Jump to content

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, SixShooter said:

 

The same basis for human rights that are enjoyed by born humans.

 

Fetuses have no such rights.

 

YOU:  A person has the right to life.

 

No, they don't. No one has the right TO life. This tired old con from you anti choicers is pointless.

 

YOU:  Is there a religious or biblical basis for this right?

 

Irrelevant.

 

YOU:  It seems that, according to the US Declaration of Independence, those rights ARE attributed by our "creator." Are we imposing religion on non-believers by this statement?

 

Not at all.  The Founding Fathers were to ones who indicated what those rights WERE.

 

YOU:   I'm glad this came up. I'd be interested to hear on what basis atheists convey rights to humans... rational respectable atheists, that is.

 

The same way the Founding Fathers did because, unlike you were respect their wishes about not tainting public policy with fanatical and baseless religious belief, as you do.

 

YOU:  The basis for the rights extending to conception is that conception is the point where a new, unique being is formed.

 

Blastocysts are not "beings".

 

YOU:  At no other point in a person's existence are they initiated -- conception is when that occurs.

 

"Initiated". rofl.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, jrobin15283 said:

The reason I say I want to stop legislation allowing abortion is because a very large portion, if not the majority of abortions are done out of convenience.

 

None of you religious fascists can ever explain how your relentless insulting of and sneering at women who want abortions somehow justifies denying them their rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DemoMan said:

 

No, they don't. No one has the right TO life. This tired old con from you anti choicers is pointless.

 

 

 

Im tired of the euphemisms.  Its not "anti choice", its pro life.  And its not "pro choice", its pro murder.  Plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jrobin15283 said:

Well that is how many abortions are performed.

 

"If I am understanding you clearly, you are saying that before the nurse writes up a birth certificate, it is legal to take the baby that was born and stick a knife through its head."

What ridiculous, sick bullshit. The reason you make up this ugly shit and endlessly fantasize about it is clearly because YOU LIKE DOING THAT. Freak.

 

YOU: Sorry to inform you about that.

 

No need to apologize for your sick lies and fantasies.  Go apologize to your mother.

 

YOU:  If that is not what you mean by "the courts" what do you mean?  

 

If WHAT is not what  I mean? You are incomprehensible.

 

YOU: You are destroying your own argument.  

 

Your lies have no effect on my argument.

 

YOU: Explain to me how my explanation of what I said is wrong. I said that a nurse could kill a baby before writing its birth certificate.  By your logic that is perfectly right.  

 

Support your lie that that is my "logic".

 

YOU: Tell me how my understanding of what you said is wrong. 

 

Because your lies about the law, abortions and what I have said are your problem, not mine.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DemoMan said:

 

None of you religious fascists can ever explain how your relentless insulting of and sneering at women who want abortions somehow justifies denying them their rights.

Nobody is sneering at anybody, except for you.  And as I have said many times in the past, it is not a right to choose over the life of a human out of convenience.  And DemoMan, you still have not explained what allows a person to have rights.  What do you mean by "the courts"?  Please elaborate on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DemoMan said:

 

"If I am understanding you clearly, you are saying that before the nurse writes up a birth certificate, it is legal to take the baby that was born and stick a knife through its head.  You are truly a sick and crazy man."

What ridiculous, sick bullshit. The reason you make up this ugly shit and endlessly fantasize about it is clearly because YOU LIKE DOING THAT. Freak.

 

So you are saying that is not how many abortions are performed?  By your logic, what I am saying is correct.  Please explain to me how I am wrong.  You still have not done that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The reason I say I want to stop legislation allowing abortion is because a very large portion, if not the majority of abortions are done out of convenience.  Many women who have abortions are would-be single mothers and have children out of wedlock.  A number of abortions even happen because the parent(s) dont want to have a certain gender baby.  It is a crazy, but true fact.  I dont believe in ending human life because of convenience.  That is not anyone's right.

Well, let's be real clear about what we are talking about.  There is no legislation that I know of allowing abortion.  Legislation is designed to place restrictions on abortion.   The Supreme Court in Roe and other cases have limited the rights of States to legislatively limit abortion.  If abortion isn't specifically it's not restricted then it is allowed.

 

I don't like the word "convenience" when discussing a woman's intent in getting an abortion.  The term may imply things that simply aren't true.  You are making a lot of assumptions about every woman who undergoes an abortion when you label it a convenience.  In some cases, convenience may be a very accurate term.  In others, it is not.  What it is is an escape from the emotional, physical, financial and parental responsibilities of carrying a child to term and then raising that child.  Having a child is a lifelong commitment. It is certainly more than a mere inconvenience to carry a child to term and raise that child.  To say otherwise belittles child rearing, and I don't think you mean to go there. 

 

There are many reasons why a woman may choose to have an abortion, I don't pretend to know all of them or even 50% of them.  In fact, I don't really care WHY a woman would choose to have an abortion.  I do care about the life of the unborn child and I find abortions of life that resembles that of a living child repugnant and grotesque.  Such abortions are not only against God, but in my opinion against the laws of man.

 

To me, abortions that take place within the 1st month after conception go against the laws of God, but not necessarily the laws of man.  In that case, I personally have a problem standing in the place of God (or having government stand in the place of God) and declaring legally what a woman can and cannot do with her body and the life that has just begun to grow inside of her.

