The Abortion MYTH

apple0154 said:
Just like an egg is a chicken, huh? Did anyone ever ask you to go to the store for a dozen eggs? You mother? Your boyfriend/girlfriend? If so, did you come back with 12 chickens?

Did anyone ever ask you to pick up some carrots at the grocery store? If so, did you come back with a packet of seeds?

Milk? Were you ever asked to pick up a quart/liter of milk and return with a pound of hamburger because......well, because they are both bovine?
Click to expand...

They do not sell fertalized eggs at the store. If a woman chooses to have her unfertalized eggs removed that is not killing a baby. Your lame chicken analogies again?...really?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Did you parents ever tell to shut your ass, when it was your nouth that was causing the problem??
Click to expand...

No, but by your bringing it up it appears your parents told you. I guess even then you were talking sh!t.

On that note it has been a pleasure. Time for bed. Maybe even go through the motions of making a baby. :D
 
Why does the number of abortions go up under a Republican president and down under a Democratic one?
 
The number of interns being done by Congress? Democrats use cigars? She didn't swallow? I don't know?

Democrats support birth control and sexual protection? They don't believe abstinence is realistic?

They feel more secure, so the have babies?

What is the answer?
 
apple0154 said:
My humanity rests with the woman who may or may not bear a child. My humanity rests with upholding the value of a human being and vigorously defending that against the mistaken and potentially disastrous beliefs of others.

The road to outlawing abortion is truly the road to Hell.

Years ago people were more inclined to accept things, to not question authority such as religion and political leaders. Those days are long gone (thank God!). Once society starts to make exceptions concerning human beings, exceptions that will have to be made if fertilized cells and embryos and fetuses are designated human beings, the flood gates open.

Just the idea of sanctioning a woman's right to kill an innocent human being because she has a defective body should be repulsive to any human being and designating a fertilized cell/embryo/fetus a human being will result in exactly that.

The idea of sanctioning a woman's right to kill an innocent human being because of rape/incest means one can kill a human being depending on how they were conceived if conception is the start of a human being's life.

Do anti-abortionists really condone that? Have they actually contemplated what they are advocating?

Did someone mention the word, "humanity"?
Click to expand...

I never mentioned anything about outlawing abortions, my comments have only been about your desire to dehuminize a developing child and how easy it is for you to have absolutely no compassion for the same developing child.
Like I said; all you've done is show your complete lack of humanity.
 
apple0154 said:
No, but by your bringing it up it appears your parents told you. I guess even then you were talking sh!t.

On that note it has been a pleasure. Time for bed. Maybe even go through the motions of making a baby. :D
Click to expand...


Then it explains why you've turned out, without any humanity; it's because your parents failed to teach you what humanity meams.

I hope you never are able to complete the process of creating life; because you value it so little.
 
apple0154 said:
My humanity rests with the woman who may or may not bear a child. My humanity rests with upholding the value of a human being and vigorously defending that against the mistaken and potentially disastrous beliefs of others.

The road to outlawing abortion is truly the road to Hell.
Click to expand...

Overlooking the irony of a liberal using a religious expression, that is what the Antibellum South said about slavery. It is a joke for you to support the mass murder of innocent life and to speak of humanity. It is pretentious of you to claim that you can do anyone good while you stand in support of such immence evil.
 
Good Luck said:
Try again.

The statement that the major religions opposed legalized abortion prior to Roe v Wade holds true whether they added an exception of peril of the mother or not. (Not all did, or do, allow that exception.)

But if you think they did not oppose abortion until Roe v Wade, I look forward to your arguments showing there was, indeed, a myth that Roe vs Wade was the factor that initiated the Religious Right movement.
Click to expand...

IF you had clicked on the link and read the article/book excerpt...

Although various Roman Catholic groups denounced the ruling, and Christianity Today complained that the Roe decision "runs counter to the moral teachings of Christianity through the ages but also to the moral sense of the American people," the vast majority of evangelical leaders said virtually nothing about it; many of those who did comment actually applauded the decision. W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press wrote, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision." Indeed, even before the Roe decision, the messengers (delegates) to the 1971 Southern Baptist Convention gathering in St. Louis, Missouri, adopted a resolution that stated, "we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother." W.A. Criswell, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, expressed his satisfaction with the Roe v. Wade ruling. "I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person," the redoubtable fundamentalist declared, "and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed."


"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater (R) – Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement
 
Good Luck said:
Let's try focusing on the point of the original assertion rather than get hung up on irrelevant minutia.

The claim was there is "proof" falsifying the "myth" that Roe v Wade brought together the Religious Right movement.

The fact is the claim that there was such a myth is not true. It is quite easy to disprove a myth that was made up in order to disprove.
Click to expand...

Actually you are both right. Most major religions have opposed abortion. Particularly Catholic and Evengelical Christians. Having said that, the author is also correct. There was no evengelical christian political movement until the Bob Jones University case. Why do you think it was such a big deal in 1980 when Reagan gave a speech at this great bastion of racism?
 
republicans believe it because most of them don't have college educations and need the religious cartoon to tell them what to believe.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then it explains why you've turned out, without any humanity; it's because your parents failed to teach you what humanity meams.

I hope you never are able to complete the process of creating life; because you value it so little.
Click to expand...

