Abortion///cont.

[WizardofOz]

I want to see Wizard explain exactly what Wizard believes about all this.

:liberals:
It's a fairly straightforward question...I am supposed to detail my beliefs when you cannot even answer a simple question?

Should all abortion other than "cases of rape, severe disability, risk to mother," not be supported?

 

[glassjester]

Oh please......... somebody actually has to deliberately 'turn off' equipment!

Again, not the same, brother. Passively dying of natural causes is quite different than actively ending a life that would not have otherwise ended.

Be honest - you know that death by natural causes is not the same as homicide.

Just tell me straight out...... come out of the closet. Do you support the concept of your State or Federal Government providing full medicare et al, and welfare for all children in your country, financed by taxation?
Yes or No. ?

I am not sure. I've heard sound arguments on both sides of the matter.
Taxes pay for common defense, common safety (police and fire dept's), and common education - why not common health?

What I am sure of, however, is that the right to be alive takes precedence over all other rights. Without the right to be alive, you cannot have any other rights!

Says you, who is prepared to kill when your morals give you a go ahead..?
God given, eh? The right to life? Where did you get that, then?
And where does God demand that severely disabled pregnancies must continue to full term?
I can't wait to see this......

Where do you think your right to life comes from?



Come on now, give an answer. Why should abortion be illegal, if all your social programs were in effect?

 

[glassjester]

I want to see Wizard explain exactly what Wizard believes about all this.
I want to see your reply as to whether you support State/Government welfare/medicare for all infants/juniors. So far you've not answered the question.

I don't believe that you have any intention lof supporting all children's welfare and medicare in your State or country financed by taxation, by the way. I think you're a fraud who just wants to apply control upon women's and couples' decisions.

And I can't wait to read about 'God given rights to life'....... wow!

Wow, man. You're really on the attack here.
I don't want to control couples' decisions.

I just don't want babies being killed. What is wrong with that?

 

[glassjester]

And, Eider, it's a very strange argument you've been making. If your tax money doesn't support the victims of a particular evil, you are not allowed to recognize it as evil? That's crazy, dude.

Do you pay taxes specifically to provide for the victims of car-jacking? No? Oh, then you better make car-jacking legal!

See? That's weird, man.

 

[quip]

No, I do not believe the deliberate killing of a human being should be legal. No matter the age of the victim.
But you do. You believe it should remain legal to deliberately kill a human being, based on age.

So that is why I am asking you why you believe murder should be illegal at all.

"based on age"? Is that all you've gleaned from our discussion?

You seem unable or unwilling to engage in serious discussion.
Why should I even continue to entertain your vacuousness?

 

[glassjester]

"based on age"? Is that all you've gleaned from our discussion?

Yes. If a human being has existed for less than nine months, you do not believe they have the right to remain alive. They can be killed at will.

Pretty sick, huh?

You seem unable or unwilling to engage in serious discussion.
Why should I even continue to entertain your vacuousness?

It's an opportunity to better explain and defend your view to those (such as myself) who find it barbaric and morally repugnant.

And, Quip, I am absolutely willing to engage in serious discussion.
Pick apart my beliefs if you'd like, point out the flaws, but do not accuse me of insincerity.

 

[eider]

:liberals:
It's a fairly straightforward question...I am supposed to detail my beliefs when you cannot even answer a simple question?

Yep. Come on....... let's hear exactly what you believe.
Let's see you actually give something to the debate.
My beliefs are already writ large; some members just see what they want to see.

My answers to your questions are all present in the last couple of pages. I just want to see if you will actually declare yourself.

 

[WizardofOz]

Yep. Come on....... let's hear exactly what you believe.
Let's see you actually give something to the debate.
My beliefs are already writ large; some members just see what they want to see.

My answers to your questions are all present in the last couple of pages. I just want to see if you will actually declare yourself.

I am pro-life

Now, should all abortion other than "cases of rape, severe disability, risk to mother," not be supported?

