Pro lifers show no mercy

PostmodernProphet said:
actually, I've heard plenty of liberals toss around the word "murder" when it comes to collateral damage, capital punishment, and obviously when discussing "stand your ground" legislation.....
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the word being used accurately.

Are you admitting, by that comparison, that pro-lifers just use it because it's inflammatory?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???...is negotiation to achieve a goal logical?.....I would certainly think so......does the fact liberals might not, explain the current state of affairs in Washington?.......
Click to expand...

Thanks. Is this accurate? It's ok to 'murder' the fetus, to take it's right to life, to save the life of the mother?

Would you ever do that in reverse? To kill the mother, without her consent, to save the fetus?
 
Lorca said:
Thanks. Is this accurate? It's ok to 'murder' the fetus, to take it's right to life, to save the life of the mother?

Would you ever do that in reverse? To kill the mother, without her consent, to save the fetus?
Click to expand...

yes.....if she were a liberal with Hodgkin's disease on death row.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....that WAS my answer.....did you find it difficult to understand?.....
Click to expand...

LOL What office are you running for again? You use a condemned prisoner with a terminal disease as your example?

Could you stoop any lower to avoid the truth?

(btw, I would not take a single moment from that woman to save the life of a fetus....that is up to her and her alone. Again....pretty illuminating on who in this thread is heartless.)
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....that WAS my answer.....did you find it difficult to understand?.....
Click to expand...

Well here are the questions, all basically the same altho I've made a good faith and honest (unlike you and your terminal prison inmate example) effort to reword in order to try and make it more clear for you:

Lorca said:
Thanks. Is this accurate? It's ok to 'murder' the fetus, to take it's right to life, to save the life of the mother?

Would you ever do that in reverse? To kill the mother, without her consent, to save the fetus?
Click to expand...

Lorca said:
How few? Less than the number of women that die in childbirth?

Nope.

Why value them less in those cases? Why is it ok to sacrifice them then? Would you kill a born baby of a rape victim?
Click to expand...

Lorca said:
Your claim on the position of 'compromise' is that it is only ok because you are using it as a negotiation point that you will allow for what you consider 'greater good.' Meaning that if you had your way, she would NOT be allowed abortion in those cases.

Please, try to follow along.
Click to expand...

Anything? The basic question: why is 'murder' of the unborn ok when the already born woman has been a victim of rape or incest, or her life is in danger?

Where else in our society is 'murder' (by you pro-lifers own definition) allowed in those circumstances?

Would it be ok to murder a baby (by definition 'born) to protect the mother from the victimization by rape or incest? If not, why not?
 
Yeah. PMP we both know the truth.

But you and the pro-life side will not acknowledge it, because by denying it you can dishonestly continue your war on a woman's right to choose.

It weakens your dogmatic, un-yielding stances (which are untrue when the rubber meets the road, as proven by your inability to answer me honestly). And yet....'choice' by no means is ' all abortion, all the time.' You just prefer to package it that way for the media to serve your own ends.
 
Lorca said:
why is 'murder' of the unborn ok when the already born woman has been a victim of rape or incest, or her life is in danger?
Click to expand...
to fail to act to save the mother's life would also be murder......if the choice is between the murder of the unborn or the murder of the mother, is the choice difficult to make?.....
 
Lorca said:
Yeah. PMP we both know the truth.

But you and the pro-life side will not acknowledge it, because by denying it you can dishonestly continue your war on a woman's right to choose.

It weakens your dogmatic, un-yielding stances (which are untrue when the rubber meets the road, as proven by your inability to answer me honestly). And yet....'choice' by no means is ' all abortion, all the time.' You just prefer to package it that way for the media to serve your own ends.
Click to expand...

I fail to see why you believe it justified to murder 49 million unborn children who's mothers are not at a health risk simply because I'm willing to let you murder a few hundred thousand unborn children who's mothers are.........if that reveals something evil about me I can live with it......as long as the 49 million kids live with it as well....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I fail to see why you believe it justified to murder 49 million unborn children who's mothers are not at a health risk simply because I'm willing to let you murder a few hundred thousand unborn children who's mothers are.........if that reveals something evil about me I can live with it......as long as the 49 million kids live with it as well....
Click to expand...

Because it is not murder. Again, you choose to misuse that word.

What I *believe* is in the right of a woman to decide to choose to take any risks with pregnancy or raising a child. Rather than allow letting complete strangers do so.

Those 'babies' do not exist to you. Not really. They only 'mean' something to the woman carrying them. THe fact that you CHOOSE to attach some kind of investment in them? Disturbing and over-reaching. To recommend that the govt do so? UnConstitutional.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
to fail to act to save the mother's life would also be murder......if the choice is between the murder of the unborn or the murder of the mother, is the choice difficult to make?.....
Click to expand...

No. It is not murder there either. Unless you FORCE that upon her. Otherwise, as the law remains, SHE should make that choice. NOT YOU.

What part of that is not crystal clear?
 
You just want to kill more babies.

If you think people are being dishonest, then I will add something else here. I honestly believe that your stance is horrific enough that it alone will earn you eternal damnation. There don't seem to me to be many moral quandaries which warrant the same level of dogmatism, but this one is fairly obvious. Regardless, it should seem obvious to everyone that abortion is a gross violation of the natural right to life. Since natural rights are the basis for our society, we should do everything we can to legally restrict abortion.
 
Threedee said:
You just want to kill more babies.

If you think people are being dishonest, then I will add something else here. I honestly believe that your stance is horrific enough that it alone will earn you eternal damnation. There don't seem to me to be many moral quandaries which warrant the same level of dogmatism, but this one is fairly obvious. Regardless, it should seem obvious to everyone that abortion is a gross violation of the natural right to life. Since natural rights are the basis for our society, we should do everything we can to legally restrict abortion.
Click to expand...

You're not too bright, are you?

This has nothing to do with me or my choices. Only the right and ability of other women to make theirs.

Er...God gave us free will and said he will be the ultimate judge.

And as I've been asking...unsuccessfully apparently...when do the 'natural rights' of a fetus supersede those of the already born woman?

In 'nature,' nature always chooses the more mature, reproducing individual, hence spontaneous abortion in times of high stress and resource shortages, and high juvenile mortality (remove the additional stresses on the mother to ensure her survival). Nature invests in the individual that has the best chance of contributing to the population and to the gene pool in the future. That is not an unborn fetus.
 
And since it is about nature, natural law is clearly in favor of the woman in those cases. No disputes here. Introducing the religious dogma was just to show how extreme I consider the matter.

In natural law, life trumps both property and liberty. If the mother's life is in danger, then you at least are placing the baby and mother on the same degree of precedence.
 
Lorca said:
And as I've been asking...unsuccessfully apparently...when do the 'natural rights' of a fetus supersede those of the already born woman?
Click to expand...

what you ignore is that once a creature is alive, whatever natural rights exist, exist whether or not an umbilical cord has been cut......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
what you ignore is that once a creature is alive, whatever natural rights exist, exist whether or not an umbilical cord has been cut......
Click to expand...

I think we've covered that. But we still didnt get an answer from you why those rights arent equal...according to American law and even pro-lifer sentiment...in cases of rape, incest, danger to woman's life?

You can avoid it all you want. It doesnt change the truth. Because when you remove all the emotional wringing and attempts at applying personification to fetal stages.....even (most) pro-lifers acknowledge the unborn's rights do not supersede the rights of those already born. They just dont want to admit it because it brings down their whole little house of cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top