The Issue of Abortion

Damocles said:
Gestational diabetes is not usually life threatening. A change in diet, some medications, and the mother will survive just fine without killing the child. It's silly to suggest that death is the only option of self-preservation when the solution is so much simpler and less deadly to innocence.

It is also usually later when gestational diabetes is discovered.
Click to expand...

That's true, gestational diabetes is not usually life threatening but the point is "what if". Blindness isn't life threatening. Would you support a law demanding your wife or daughter bear a child knowing certain blindness would result? Would you condemn your daughter (assuming you have a daughter) to almost certain poverty due to the ensuing blindness?

Once an embryo or fetus is legally declared a human being how can any reason justify an abortion other than the certain death of the women, meaning the fetus would also die. How can anyone justify anything less?

I can't fathom a man willing to risk his wife's health for a fetus. She'd have to be one mean bitch! :lol: (Pardon the language.)
 
apple0154 said:
Of simply a liver or a kidney or piece of skin.

My goodness, you attempt to write a derogatory comment to be funny and all it does is show up your ignorance regarding DNA. :palm:
Click to expand...
And yet again you totally ignore the actual truth in favor of your inhuman baby killing lies.

Once more for the lame of brain: DNA is NOT the only factor. Additional factors is the human DNA comes from a unique, living organism. The combination of conditions, alive, unique organism, human DNA, makes it a living human being no matter how much you want to lie about it, deny scientific facts, and otherwise prevaricate in favor of your baby killing, "better dead than poor" bullshit philosophy.
 
apple0154 said:
That's true, gestational diabetes is not usually life threatening but the point is "what if". Blindness isn't life threatening. Would you support a law demanding your wife or daughter bear a child knowing certain blindness would result? Would you condemn your daughter (assuming you have a daughter) to almost certain poverty due to the ensuing blindness?

Once an embryo or fetus is legally declared a human being how can any reason justify an abortion other than the certain death of the women, meaning the fetus would also die. How can anyone justify anything less?

I can't fathom a man willing to risk his wife's health for a fetus. She'd have to be one mean bitch! :lol: (Pardon the language.)
Click to expand...
And now you want to justify killing other humans based on "what if"? You are really reaching to the depths of absurdity. As if better dead than poor and/or abused is not assinine enough, now it's "what if"?

"What if (place your pet antagonist here) suddenly goes crazy and tries to kill me?" And I have the right to defend myself against "what if", right? I mean, waiting for the "what if"to actually take place puts me in unacceptable danger, right?

Note to all: these are the depths of absolute moral depravity required to defend the practice of legal abortion. "Better dead than poor"; "What if...."; denial of proven biological science; lies about the humanity of the unborn, and more lies. And note the use of the word "fetus": a deliberate usage to deny their humanity, no different than all the words humans have made up over the years to dehumanize their target group: from "nigger" to "Jap" to "gook" to "feather" to "kike", we have historically used words to imply that a specified target group of humans are somehow less human that the rest of us - and therefore subject to whatever we deccide to do with them, from slavery to genocide. And now the abortionists are doing the EXACT SAME THING to justify their killing of unborn human children.

When one must stoop to such depraved measures to defend a practice, just MAYBE a second look at said practice is called for?
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
Where did you receive your education? Have you ever heard the term "critical thinking"? Wiki defines it as, "Critical thinking, in its broadest sense has been described as "purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do."

"Purposeful reflective judgment"
Purposeful: having a purpose; significant
Reflective: given to, marked by, or concerned with meditation or deliberation
Judgment: the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely,

So, what would happen if the country was flooded with unwanted children? To answer that question we have to use "critical thinking" or "purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do."

When contemplating future events one looks to the past to see if there was a similar situation and what occurred. (I know that's difficult for anti-abortionists as they consider the present and the future as one.)

Anyway, we have plenty of information on what happened to unwanted children. First hand information from a number of countries. Critical thinking, or "purposeful reflective judgment", informs us exactly what would happen should the same situation arise since nothing material has changed.

We still have children living in poverty and people complaining about helping them because they don't want their taxes to increase. "To hell with the single mother and her child" is the Conservative mantra. It doesn't take a lot of thinking to understand what would happen to children in an institution.

As to your comment "...you're just once again pulling a feeling out of your ass" I submit your problem may be due to your being anal-retentive. Take your mind off your ass and put it to good use by educating yourself.

As for your comment, "I'm not going to fall into the spin..." there is no spin. I'm asked you to let me know why you believe unwanted children wouldn't be neglected and abused. On what do you base your belief other than using your ass as a magic eight ball?
Click to expand...

