Time magazine's cover of NJ governor raises outcry?!!

Superfreak said:
Yes, you do hold an animosity towards them. Which is why you call the unborn child a 'fetus' which is simply a stage of its development. You again try to dehumanize it. Which by itself shows animosity towards the unborn child.

By your standard of caring, you should also not care if a person chooses to shoot other people. I mean, why should you care if they do or not so long as it doesn't affect you?

Does a two month old have 'free will to act'??? No, they are completely dependent upon the care of others. So that eliminates that line of stupidity from you. I am not 'judging' them. I am stating the obvious. Clearly they cannot have broken any laws, thus they cannot be guilty of any crime. The absurdity of the opposite shouldn't have to be explained to anyone.
Click to expand...

Please do not TELL me how I feel about babies and fetuses. I am not irrationally emotional and do not attach emotion or personification to something that may or may not even be born. That is just creepy, IMO...and certainly none of anyone else's business. (Regarding killing 'people,' well that is a clear infringement on their right to life. The fetus's rights...if they have any at all, which I dont believe.... do not supersede the mother's otherwise we couldnt terminate in cases of rape, incest, her life in danger...as already mentioned and you conveniently ignored :-) )

As for free will, yes a newborn has it. THey can CHOOSE to focus their eyes and absorb info...or not. THey can choose to sleep, they can choose to cry. They can choose to eat and any parent will tell you they are very opinionated about that from the instant they first attempt to feed them.

Nice try. Now, since we are getting into territory that has been covered ad infinitem in the other thread currently running, I will disengage so that we dont sidetrack this thread further. I'd be happy to continue in the other thread, altho I wont repost everything....if you really care about 'all the unborn babies!', you'll read the last several pages first...so you are better armed to 'save them!!!!' lol

Link to other thread: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?57349-Pro-lifers-show-no-mercy

YOu can get the gist of it on the last 10 pages.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
Again, you are attempting to dehumanize them. If they die of natural causes, then it is a natural death. If you jab a metal spike in their head and kill them, then it is unnatural.

I understand that under the current legal system they are not entitled to basic human rights protections. THAT is the what the debate is actually about. Whether they should have basic human rights protections or not.



1) Incest is either consensual or it is rape.

2) Yes, if it is a life vs. a life, the woman should choose who she wishes to save.

3) Yes, in major catastrophes, medics may be forced to choose who to save... usually done on the basis of probability of survival and severity of injury.

4) Whether we do the same with born individuals is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

SInce you admit that we are discussing the LEGAL side of things, precedent certainly makes a difference, so how we deal with the rights of 'people' (born individuals) then it is not irrelevant.

And why is it ok to terminate in cases of rape or incest? Not sure why you chose to try and quantify 'types' of incest but that does seem irrelvant if it can also be rape.
 
Lorca said:
Please do not TELL me how I feel about babies and fetuses.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you will return the favor. Next time don't tell me how I 'worship' the unborn and the nonsense won't come back at you.

I am not irrationally emotional and do not attach emotion or personification to something that may or may not even be born.
Click to expand...

Like the above... I am the one acting rationally. You are the one who is trying to bring nonsense into this. The unborn child is 100% human. I stated that human life deserves the same basic human life protections we all have. Explain to me how that is irrational? Explain also why you continue trying to attach the 'it may not be born' to it? It is currently alive. If it dies a natural death then that is what happens some times. It happens after birth as well. The fact that we ALL might die at any given moment does not change our humanity. Nor does it change the humanity of the unborn child.

That is just creepy, IMO...and certainly none of anyone else's business.
Click to expand...

See which one of us is attaching emotion? That would be you. Again you cling to the 'i am only concerned if it involves me'. So would you also not care if some jackass shoots up a theater if you weren't in it? I mean it really isn't any of your business.

(Regarding killing 'people,' well that is a clear infringement on their right to life. The fetus's rights...if they have any at all, which I dont believe.... do not supersede the mother's otherwise we couldnt terminate in cases of rape, incest, her life in danger...as already mentioned and you conveniently ignored :-) )
Click to expand...

Again... for the 1000th time... the childs right to life does not supersede the womans right to life. I already stated that. You apparently missed it. So perhaps you should learn to comprehend what is written before telling others they are failing to address your point.

