Against abortion and against person-hood?

[WizardofOz]

So you didn't vote for Gary Johnson who ran on the Libertarian Party Platform?

Extremely rare occasions where the mother's life is endangered isn't pro choice.

Do you think she should have the choice to have her fetus intentionally killed?

 

[WizardofOz]

What does it matter? It's a question that has one honest answer- and three dishonest ones.

Abortion being commensurate to murder is a lie in which all people intrinsically know. It is a false reproach to abortion.

:yawn: Semantics. Some abortions are legally considered murder depending on geography and length of term. You can't go around legally killing 8 month old fetuses now, can you?

I feel that a woman has the autonomous right to abort. Just herself, you see- let her blood upon her.

You feel she should have a right to legally choose to have an abortion. That's called pro-choice. I'm sorry you're having difficulty accepting the label.

 

[Crucible]

You feel she should have a right to legally choose to have an abortion. That's called pro-choice. I'm sorry you're having difficulty accepting the label.

And you want to talk about 'semantics'

They didn't institute legal punishment for abortion in the Middle Ages when one was excommunicated permanently from the church and thus destined for Hell.

I guess they were pro-abortion as well :idunno:


You all have made a disturbing notion that, to be pro-life, one must believe in a legal prosecution for murder in the event of abortion, since by your notion abortion is as walking up and shooting someone between their eyes.

 

[WizardofOz]

And you want to talk about 'semantics'

They didn't institute legal punishment for abortion in the Middle Ages when one was excommunicated permanently from the church and thus destined for Hell.

I guess they were pro-abortion as well :idunno:

:doh: I can see this is going to be a bit of teeth pulling; wading through your river of denial.

Define what it means to be 'pro-choice'...

 

[Crucible]

:doh: I can see this is going to be a bit of teeth pulling; wading through your river of denial.

Define what it means to be 'pro-choice'...

Why don't you define 'pro-life' and save me the trouble of showing the straw man you've created. And not the dumb conservative one that will never be achieved- the literal one.

 

[Town Heretic]

:doh: I can see this is going to be a bit of teeth pulling; wading through your river of denial.

Define what it means to be 'pro-choice'...

Good luck, but my experience with him is that he's all saddle and no horse...and I see from his reply that he's put a new coat of wax on it. lain:

 

[Crucible]

Good luck, but my experience with him is that he's all saddle and no horse...and I see from his reply that he's put a new coat of wax on it. lain:

You know why the pro-life agenda fails miserably?

Because it is a fail agenda- people arguing on the basis of if it should be outlawed when, in history, it never really has been. It has always been a religious matter- the Church permanently excommunicated such women.

There's a reason why this has always been the case. I don't have to agree with the agenda to count myself as not being 'pro choice'.

I would rather just see the institution of it taken away. Take away funding, rid the abortionist appropriately... and leave the blood on the women themselves.

But people sitting here with some outback Puritan attitude, agreeing essentially to handing women and abortionists to death for the death of a fetus..
why not burn witches too :idunno:

I have plenty against all of you and I've proven it over and over on this thread. You all just don't have any other option than to continue in your denial complex, as it's obviously been a tradition on here to call abortion murder to a point where it's assumed as above reproach.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

So you didn't vote for Gary Johnson who ran on the Libertarian Party Platform?..

Do you think she should have the choice to have her fetus intentionally killed?

 

[Town Heretic]

You know why the pro-life agenda fails miserably?

I don't agree with you that it does. I think it's a tough, up hill battle that's being won.

Because it is a fail agenda- people arguing on the basis of if it should be outlawed when, in history, it never really has been. It has always been a religious matter- the Church permanently excommunicated such women.

That no longer has the social power and pragmatic effect of law. Abortion became a national sin when a handful of mistaken jurists created a right while being overwhelmed by appeals to special circumstance. It opened the gates to a flood of much greater human suffering and death.

There's a reason why this has always been the case. I don't have to agree with the agenda to count myself as not being 'pro choice'.

I would rather just see the institution of it taken away. Take away funding, rid the abortionist appropriately... and leave the blood on the women themselves.

The women? What of the men who abandon, or encourage? Your focus isn't broad enough.

But people sitting here with some outback Puritan attitude, agreeing essentially to handing women and abortionists to death for the death of a fetus..
why not burn witches too :idunno:

I'm not here to speak for anyone else. And I think you sell the Puritans short.

I have plenty against all of you

In one sense that's hard to miss.

and I've proven it over and over on this thread. You all just don't have any other option than to continue in your denial complex,

That's just the narrative you have going in your head.

as it's obviously been a tradition on here to call abortion murder to a point where it's assumed as above reproach.

I don't care what the tradition has been here. I noted that abortion is the taking of a human life without justification and with premeditation. How would any reasonable description of murder run contrary to that? I've also responded to your flawed "Who would you save?" proffer. You seem to mostly be interested in repeating a judgment you can't sustain else.

 

[Crucible]

The women? What of the men who abandon, or encourage? Your focus isn't broad enough.

And there, folks, goes female autonomy and accountability right down the drain- and people are suckered into thinking feminism is about 'equality' :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

And there, folks, goes female autonomy and accountability right down the drain- and people are suckered into thinking feminism is about 'equality' :chuckle:

I didn't say or even suggest a want of accountability for the mother who aborts. There's no reasonable reading of me that leads to your above. In fact, it would be irrational to suggest a wider net if there's no harm at the heart of it. It would be like arguing for prosecuting on conspiracy while suggesting there's no actual crime involved to base the conspiracy upon.

