APP - Pro-choicer kills anti-abortionist

AssHatZombie said:
Yes, they are.
Click to expand...

I suppose, in a way, it's fun playing anti-abortionist word games. In utero babies. Unborn persons. Undead corpses.

Of course, we all know there is no such thing as an undead corpse by virtue of the fact "corpse" means dead. Its like saying an undead, dead person.

Similarly, when speaking of a person it is understood they have been born. Therefore, an unborn person translates to an unborn, born person.

Is it any wonder why anti-abortionist's arguments don't quite convince the masses?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yes they are, and a cluster bomb or "surgical strike" doesn't discriminate. Babies are real people, not "collateral damage".

My point is that if all the anti-abortion wailers were SO serious about perserving life, then the vast majority of them WOULD NOT have so whole heartedly supported a bogus war....the vast majority of them would NOT whole heartedly fight against welfare programs that help children born out of wedlock SURVIVE...nor would they fight to maintain a health insurance system that values the $$ bottom line over life in many instances.

Let me be clear, given the medical advancements in my lifetime, there should never be another abortion in America unless the life of the mother is endanger or the impregnation is due to rape and it's her decision to abort. But because of moronic adherence to religious dogma and antiquated social stigmas, our society is preventing comprehensive, realistic sex education and access to birth control for who need it. So until this country gets it's head out of it's idealogical ass, abortion is a needed.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Wow we're talking about abortion and you bring up war. I'm surprised you didn't bring up another irrelevant topic like health care. Ahhh, I forgot that you're not smart enought to connect the dots here, or read carefully and comprehensively.....that coupled with your unwillingness and inability to discuss the points and conclusions of others post. Go ask an adult you trust to explain it too you.
You liberals are F-U-C-K-E-D up. :)
Click to expand...

That's about the limit of your understanding.....insult only. I pity you sometimes.
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
I suppose, in a way, it's fun playing anti-abortionist word games. In utero babies. Unborn persons. Undead corpses.

Of course, we all know there is no such thing as an undead corpse by virtue of the fact "corpse" means dead. Its like saying an undead, dead person.

Similarly, when speaking of a person it is understood they have been born. Therefore, an unborn person translates to an unborn, born person.

Is it any wonder why anti-abortionist's arguments don't quite convince the masses?
Click to expand...

You forgot about the simple one. Life. When is the process of life ALIVE? When can we call it life? And how do you not see it as taking a life when you abort something that is alive?
 
apple0154 said:
I suppose, in a way, it's fun playing anti-abortionist word games. In utero babies. Unborn persons. Undead corpses.

Of course, we all know there is no such thing as an undead corpse by virtue of the fact "corpse" means dead. Its like saying an undead, dead person.

Similarly, when speaking of a person it is understood they have been born. Therefore, an unborn person translates to an unborn, born person.

Is it any wonder why anti-abortionist's arguments don't quite convince the masses?
Click to expand...


But fetuses are in utero babies. Would you call a toddler stupid for saying his pregnant mother has a new baby inside here? Would you scold him for his imprecision and stupidity? You probably would.
 
Really, things are what they are, regardless of the words used. You insist on on your clinical language, your dehumanization, so you can murder with a clean conscience. You are ill.
 
=tinfoil;526204]You forgot about the simple one. Life. When is the process of life ALIVE? When can we call it life?
Click to expand...

When it can live without using the metabolism of another life. Our organs are "alive". Cancer cells are either dead or alive but I don't feel they can be considered a "life".

And how do you not see it as taking a life when you abort something that is alive?
Click to expand...

Again, it may be alive but it is not a "life". It requires the use of organs and the metabolism belonging to another life.

Claiming something is a human being and has the right to use the body of another human being is anti-everything we stand for. That is the crux of the problem.