Too late. I have two children. :)

The fact is I place a high value on human beings. That's why I don't want their value compared to that of a fertilized cell. I don't want them compared to things that have a death rate of 25-50% and society does not even care enough to conduct a full investigation (spontaneous abortion). I don't want their value to be so small that depending on how they were created (rape) one has the option of murdering it.

It is I who places a high value on human beings by finding it repulsive to designate something that is not a human being as a human being thereby lowering the value of all human beings.
 
Threedee said:
Overlooking the irony of a liberal using a religious expression, that is what the Antibellum South said about slavery. It is a joke for you to support the mass murder of innocent life and to speak of humanity. It is pretentious of you to claim that you can do anyone good while you stand in support of such immence evil.
Click to expand...

It's a "joke" to say a fertilized cell is a human being when that cell may develop into two human beings or no human beings. Or it may develop into two human beings and then one of them will absorb the other.

I explained all that in post #28. Human beings do not divide into two people and then one absorbs the other.

Have you been over-indulging on the sci-fi channel lately?
 
Mottleydude said:
Actually you are both right. Most major religions have opposed abortion. Particularly Catholic and Evengelical Christians. Having said that, the author is also correct. There was no evengelical christian political movement until the Bob Jones University case. Why do you think it was such a big deal in 1980 when Reagan gave a speech at this great bastion of racism?
Click to expand...
My point is that there was no "myth" which claimed the religious right movement formed around Roe v Wade. Therefore, proving said myth is a bunch of crap. The author made up the "myth" in order to disprove it.

In short, I at no time objected to the fact that the religious right movement was absent prior to the Bob Jones case. What I objected to is the claim that these facts disproves a "myth" that never existed.

Of course, an additional fact the author ignores is that once formed, the religious right movement then moved on to tackle a large number of issues, to include things like prayer in schools, defending using the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance, and, yes, legalized abortion.
 
Good Luck said:
My point is that there was no "myth" which claimed the religious right movement formed around Roe v Wade. Therefore, proving said myth is a bunch of crap. The author made up the "myth" in order to disprove it.

In short, I at no time objected to the fact that the religious right movement was absent prior to the Bob Jones case. What I objected to is the claim that these facts disproves a "myth" that never existed.

Of course, an additional fact the author ignores is that once formed, the religious right movement then moved on to tackle a large number of issues, to include things like prayer in schools, defending using the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance, and, yes, legalized abortion.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read and absorb post #29 in this thread...

BTW, on the Pledge of Allegiance...

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898). Bellamy's original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8th issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's discovery of America, conceived by James B. Upham.


Bellamy's original Pledge read:

"I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."


Reciting of the pledge is accompanied by a salute. An early version of the salute, adopted in 1892, was known as the Bellamy salute. It ended with the arm outstretched and the palm upwards. Because of the similarity between the Bellamy salute and the Nazi salute, President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute to be rendered by civilians during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem in the United States, instead of the Bellamy salute. This was done when Congress officially adopted the Flag Code on June 22, 1942.

Pledge_salue.jpg



Under God Added

The Knights of Columbus, the world's largest Catholic fraternal service organization, in New York City felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity. Appealing to the authority of Abraham Lincoln, the Knights felt that the words "under God" which were from Lincolns Gettysburg Address were most appropriate to add to the Pledge.
wiki
 
Mottleydude said:
Economic factors mostly. The economy ussually tanks under Republicans as well as a decrease in social services.
Click to expand...

That is false. The economy does not tank under one party or the other. It does however run through business cycles. Take a look at when the bull market began (1982) and when it ended (2000). That spanned the terms of Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. Prior to that was a secular bear market from 1966-1982. That gave us Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter.

The more likely reason for an increase (if that is even true) is that Dems work themselves into a murderous frenzy every time a Rep is in the White House and take out their murderous desires on the most helpless human beings they can find.

:)
 
apple0154 said:
Too late. I have two children. :)

The fact is I place a high value on human beings. That's why I don't want their value compared to that of a fertilized cell. I don't want them compared to things that have a death rate of 25-50% and society does not even care enough to conduct a full investigation (spontaneous abortion). I don't want their value to be so small that depending on how they were created (rape) one has the option of murdering it.

It is I who places a high value on human beings by finding it repulsive to designate something that is not a human being as a human being thereby lowering the value of all human beings.
Click to expand...
All you do with your rhetoric is display your willful ignorance of science in place of the poack of liberal lies told over and over again. You have no idea the difference between an unfertilized chicken egg and a fertilized chicken egg, so you mock the idea of calling a dozen eggs a pack of chickens. You are ignorant of the difference between a genome and the specific genes of an individual organism, so you haul out a case where genetic analysis could not trace the relationship of related people.

Then you use your ignorance to defend the indefensible. Calling an unborn human a fertilized egg no more changes the fact it is human than calling a newborn human an infant, except in your narrow inhumanistic mind.

Yours is the same crap used throughout history to justify the willful abuse of a selected class of humans. You use every excuse in the book to dehumanize the unborn, just as pre-1860 America as a whole used every excuse in the book to dehumanize blacks, how they used every excuse in the book until the early 1900s to dehumanize Native Americans, how Nazi Germany used every excuse in the book to dehumanize Jews, and how modern radical Islamists use every excuse in the book to dehumanize non-believers. Because once dehumanized, any treatment of the targeted class of humans is easily justified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top