The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

[PostmodernProphet]

Being pro-choice does not mean we want MORE women to have abortions.

listen to what I really said.....you want every woman who doesn't want a child to be free to kill her unborn child......not just the small percentage that are genetically deformed, not just the small percentage that are victims of rape.....you want ALL women who choose to kill to be able to kill......that is why all arguments about genetics, all arguments about rape are dishonest......admit it......

 

[Timshel]

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?.....

You are sick. You would claim that a victim of rape is a killer. Meanwhile, these "children" die spontaneously on a regular basis and you don't care.

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.......

No, you misunderstood the point. Throwing those BABIES (your word) at a uterine wall that you know is likely to fail might as well be negligent homicide.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

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.

it is YOUR hunger to kill that I am appeasing......why am I suddenly to blame for trading you 6% to save 94%?......if you would abandon your hunger to kill I wouldn't have to give you any......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

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.

I said I am willing to accept abortions in the case of rape.....yet that bothers you as much or more than being denied to kill the rest....I'm not sure I understand you....I guess your penchant for killing has warped your mind.....

 

[apple0154]

You keep repeating certain catch phrases, in what appears to be an attempt to either convince others or yourself.
Let's take one of those pharases and look at it.

"It means demanding bringing a child into the world knowing it will endure extreme suffering until it's little body exhausts itself and dies."

Please tell what you're using that shows that all aborted babies would have fit that criteria.

Not all aborted babies would have fit that criteria, however, if abortion is outlawed some definitely will in the future.

I have no objection to doing all we can to lower the abortion rate but declaring zygotes/fetuses human beings will ensure such babies are brought into the world.

How do I know? I know because euthanasia is illegal. Adults suffering from diseases such as ALS, even when pleading to a court, are not permitted to retain the help of a doctor to aid them in ending their misery. If society will not allow an adult of sound mind to end their life society certainly will not allow a woman to end the life of a severely deformed fetus IF a fetus is declared a human being.

Genetic testing will be moot. It won't matter what mutations a fetus has. Society will insist it be brought to term and delivered and endure extreme suffering and slowly die just as society demands that of adults.

Are you aware there are a variety of illnesses with a prognosis a child will die before starting school? Imagine knowingly bringing a child into the world having been told it will spend the majority, if not all, of it's 4 or 5 or 6 year life span in a hospital undergoing treatments. The word "sadistic" doesn't begin to describe such actions.

That's one of the major problems with classifying a fetus as a human being. Society will insist a 2 or 3 month old fetus continue to develop and be born knowing how that child will suffer. Surely you do not condone that. Do you?

Besides the complete, unnecessary suffering society will insist the child undergo there is the woman to consider. For the next 6 or 7 months she will know the child she is carrying will be sentenced to 4 or 5 years of suffering and then die. During those 4 or 5 years she will witness the suffering every time she makes that trip to the hospital. Can you imagine the toll it will take on her, her other children, her husband and other family members?

As for catch phrases my favorite is "Visit a hospital specializing in sick children."

Anti-abortionists insist women see pictures of fetuses before having an abortion. Perhaps pro-choice should insist on anti-abortionists visiting such hospitals before being permitted to show their pictures.

If anti-abortionists want to educate women on the stages of pregnancy and development of the fetus perhaps pro-choice should insist on women watching a documentary on the life of a neglected/abused child. From the dysfunctional home, to ridicule from peers, to dropping out of school, to poverty and/or prison.

Maybe if more people realized the responsibility of bringing a child into the world there may be fewer neglected/abused children.

 

[Timshel]

listen to what I really said.....you want every woman who doesn't want a child to be free to kill her unborn child......not just the small percentage that are genetically deformed, not just the small percentage that are victims of rape.....you want ALL women who choose to kill to be able to kill......that is why all arguments about genetics, all arguments about rape are dishonest......admit it......

Bull-fucking-shit. What is dishonest is your evasion of reality, which presents hard cases. The pro-choicers understand that there are people out there that abuse it. They have tried to form a position that takes all of it into account and balances the rights of the mother and the child/developing life. You can't get over the idea that she is just a filthy whore and ignore anything that causes you unease as a result of forcing all to carry to term.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You are sick. You would claim that a victim of rape is a killer. Meanwhile, these "children" die spontaneously on a regular basis and you don't care.

actually, having had family members who experienced miscarriage I object to your claim that I don't care about children who die spontaneously......I care about them.....I do not care about you......

No, you misunderstood the point. Throwing those BABIES (your word) at a uterine wall that you know is likely to fail might as well be negligent homicide.

??....how strange.....why would you liken an in vitro fertilization to throwing a baby against a uterine wall......I understand that you know next to nothing about reproductive biology, but if you have children of your own you ought to know more than that.....do you somehow feel there is something wrong about placing a fertilized egg up for adoption?....

it is a well recognized procedure...
http://www.drmalpani.com/embryoadoption.htm

 

[NOVA]

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.

