The Ugly side of Pro-Choice....

[mrt144]

Please allow me to correct you. If I made a post, with no sarcasm tags at all much like you did, and said 'I'm gay' or some other comment not really indicative of all the other posts I have ever made here, I gurantee you more than a few people would take that post as fact.

So, like I said, its the net. For all I know, even with 9000 posts otherwise, you may have been very well telling the truth, given the fact that there were utterly no sarcasm tags to the contrary to indicate otherwise by you. The actual fun part of human communication is the understanding of peoples comments one to another....not the ill-attempted ill-described occasional sarcastic comment.

and for the record: I'm not gay. <----sarcasm tag alert.

You can't correct for others what is the fault of your own understanding and single-minded approach to everything. Cmon MobBoss, you are smart enough not to need me to hold your hand like this for sarcasm.

 

[NickyJ]

It works perfectly well for me.

If you use tags to show sarcasm or joking. (i.e. ; ) Sometimes it works without tags, but most of the time, it doesn't. There are crazy people out there. (Other than me )

You can't correct for others what is the fault of your own understanding and single-minded approach to everything. Cmon MobBoss, you are smart enough not to need me to hold your hand like this for sarcasm.

Actually, it isn't single minded. I didn't know whether it was sarcasm or not. Like I said above, there are crazy people out there. [Note: I'm not trying to imply anybody in this topic is crazy.]

 

[JollyRoger]

If you use tags to show sarcasm or joking.

If you have to use tags, you are not doing it right.

 

[NickyJ]

If you have to use tags, you are not doing it right.

Yeah, like using the internet.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yeah, like using the internet.

The internet can be the perfect setting for sarcasm so long as it provides a target and a target audience (which are often mutually exclusive).

 

[Bei1052]

People are going to do abortion whether its legal or not. The difference is if its legal the woman doesnt have to go to an unsafe back alley.

Ahahahaha! ....Ha!

Next you're going to tell me that we should legalize, say, theft, because people are going to steal anyway, and we'd much rather have them steal from someone else legally than have them try to steal from someone illegally and be injured in the process (because, you know, every day hundreds of would be thieves are injured, maimed and/or killed). Right?

Anywho, here's the grand argument as to why abortion isn't murder as used by the pro-choicers-- Because the law says it isn't. That's not much of an argument at all. In fact, it sidesteps the entire issue. The law can't rationalize itself. Mindlessly stating and restating that abortion isn't murder in actuality because the law says it's not doesn't say anything to the actual act of abortion. If the law said that I could legally decapitate any of you, I highly doubt many here would show up to argue that said action is perfectly okay because the law says it's okay. No, what would happen is that most of you would come up with reasons as to why the act of decapitating one of you is wrong and murder even if the law doesn't claim it's murder, as most of you typically do when arguing that the law is in error. If abortion isn't murder, as the pro-choice contingent claims, then you should be able to explain why it's not in a way that doesn't rely on, "Because that's what the law says!".

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

This part is unrelated to the pregnancy other than you had the "beanbag" in pregnancy. The 18 years into the future involves both parents and exceeds the time of pregnancy that being talked about.

I am one that admits mistakes, and I will do so now: I was incorrect about involvement in pregnancy.

But I will uphold this: If you leave the fetus alone in terms of removing it, it will grow into a child.

But if you continue to do the things that you did pre-pregnancy then it might not.

 

[Communisto]

What is the difference? Murder is killing someone, that someone could be a child. Abortion is killing a child. There is no difference.

A collection of cells that has the potential to become a human being is not a person anymore than a sperm cell or an egg cell is.

 

[Bei1052]

A collection of cells that has the potential to become a human being is not a person anymore than a sperm cell or an egg cell is.

I guess bad science isn't just for Creationists.

 

[Traitorfish]

But I will uphold this: If you leave the fetus alone in terms of removing it, it will grow into a child.

So we have reduced your original claims to a statement so obvious as to contribute nothing to either side of the debate? Success!

I guess bad science isn't just for Creationists.

Do you have a counter-argument?

 

[NickyJ]

Ahahahaha! ....Ha!

Next you're going to tell me that we should legalize, say, theft, because people are going to steal anyway, and we'd much rather have them steal from someone else legally than have them try to steal from someone illegally and be injured in the process (because, you know, every day hundreds of would be thieves are injured, maimed and/or killed). Right?

Anywho, here's the grand argument as to why abortion isn't murder as used by the pro-choicers-- Because the law says it isn't. That's not much of an argument at all. In fact, it sidesteps the entire issue. The law can't rationalize itself. Mindlessly stating and restating that abortion isn't murder in actuality because the law says it's not doesn't say anything to the actual act of abortion. If the law said that I could legally decapitate any of you, I highly doubt many here would show up to argue that said action is perfectly okay because the law says it's okay. No, what would happen is that most of you would come up with reasons as to why the act of decapitating one of you is wrong and murder even if the law doesn't claim it's murder, as most of you typically do when arguing that the law is in error. If abortion isn't murder, as the pro-choice contingent claims, then you should be able to explain why it's not in a way that doesn't rely on, "Because that's what the law says!".

