Who will pay for the sin of murdering the unborn?

[nostatic]

damn, I'm on a roll now. Too bad I'm not for gun control I could piss even more people off...

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by nostatic

really? how so? because I insist that someone who takes an incredibly offensive (to millions) and dogmatic tone practice rigorous consistency?

no, because from about p.5 on, with a few later exceptions, your posts have been snide, unitelligent cracks that do not address anyone's comments.

[nostatic]

that's because the arguments are ludicrous and can't be defended. In either direction. Period. I get snide when I see people trying to pass belief off as fact. Believe what you want, but don't try to shove it down everyone else's throat as "the truth."

And the whole melodramatic beginning post set the tone for a ridiculous ride...

[K. Roman]

Hat's off to you sir.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by nostatic

that's because the arguments are ludicrous and can't be defended. In either direction. Period. I get snide when I see people trying to pass belief off as fact. Believe what you want, but don't try to shove it down everyone else's throat as "the truth."

And the whole melodramatic beginning post set the tone for a ridiculous ride...

I got your back, Todd!

Best,

Kurt

[Milu]

As I see it the pro life camp has to try and address three questions:

Demonstrate that cells and foetuses are people. this means in a testable way, not opinion.

What is to be done about back street abortions.

What to do with the army of unwanted babies. This would presumably be close to the number of current abortions if the problem of backstreet abortions was resolved.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by Isabo

That is what the antiabortionists do not seem to grasp. Legal or illegal it is going to happen. Yes I agree contraception is better but don't force unfortunate women into the hands of backstreet butchers. Until you can offer a serious solution to the problem of the backstreet abortions that are the inevitable consequence of stopping legal terminations, I don't think the matter even merits discussion.
You don't want to have an abortion? Don't have it, just don't dictate to others.

Our jails are full of murderers, at the very least we should realize that, legal or not, people are going to commit murder out of there own choice. Why not legalize that choice and save the tax payers some money by keeping murderers out of jail.

The real problem is getting the murderers to stop murdering, murder being a crime isn't going to stop it. Until you figure out a way to stop the murders before they happen, a discussion on it's legality doesn't merit discussion.

You don't want to murder someone? Don't do it, just don't dictate to others.

It is this kind of denial and misreading of Roe Vs. Wade that I'd like to correct. The state did in fact talk out of both sides of it's mouth. While it denied the human fetus his/her human rights, it also recognized the human fetus and his/her human rights and value to the state. It did so through a non-medical, nonscientific, nondemocratic, and non-precedented arbitrary number of pregnancy days.

To Lendaddy's point, and one step further a child might not be a human until he/she can contribute to society through producing their own children. How about that? What if we determined a true human would have to be able to procreate in order to be considered human. Any time before puberty you could perform prepubescent-abortion on your own prepubescent. Your choice. After all, we see mothers drowning their prepubescents in bath tubs all the time, making it legal would allow the mother to take the pubescent to a clinic and have the operation done. No mess to clean up in your own bathroom.

It's her choice right? Any one who says contrary doesn't know what it's like having prepubescents taking up your own valuable time and resources.

[cairns]

What your ilk seem to be wholy incapable of grasping is that we are not telling women what they can do with their bodies. We are asking them to respect some one else's life - the one growing inside of them.

No you're not asking anything. You're attempting to impose your beliefs on others- irrespective of current law and science. And the crux of the argument is whether or not that a fetus is a "some one". Both the Supreme Court and pro choicers believe differently than you.

Are you really ignorant enough to lump all pro life advocates in with abortion clinic bombers and the like? Or does that image you have generated for yourself just make you feel like less of a monster for advocating the taking of innocent, helpless lives as purely a matter of convenience?

1. I never lumped all pro life advocates with abortion bombers. But I do think abortion bombers and their "ilk" are terrorists and do your cause more harm than good.

2. See #1. Your melodrama is lost on me.

The truly sick bastards of our society are the ones who would hide behind endless euphemisms and justifications for this behaviour. They make every effort to deflect the focus from their barbarity by attempting to lump those who would make reasonable arguments agianst their selfish actions together with murderers and terrorists. It just doesn't work.

