The abortion issue...

[Jarod]

Explain? How are you for giving a choice if you are for making it illegal?

The same exact way you are pro-life, and also for keeping abortion legal.

No, that would be impossable. You see.... and Ill explain it again for your benefit...

I am against women having abortions, I think they should deliver and put the baby up for adoption if they dont want it. I am for the life!

However I belive this is an issue where there is a lot of debate and differing opinions, and in such a case I think the government should be hands off and thus I am against making it illegal.

NOW, can you explain your claim that you are for choice but also for making it illegal? How is that possable?



Dodging this one, are you, Einstein?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, that would be impossable. You see.... and Ill explain it again for your benefit...

I am against women having abortions, I think they should deliver and put the baby up for adoption if they dont want it. I am for the life!

However I belive this is an issue where there is a lot of debate and differing opinions, and in such a case I think the government should be hands off and thus I am against making it illegal.

NOW, can you explain your claim that you are for choice but also for making it illegal? How is that possable?

I understood it the first time you explained it. My position is exactly the same from the opposite perspective. I am as pro-choice as you are pro-life.

I am completely in favor of a woman having the choice to engage in unprotected sex or not, that is her complete right, and I would never deny her this choice... I am pro-choice!

I am completely in favor of a woman having the choice to decide medical procedures on her body, as long as no other human is effected by what she does, I support her full right to choose any procedure she wishes.... I am pro-choice!

I am even in favor of allowing a woman who has been raped, or become pregnant against her will, or at risk of her own life, to have a medical procedure performed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.... I am pro-choice!

Now... I am certainly not pro-unlimited-choice! I don't think anyone is, really. We simply don't infer unlimited choice on people, and let them do as they wish, without any personal responsibility or consequence to their actions, we simply can't do this, there are other people's rights involved, and they must be considered too. Our laws are pretty much centered on this concept, and I have no problem with government establishing laws to protect innocent human life.

Yes, there certainly is a lot of debate on the issue, and taking your position is essentially the easiest way out. You can claim moral indignity, while condoning the immorality, and it makes you feel like you've been moderate on the issue. The fact is, you are supporting abortion on demand, and have no inclination to ever see the practice ended. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here, and hoping you can pass it off as some enlightened moderate viewpoint, because you don't have the courage to take a stand for what you know is right.

In essence, what you have said is... I oppose homicide, but I just don't think the government should punish people who decide to blow someones brains out!

 

[maineman]

according to the law of the land... a fetus is not a "someone", it is a "something"....

 

[LadyT]

Suppose they do manage to mandate "heroic" efforts to "save" an aborted fetus. Who's going to pay for those measures? That's the part they never want to talk about. Such an effort is likely to be exceedingly expensive: upwards of half a million or more....Who will be able to get abortions is each one costs half a million or more?

What you'll get from the right is dead silence on the issue. They never want to seem to pony up the dough when it comes to taking care of children but they always seem to have a lot of rhetoric on why what everyone else is doing is wrong. I'm just the opposite of you. I actually welcome the day when either men can conceive or they find a way to incubate extracted fetuses. When it comes down to "saving millions of children" I highly doubt they are going to put their money where their mouth is and then maybe we can move on from this topic.

Think about it. If these anti-planned parenthood groups and Ted Haggards of the world were actually told at a sitin, "Okay, here's a petridish and some gloves, we can save the children, we just need a few hundred thousand from you and you and you", do you think they are really going to give up their Saturday gig olos and meth fixes? I think they'd move right along to some other self righteous topic and we could finally leave this issue behind.

 

[Jarod]

I understood it the first time you explained it. My position is exactly the same from the opposite perspective. I am as pro-choice as you are pro-life.

I am completely in favor of a woman having the choice to engage in unprotected sex or not, that is her complete right, and I would never deny her this choice... I am pro-choice!

I am completely in favor of a woman having the choice to decide medical procedures on her body, as long as no other human is effected by what she does, I support her full right to choose any procedure she wishes.... I am pro-choice!

I am even in favor of allowing a woman who has been raped, or become pregnant against her will, or at risk of her own life, to have a medical procedure performed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.... I am pro-choice!

Now... I am certainly not pro-unlimited-choice! I don't think anyone is, really. We simply don't infer unlimited choice on people, and let them do as they wish, without any personal responsibility or consequence to their actions, we simply can't do this, there are other people's rights involved, and they must be considered too. Our laws are pretty much centered on this concept, and I have no problem with government establishing laws to protect innocent human life.

Yes, there certainly is a lot of debate on the issue, and taking your position is essentially the easiest way out. You can claim moral indignity, while condoning the immorality, and it makes you feel like you've been moderate on the issue. The fact is, you are supporting abortion on demand, and have no inclination to ever see the practice ended. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here, and hoping you can pass it off as some enlightened moderate viewpoint, because you don't have the courage to take a stand for what you know is right.

In essence, what you have said is... I oppose homicide, but I just don't think the government should punish people who decide to blow someones brains out!