Nice amount of verbage and still nothing to support your assertion that aborted children would be neglected and/or abused.
You admitted that it wasn't 100%; but still nothing to show that it's even 90% or less.

This is a prime example of your circular logic:
"We still have children living in poverty and people complaining about helping them because they don't want their taxes to increase. "To hell with the single mother and her child" is the Conservative mantra. It doesn't take a lot of thinking to understand what would happen to children in an institution."

Now you equate poverty with abuse and neglect, which brings us back to something from a long time ago.
You're nothing more then an elitist.
Why do you think that being born into poverty automatically means that a child is going to be abused and/or neglected?

By the way, I don't give a rat's ass what OTHER countries are doing; so let's deal with the issues presently in America.
 
Good Luck said:
And yet again you totally ignore the actual truth in favor of your inhuman baby killing lies.

Once more for the lame of brain: DNA is NOT the only factor. Additional factors is the human DNA comes from a unique, living organism. The combination of conditions, alive, unique organism, human DNA, makes it a living human being no matter how much you want to lie about it, deny scientific facts, and otherwise prevaricate in favor of your baby killing, "better dead than poor" bullshit philosophy.
Click to expand...

Why should an organism or "human being", as you prefer to call it, be entitled to live off another human being not only against the other human being's wishes but to the extent the other human being may suffer damage?

The entire idea is absurd. It goes against everything our culture and society stand for. It makes a mockery of individualism and freedom and choices.

Call it what you want. Believe what you want. At least respect the woman enough to remove it from her body.

For thousands of years all kinds of reasons and excuses have been thrown out in order to subjugate women. From souls to wars it's that old axiom, "Any excuse is better than none."

Now it's DNA. As if no one had any idea a fetus was made from human material we had to wait for science to tell us something was growing inside a woman? Is this supposed to be some kind of a joke?

Sorry, Good Luck. The people aren't buying it, the lawmakers aren't buying it and the vast majority of women are well aware of the game. Inflammatory words notwithstanding the ruse is over.
 
apple0154 said:
Why should an organism or "human being", as you prefer to call it, be entitled to live off another human being not only against the other human being's wishes but to the extent the other human being may suffer damage?
Click to expand...
Its called NATURE, you freakin' imbecile:palm:
 
apple0154 said:
Why should an organism or "human being", as you prefer to call it, be entitled to live off another human being not only against the other human being's wishes but to the extent the other human being may suffer damage?

The entire idea is absurd. It goes against everything our culture and society stand for. It makes a mockery of individualism and freedom and choices.

Call it what you want. Believe what you want. At least respect the woman enough to remove it from her body.

For thousands of years all kinds of reasons and excuses have been thrown out in order to subjugate women. From souls to wars it's that old axiom, "Any excuse is better than none."

Now it's DNA. As if no one had any idea a fetus was made from human material we had to wait for science to tell us something was growing inside a woman? Is this supposed to be some kind of a joke?

Sorry, Good Luck. The people aren't buying it, the lawmakers aren't buying it and the vast majority of women are well aware of the game. Inflammatory words notwithstanding the ruse is over.
Click to expand...
Defend your lies all you want - it does not change it to the truth. Focus on DNA all you want - even though it has been pointed ouut multiple times DNA is not the only factor.

And, of course, you have to pull out, one more time (though shown to be strawman repeatedly) the bullshit mantra that opposition to abortion stems from some desire to subjugate women. Again, your are nothing less (and nothing more) than an ignorant piece of useless donkey shit LIAR.

There are still those who refuse to acknowledge that blacks and Native Americans are fully human. You join them in your revelry of deliberate ignorance. Congratulations.

Once again, you prove that lies are all you have to defend abortion.
 
Good Luck said:
And now you want to justify killing other humans based on "what if"? You are really reaching to the depths of absurdity. As if better dead than poor and/or abused is not assinine enough, now it's "what if"?

"What if (place your pet antagonist here) suddenly goes crazy and tries to kill me?" And I have the right to defend myself against "what if", right? I mean, waiting for the "what if"to actually take place puts me in unacceptable danger, right?
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate you have such difficulty comprehending the most simple logic. A problem pregnancy is not the same as (place your pet antagonist here) suddenly going crazy. The fetus does not "go crazy". A problem pregnancy is almost always the fault of the woman's defective body so self-defense does not enter into it.

Stated a different way the fetus is not doing anything wrong. It is the woman's fault her body is reacting the way it is. Why would that give her the right to kill an innocent human being, assuming a fetus is a human being?

If a pharmacist refuses to give a person insulin because they can not afford it can the ill person kill the pharmacist in self-defense? Does one have the right to kill an innocent person in order to prevent their own demise? That is the question? It's not a difficult one.

