The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

PostmodernProphet said:
it doesn't matter at all to the pro abortionist, because your goal is to kill them all....
Click to expand...
This is arguing to the absurd. Being pro-choice does not mean we want MORE women to have abortions. You are being purposely obtuse. I have been pro-choice my whole life as have both women that have given birth to my children. Never had a child aborted, three pregnancies, all three born. If those of us who were pro-choice wanted them all killed, I would have no children. I also see in one of your posts that you are willing to trade pregnancies from rape and incest to save the others. So that 4 to 6% is not QUITE as human as the rest? Or do you see that taking the consistent position is bad PR? Forcing rape victims and incest victims to give birth to children who no more made the choice to be concieved than any other would chase away those people who are your allies because they don't want their wives, daughters or themselves being forced to carry the child of their rapist. Philosophically bankrupt. But you already knew that.
 
RStringfield said:
The real image is me fighting off the various attacks and going on the offensive which sets your flock of dogs into retreat, leaving your dumb ass behind to claim victory.



And yet, libertarian arguments keeps on winning, at least, in this sphere.
Click to expand...

You're losing in spades. Dumbass. With all your idiotic fetus = lumber arguments.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you have no respect to grant.......I am willing to accept abortion in the case of rape in exchange for the lives of the other 94%.......in vitrio fertilization could be utilized in the event the couple puts the other fertilized eggs up for in vitrio adoption......
Click to expand...

Ok so the 6% by your math is expendible?

Let me get this straight. The first principle of the pro-life movement is:

Human life is sacred

OR

The Unborn are humans and deserve the same right to life that the born have.

(Feel free to edit these if you wish. But I feel that these two statements cover the authoritarian crowd.)

BUT

Fetuses (children) conceived from rape (incest?) can be aborted? (for what ever reason)

This means:

Fetuses conceived through ordinary sex > Fetuses conceived through rape/incest.

Do you not see that believing that philosophically violates your first principle?

Now, if you don't believe Fetuses conceived through ordinary sex > Fetuses conceived through rape/incest, then you must do something to change that law as well.

If you don't, you are no better than I, you are pro-choice, but to a lesser degree than I am. You and I both think that some babies can be aborted, I just think more can than you do. We differ only by degree. Welcome to the pro-choice fold.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But socrtease, why do all the othe prochoicers like apple and stringfield insist on dehumanizing the baby?
Click to expand...
Because for many people I think it is easier to reject the life at conception view. Scientifically we KNOW that a zygote is human life at it's earliest, I don't believe that the zygote or the fetus deserves protection until viability. But viability must also included things like anacephaly. There are damn few abortions after the 24th week. I have no problem with forbidding abortion after that. I also find that women that have had 2 or more abortions solely for the purpose of birth control abhorent, and I actually work with a woman that I KNOW has aborted 3 times to not have anymore kids and will not take the pill because she does not want to get fat and doesn't like the feel of condoms. She did ask to have a tubal after her 3rd child and was told not until she was 25 which is next year. She is the second woman I have personal knowledge of that has been told no tubal until 25. If you have children already, that is a stupid rule.
 
I have not dehumanized a baby. I have no problem limiting abortions past the point where the brain is functioning. Soc and I agree.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So you still think lumber is a good metaphor then, prior to brain functioning?
Click to expand...

It's like you are fucking 4. Read moron I should not have to keep explaining shit over and over. In describing the stage of development of the fertilized egg to the baby, yes it is an adequate metaphor. For instance, at some point before the house is complete, it takes shape enough to be accurately called a house. But it need the essentials.

Toes, eyes and arms aint it. It's the brain that is unique in humans and why we cherish humans above other life.
 
RStringfield said:
It's like you are fucking 4. Read moron I should not have to keep explaining shit over and over. In describing the stage of development of the fertilized egg to the baby, yes it is an adequate metaphor. For instance, at some point before the house is complete, it takes shape enough to be accurately called a house. But it need the essentials.

Toes, eyes and arms aint it. It's the brain that is unique in humans and why we cherish humans above other life.
Click to expand...

But babies growth plan is controlled by the babies dna, not the mother. You were saying that lumber is a good metaphor for the baby because the builder is like the mother. this was just part of your stupid agenda do deny baby life.