You see, and Ill break this down for you into little bits so you can understand, You are pro-choice on the sex isssue, you are pro-choice on medical procedures other than Abortion, and you are pro-choice on abortion when the woman was raped. But I am discussing ABORTION, not qualifiers or other issues mixed in. Pure, plain, abortion. Now I am Pro-Life meaning that I dont think people should have abortions, but I am Pro-Choice meaning that I dont think the government should regulate the insides of people's bodies such as would require to make abortion illegal.

I understand you are pro-choice on issues other than Abortion other than when the woman is raped... I respect that, but this is about basic abortion, and how the term Pro-Life is misused. Those whose defining cherastic is that they want abortion to be illegal should not be called "pro-life" even though they may be, they should be called "pro-government regulation" because you can be against making abortion illegal but still for life or "pro-life"!

 

[Damocles]

I am fully willing to "pony up the dough" for this. I have said so in the past. The idea that it is simply too expensive to end this particular action is ridiculous. And, in time, the effort would not longer be "heroic" and would provide a real choice at a cost that would be far better. One could decide to go on the "cheap" and carry the child to term, or to incubate ex-utero at a cost that wouldn't be astronomical.

Basically, I am for accellerating the work on that end and giving a real choice.

I am against making it illegal for the reason outlined above, I don't think it would stop abortions and would in fact make it even harder to get informed on when it happens or to ensure a healthy environment for women who are that desperate. Only the rich would be relatively safe in such a circumstance.

People who want to spend billions to remove 1 part per billion of something or other from the water shouldn't be the ones complaining about the cost of this research and implementation. Especially when it adds to, not takes away from, the available choices for women.

 

[LadyT]

Uhmmmm.. because your body gets in the car and drives it.

1) Driving is a priveledge not a right. 2) Having dominion over your body is a natural right. Try again.

Correct, and the abortion procedure violates the autonomy of someone elses body as well, the unborn human baby. Furthermore, it also violates the autonomy of the body belonging to the father of the infant, as the infant is 50% his as well.

Then he should carry it to term then if the woman doesn't want to.

Yes, you advocate sucking the fetus down a tube into a jar and discarding it as hazardous waste. You oppose any concept of recognizing said fetus as a human being with rights

Yes. That's right. A fetus is not a human being with rights.

 

[LadyT]

I am fully willing to "pony up the dough" for this. I have said so in the past. The idea that it is simply too expensive to end this particular action is ridiculous.

LOL, this coming from a self proclaimed fiscal conservative? Good luck getting your conservative bretheren to agree to that.

 

[Damocles]

LOL, this coming from a self proclaimed fiscal conservative? Good luck getting your conservative bretheren to agree to that.

Yup. It is. I think in the end the cost would be worth the end result. Sometimes even fiscal conservatives spend money on what they think will net them a greater benefit.

Of course you can laugh and disagree, but you cannot say that I am hypocritical on this one. Or that I am suddenly not fiscally conservative. I believe that the cost/benefit analysis is a net positive in the long run. And the earlier we begin the better the cost will be.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You see, and Ill break this down for you into little bits so you can understand, You are pro-choice on the sex isssue, you are pro-choice on medical procedures other than Abortion, and you are pro-choice on abortion when the woman was raped. But I am discussing ABORTION, not qualifiers or other issues mixed in. Pure, plain, abortion.

Oh, okay... so just dealing with the term "pro-choice" as it relates to the abortion procedure alone, nothing else?

Now I am Pro-Life meaning that I dont think people should have abortions

Well, no you are not. If we are specifically talking about just abortion, you are 'pro-abortion' and not 'pro-life'. You think it should be legal for people to have abortions, you don't think it should be illegal. You are not pro-life, because supporting abortion does not support life, rather, death.


but I am Pro-Choice meaning that I dont think the government should regulate the insides of people's bodies such as would require to make abortion illegal.

I don't think the government should regulate the insides of a persons body either, so I must also be pro-choice! I am pro-life, because I believe the government should protect innocent human life at all costs. See? We have the same viewpoint, just from opposite perspectives.

I understand you are pro-choice on issues other than Abortion

And you are pro-life on issues other than abortion. When it comes to abortion, you support it remaining legal, so you support abortion, not life.

but this is about basic abortion, and how the term Pro-Life is misused.

Oh, I agree, this is about basic abortion, you either support it or you don't. There is no way to claim you support life, yet also support the taking of innocent life, it is a contradiction of logic. As I said before, I am "pro-choice" just as you are "pro-life" because I can manipulate the parameters to make it that way. I am no more "anti-choice" than you are "pro-abortion", these are terms used by extremists on either side. Many terms are often misused in the lexicon of debate.

Those whose defining cherastic is that they want abortion to be illegal should not be called "pro-life" even though they may be, they should be called "pro-government regulation" because you can be against making abortion illegal but still for life or "pro-life"!

I could just as easily state that those who oppose murder should be called "pro-government regulation" as well, because that is what it is. Our government made laws against murdering people, didn't they? You support those laws, don't you?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

1) Driving is a priveledge not a right. 2) Having dominion over your body is a natural right. Try again.

So a human fetus should have dominion over their body? I agree!

Then he should carry it to term then if the woman doesn't want to.

This might be a viable alternative, if it were medically possible. It's not, so it's irrelevant to the debate.


