I'll Not Yield

Rana said:
I find it easy to proclaim and have high ideals about what I would do when there is the possibility of it never happening to me ;)
Click to expand...

Easy to be pompous about fairy tales. :0)

"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive things! If you really wanna get tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take
a pounding." - Betty White.

If only they had a vagina. :0)
 
blackascoal said:
I don't give a damn what your reply was to.

Women are going to get abortions whether they are legal or not.

But then again, they're just women and of course you know better about their situation than they do.

Over a million abortions EVERY YEAR compared to 12 -18,000 adoptions.

To suggest that every child could be adopted is simply brainless and laughable.
Click to expand...

didn't you read Howie's data?......18 million women expressed an interest in adoption in 2005.......so, I don't give a damn about whether you give a damn about who I replied to.....just be aware that your reply has nothing at all do with what we were talking about......

so it may be that cuddlers will cuddle even if its illegal or immoral or merely ignorant......but that doesn't mean cuddling ought to be considered legal or moral....it may be that thinking they could be adopted is laughable, but I have to tell you, thinking they should be killed isn't.......
 
Superfreak said:
I find it easy to proclaim it because I value life. What is odd is how easy it is for you to proclaim that life is not worth saving. What is odd is your ability to dehumanize the unborn child so that you can use convenience as an excuse to kill it.

You are an intelligent woman, yet you cannot fathom personal responsibility. You know what causes pregnancy. You know how you can prevent it. If you choose not to do so, that should not entitle you to end a human life because you would be inconvenienced.
Click to expand...

What you proclaim doesn't mean shit.

Only your actions are important .. and your actions do not identify you as someone who cares about human life the way you proclaim.
 
blackascoal said:
What you proclaim doesn't mean shit.

Only your actions are important .. and your actions do not identify you as someone who cares about human life the way you proclaim.
Click to expand...

have you ever seen a single one of his actions?.......its one thing to talk about throwing stones, but you don't even know where his glass house is.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
didn't you read Howie's data?......18 million women expressed an interest in adoption in 2005.......so, I don't give a damn about whether you give a damn about who I replied to.....just be aware that your reply has nothing at all do with what we were talking about......

so it may be that cuddlers will cuddle even if its illegal or immoral or merely ignorant......but that doesn't mean cuddling ought to be considered legal or moral....it may be that thinking they could be adopted is laughable, but I have to tell you, thinking they should be killed isn't.......
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean shit.

Do you see 18 million homes waiting for unwanted children?

Over a million abortions EVERY YEAR compared to 12 -18,000 adoptions. .. and all you have is "expressed an interest in adoption in 2005" .. it's 9 years later and that 18 million or 9 million or 1 million homes for adoptive children still hasn't materialized.

I stop reading everytime you reach for 'cuddlers.' So if that's all you've got, you really should go talk to SF.

Both of you can pretend together.
 
Superfreak said:
A life is equal to a life in terms of it needs to be protected. He was saying I meant they were equal in terms of developmental standards. Which I am not. Try reading the entire post I make, it will help to clear things up for you in the future.
Click to expand...

But an embryo at 20 weeks gestation is not yet a life, so your "a life = a life" equation goes right out the window.

In order for it to be a Life, it must be alive...and an embryo at 20 weeks can't sustain itself outside the womb.
 
As reported by the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth found that 500,000 women were currently seeking to adopt a child, though of these only 232,000 were taking concrete steps toward adoption, and only 100,000 had actually applied to adopt a child.
Click to expand...

http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/230/adoption.htm

that not 500,000 a year, by the way.

Just to make things concrete, suppose that increased abstinence and increased care with contraceptives led to 20% fewer unwanted pregnancies a year, and that of the unwanted pregnancies that still arise, fully 1/3 of the pregnant women decide to keep their babies. Starting from the current baseline of 1.2 million abortions a year, these changes would still mean an increase of 640,000 babies put up for adoption per year, in addition to the 120,000 that are already put up per year. Would there be enough demand to handle 760,000 unwanted babies a year—over 6 times more than there are now? If we rely on the (somewhat optimistic, I think) figure from above positing 400,000 adoption seekers a year, that still leaves 360,000 babies—almost half—left over per year.
Click to expand...