Exactly. The only difference is that the murder is legalized. Nothing else.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Dom, everything you posted is teetering on the fact that you claim abortion is murder but the definition of murder and the law disagrees with you. Unless you can prove that abortion can be defined as murder all your points basically boil down to a case of "duck v. rabbit season." Of course if abortion was murder a lot of what you said would be true, and if we applied the laws we have for abortion to infanticide what you said may be valid. However this is just not the case.

You may as well just extend the line of logic to male masturbation or hell, even female menstruation. You cant just say something is wrong and call it murder and expect everyone to agree with you.

I was addressing Aimeeandbeetles' specific argument, not the issue at large. Seriously, why can't you tell the difference?

Here was her post, paraphrased:

If abortion is banned, women will still do it, they just would have to go to a back-alley clinic

And I proved this argument illogical, because if its murder, its totally irrelevant what is safe for the woman.

That was my point, but obviously you weren't paying much attention.

Ahahahaha! ....Ha!

Next you're going to tell me that we should legalize, say, theft, because people are going to steal anyway, and we'd much rather have them steal from someone else legally than have them try to steal from someone illegally and be injured in the process (because, you know, every day hundreds of would be thieves are injured, maimed and/or killed). Right?

Anywho, here's the grand argument as to why abortion isn't murder as used by the pro-choicers-- Because the law says it isn't. That's not much of an argument at all. In fact, it sidesteps the entire issue. The law can't rationalize itself. Mindlessly stating and restating that abortion isn't murder in actuality because the law says it's not doesn't say anything to the actual act of abortion. If the law said that I could legally decapitate any of you, I highly doubt many here would show up to argue that said action is perfectly okay because the law says it's okay. No, what would happen is that most of you would come up with reasons as to why the act of decapitating one of you is wrong and murder even if the law doesn't claim it's murder, as most of you typically do when arguing that the law is in error. If abortion isn't murder, as the pro-choice contingent claims, then you should be able to explain why it's not in a way that doesn't rely on, "Because that's what the law says!".

Rock on!

 

[NickyJ]

So we have reduced your original claims to a statement so obvious as to contribute nothing to either side of the debate? Success!

So your claims to a statement are so obvious as to contribute nothing to either side of the debate. You have a contributed nothing. Success! All you have done is waste more time rather then get on with the actual debate. Double success!

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Exactly. The only difference is that the murder is legalized. Nothing else.

This is why we can't have civil debates.

Y'know, our positions are more nuanced than "LEGALIZE MURDER SO WE CAN BANG BANG MORE"

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Ahahahaha! ....Ha!

Next you're going to tell me that we should legalize, say, theft, because people are going to steal anyway, and we'd much rather have them steal from someone else legally than have them try to steal from someone illegally and be injured in the process (because, you know, every day hundreds of would be thieves are injured, maimed and/or killed). Right?

How is removing a piece of extraneous tissue comparable to stealing things from people.

I think pro-life males are funny. They dont have to worry about getting pregnant. Heck. Im a virgin and from time to time I worry that one of these days Im gonna get raped and pregnant or whatnot.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Y'know, our positions are more nuanced than "LEGALIZE MURDER SO WE CAN BANG BANG MORE"

True, but that's still the result of on-demand abortion.

How is removing a piece of extraneous tissue comparable to stealing things from people.

The problem is your postulate. Its wrong. Its not tissue, its a living baby.

I think pro-life males are funny. They dont have to worry about getting pregnant.

This has nothing to do with our position.

Heck. Im a virgin and from time to time I worry that one of these days Im gonna get raped and pregnant or whatnot.

Well...

First of all, the trauma from a rape makes pregnancy much less likely.

Second of all, even if it happens, the fetus is not responsible. It would actually make sense to hunt down and kill the rapist, but you would go to jail for doing that... But the innocent child? Fair game!

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

The problem is your postulate. Its wrong. Its not tissue, its a living baby.

Only if it has sentience which my opinion means it has brain activity and can perceive and feel pain.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Only if it has sentience which my opinion means it has brain activity and can perceive and feel pain.

First of all, it can certainly feel pain before the end of the second trimester, and the brain is there from 2 months or less (Not sure of the exact time, but its definitely less than 2 months.)

Second of all, that is your postulate. Then you use this postulate to say "OK, its not a full life, and so, even if it were better for her not to abort, its still better to allow it so that her life is safe!" I reject this idea. Not only would I say she ought to be executed for murder anyway, but I would also say that this is a horrible reason to make something legal, because "They'd do it unsafely otherwise."

Murder is murder.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

True, but that's still the result of on-demand abortion.

And thats any of our business, how?

Murder is murder.

A cow is a cow.
Theft is theft.
Abortion is abortion.

We can play this pin the emotion stirring word on the donkey all day, but we won't get anywhere.

 

[GhostWriter16]

And thats any of our business, how?

First of all, even if it weren't, it is still true. People who want abortion on demand want it since it is Convenient

Second of all, whether it is or not depends on what rights you feel the fetus has.