Yes. That's right. A fetus is not a human being with rights.

A fetus is indeed a human being, nothing has proven otherwise. As of now, this human being has no rights and no voice, but that doesn't change what it is, or the morality of aborting and killing it. Black people once had no rights or voice, it was perfectly legal to kill them as well... didn't make it right, did it?

 

[Jarod]

Einstein said...

Well, no you are not. If we are specifically talking about just abortion, you are 'pro-abortion' and not 'pro-life'. You think it should be legal for people to have abortions, you don't think it should be illegal. You are not pro-life, because supporting abortion does not support life, rather, death.
----------

Maybe in your simple mind you cant understand that just because I think something should be legal, does not mean I am for it. If you call someone pro-abortion that means they are for it, regardless of legality.

Just because someone is for making drugs legal, does not mean they are pro-taking drugs. Can you see the misnomer you are promoting?

JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT SUPPORT MAKING SOMETING ILLEGAL DOES NOT MEAN YOU PROMOTE IT! Cant you understand that?

 

[Jarod]

Einstein said...:

"And you are pro-life on issues other than abortion. When it comes to abortion, you support it remaining legal, so you support abortion, not life."

Again, just because you want something to remain legal, does not mean you support it.

I want rap music to remain legal, but I hate the shit and dont support it!

 

[Jarod]

Dixie, do you support The Deomcratic party?

Because if you dont think it should be illegal, you must support it, using your own logic!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Those whose defining cherastic is that they want abortion to be illegal should not be called "pro-life" even though they may be...

I want you to think about how utterly stupid this sounds. They shouldn't be called something, even though that accurately describes what they are??? Why the fuck not? I don't get this! It's like you are admitting... yeah, people opposed to abortion are 'pro-life' but we shouldn't call them that! Well, the same logic holds true the opposite way then, if you oppose abortion, you can't be called 'anti-choice' either! So, I am "pro-choice" just as you are "pro-life" ...we are just looking at it from opposite perspectives.

 

[Jarod]

Einstein said...

"Black people once had no rights or voice, it was perfectly legal to kill them as well... didn't make it right, did it?"

It has never been perfectly legal to kill black people you idiot!

 

[Jarod]

Those whose defining cherastic is that they want abortion to be illegal should not be called "pro-life" even though they may be...

I want you to think about how utterly stupid this sounds. They shouldn't be called something, even though that accurately describes what they are??? Why the fuck not? I don't get this! It's like you are admitting... yeah, people opposed to abortion are 'pro-life' but we shouldn't call them that! Well, the same logic holds true the opposite way then, if you oppose abortion, you can't be called 'anti-choice' either! So, I am "pro-choice" just as you are "pro-life" ...we are just looking at it from opposite perspectives.

Defining someone as pro-life does not define them as people who necessarly want abortion to be made illegal. You can be Pro-LIfe (against abortion) and still support abortion being legal. You really should take a basic reasoning class.

 

[LadyT]

So a human fetus should have dominion over their body? I agree!

No clue what you're talking about there. But then again, that's to be expected given your reputation. I'll respond with, "a womam should have dominion over her body? I agree!"

This might be a viable alternative, if it were medically possible. It's not, so it's irrelevant to the debate.

Well telling someone what they can and can't do with their bodies isn't a viable alternative either.

A fetus is indeed a human being, nothing has proven otherwise. As of now, this human being has no rights and no voice, but that doesn't change what it is, or the morality of aborting and killing it. Black people once had no rights or voice, it was perfectly legal to kill them as well... didn't make it right, did it?

LOL, oh the race card. I didn't see that one coming a mile away.

As far as I know people/citizens don't require the host body of another human being to live.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Maybe in your simple mind you cant understand that just because I think something should be legal, does not mean I am for it.

What? This makes absolutely NO sense! You are FOR something being legal, yet you are not FOR it? How is that so?

If you call someone pro-abortion that means they are for it, regardless of legality.

The legality of abortion is not in question, the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal. You have stated that you are for legal abortion, therefore, you are FOR it! Moron!

Just because someone is for making drugs legal, does not mean they are pro-taking drugs. Can you see the misnomer you are promoting?

No... I see a complete contradiction of logic and terms by you, I see a moron talking out of both sides of his mouth and trying to have it both ways here, I see someone who is inept at understanding logic and common sense reasoning, but I don't see any misnomers about the fact that if you support the legalization of something, you matter of factly condone and support it!

JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT SUPPORT MAKING SOMETING ILLEGAL DOES NOT MEAN YOU PROMOTE IT! Cant you understand that?

Yes, you most certainly do promote it and condone it with your support of keeping it legal. You can't have your cake and eat it too! You either think abortion should be legal, or you oppose abortion being legal, you can't have it both ways. You can make some stupid argument... like, I believe homicide is bad and wrong, but I don't think the police should arrest people for it! That makes about as much sense as what you are saying here.

 

[Jarod]

Einstein said...

"What? This makes absolutely NO sense! You are FOR something being legal, yet you are not FOR it? How is that so?"

Are you for making the Democratic Party illegal? No, well then you must support it! (Thats called sarcasm you idiot)