Those who say a fetus is a human being but a woman has the right to abort if she has an illness which may result in serious/permanent damage that's the same thing as saying a person has the right to kill an innocent human being because the fault does not lie with the fetus but with the defective body of the woman.

So, you want to talk about killing? Tell me why a woman should have the right to kill an innocent human being? Or tell me why she shouldn't have that right and should be compelled to carry the pregnancy regardless of consequences. Situations will arise where a choice will have to be made. What should the law say?

Note to all: these are the depths of absolute moral depravity required to defend the practice of legal abortion. "Better dead than poor"; "What if...."; denial of proven biological science; lies about the humanity of the unborn, and more lies. And note the use of the word "fetus": a deliberate usage to deny their humanity, no different than all the words humans have made up over the years to dehumanize their target group: from "nigger" to "Jap" to "gook" to "feather" to "kike", we have historically used words to imply that a specified target group of humans are somehow less human that the rest of us - and therefore subject to whatever we deccide to do with them, from slavery to genocide. And now the abortionists are doing the EXACT SAME THING to justify their killing of unborn human children.

When one must stoop to such depraved measures to defend a practice, just MAYBE a second look at said practice is called for?
Click to expand...

But you're the science guy and fetus is an acceptable word. Why do you have a problem with it?

In any case, the questions are, "Should a woman have the right to kill an innocent human being? Or should a woman not have that right and be compelled to carry the pregnancy regardless of consequences?

If you have difficulty understanding the questions, just say so and I'll explain. Fair enough? Maybe, just maybe, we'll get to the bottom of this.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Nice amount of verbage and still nothing to support your assertion that aborted children would be neglected and/or abused.
Click to expand...

I see you haven't been doing your reading. :nono:

In msg 251 I quoted from the article, "As time progressed, it became commonly known that children in orphanages were subjected to abuse and neglect. As a result of the terrible conditions that were found in many UNITED STATES' orphanages, most of these institutions were closed down."

That is what supports my assertion. Just like old Repub ideas orphanages were tried and found wanting. Very wanting. So, I ask you, what has changed? On what do you base your assertion that millions of unwanted children would not be abused and neglected? Give me something to go on.

As for claiming I'm an elitist that has to be the funniest thing I ever heard.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

USFREEDOM911 said:
Nice amount of verbage and still nothing to support your assertion that aborted children would be neglected and/or abused.
You admitted that it wasn't 100%; but still nothing to show that it's even 90% or less.

This is a prime example of your circular logic:
"We still have children living in poverty and people complaining about helping them because they don't want their taxes to increase. "To hell with the single mother and her child" is the Conservative mantra. It doesn't take a lot of thinking to understand what would happen to children in an institution."

Now you equate poverty with abuse and neglect, which brings us back to something from a long time ago.
You're nothing more then an elitist.
Why do you think that being born into poverty automatically means that a child is going to be abused and/or neglected?

By the way, I don't give a rat's ass what OTHER countries are doing; so let's deal with the issues presently in America.
Click to expand...

In msg 251 I quoted from the article, "As time progressed, it became commonly known that children in orphanages were subjected to abuse and neglect. As a result of the terrible conditions that were found in many UNITED STATES' orphanages, most of these institutions were closed down."
 
It is perfectly legal and moral to take anyones life if that person is IN FACT and without doubt, going to take your life....

"going to take your life" is not an abstract idea or a maybe or a might....its YOUR acting in good faith in what a normal, sane, and thinking person would believe is the only way to prevent your own death......

Thats how I would explain it to a 10 year old, so you might get help if your still confused....
 
apple0154 said:
I see you haven't been doing your reading. :nono:

In msg 251 I quoted from the article, "As time progressed, it became commonly known that children in orphanages were subjected to abuse and neglect. As a result of the terrible conditions that were found in many UNITED STATES' orphanages, most of these institutions were closed down."

That is what supports my assertion. Just like old Repub ideas orphanages were tried and found wanting. Very wanting. So, I ask you, what has changed? On what do you base your assertion that millions of unwanted children would not be abused and neglected? Give me something to go on.

As for claiming I'm an elitist that has to be the funniest thing I ever heard.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



In msg 251 I quoted from the article, "As time progressed, it became commonly known that children in orphanages were subjected to abuse and neglect. As a result of the terrible conditions that were found in many UNITED STATES' orphanages, most of these institutions were closed down."
Click to expand...
We don't kill to prevent "abuse" or "neglect" or "poverty"...
If we condoned killing to prevent poverty, I have been buried long ago.
 
bravo said:
It is perfectly legal and moral to take anyones life if that person is IN FACT and without doubt, going to take your life....