And really, you need to look at 100,000 who have actually applied
 
Superfreak said:
I find it easy to proclaim it because I value life. What is odd is how easy it is for you to proclaim that life is not worth saving. What is odd is your ability to dehumanize the unborn child so that you can use convenience as an excuse to kill it.

You are an intelligent woman, yet you cannot fathom personal responsibility. You know what causes pregnancy. You know how you can prevent it. If you choose not to do so, that should not entitle you to end a human life because you would be inconvenienced.
Click to expand...

You have no idea about my personal life or my responsibilities. I have four children, they are all amazing people. I think I was pretty damned responsible, but unlike you, I am not going to make a judgement call on another person, not knowing their circumstances. I take responsibility for my life and I do what I can to help others.

Blow out your ass SF.
 
Rana said:
You have no idea about my personal life or my responsibilities. I have four children, they are all amazing people. I think I was pretty damned responsible, but unlike you, I am not going to make a judgement call on another person, not knowing their circumstances. I take responsibility for my life and I do what I can to help others.

Blow out your ass SF.
Click to expand...


SF condescendingly tells others to leave the emotional responses at home, then he drops emotional nonsense like "How easy it is for you to proclaim that life is not worth saving."
 
blackascoal said:
Your pompous argument is damn-near childish. You don't give a rats ass about other life if it costs you a nickel.
Click to expand...

The above is quite pompous. You are lashing out because you know you don't have any data to support your position.

Your argument is completely pro-unborn-life, not pro-life.
Click to expand...

Given we are talking about the lives of the unborn, that is indeed correct. Though I do care about the lives of innocents that have already been born as well.

An argument for social safety-nets is a pro-life argument.
Click to expand...

It can be. But the structure of the net matters. It has to be sustainable. It cannot be a ponzi scheme that is changed at the whims of politicians.

An argument for women's rights is a pro-life argument.
Click to expand...

That is possible. Depends on what women's rights you are referring to. But everyone has the right to life. The women, the unborn children, the born children etc...

An argument for healthcare for all Americans is a pro-life argument .. and if memory serves, you're on the wrong side of those pro-life arguments .. yet you pompously declare yourself as someone who cares about children .. until they are born.
Click to expand...

Your saying 'these are pro-life arguments' doesn't make them so. Saying 'health care for all Americans' is simply feel-good rhetoric. If you rob future generations to pay for the 'health care for all Americans' today, then you are harming them. You do not have that right. I have no problem with health care for all, so long as WE are the ones that pay for it. I think the government's idea of how to provide it is friggin retarded... (as do you... but we differ on how we would fix it).

The good news .. no one has to care what you think about abortions. Those who want an abortion has access to that, and people in this country who actually care about the lives of the born are never going to let people like you end access to a women's right to choose.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is currently legal for you and others to dehumanize a child and justify killing it. I understand that. You continually pretending that the woman doesn't have the right to choose is quite sad. You are too intelligent to fall for that nonsense. The woman (and man) have a right to choose to have sex. If they choose to do so, they have the right to use protection to avoid pregnancy. What you are advocating is that they also get to choose to avoid responsibility for their actions (both man and woman) and that it is ok for them to take a life to do so.

This discussion is simply academic.

That's the bottom line brother. It ain't your decision to make.
Click to expand...

No, the bottom line is that every innocent life is to be protected. That the legal system currently supports the dehumanization of unborn children is simply the law. I will advocate changing that law until the right to life of the unborn is written in stone.
 
Rana said:
You have no idea about my personal life or my responsibilities. I have four children, they are all amazing people. I think I was pretty damned responsible, but unlike you, I am not going to make a judgement call on another person, not knowing their circumstances. I take responsibility for my life and I do what I can to help others.

Blow out your ass SF.
Click to expand...

I did not mean personal responsibility for you yourself... but that everyone should accept responsibility in the same way you did. Unlike you, I am not going to give someone else a pass on killing an unborn child. That child life needs to be defended. Not tossed away because someone finds the child inconvenient.
 
Superfreak said:
I did not mean personal responsibility for you yourself... but that everyone should accept responsibility in the same way you did. Unlike you, I am not going to give someone else a pass on killing an unborn child. That child life needs to be defended. Not tossed away because someone finds the child inconvenient.
Click to expand...

It isn't only inconvenience, the reasons are as different as the people, you reduce it to just inconvenience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top