnancies. Some I think could be done better, but that does not mean I do not support them.

Ditto programs for helping the poor. Just because I think they could be done more efficiently, in a manner that helps people OUT of poverty instead of trapping them in poverty, does not mean I do not support helping the poor.

Second, your claims of adoption problems are full of holes. Romania had far more problems than just illegal abortion. The average waiting time for adoption in this country is over two years. That is why so many couples are turning to foreign sources. The problem of "unadoptable" children is the result of foster children and/or orphaned children who have significant and/or extreme emotional and behavior problems. Abortion has nothing to do with that.

And it is interesting how someone who supports the dehumanization of a class of humans can refer to totalitarians those who desire all humans be protected.

Third, only blind assholes can take the word "consequence" and claim it automatically means "punishment". I used the term "consequence" all the time when teaching my children about choices, and about dealing with every day life. One of those lessons was that consequences can be either positive (reward) or negative (punishment) - the difference being how they deal with it. I personally would never describe a pregnancy, unwanted or not, as a punishment. But then, I do not dehumanize unborn children so I can feel better about supporting the "right" to kill them.

Pregnancy IS a possible consequence of sexual activity. That is true whether birth control is used or not. Anyone who glosses over that little fact is part of the problem when it comes to dealing with unplanned pregnancy - and the resulting perceived need for legal abortion. It is NOT wrong for pro-life to point out that having sex leads to the potential (and all too often ACTUAL) consequence of pregnancy. Perhaps if our society were to actually learn that little fact, instead of giving it lip service while selling beer using sex, we'd have fewer problems over all, to include less problems with abortion, STDs, emotional difficulties of people who chose to enter sexual activity too soon, etc.

It is not wrong to point out consequences follow decisions in ANY matter, let alone the big (much bigger than modern liberals want to admit) decision to become sexually active. Nor is it wrong to point out that when a consequence comes about through choices made, there is one person to point to when it comes to assigning blame for the results of decisions. (That is another area modern liberalism has fallen well away from reality.)
 
Socrtease said:
The other place your argument fails is where you compare things like slavery and the holocaust to the aborting of fetuses. If this is such a huge tragedy why not rememberence days for the vastly larger number of children that are miscarried? Those deaths, in your realm are just as much of a loss as the aborted ones. But there is no great day of rememberance for ALL lost fetuses. The pro-life movement is equal parts concern for the unborn and desire to control the behaviors of people that you all see as lacking a moral compass. They fuck out of wedlock and then they abort babies.
Click to expand...
In the first place, as I have carefully explained, I did NOT compare abortion to the holocaust or slavery. I pointed out that justification for abortion uses the same process of dehumanization of the target class of humans. But if you want to be a big cry baby like raw, go ahead and interpret that fact (and it is fact) any way you want.

Second, if Hitler had won WWII, do you think there would be great rememberances for the Holocaust? How can there be a great day of rememberance when, according to our society as a whole, the unborn are not even human?

And then, of course, you go into the typical "all pro-choice blah blah blah" mischaracterizations. But that , too, is a natural part of the pro-choice argument. Attack the motivation for protecting the unborn, because you run out of defenses for killing the unborn.

I don't give two cents who fucks whom or when or under what circumstances (as long as it does not involve rape). I DO care that our society allows innocent humans be killed at will.
 
Good Luck said:
Pathetic little child. Poor little raw - did your little feelings get hurted?

Troll away asshole.
Click to expand...

Dude, no one agrees with your lunatic comparisons. Your only supporter in the other sites denounced you!


WinterBorn from www.gametalk.com


But after I found all three of the threads you started on the same topic, I did see that I was wrong. And I am willing to admit that.


So why do you do so little to stop us evil nazis? Seems to me you talk a lot of shit but don't do anything when it comes to taking action. That makes you just as bad as us "Pro-slavery" folk!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top