"going to take your life" is not an abstract idea or a maybe or a might....its YOUR acting in good faith in what a normal, sane, and thinking person would believe is the only way to prevent your own death......

Thats how I would explain it to a 10 year old, so you might get help if your still confused....
Click to expand...

The fetus is doing nothing wrong. It is not taking the woman's life. The woman's body is to blame. How many times do I have to say that.

And what happened to the State's right to defend children? Why wouldn't the State have the right to prevent the woman from taking the life of the fetus which you claim is a human being?

Think, for a moment. According to you there are two human beings. We know one is functioning properly, the fetus. We also know one is not functioning properly, the pregnant woman. By what convoluted logic does the malfunctioning human being have the right to kill the properly functioning human being?

Classify a fetus as a human being while legally allowing a malfunctioning human being to kill it. That is the absurd, twisted, perverted goal of the anti-abortionist. It is nothing short of insanity.
 
bravo said:
We don't kill to prevent "abuse" or "neglect" or "poverty"...
If we condoned killing to prevent poverty, I have been buried long ago.
Click to expand...

It's not killing. It's preventing bringing a child into the world knowing it will be neglected and abused. It's stopping a process. Do try and understand.
 
apple0154 said:
The fetus is doing nothing wrong. It is not taking the woman's life. The woman's body is to blame. How many times do I have to say that.

And what happened to the State's right to defend children? Why wouldn't the State have the right to prevent the woman from taking the life of the fetus which you claim is a human being?

Think, for a moment. According to you there are two human beings. We know one is functioning properly, the fetus. We also know one is not functioning properly, the pregnant woman. By what convoluted logic does the malfunctioning human being have the right to kill the properly functioning human being?

Classify a fetus as a human being while legally allowing a malfunctioning human being to kill it. That is the absurd, twisted, perverted goal of the anti-abortionist. It is nothing short of insanity.
Click to expand...
If the fetus is "not doping anything wrong" then the women is dying in her own right and would be if the fetus was not in the picture at all....so WTF is your point? There would be no need for an abortion. The life of the fetus is dependant on the life of the mother an nature will take its course...
Doctors are good but they don't do miracles...

If, by aborting the fetus saves the women life, then by definition, the fetus is in fact the threat by its very existance and is threatening the women life...
Your semantics bullshit games are getting old and tiresome....it may have worked with pinheads on AOL, but it ain't gonna cut it here....
Seems you've run out of even pseudo ammunition so its time you STFU
 
apple0154 said:
It's not killing. It's preventing bringing a child into the world knowing it will be neglected and abused. It's stopping a process. Do try and understand.
Click to expand...
First of all, yes it is killing. The unborn child is alive; then the doctor applies a procedure to it (which procedure varies depending on the stage of development and/or the doctors preference) then it is DEAD, and removed from the uterus. The procedure KILLS the unborn child. Therefore, killing IS part of the procedure no matter how much you want to lie about it.

Second, do you TRULY BELIEVE that it is better to be DEAD than to chance being poor, abused, and/or neglected? If so, you are truly one sick, twisted, demented fuck up of a human being.

But I guess that little secret has already been fully established.
 
apple0154 said:
Don't you find it strange that the majority of advanced countries and their citizens disagree with you?
Click to expand...

I find it regretable that a majority of advanced countries ignore science in favor of greed.....I don't find it strange....evil has been predominate in the world for thousands of years......
 
bravo said:
If, by aborting the fetus saves the women life, then by definition, the fetus is in fact the threat by its very existance and is threatening the women life...
Click to expand...

Then, logically, if a pharmacist refuses to give someone insulin when they can't afford to pay for it the pharmacist is a threat to that person's life. Killing the pharmacist will save the patient's life as the patient will have access to insulin.

Let's say a person cuts their leg with a chain saw and are unable to stop the bleeding. Do they have a right to speed to the hospital/doctor/whomever to get help and avoid stopping at a crosswalk and killing a pedestrian? A person crossing the street requiring the driver to slow down would be a very real threat to the driver/injured person's life. Is the driver/injured person allowed to run over the pedestrian?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

bravo said:
If the fetus is "not doping anything wrong" then the women is dying in her own right and would be if the fetus was not in the picture at all....so WTF is your point? There would be no need for an abortion. The life of the fetus is dependant on the life of the mother an nature will take its course...
Doctors are good but they don't do miracles...

If, by aborting the fetus saves the women life, then by definition, the fetus is in fact the threat by its very existance and is threatening the women life...
Your semantics bullshit games are getting old and tiresome....it may have worked with pinheads on AOL, but it ain't gonna cut it here....
Seems you've run out of even pseudo ammunition so its time you STFU
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top