Abortion: wrong or just sort of wrong?

Thing1 said:
No - and that is a silly/lazy counter-argument to make.

Why did you single out viability? I listed quite a few considerations; all of which are vital to the discussion.

There really can't be reasoned debate on this until one side acknowledges that it is a complex issue, and ceases trying to simplify it.
Click to expand...

It is neither silly or lazy, though stating that it is without rebuttal is.

I was not responding to you about other aspects of the debate. I was responding to this particular aspect which you have not addressed.

I will assume you don't have a good rebuttal to the point of viability. As to other aspects of the debate I have no problem responding with a reasoned position.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you're doing nothing except demonstrating that your math sucks even worse than I noted previously.......each lie is more absurd than the last......for the Lancet survey to be true there would have had to been over 15,400 deaths a month......
Click to expand...

Get over yourself, I didn't compile the figures so it's not my math. The Lancet numbers have always been controversial and in fact I'm skeptical of them myself.

...and on top of that, if you review the Iraq Body Count logs you will find that over 90% of the victims died from bombings by terrorists, not by the actions of coalition military forces.......
Click to expand...

And? The U.S. invasion and occupation led to the rise of the insurgency and civil war so our hands are 100% dirty.

...back during the war Al Jazeera used to publish a monthly body count of civilians......typically the numbers were in the 300-600 range.....during extremely bad months of terrorist bombings in it would top a thousand.....usually they ran about 10% higher than Iraq Body Count's numbers.....

nobody that was keeping track of casualties claimed numbers over 2500 and certainly not 15k......
Click to expand...

Then it shouldn't be hard to find some reference to their numbers. I didn't have any luck finding something to support your assertion.

Are you mistrustful of Wikileaks?

The Iraq War documents leak is the WikiLeaks disclosure of a collection of 391,832 United States Army field reports, also called the Iraq War Logs, of the Iraq War from 2004 to 2009 to several international media organizations and published on the Internet by WikiLeaks on 22 October 2010.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] The files record 66,081 civilian deaths out of 109,000 recorded deaths.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] The leak resulted in the Iraq Body Count project adding 15,000 civilian deaths to their count, bringing their total to over 150,000, with roughly 80% of those civilians.[SUP][7][/SUP] It is the biggest leak in the military history of the United States,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] surpassing the Afghan War documents leak of 25 July 2010.[SUP][9][/SUP]
 
Superfreak said:
Lets see... we have three liberal women that post here (Rana, Darla, Christie) and one bat shit crazy sociopath (desh). imagine that... liberal women supporting dehumanizing an unborn child to justify killing it. Shocking.
Click to expand...

What a moronic statement. We support the law and a woman's right to choose. We're not standing outside clinics with lassos trying to reel in pregnant women.
 
Superfreak said:
As I stated, there are two horrid choices in that situation. 1) kill the child of a rapist (2) mother has to carry the child of a rapist

This is the 'gotcha' the left really love... because they can either scream 'hypocrite' or 'you evil' depending on what the prolife person states. I would certainly try and talk the woman into adoption vs. abortion, but there is no way you can justify forcing her to carry her rapists child.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't marginalize something like that as a "gotcha". It's a genuine contradiction in my eyes.

How, under any circumstances, could someone who really believes that abortion is "murdering babies", allow any option where a baby could be legally murdered?

At the very least, it hints at some doubt on your conviction that a zygote is really "a life" in the same sense that a baby or child or adult human is "a life."
 
See, superdervish, and many other Republicans will expose that the real reason they want Abortion to be illegal is to punish women for having sex out of wedlock or when they are young, they want consequences for that type of behavior. Its not about ending a life, or it would not matter to them how that life got there.

If a girl gets pregnant, not by any fault of her own, ending that life is okay, she does not deserve those consequences.... If a girl got pregnant because she chose to have sex, the life is paramount and she deserves the consequences.....

Its about trying to force your own sexual morality on other people. Or maybe its because they are pissed that girls wont give it up to them.
 
Thing1 said:
I wouldn't marginalize something like that as a "gotcha". It's a genuine contradiction in my eyes.
Click to expand...

Except it is not. It is exactly what it is.

How, under any circumstances, could someone who really believes that abortion is "murdering babies", allow any option where a baby could be legally murdered?
Click to expand...

How, under any circumstances, could someone say a woman who was raped be forced to carry to term... how evil!!!!

See, you employ the gotcha even after pretending it isn't one. You didn't even bother to read what I wrote.

I would still advocate adoption of the child vs. killing it. It is in my opinion the lesser of the two evils. Again, this is why you and your kind always resort to rape when talking abortions. Because it is you attempt to shut people up. You want to paint them as monsters.

Tell me... How could anyone argue that killing babies is ok? As we have advanced our ability to detect heartbeat/activity/brainwaves... has that changed when the child actually developed those functions or is it that we simply weren't able to detect the functions before?

