A question for anti-choicers

PostmodernProphet said:
don't be an idiot....those two women walked the walk....instead of killing their children as you would prefer they had done....
Click to expand...

Stupid.

It's an instance of pro-choice leading to a win-win situation for you. The women chose not to abort and you chose to adopt.

Most blowhards don't see beyond nine months' gestation. Most don't adopt children. Many prefer to spend thousands on medical treatments to get a child with their own DNA. I gave you credit for breaking ranks. You turned it into an insult.

Sucks to be you.
 
Yurt said:
yes i have. and it wouldn't matter if i never had, you're using the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion....

what is inside her body is also from the man. it is not her choice alone, regardless of the experience of gestation.
Click to expand...

It's not a logical fallacy to ask what experience a person has with pregnancy. Now you're reaching.

Here's the poser and this does not apply to a marriage: If a woman becomes pregnant, wants an abortion and the man doesn't, what do you think should happen?
 
christiefan915 said:
Stupid.

It's an instance of pro-choice leading to a win-win situation for you. The women chose not to abort and you chose to adopt.

Most blowhards don't see beyond nine months' gestation. Most don't adopt children. Many prefer to spend thousands on medical treatments to get a child with their own DNA. I gave you credit for breaking ranks. You turned it into an insult.

Sucks to be you.
Click to expand...

it is difficult to adopt.....the waiting list is very long.....because most choose to kill their children......the only "choice" involved is "easy way out"......
 
christiefan915 said:
Thanks for the lawyerly response. </sarcasm>

There have been NO wide-scale efforts to repeal Roe v. Wade because the majority of Americans support legal abortion, mostly with some restrictions.
Click to expand...

it is pointless for you to pretend there have been no wide scale efforts to end Roe v Wade in light of the fact it has shaped American politics ever since it passed.....your claims merely make it evident you intend to ignore reality in every direction.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
neither would a jury of your peers......
Click to expand...

Weak, even as a bad one liner. Why can't you address that idea? Why not try to address the idea that terminating something that doesn't even have the cells in place yet to be aware that it "is," or feel pain, or respond to stimuli, or even have any awareness or cognizance whatsoever could possibly be construed as "murder?"

I know, I know - "people in a coma." 2 things on that: they have already experienced that self-awareness, and - surprise, surprise - I support euthanasia, as well....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
it is pointless for you to pretend there have been no wide scale efforts to end Roe v Wade in light of the fact it has shaped American politics ever since it passed.....your claims merely make it evident you intend to ignore reality in every direction.....
Click to expand...

Yet you can't link up to any site that shows what you claim, because if the majority wanted it repealed, it would have happened by now.

Prohibition was repealed in 14 years. It's getting close to three times that number for Roe v. Wade yet there's no serious attempt being made to repeal. Bottom line, the majority favors legal abortion with some restrictions. Look in the mirror before questioning my "ignoring reality".
 
Onceler said:
Weak, even as a bad one liner. Why can't you address that idea? Why not try to address the idea that terminating something that doesn't even have the cells in place yet to be aware that it "is," or feel pain, or respond to stimuli, or even have any awareness or cognizance whatsoever could possibly be construed as "murder?"

I know, I know - "people in a coma." 2 things on that: they have already experienced that self-awareness, and - surprise, surprise - I support euthanasia, as well....
Click to expand...

I don't accept it because the level of "cognizance" and "viability" between a child one minute prior to the cutting of an umbilical cord and one minute after are minor......
 
christiefan915 said:
Yet you can't link up to any site that shows what you claim, because if the majority wanted it repealed, it would have happened by now.

Prohibition was repealed in 14 years. It's getting close to three times that number for Roe v. Wade yet there's no serious attempt being made to repeal. Bottom line, the majority favors legal abortion with some restrictions. Look in the mirror before questioning my "ignoring reality".
Click to expand...

I can't point to a site that shows major opposition to abortion?......really?....4,510,000 hits on google for "opposition to abortion"....

[ame="http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=opposition+to+abortion&btnG=Google+Search"]403 Forbidden[/ame]
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it is difficult to adopt.....the waiting list is very long.....because most choose to kill their children......the only "choice" involved is "easy way out"......
Click to expand...

Weak.

It's difficult to adopt because of the red tape that strangles the system. There are adopted children in my extended family. The mothers went through private adoptions to get around the bureaucracy. Several families in my church adopted from Russia, China and South America. Even though abortion is legal in China and Russia (up to the 12th week), there are still plenty of babies in orphanages. The American system doesn't stink because of American mothers "choosing to kill their children". Excessive regulation and rigid rules are the biggest roadblocks.
 
Onceler said:
I don't think any magic occurs at birth, or at any particular stage. But, I think the argument comes down to 2 competing interests: the mother's control over her own body, and the fetus's human rights. Ultimately, the decision is whether a fetus at every single stage should receive the same human rights as people already born into this world.

As I've stated on the thread a few times, I think considerations like viability, cognizance, brain & nervous development all contribute to what we ascribe to "personhood," and are integral to a discussion of actual human rights. Any point after conception will necessarily be arbitrary, but I think there is a point up through which most would allot that a woman could make a decision to abort the fetus without what we would call "murder" taking place. To me, that's an appeal to emotion, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

And you are right...we, as a society, do bestow rights on those we want to bestow rights on...we can define 'murder' to suit our desires, etc....

We can give rights to whites and not blacks if we so desire.
We can give rights to men and not women if we so desire.
We can give rights to women an not their children if we so desire....
We can use viability, cognizance, sex, ....whatever....even hair color, as a condition, if we so desire to bestow any rights....

What we can't do is deny that abortion is the killing of a human being in its earliest stages of development....
We can and do certainly do it...but we can't in truth deny what we're doing....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top