Of course an acorn will not grow into an oak tree if "left alone" either....it must have use of the earth, water, light, etc....

and a rock thrown into the air will not fall back to earth either it "left alone"...it must have gravity act on it and overcome its inertia, etc.....

Does this demonstrate how stupid your analogy is RSpeckerhead ?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Bull-fucking-shit. What is dishonest is your evasion of reality, which presents hard cases. The pro-choicers understand that there are people out there that abuse it. They have tried to form a position that takes all of it into account and balances the rights of the mother and the child/developing life. You can't get over the idea that she is just a filthy whore and ignore anything that causes you unease as a result of forcing all to carry to term.

the only one who has called the mother of an unborn child a filthy whore has been you, so don't try to project your gut reactions onto the rest of us.....

as for the rest, I believe I am correct in saying you have advocated in this thread that the choice of whether to abort should be solely up to the mother.....thus it is not bullshit when I say that the left, yourself included, wishes ALL women who choose to kill their unborn children be permitted to do so......the arguments about genetic defects and rape are not valid, because you are not promoting abortion only in the event of rape or health issues.....in fact, that is closer to my position, not yours.....so suck it up and admit it.......we have this problem because people like you want to kill their unborn children and you support their right to do it....

 

[Damocles]

All of this reminds me of that Simpson's episode when Kang and Kodos ran for President.

"Abortions for all!" "Boooooo!" "Abortions for some, little American Flags for everybody!" "Yaaaay!"

Does anybody think there will ever be a true resolution to this wedge issue?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

All of this reminds me of that Simpson's episode when Kang and Kodos ran for President.

"Abortions for all!" "Boooooo!" "Abortions for some, little American Flags for everybody!" "Yaaaay!"

Does anybody think there will ever be a true resolution to this wedge issue?

so, baby = pile of lumber. Is that a good or bad analogy?

 

[Damocles]

so, baby = pile of lumber. Is that a good or bad analogy?

Terrible analogy.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Bam. Stringfield = covered in Damo goo!

 

[Socrtease]

it is YOUR hunger to kill that I am appeasing......why am I suddenly to blame for trading you 6% to save 94%?......if you would abandon your hunger to kill I wouldn't have to give you any......

Bullshit! Man up and tell women who are raped they MUST carry their rapists child because that child is as innocent as every other one. You won't do it and the movement won't do it. It is bad PR to tell the parents of a 14 year old that she MUST carry the child of her rapist. It is bad form to tell a woman raped in a parking garage that she must carry her rapist's child to term. I am pro-choice, I do want the 88% of all abortions that take place before 13 weeks to take place, and I want that numer to come down every year, which is has done.

But here is the real point of contention for me, why should a woman who has been brutally sexually assaulted have the right to terminate a perfectly healthy fetus? Most women don't want the reminder of the rape, the fetus growing inside them coming to term and giving birth to the spawn of their rapist. I understand that. But, if she wants to terminate it, it is because it is an UNWANTED reminder of her victimization. Why can't a woman with 3 children barely getting by who will NOT get by if she has a 4th not be allowed to terminate her UNWANTED child that will cause the whole house of cards that is her life from collapsing? You have already conceded that the rapist child is expendible. No one is going to make much of a fuss over that. But that child is not different than child number 4. But you are willing to allow mother number one to terminate, but not number two. You have made a judgement call that in the scheme of things, number one's fetus is less than number two's. You are just like me, to a different degree and so is the movement you support. Because when you start to say that women have to carry their rapists child you lose support for antiabortion rhetoric.

 

[Socrtease]

it is YOUR hunger to kill that I am appeasing......why am I suddenly to blame for trading you 6% to save 94%?......if you would abandon your hunger to kill I wouldn't have to give you any......

This is where you become the most intellectually dishonest douchebag on the board. I have no desire for ANY woman to ever have to get an abortion. But I, being a realist, know what the world was like before Roe v. Wade. You pro-lifers are out there all the time pretending that there were no abortions prior to 1973. That Ozzie and Harriet were in their golden years and the Beaver was raising Ward and June's grandchild and no woman ever sought an abortion. I don't want women bleeding to death from illegal abortions. I don't want what is a typically safe procedure turning into a loss of the uterus for a woman. I want safe, legal and rare abortions. I applaud the fact that every year less women get abortions. If you go to abort73.com you will see that they will tell you that the number of abortions go down every year. I have been the shoulder that a woman has cried on after getting an abortion and I have been the person to encourage a woman NOT to get an abortion but to have her child. I only support the right of the woman to do whatever she thinks she needs to do when it comes to an unplanned pregnancy. I never want to force a woman to do anything. You on the other hand do want to force women to see the world your way and live their lives according to your view of of the world. This never works. It didn't work in the US when abortion was illegal and it didn't work in Romania when abortion was illegal. I was just looking at polls from across the years and at any time 70 to 80% of those polled believe that in cases of rape or incest abortion is acceptable. They are just like me, they are pro-choice. Not to the degree I am, but they have decided that a child conceived of rape or incest is less than a child conceived in the backseat of a car. So NOT all life is sacred, not ALL the unborn have a right to life. Even among people who don't believe in abortion for other reasons.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Does anybody think there will ever be a true resolution to this wedge issue?

of course....we just have to wait until the liberals kill all their children and become extinct.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Bullshit! Man up and tell women who are raped they MUST carry their rapists child because that child is as innocent as every other one. You won't do it and the movement won't do it.