As for free will, yes a newborn has it. THey can CHOOSE to focus their eyes and absorb info...or not. THey can choose to sleep, they can choose to cry. They can choose to eat and any parent will tell you they are very opinionated about that from the instant they first attempt to feed them.

Nice try. Now, since we are getting into territory that has been covered ad infinitem in the other thread currently running, I will disengage so that we dont sidetrack this thread further. I'd be happy to continue in the other thread, altho I wont repost everything....if you really care about 'all the unborn babies!', you'll read the last several pages first...so you are better armed to 'save them!!!!' lol

Link to other thread: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?57349-Pro-lifers-show-no-mercy

YOu can get the gist of it on the last 10 pages.
Click to expand...

LMAO... the unborn child has all of those same abilities...
 
Superfreak said:
the unborn child has all of those same abilities...
Click to expand...

The unborn chooses to cry? When to eat?

And I'm not discussing rationally? @_@

Also, I am not attempting to personify the unborn. That is also irrational unless you have some personal stake in that fetus. Otherwise it is none of your business...even creepy. (yes, that is my opinion.)
 
Superfreak said:
Again... for the 1000th time... the childs right to life does not supersede the womans right to life. I already stated that. You apparently missed it. So perhaps you should learn to comprehend what is written before telling others they are failing to address your point.

.
Click to expand...

LOL You wrote it. It doesnt make it true.

The fetus can be terminated in the cases already mentioned and even many pro-lifers agree to that. So why is that? Because the fetus's rights are not equal to the mothers.
 
Lorca said:
The unborn chooses to cry? When to eat?
Click to expand...

LMAO... just as much as a new born. They choose to move, choose to sleep, the same type of things you assigned to a newborn to demonstrate free will.

And I'm not discussing rationally? @_@
Click to expand...

No, you are not. You are digging drastically when you are already in a whole... completely irrational.

Also, I am not attempting to personify the unborn. That is also irrational unless you have some personal stake in that fetus. Otherwise it is none of your business...even creepy. (yes, that is my opinion.)
Click to expand...

Again... the unborn child is human, period. Whether you assign an arbitrary and subjective word such as 'person' to it just shows you wish to find a way to dehumanize it.

You do not have to have a personal stake in the child to care about its well being. What is truly creepy is that you think you do. The fact that you again call the child by a STAGE of its development shows you wish to continue being irrational.

Again... if a person were abusing a child would your response be 'unless you have a personal stake in that child it is creepy to care'???
 
Lorca said:
LOL You wrote it. It doesnt make it true.
Click to expand...

You stated that I had failed to address your comment, yet as you now know, you were wrong. So now you pretend that my opinion on the matter means I didn't answer?

The fetus can be terminated in the cases already mentioned and even many pro-lifers agree to that. So why is that? Because the fetus's rights are not equal to the mothers.
Click to expand...

Again... AS I STATED, when it is the case of life vs. life, the woman has a right to protect her own life. What part of this are you failing to comprehend?

I again note your pathetic attempt to dehumanize the child by calling it by a stage of its development.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... just as much as a new born. They choose to move, choose to sleep, the same type of things you assigned to a newborn to demonstrate free will.



No, you are not. You are digging drastically when you are already in a whole... completely irrational.





Again... the unborn child is human, period. Whether you assign an arbitrary and subjective word such as 'person' to it just shows you wish to find a way to dehumanize it.

You do not have to have a personal stake in the child to care about its well being. What is truly creepy is that you think you do. The fact that you again call the child by a STAGE of its development shows you wish to continue being irrational.

Again... if a person were abusing a child would your response be 'unless you have a personal stake in that child it is creepy to care'???
Click to expand...

No...investing emotion in imaginary 'babies' since you dont even know of their existence is creepy and needy.

It so easy, so it's a quick win for the self-righteous. Nothing is required but fabricated outrage.

Back to legalities: it's not a person....and it does not have equal rights....you keep avoiding why it's ok to terminate a fetus to save a woman from the mental anquish of rape or forced incest. Yes, that's a legal designation. Do YOU think that YOU should be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term that has been the victim of rape or forced incest?
 
Superfreak said:
I again note your pathetic attempt to dehumanize the child by calling it by a stage of its development.
Click to expand...

Sorry if factual descriptions distract you from your argument. That happens when you get emotional over things that arent any business of yours.
 
Lorca said:
No...investing emotion in imaginary 'babies' since you dont even know of their existence is creepy and needy.
Click to expand...