 

[eider]

Wow, man. You're really on the attack here.
I don't want to control couples' decisions.

I just don't want babies being killed. What is wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is that you want to control the decisions of doctors, women and couples where rape pregnancies and severe disabilities are present.

And........ you won't confirm that you really do care about the welfare/medicare of all infants in yuour State or country. Now that is important because it shows other objective readers more about the real you.

 

[eider]

And, Eider, it's a very strange argument you've been making. If your tax money doesn't support the victims of a particular evil, you are not allowed to recognize it as evil? That's crazy, dude.

Do you pay taxes specifically to provide for the victims of car-jacking? No? Oh, then you better make car-jacking legal!

See? That's weird, man.

What's weird is the way in which you choose the strangest analogies in your weak attempts to cover up the simple fact that you want to control the decisions of doctors, women and couples in very difficult cases.

Heh! I notice that you've backed off from your mention of 'God given right to life'. I didn't think you had it in you.

 

[glassjester]

What's wrong with that is that you want to control the decisions of doctors, women and couples where rape pregnancies and severe disabilities are present.

And........ you won't confirm that you really do care about the welfare/medicare of all infants in yuour State or country. Now that is important because it shows other objective readers more about the real you.

Tell me more about the real me, please.

And while your at it, why should abortion be illegal once all your social programs are in effect?

 

[glassjester]

What's weird is the way in which you choose the strangest analogies in your weak attempts to cover up the simple fact that you want to control the decisions of doctors, women and couples in very difficult cases.

Heh! I notice that you've backed off from your mention of 'God given right to life'. I didn't think you had it in you.

God created life. He's the Author of life. It's His to give, His to take. Not mine, not yours.

God commands us not to murder. Need He say more?

 

[eider]

I am pro-life

Now, should all abortion other than "cases of rape, severe disability, risk to mother," not be supported?

Fair enough.
Termination of unwanted healthy pregnancies should not be supported.
A reasonable country would (no doubt) enter a two or five year plan towards any legisl;ation, because adoption services and children's sex education would need to be supercharged in preparation. The details about contraception etc would need to be clearly introduced, and sterilisation plans be strongly supported.
Any country that was determined to legislate would no doubt want to introduce State medicare and welfare for all minors, supported by taxation.
Yes..... there would be clauses for rape victims, serious disabilities, risks etc.

But what we've got here is a few members who want to control doctor's and women's decisions but who seem to show that they have no real interest in the welfare and medicare of all children in their countries. That's an indication of fraudulent hypocrisy imo.

 

[WizardofOz]

What's wrong with that is that you want to control the decisions of doctors, women and couples where rape pregnancies and severe disabilities are present.

I am willing to wager that the "rape" and "severe disabilities" qualifiers are nothing more than red herrings.

EDIT: I stand corrected :e4e:

And........ you won't confirm that you really do care about the welfare/medicare of all infants in yuour State or country. Now that is important because it shows other objective readers more about the real you.

You're conflating issues. Everyone cares about the welfare of infants. There are many points of view about how to best support infant welfare, however. You cannot say that anyone not supporting free everything (nothing is free, afterall) cannot also oppose abortion and call themselves pro-life.

It's like arguing that support of capital punishment is somehow mutually exclusive to opposing abortion on demand.
They're not.

Fair enough.
Termination of unwanted healthy pregnancies should not be supported.

OK. We agree.

A reasonable country would (no doubt) enter a two or five year plan towards any legisl;ation, because adoption services and children's sex education would need to be supercharged in preparation. The details about contraception etc would need to be clearly introduced, and sterilisation plans be strongly supported.
Any country that was determined to legislate would no doubt want to introduce State medicare and welfare for all minors, supported by taxation.
Yes..... there would be clauses for rape victims, serious disabilities, risks etc.

This sounds reasonable, politically speaking.

But what we've got here is a few members who want to control doctor's and women's decisions but who seem to show that they have no real interest in the welfare and medicare of all children in their countries. That's an indication of fraudulent hypocrisy imo.