As I mentioned before if two people claim ownership of one body where will it end? Shall a pregnant woman be allowed to go skiing? Would we strap a baby on our back and head down a ski hill? What if she works on a construction site being subjected to dust and possible injury? What if some disgruntled boyfriend decides to petition the courts to stop her from taking a vacation claiming the country to which she plans to visit is known to be dangerous? Should a woman being three months pregnant be permitted to vacation in Puerto Vallarta, visiting a country where drug wars, kidnappings and other assorted crimes are common place?

What if she's not maintaining a proper diet? Surely the biological father of the human being living inside her has not only a right but an obligation to ensure his child is properly looked after. If she has elevated blood sugar and is observed at a Dairy Queen what do we do with her? She is deliberately risking the health of another human being, assuming the fetus is a human being. Do we fine her? Imprison her? Or simply turn a blind eye to child endangerment?

Where is the plan, the protocols, the rule book? Why aren't the answers to those questions clearly laid out by anti-abortionists?

What degree of damage or risk to a woman's life will be necessary before an abortion is permitted? Or is the plan to play it by ear? Will it depend on the financial resources available to buy the most credible medical witnesses?

Do anti-abortionists even give a damn about those questions?
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
But fetuses are in utero babies. Would you call a toddler stupid for saying his pregnant mother has a new baby inside here? Would you scold him for his imprecision and stupidity? You probably would.
Click to expand...

There are people walking around carrying miniature dogs and refer to them as their children. It's an expression, AssHat. As for scolding the child I suggest we look at the person who taught the child to say that.
 
apple0154 said:
I wasn't aware those treatments required being inside another human being's body.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. You claimed that dependancy on something outside the babies body made it nonhuman. Why isn't that true with someone who depends on blood dialysis machines?
 
AssHatZombie said:
You're missing the point. You claimed that dependancy on something outside the babies body made it nonhuman. Why isn't that true with someone who depends on blood dialysis machines?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it's you who is missing the point. A fetus doesn't have the necessary parts. That's why it uses the mother's body. The parts slowly come into existence assuming all goes well.

Picture a car on the assembly line. Let's say we start off with the frame. Is that a car? No, not yet. Then we add the body. Is that a car? By adding an engine do we say that's a car? What about adding a transmission?

There's no seats or dash or tires or differential or doors. Do we say that's a car? Or do we wait until it finally rolls off the assembly line?

Some folks will consider a car without a motor as a car. Some will consider it a car with just the frame and body. Where do we draw the line?

If over 50% of the cars with just frames and bodies never ended up being a car would we even consider them cars at that point?

Fifty years pass and someone decides to restore it as an antique. They remove the engine and transmission and doors and even take the body off the frame. (Off-frame restoration.) Even when completely apart it's considered a car because all the parts are there, it was a car before and it will be a car again.

Classifying a fertilized cell as a human being just because it has unique DNA and giving it relevance equal to a woman is saying a woman is no more important than something that has less than a 50% of becoming a born human being.

Surely you can see the absurdity not to mention the injustice and the degrading position assigned to the woman.
 
Southern Man said:
Delicious irony. :)
Click to expand...

You throw the first stone, and then get pissed when someone retaliates and bests you at it. Then you lie.

The recorded post prove me right on this...so you can delude yourself with your lies all you want. My statements and reasoning stand valid...that is what you cannot refute, and subsequently frustrates you to no end.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You throw the first stone, and then get pissed when someone retaliates and bests you at it. Then you lie.

The recorded post prove me right on this...so you can delude yourself with your lies all you want. My statements and reasoning stand valid...that is what you cannot refute, and subsequently frustrates you to no end.
Click to expand...
Don't get all hissy now that you've been shown to be a stupid fool, fag liberal.
 
apple0154 said:
Why don't you pack a lunch and join Prophet for a day at a hospital for sick children. I'm willing to bet you've never been to one. Have you? Go and see what an anti-abortionist has put another human being through and let me know what you would have done if you had a choice. Deal?
Click to expand...

So you think we should euthanize all disabled infants?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top