LMAO... thanks for proving my point. You are absolutely injecting emotion into this rather than reason. The children are not imaginary.

It so easy, so it's a quick win for the self-righteous. Nothing is required but fabricated outrage.
Click to expand...

You mean like calling unborn children 'imaginary'???

Back to legalities: it's not a person....and it does not have equal rights....you keep avoiding why it's ok to terminate a fetus to save a woman from the mental anquish of rape or forced incest. Yes, that's a legal designation. Do YOU think that YOU should be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term that has been the victim of rape or forced incest?
Click to expand...

It is currently legal, but the debate is about whether it should be. Yes, they are not currently provided human rights protections, but like many other groups of humans that at one point were not provided them, some people choose to fight to provide them with basic human rights protections.

Again... I have answered the question on rape many times... the woman did not have a CHOICE in the sex. Therefore you have to evils to choose from...

1) Force the woman to carry the child to term, even though she did not choose to have sex
2) Legally allow for the woman to choose to terminate the childs life.

Neither is a good thing. But one must be the law. In this case, it has to be legal given the womans rights were violated to begin with and her choice taken from her. That does not make it right to kill the child. I know a lot of you pro-abortionists come to the rape issue because you think it creates inconsistency in the pro-life argument. You do it even though the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience, not because of rape. Because you want to inject emotion into the argument.
 
Lorca said:
Sorry if factual descriptions distract you from your argument. That happens when you get emotional over things that arent any business of yours.
Click to expand...

LMAO... you mean like the FACT that it is a unique human life is so casually discarded by you. Instead you try to attach subjective definitions such as 'person' onto the childs life. Proclaiming it not a person so that you can justify ending the childs life.

Protecting innocent lives should be the business of any caring individual. You can be as callous about their deaths as you want.

Again... is it any of your business if you see someone getting beaten? getting raped? getting shot? Would you stand by and do nothing simply because you didn't know the parties involved? Can't help noticing you keep running away from questions like this... I wonder why?
 
Superfreak said:
You mean like calling unborn children 'imaginary'???



It is currently legal, but the debate is about whether it should be. Yes, they are not currently provided human rights protections, but like many other groups of humans that at one point were not provided them, some people choose to fight to provide them with basic human rights protections.

Again... I have answered the question on rape many times... the woman did not have a CHOICE in the sex. Therefore you have to evils to choose from...

1) Force the woman to carry the child to term, even though she did not choose to have sex
2) Legally allow for the woman to choose to terminate the childs life.

Neither is a good thing. But one must be the law. In this case, it has to be legal given the womans rights were violated to begin with and her choice taken from her. That does not make it right to kill the child. I know a lot of you pro-abortionists come to the rape issue because you think it creates inconsistency in the pro-life argument. You do it even though the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience, not because of rape. Because you want to inject emotion into the argument.
Click to expand...

THey are imaginary because you have no idea if they exist or not. And you imagine them as 'little babies,' which they may never even become...


And it does not 'have to be legal' because the woman's rights were violated to begin with. Now you are using 'killing the baby' as an excuse. But that only applies to the unborn. We dont terminate already born individuals just because someone else's rights have been violated (unless they have been convicted of that crime.)

No, the reason the law allows termination of the fetus to spare a woman mental anguish is because the fetus's rights are not equal to the woman's. We do not kill already born individuals to protect from mental anguish, do we? WHy not?

Re: the fact that most abortions are to enable a woman to protect her career, education, relationships, existing family, or to remain off public assistance...those are all legitimate reasons since her rights...as shown....supersede that of a fetus that may or may not ever even be born. It is her CHOICE, to choose which of her rights she wants to preserve.
 
Superfreak said:
Again... is it any of your business if you see someone getting beaten? getting raped? getting shot? Would you stand by and do nothing simply because you didn't know the parties involved? Can't help noticing you keep running away from questions like this... I wonder why?
Click to expand...

That is a personal choice for anyone. Would you force me to do so? Do you think you have the right to do so or do you just want an excuse to do some more judging?

What's to run from? I have an advanced FIrst Aid certification and used to be a CPR instructor. I have been a first responder as a park ranger. IRL I have interceded in many situations & accidents. That is me personally, it has NOTHING to do with RIGHTS.

(But it gives you another chance to do even more judging.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top