Abortion

T. A. Gardner said:
The woman made a choice to allow him to do so.


After that point the two have made a contract and it should be jointly up to them what the outcome is.


The woman allowed him to do so. If it were only his choice, and she got no say in being inseminated, that would amount to rape.


If she had not done so, he would not have inseminated her unless it was an act of rape.
Click to expand...
Did you type, The woman made a choice to allow him to do so? Ever hear of rape? Ever hear of overpowering or drugging?
 
Scott said:
I think it's clear, especially further down in your post, that your goal is to obfuscate the fact that abortions are only about removing fetuses from pregnant women.
Click to expand...
Nope. You are the one who is obfuscating that an abortion is the killing of a living human. You do so because you know that your position is indefensible. You have spent weeks EVADING the question of your support for contract killings, and it is you who will do absolutely anything to avoid having to admit to your killing supremacy.

Scott said:
Anyway, let's continue...
Click to expand...
Instead of continuing with the EVASION, you should be honest for a change.
 
Nordberg said:
Ever hear of rape?
Click to expand...
You need to pay attention, Nordberg. For the sake of discussion we are only considering the 99.995% of the abortions that are performed purely out of convenience.

Keep up with the discussion if you are going to wander over to the adults' table to ask for more crayons.
 
gfm7175 said:
I didn't know that 'child' was such a hard term to understand. It's basic genealogy. Have you considered that, consciously or unconsciously, you are saying fetus to muddy the waters?
Click to expand...
Oh, he knows that he is muddying the waters. You'll notice that he will not willingly wander into the discussion on contract killing, i.e. he is fighting tooth and nail to keep the topic "abortion" and to never leave. Scott is digging in. He will not be honest. He cannot cede any ground in his battle for killing supremacy.

gfm7175 said:
That seems to be the case, yes.
Click to expand...
It is absolutely the case. And please don't allow the semantic drift into the word "coercion" whereby abortion becomes legitimized if the woman merely claims (after the fact) that she really didn't want to have sex with the guy but she "felt pressured that he would leave her" or some other stupid excuse that belies the underlying fact that she agreed to have sex. If you allow generic "coercion" to become legitimate grounds for abortion, then suddenly the excuse "I was coerced; he used amazing pick-up lines on me!" becomes enough to warrant killing a living human.

gfm7175 said:
Yes. Remember that statistic I quoted in an earlier post of 0.4% of women citing "rape/incest" as the reason for getting an abortion?
Click to expand...
I think that figure is too high, but I'll go with it for discussion purposes, i.e. less than one-half of one percent. Fine.
 
IBDaMann said:
Oh, he knows that he is muddying the waters. You'll notice that he will not willingly wander into the discussion on contract killing, i.e. he is fighting tooth and nail to keep the topic "abortion" and to never leave. Scott is digging in. He will not be honest. He cannot cede any ground in his battle for killing supremacy.
Click to expand...
I've definitely noticed that. He's held a fairly decent conversation with me about abortion, but he is very afraid to hold any sort of a conversation with you about contract killings. When it comes to the cold hard truth about abortions being a proper subset of contract killings, he wants absolutely NO part of that conversation other than to slither away into an "I just don't agree" response, attempting to get someone, ANYONE to irrationally accept that set theory is just a matter of personal opinion.
IBDaMann said:
It is absolutely the case. And please don't allow the semantic drift into the word "coercion" whereby abortion becomes legitimized if the woman merely claims (after the fact) that she really didn't want to have sex with the guy but she "felt pressured that he would leave her" or some other stupid excuse that belies the underlying fact that she agreed to have sex. If you allow generic "coercion" to become legitimate grounds for abortion, then suddenly the excuse "I was coerced; he used amazing pick-up lines on me!" becomes enough to warrant killing a living human.
Click to expand...
You make a good point.
IBDaMann said:
I think that figure is too high, but I'll go with it for discussion purposes, i.e. less than one-half of one percent. Fine.
Click to expand...
Here, I simply "pulled a Scott" in response to Scott (as I enjoy "mimicry" from time to time), because he set the (stupid) precedent that one could just pick a random survey of a few select people and treat the results of that survey as "holy".

In any event, it is very clear to me that the number of abortions re: "the common exceptions" is VERY low (a statistically irrelevant number of cases) and that the number of abortions re: "convenience purposes" is VERY high (almost all cases).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top