Why are you dumb like that?
 
AssHatZombie said:
But babies growth plan is controlled by the babies dna, not the mother. You were saying that lumber is a good metaphor for the baby because the builder is like the mother. this was just part of your stupid agenda do deny baby life.

Why are you dumb like that?
Click to expand...

PULL THE PLUG.

Alright, one more time.

IDiot was arguing that the fertilized egg builds itself if "left alone." That is not true. Without the mother and her body, it goes nowhere. It's just a blueprint (dna) and lumber on a pallet. Who supervises the work? Who cares, it's not relevant.
 
RStringfield said:
PULL THE PLUG.

Alright, one more time.

IDiot was arguing that the fertilized egg builds itself if "left alone." That is not true. Without the mother and her body, it goes nowhere. It's just a blueprint (dna) and lumber on a pallet. Who supervises the work? Who cares, it's not relevant.
Click to expand...

I think she just meant that the development is planned from inside the baby, from it;s dna. She was not denying a mother involvement. see this still just shows your stupidity. You are horribly burned. Dick burned completely off.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I think she just meant that the development is planned from inside the baby, from it;s dna. She was not denying a mother involvement. see this still just shows your stupidity. You are horribly burned. Dick burned completely off.
Click to expand...

BS, you moron. My only point was always that the mother's role is significant. It is not "left alone." The blueprint, dna, is part of the analogy moron. The mother does much of the labor and continues to provide resources, throughout the process.
 
apple0154 said:
So your position is you support the idea of the sanctity of life 94% of the time?
Click to expand...

no, I support the sanctity of life for the other 6%....I'm just willing to use them as pawns to satisfy your lust for killing while saving the other 94% from you.........if you would be willing to forgo killing all of them I will certainly accept......
 
RStringfield said:
BS, you moron. My only point was always that the mother's role is significant. It is not "left alone." The blueprint, dna, is part of the analogy moron. The mother does much of the labor and continues to provide resources, throughout the process.
Click to expand...

By "left alone" she just meant 'not sucked out with a vacuum". You had to make into some big strawman bs, because you have no real points to justify your dehumanization regime.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, I support the sanctity of life for the other 6%....I'm just willing to use them as pawns to satisfy your lust for killing while saving the other 94% from you.........if you would be willing to forgo killing all of them I will certainly accept......
Click to expand...

Nothing but bs evasions. So, you would outlaw abortion for rape victims, if you could? We can only assume you are answering, yes, even though you are too much of a coward to say so.
 
AssHatZombie said:
By "left alone" she just meant 'not sucked out with a vacuum". You had to make into some big strawman bs, because you have no real points to justify your dehumanization regime.
Click to expand...

Nope. My point was it was not left alone. I gave examples of the squatter who comes to your house and uses your body and resources for it's purposes. Is that "left alone." No. IDiot still objected.

And I am not rehashing it with you any further retard.

Besides that, it does not have to be sucked out with a vacuum at the point of fertilization. It could be stopped with abortive pills, that pro-lifers oppose.

Oh, but that's not the horror show you imagine when you think of abortion and you don't want to be bothered with the potential horrors of forced labor. You don't fucking care. It's just a convenient excuse for you assholes to obsess on somebody else's sex life.
 
RStringfield said:
So, you allow "murder" for political purposes? It's a non responsive answer that gives you comfort in evading the realities of your position. Should rape victims be forced to carry to term? I am not asking for what you think is politically doable, I am asking what would you do.
Click to expand...

you people are so hard to please......I would prefer you didn't kill anyone, but if you can't stand not being able to kill I am willing to give you 6% of the children you are currently killing......why isn't that enough for you?.....

What? So fertilized eggs from couple one would be implanted in another woman?
Click to expand...
yes......once in invitro fertilization is successful the couple release the remaining fertilized eggs for adoption by couples who are unable to do in vitro fertilization.......
 
RStringfield said:
Your position has atrocious results and you ignore them.
Click to expand...
your position has had 48 million atrocious results since 1972.......if I let you kill a million will you let the other 47 million live?......two million....three.....how many do you have to kill before you are satisfied....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top