Are you not advocating controlling women's decision above by outlawing abortion on demand? :think:

 

[glassjester]

Fair enough.
Termination of unwanted healthy pregnancies should not be supported.

So if a woman wanted an abortion simply because she didn't want a baby - you'd force her to stay pregnant? You'd control her decision, and her doctor's decision, and her husband's decision?

 

[glassjester]

Also, Eider, why should abortion be illegal once all your demands are met?

 

[eider]

God created life. He's the Author of life. It's His to give, His to take. Not mine, not yours.

God commands us not to murder. Need He say more?

You're on another cop-out.
God commands us not to kill, but you've gotten yourself a convenient list of situations where you think it's OK. There are folks out there who will not kill, full stop. So you're falling short of the true word as far as they're concerned. But I have to tell you that in any debate with such people they would never insult like you do. Sad.

There is no mention of this subject in the bible as far as I know.

Now...... how about you confirming your support for State welfare/medicare of all minors, supported by State taxation? Come on! You can do it! You know it is right and proper.

And you can confirm that rape cases and serious health issues are separate to your 'moral code'?

 

[WizardofOz]

So if a woman wanted an abortion simply because she didn't want a baby - you'd force her to stay pregnant? You'd control her decision, and her doctor's decision, and her husband's decision?

:first:
Precisely. I am about to be AFK for a while, but this highlights my point. Nearly everyone who is pro-choice is pro-life at some point along the timeline of human development. They decry the desire to 'control' when at some point they also want to exert this same control.

Being pro-life is just simply much more consistent of a viewpoint.

 

[glassjester]

You're on another cop-out.
God commands us not to kill, but you've gotten yourself a convenient list of situations where you think it's OK. There are folks out there who will not kill, full stop. So you're falling short of the true word as far as they're concerned.

It is morally wrong to deliberately and directly take the life of another human being. That's always and everywhere wrong. I've been consistent on that.

But I have to tell you that in any debate with such people they would never insult like you do. Sad.

Did I offend you? How so?

There is no mention of this subject in the bible as far as I know.

There's no mention of car-jacking in the Bible...
Heck, there's no mention of the Bible in the Bible.

Now...... how about you confirming your support for State welfare/medicare of all minors, supported by State taxation? Come on! You can do it! You know it is right and proper.

I answered you on that, earlier.

And you can confirm that rape cases and serious health issues are separate to your 'moral code'?

They aren't though. It's wrong to deliberately and directly take the life of another human being, even if his father was a rapist.


And hey, Eider, why should abortion be illegal once all your demands are met?

 

[eider]

I am willing to wager that the "rape" and "severe disabilities" qualifiers are nothing more than red herrings.

EDIT: I stand corrected :e4e:

No probs...

You're conflating issues. Everyone cares about the welfare of infants. There are many points of view about how to best support infant welfare, however. You cannot say that anyone not supporting free everything (nothing is free, afterall) cannot also oppose abortion and call themselves pro-life.

It's like arguing that support of capital punishment is somehow mutually exclusive to opposing abortion on demand.
They're not.

People devoted to the lives of pregnancies should obviously be expected to continue their interest after birth.
A person who claims interest in the one condition, but shows carelessness in the other can't have much integrity.
A lot of folks would not support welfare/medicare of all minors supported by State taxation, which is sad.

OK. We agree.

No probs....

This sounds reasonable, politically speaking.

I don't mind discussing those suggested policies outside of politics.

Are you not advocating controlling women's decision above by outlawing abortion on demand? :think:

Yes. I don't believe that women will (genrerally speaking) ever allow their right to choose to be taken away, once they have it. But where they do agree and vote, then a five year plan pre-legislation could help enormously.
In my country there is a 24/5 week rule. That is dreadful. Being a moderate I would welcome a reduction to 12 weeks, because every reduction is a step closer. Somre extremists would never be happy with anything but a full ban, of course.


EDIT:
It's past midnight here..... I must go....