At the very least, it hints at some doubt on your conviction that a zygote is really "a life" in the same sense that a baby or child or adult human is "a life."
Click to expand...

Not in the least. The fact that you suggest any such nonsense shows how dishonest you are.

It is similar to saying: Do you believe a person has a right to take a life in self defense? If so, why don't you agree all murder should be allowed? Is the taking of the life in self defense a horrid outcome? Absolutely. Does it end a life? Absolutely. But would you deny a person the ability to defend themselves in such a manner?

It is still the taking of a life. Regardless of the reason. Which is what I have stated time and again.

But do go on with your game of 'gotcha'... because you are not really interested in an honest discussion.
 
Superfreak said:
Except it is not. It is exactly what it is.



How, under any circumstances, could someone say a woman who was raped be forced to carry to term... how evil!!!!

See, you employ the gotcha even after pretending it isn't one. You didn't even bother to read what I wrote.

I would still advocate adoption of the child vs. killing it. It is in my opinion the lesser of the two evils. Again, this is why you and your kind always resort to rape when talking abortions. Because it is you attempt to shut people up. You want to paint them as monsters.

Tell me... How could anyone argue that killing babies is ok? As we have advanced our ability to detect heartbeat/activity/brainwaves... has that changed when the child actually developed those functions or is it that we simply weren't able to detect the functions before?



Not in the least. The fact that you suggest any such nonsense shows how dishonest you are.

It is similar to saying: Do you believe a person has a right to take a life in self defense? If so, why don't you agree all murder should be allowed? Is the taking of the life in self defense a horrid outcome? Absolutely. Does it end a life? Absolutely. But would you deny a person the ability to defend themselves in such a manner?

It is still the taking of a life. Regardless of the reason. Which is what I have stated time and again.

But do go on with your game of 'gotcha'... because you are not really interested in an honest discussion.
Click to expand...

If its about saving the life why do two wrongs make a right. An abortion should be legal because it was not the girls choice to have sex, but if it was the girls choice abortion should be legal? Seriously?

You are basically admitting its not about the life, its about punishment.
 
Superfreak said:
Except it is not. It is exactly what it is.


How, under any circumstances, could someone say a woman who was raped be forced to carry to term... how evil!!!!

See, you employ the gotcha even after pretending it isn't one. You didn't even bother to read what I wrote.

I would still advocate adoption of the child vs. killing it. It is in my opinion the lesser of the two evils. Again, this is why you and your kind always resort to rape when talking abortions. Because it is you attempt to shut people up. You want to paint them as monsters.

Tell me... How could anyone argue that killing babies is ok? As we have advanced our ability to detect heartbeat/activity/brainwaves... has that changed when the child actually developed those functions or is it that we simply weren't able to detect the functions before?

Not in the least. The fact that you suggest any such nonsense shows how dishonest you are.

It is similar to saying: Do you believe a person has a right to take a life in self defense? If so, why don't you agree all murder should be allowed? Is the taking of the life in self defense a horrid outcome? Absolutely. Does it end a life? Absolutely. But would you deny a person the ability to defend themselves in such a manner?

It is still the taking of a life. Regardless of the reason. Which is what I have stated time and again.

But do go on with your game of 'gotcha'... because you are not really interested in an honest discussion.
Click to expand...

The above is a lot of nonsense.

It's nothing like self-defense, if you believe what you believe. Killing someone in self-defense isn't murder, and isn't seen by our legal system or pretty much anyone's moral code as such. Murder is pretty clearly defined.

And for a long time, you have said that abortion is murder. Giving the mother the right to murder her child is not in the same ballpark as self-defense; it's not on the same planet.

It definitely shows that you differentiate between a zygote and an actual baby/child. There are no circumstances whatsoever where you'd allow a mother to kill a newborn, infant or child.
 
Jarod said:
See, superdervish, and many other Republicans will expose that the real reason they want Abortion to be illegal is to punish women for having sex out of wedlock or when they are young,
Click to expand...

lol....liberals are so fucking stupid.....we can explain to you all year long that its wrong to kill unborn children and it goes right over your head, because all you'll listen to is "stopsexstopsexstopsex".......is it confusing to you that we don't want old married women to kill their unborn children either?.....
 
I really don't give a shit if you think it's wrong. Get a new SCOTUS, overturn Roe, or amend the constitution.... until then, all you're doing is whining.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....liberals are so fucking stupid.....we can explain to you all year long that its wrong to kill unborn children and it goes right over your head, because all you'll listen to is "stopsexstopsexstopsex".......is it confusing to you that we don't want old married women to kill their unborn children either?.....
Click to expand...

Well, when you say, its wrong to kill unborn children, except when its not the girls fault she got pregnant... what else is the logical reason?
 
Which is it....

Protecting the life of the "unborn child" or punishing girls for getting knocked up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top