I disagree. See last post. In retrospect, I should have used "delusional" instead of sick. Altthough I'm sure you'll agree that delusion is a form of sickness.

In the end, you are incapable of arguing your position without resorting to all manner of accusations and stereotyping of pro life advocates. We can all see that. The very core of your argument does not hold up under the most cursory scrutiny, so the shrill cries of "zealot" and "terrorist" begin. That's about as intellectually vapid as it gets.

The "very core of my argument does not stand up under even the most cursory scrutiny"?? uhh excuse me but this has been argued all the way up to the Supreme Court. They obviously felt differently.

So here on this wonderful website you get to state your beliefs; and I get to state mine. And under law I'm not allowed to impose my beliefs on you or anyone and you're not allowed any greater privilege.

Thank goodness.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by cairns

What your ilk seem to be wholy incapable of grasping is that we are not telling women what they can do with their bodies. We are asking them to respect some one else's life - the one growing inside of them.

No you're not asking anything. You're attempting to impose your beliefs on others- irrespective of current law and science. And the crux of the argument is whether or not that a fetus is a "some one". Both the Supreme Court and pro choicers believe differently than you.
.[/B]

Allow me to repost this Cairns, in case you need to reread it. You clearly do not grasp the Supreme Court's indecision.

It is this kind of denial and misreading of Roe Vs. Wade that I'd like to correct. The state did in fact talk out of both sides of it's mouth. While it denied the human fetus his/her human rights, it also recognized the human fetus and his/her human rights and value to the state. It did so through a non-medical, nonscientific, nondemocratic, and non-precedented arbitrary number of pregnancy days.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

It cracks me up that these holier-than-thou types that want to dictate morality and control everyone else's behavior are often the same ones that claim to be advocates of "smaller government" and "individual choice".

This is one of those distraction "non-issues" that is intended to distract the stupid in our society from focusing on the real issues of the day that matter. It's a smokescreen and a blind and it's very telling about how much mental acuity someone has when one can observe how quickly they jump all over this.

Don't like abortion? Fine. Don't get one. Simple as that.

Seems to me virtually all the problems we face as a society are a result of having MORE, not fewer people in this world. Maybe excluding a few isn't such a bad thing, especially considering that often the ones being aborted would have either gone to families that couldn't afford to care for them or to foster care anyway. . . Just something to consider.

None of us actually asked to be here you know.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Don't like abortion? Fine. Don't get one. Simple as that.

Don't like rape? Don't rape people.

Don't like torture, don't torture people.

This makes life easy


Again, I am not exactly anti-abortion(and I'm certainly not religious), but the arguments from "pro-choicers" are pathetic.

This one and Nostatic's "You must adopt personally to claim it as an alternative" are my current favorites.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by 72doug2,2S

Allow me to repost this Cairns, in case you need to reread it. You clearly do not grasp the Supreme Courts indecision.

It is this kind of denial and misreading of Roe Vs. Wade that I'd like to correct. The state did in fact talk out of both sides of it's mouth. While it denied the human fetus his/her human rights, it also recognized the human fetus and his/her human rights and value to the state. It did so through a non-medical, nonscientific, nondemocratic, and non-precedented arbitrary number of pregnancy days.

I'm sorry, I thought I read "denied the human fetus his/her human rights." Does a sperm cell get 1/2 rights? Other than at the cellular level, what characteristics of a human being does a zygote have? What rights do you see a zygote as having? Listen Dude, if you want to enact religious laws, go to Saudi Arabia, they've done it. I don't think abortion is a good thing. I think letting preachers make laws is much more dangerous however.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by Isabo

Doug,
It's a bunch of cells, not a person, not murder.
Why not try to answer these three points?

So, if you and your husband are awaiting a child and you are mugged. You are pushed to the ground causing a miscarriage but are otherwise unharmed. Should the muggers face any additional charges beyond assault?

Is it just "a bunch of cells" now or is it suddenly getting complex?