 

On a more pragmatic level, I am concerned that those who are against abortion are absolutist in their positions.  Non compromising, labeling abortions procedures of "convenience" and seeking to outlaw most if not all abortions immediately following conception.  Please keep in mind that I find abortion immoral and irresponsible, yet even I am not swayed by such an absolute position as to legislation.  Such an absolutist position is certainly in the minority at this time.  It is justifiable on biblical principals but not based on the much more than that.  In a country where now only about 50% of the population attend Church, and of those 50%, much less than 100% have opinions on abortion that differ from yours, I think such an absolutist position hurts rather than helps legislative momentum in passing laws which will sustain legal attack.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Skans said:

I don't like the word "convenience" when discussing a woman's intent in getting an abortion.  The term may imply things that simply aren't true.  You are making a lot of assumptions about every woman who undergoes an abortion when you label it a convenience.  In some cases, convenience may be a very accurate term.  In others, it is not.  What it is is an escape from the emotional, physical, financial and parental responsibilities of carrying a child to term and then raising that child.  Having a child is a lifelong commitment. It is certainly more than a mere inconvenience to carry a child to term and raise that child.  To say otherwise belittles child rearing, and I don't think you mean to go there. 

I can understand where you are coming from, but why cant these babies be put up for adoption?  I know a lot of adopted people, and they ended up just fine.  Why is that never mentioned as a compromise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Skans said:

Read the decision.  

 

I have - but you haven't.  All you have a carefully parsed bits of it fed to you by your fanatical religious websites.

 

 YOU:  The court, in its own words, implied that the "fetus", in the 3rd trimester may be entitled to protections under states rights. 

 

rofl.  "Implied".  Yes - states' rights - not the fetus'.

 

YOU:  The liberal court acknowledge this.  

 

Yes, they acknowledge the Court made a ruling about states rights.

 

YOU:  This is why I provided the language concerning the 2nd trimester and the language concerning the 3rd trimester.  The language differs, and the difference is the little discussed insertion of the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life.

 

And nothing imbuing a fetus with rights.

 

YOU:  If you can't see it after reading it, then you are simply dense because it's plain as day.  

 

What I can see is that there is nothing imbuing a fetus with rights.  Your deciding to see something that isn't there - and to demand that others "see" it, too -  is your problem.

 

YOU:  The problem is that I bet no Liberal or Leftist here ever read the actual Roe v. Wade decision. 

 

rofl.  A confession that you have never read it.  :D  :D 

 

YOU:  It is not nearly as absolute as Leftists assert with regard to the rights of the unborn


Fetuses don't have rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jrobin15283 said:

I can understand where you are coming from, but why cant these babies be put up for adoption?  I know a lot of adopted people, and they ended up just fine.  Why is that never mentioned as a compromise?

 

Beat me to it.

 

And Skans, you didn't respond to my post about human rights being attributed to our "creator" in the Declaration of Independence. Where do human rights for born humans come from? Why can't the same basis for ANY human rights also be conveyed to humans at conception? I understand your position that using a biblical basis is problematic today but what is the original basis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Skans said:

I find abortions of life that resembles that of a living child repugnant and grotesque.  Such abortions are not only against God, but in my opinion against the laws of man.

 

To me, abortions that take place within the 1st month after conception go against the laws of God, but not necessarily the laws of man.

 

Isn't that rather arbitrary? At what point does one become a unique individual, in your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jrobin15283 said:

Honestly, I think DemoMan should get off of this thread.  You have not contributed anything to this forum except for insults.  I am all for having an intelligent discussion, but you seem to lack the capability and maturity to handle it.  Just get off the thread.

 

Keep crying about how mean I am and begging me to stop punching holes in your bullshit.

 

It's funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, jrobin15283 said:

So would I have the right to perform a "mercy killing" of somebody that is in a coma if I knew that they would regain consciousness in 6 months? Answer: No.

 

Of course not, you sadist.

 

 YOU:  And as I have said before.  NOBODY has the right to choose the death of a human out of convenience.  

 

No one does.  Your LYING that people do is irrelevant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jrobin15283 said:

I can understand where you are coming from, but why cant these babies be put up for adoption?  I know a lot of adopted people, and they ended up just fine.  Why is that never mentioned as a compromise?

Perhaps the woman doesn't want a fetus inside her body for 9 months, putting her body at risk?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DemoMan said:

 

Of course not, you sadist.

 

 YOU:  And as I have said before.  NOBODY has the right to choose the death of a human out of convenience.  

 

No one does.  Your LYING that people do is irrelevant.

 

What are you talking about!?!?!?!?!  The whole point of my thread speaks against killing out of convenience.  You literally quoted me saying that, you retard!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jrobin15283 said:

Im tired of the euphemisms.  

 

You are mad that YOUR dishonest euphemisms are failing you.

 

YOU: Its not "anti choice", its pro life.  

 

Except for those women who DIE as a result, right?

Do you think women should have the CHOICE whether to abort or not?  YES or NO, you silly liar.

 

YOU: And its not "pro choice", its pro murder.  Plain and simple.

 

No, it isn't.  BY DEFINITION< you silly liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I can understand where you are coming from, but why cant these babies be put up for adoption?  I know a lot of adopted people, and they ended up just fine.  Why is that never mentioned as a compromise?

Adoption is an option, certainly.  Still, carrying a baby to term is no mere inconvenience.  Seriously, it's not.  If you are married and have seen your wife go through this, I think you might agree.

 

Adoption.  I have lots of thoughts on Adoption, to many to really discuss here.  I just don't have time.  It is the morally right option to Abortion.  With white babies, you can go through private adoption and pretty much insure that the baby will be placed in a good stable female mother, male father home, even a faith-based home.  Black babies are not nearly as easy to place privately.  Babies of unhealthy drug addicts are even harder to place.  Sad, but true.  There are many issues with Adoption that go beyond what I've touched on.  But, you are right it is an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...