I wish you would make up your mind.....first your upset because you can't kill unborn children of rape victims.....then your upset because you CAN kill unborn children of rape victims...

But here is the real point of contention for me, why should a woman who has been brutally sexually assaulted have the right to terminate a perfectly healthy fetus? Most women don't want the reminder of the rape, the fetus growing inside them coming to term and giving birth to the spawn of their rapist. I understand that. But, if she wants to terminate it, it is because it is an UNWANTED reminder of her victimization. Why can't a woman with 3 children barely getting by who will NOT get by if she has a 4th not be allowed to terminate her UNWANTED child that will cause the whole house of cards that is her life from collapsing?

????.......I should think the difference is obvious......the woman who was raped did not participate in the choice that resulted in the child......if you don't see the difference, I guess that I am the one who's prochoice and you aren't.......because you want the same results for those who chose and those who didn't.....

 

[apple0154]

But socrtease, why do all the othe prochoicers like apple and stringfield insist on dehumanizing the baby?

Because it is not a human being. I have explained to you and PmP that if put into practice it fails. Otherwise, a woman's life would be equally weighed with that of the fetus when problem pregnancies arose. Actually, it would make more sense to weigh in on the side of the fetus, it being the healthy human being. Saying both the woman and the fetus are human beings but the defective one, the woman, has a right to kill the healthy one, the fetus, is absurd.

Then there's rape and incest. So what if the fetus has two heads and three arms and will be a ward of the state all its life? It is a human being according to you so it should be brought to term and protected.

Can't you see how illogical your position is?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

This is where you become the most intellectually dishonest douchebag on the board. I have no desire for ANY woman to ever have to get an abortion. But I, being a realist, know what the world was like before Roe v. Wade. You pro-lifers are out there all the time pretending that there were no abortions prior to 1973. That Ozzie and Harriet were in their golden years and the Beaver was raising Ward and June's grandchild and no woman ever sought an abortion. I don't want women bleeding to death from illegal abortions. I don't want what is a typically safe procedure turning into a loss of the uterus for a woman. I want safe, legal and rare abortions. I applaud the fact that every year less women get abortions. If you go to abort73.com you will see that they will tell you that the number of abortions go down every year. I have been the shoulder that a woman has cried on after getting an abortion and I have been the person to encourage a woman NOT to get an abortion but to have her child. I only support the right of the woman to do whatever she thinks she needs to do when it comes to an unplanned pregnancy. I never want to force a woman to do anything. You on the other hand do want to force women to see the world your way and live their lives according to your view of of the world. This never works. It didn't work in the US when abortion was illegal and it didn't work in Romania when abortion was illegal. I was just looking at polls from across the years and at any time 70 to 80% of those polled believe that in cases of rape or incest abortion is acceptable. They are just like me, they are pro-choice. Not to the degree I am, but they have decided that a child conceived of rape or incest is less than a child conceived in the backseat of a car. So NOT all life is sacred, not ALL the unborn have a right to life. Even among people who don't believe in abortion for other reasons.

good lord, what a pile of dishonesty crammed into a single posts......ranging from the fact that more women die today from legal abortions than died in 1970 from illegal abortions.....passing through the fact that there are FAR more abortions today than there were before Roe v Wade......move on through the fact that despite abortions declining we still have nearly a million die every year in this country........dropping into the left lane to speed past your claim that despite the fact you demand the right of every woman to kill their unborn child for no other reason than she wants to, you really aren't in favor of dead children.....and creeping right up to the front door of the fact that just because I'm willing to let you kill a handful of children to appease the hunger, you somehow feel you can claim some higher level of morality......now, was there anything at all honest in your post?.....I don't see it......

 

[Socrtease]

I wish you would make up your mind.....first your upset because you can't kill unborn children of rape victims.....then your upset because you CAN kill unborn children of rape victims...


????.......I should think the difference is obvious......the woman who was raped did not participate in the choice that resulted in the child......if you don't see the difference, I guess that I am the one who's prochoice and you aren't.......because you want the same results for those who chose and those who didn't.....

So kill the fetus because the woman did not choose to become pregnant? Like I said, you are pro-choice and so am I. You say fetuses conceived out of rape are less than fetuses conceived in a bedroom. I say that fetuses at less than 13 weeks are less than fetuses older than 24 weeks. I think that 24 weeks should be the cutoff, and life and health of the mother is a rarer than anyone thinks. There are damn few things that can be wrong with a mother after 24 weeks that medicine cannot take care of without aborting the child. I am glad that you have finally come to see it my way, some fetuses are less than others. Some life is not as sacred as others. If you were truely and consistently pro-life, you like Angel and Palin would not support abortion even in cases of rape and incest.