[Isabo]

Doug,
It's a bunch of cells, not a person, not murder.
Why not try to answer these three points?

Originally Posted by Milu

As I see it the pro life camp has to try and address three questions:

Demonstrate that cells and foetuses are people. this means in a testable way, not opinion.

What is to be done about back street abortions.

What to do with the army of unwanted babies. This would presumably be close to the number of current abortions if the problem of backstreet abortions was resolved.

Being melodramatic is not so easy is it when you're asked to offer a solution in the real world.

[Mule]

It was posted here earlier that according to Jewish (religious) law, the additional penalty would be a fine. So by that, I guess that even if ye can't figure out who will pay, we can at least figure out how much. God must be a democrat.

[Isabo]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

So, if you and your husband are awaiting a child and you are mugged. You are pushed to the ground causing a miscarriage but are otherwise unharmed. Should the muggers face any additional charges beyond assault?

Is it just "a bunch of cells" now or is it suddenly getting complex?

It is still a bunch of cells. The mugger completed an assult on me and caused me to miscarry, this is not murder, but it is more than assault. Kind of like amputating a leg when neither necessary nor desired.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by Isabo

It is still a bunch of cells. The mugger completed an assult on me and caused me to miscarry, this is not murder, but it is more than assault. Kind of like amputating a leg when neither necessary or desired.

That's my point, it is more than assault meaning it's more than " a bunch of cells". It's an extremely complicated issue.

What if this happened on the way to delivery and the child was otherwise viable and healthy? Now it's really getting complicated yes?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

Don't like rape? Don't rape people.

Don't like torture, don't torture people.

This makes life easy


Again, I am not exactly anti-abortion(and I'm certainly not religious), but the arguments from "pro-choicers" are pathetic.

This one and Nostatic's "You must adopt personally to claim it as an alternative" are my current favorites.

Yup. So following his line of "reasoning" then, one has no right to decry homelessness unless and until one allows several homeless to move in with him. One cannot decry the burden single mothers living below the poverty line must carry, unless and until he goes out an marries one. One should not have uttered a peep about the miss-handling of Katrina relief unless they allowed several of the displaced to move in with them.

I guess that's a beautifully simple outlook on society's problems (with the emphasis on "simple" rather than "beautiful"). It serves to deflect the conversation from the real topic at hand (for them and for us), which is what most pro choice advocates would like to do. They simply refuse to discuss the simple fact that they are ending lives.

I guess the fact that we, as a society, attempt to put social and economic help programs in place to deal with these problems is lost on them. Odd contradiction, in that it's the classic liberal position to build up these programs in a sympathetic effort to help those less fortunate. But, when it comes to the most helpless and defenseless among us, their position is that they most decidedly do not want to take care of them. On the one hand, the very worst sorts of bleeding hearts, pouring society's resources down the rathole of entitlements for the lazy and listless. On the other, the coldest of killers, eliminating the most defenseless and vulnerable before they even have a chance. I find it difficult to reconcile the two into the self image they would like to portray.

Originally Posted by Milu

Demonstrate that cells and foetuses are people. this means in a testable way, not opinion.

You must be joking. Just be patient... wait nine months and see what happens...

[Isabo]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

You must be joking. Just be patient... wait nine months and see what happens...

Very funny but does not provide an answer. Care to try? How about the other two points? No? Then we've reached an impasse. The prolife camp does not like abortion, wants to push their views on the rest of us, but can't even try to offer answers to some basic questions on the subject.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by Milu View Post
As I see it the pro life camp has to try and address three questions:

Demonstrate that cells and foetuses are people. this means in a testable way, not opinion.

Clearly a person should be able to reproduce, therefore you become human after puberty.

What is to be done about back street abortions?

What is to be done about backstreet armed robbery resulting in murder? How about calling in the detectives?

What to do with the army of unwanted babies?
This would presumably be close to the number of current abortions if the problem of backstreet abortions was resolved.

Why do you assume the law would not change future behavior? There are many couples who are waiting to adopt. Give me some statistics on your army in 1972 and I'll consider the impact against my adoption statement.