But you're helping me understand more and more why you don't engage, why you keep the steady diet of misdirection and proclamation.You're just not really listening. Or incapable of hearing. Supra.

 

[Rusha]

The women? What of the men who abandon, or encourage? Your focus isn't broad enough.

And there, folks, goes female autonomy and accountability right down the drain- and people are suckered into thinking feminism is about 'equality' :chuckle:

You have that backwards. TH did not indicate that women are not responsible for unplanned pregnancies. He is pointing out the FACT that men are every bit AS accountable for all pregnancies. BTW, the only valid point when discussing abortion is the rights of the unborn baby.

 

[Crucible]

You have that backwards. TH did not indicate that women are not responsible for unplanned pregnancies. He is pointing out the FACT that men are every bit AS accountable for all pregnancies.

Really? Than why doesn't he have the right to legally veto a pregnancy?

That's the one-sidedness of women such as yourself- noting is ever solely the woman's fault, but when there is fault to be had, there must be something of the man to account for.

You are the one with the womb, remember? YOU are the one who controls the uterus, REMEMBER?
All that double standard nonsense just flops right out the window when anything of brain function enters in

BTW, the only valid point when discussing abortion is the rights of the unborn baby.

No it's not.
That's special pleading.
It's not about the rights of the unborn, it's about the sin of the born lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

Really? Than why doesn't he have the right to legally veto a pregnancy?

That's a non-sequitur. Abortion itself is legal. We aren't speaking of what is but what should be and why, again.

That's the one-sidedness of women such as yourself- noting is ever solely the woman's fault, but when there is fault to be had, there must be something of the man to account for.

I only know of one immaculate conception. But blame goes to everyone who participates and wills the end. Every supportive male, every demanding one (or didn't you know that many a man has insisted, suggested, or supported the abortion decision, facilitating the act. conspiring toward the tragic end?).

No it's not.
That's special pleading.

How, in any sense, is that a special pleading?

It's not about the rights of the unborn, it's about the sin of the born

If the unborn has no right to be then what sin are you speaking of?

 

[Crucible]

That's a non-sequitur. Abortion itself is legal. We aren't speaking of what is but what should be and why, again.

And Auschwitz was legal.

But
You wouldn't consider pipe bombing it 'Christian extremism'

I only know of one immaculate conception.

Which is heresy.

But blame goes to everyone who participates and wills the end. Every supportive male, every demanding one (or didn't you know that many a man has insisted, suggested, or supported the abortion decision, facilitating the act. conspiring toward the tragic end?).

No.
Because you liberals have built and established a system in which men gain no legal support of women, even if it is the woman's fault, neither should women gain legal support of men. Especially since women have chosen to be adversarial and often railroad men when they themselves cannot assume responsibility.

It's just that simple
Or
Drop your feminism
Because
It is a party of people who can't take accountability within the autonomy and equality they yet pretend to not have

Irony

How, in any sense, is that a special pleading?

Special pleading- a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption

If the unborn has no right to be then what sin are you speaking of?

Adamic laws. A wide range from abortion to cannibalism. Self-evident crimes against nature.

 

[Town Heretic]

And Auschwitz was legal.

I answered you on the death camp parallel and invited additional conversation. It has nothing to do with the particular response this quote is supposed to be answering.

What happened was that Rusha reiterated my point that I wasn't speaking for excusing anyone, only noting that your net wasn't wide enough, failed to encompass men who demanded, encouraged or facilitated the abortion. Your response to her noting it was to ask why men didn't have control over the event. That was a nonsequitur. I was arguing that men who, in fact, had exercised a measure of control or offered aid and comfort in the process should be held responsible for their roles. I wasn't speaking of men who opposed it and lacked the power to prevent it.

But You wouldn't consider pipe bombing it 'Christian extremism'

I was against abortion as an atheist. I don't think it's a singularly Christian issue. I answered you on this point too. I won't keep answering any variation you can come up with on a theme until you respond to the first answer you get. Else what looks like a conversation is only you going through reinvention of your talking points.

I wrote that I only know of one virgin birth:

Which is heresy.

No, it's orthodoxy.

No. Because you liberals

You can't play the "dishonesty" card and be dishonest. I'm not a liberal. That's your meme/talking point/bias blindness in play. I mostly vote conservative, though I consider myself a moderate, as I've noted time and again. When I take one of those political orientation tests I come out marginally left of dead center, within the moderate range, not the liberal. I believe both liberals and conservatives have had great and horrific ideas and I support the ideas that seem most sound to me.

have built and established a system in which men gain no legal support of women, even if it is the woman's fault, neither should women gain legal support of men.

You really shouldn't speak to the law, because you don't appear to know it. I've addressed other mistaken assumptions of this sort by you before. Men can and do receive spousal support, can and do become the primary custodian of children, etc. The tender years presumption that once favored the mother has been stricken from precedent, etc.

I omit the remaining projections as they aren't tied to support, or even a logical argument.

Special pleading- a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption

I didn't ask what a special pleading is...I know what it is. I asked how, in any sense, it was that very thing. And you haven't given that connective tissue.

Adamic laws. A wide range from abortion to cannibalism. Self-evident crimes against nature.

You're missing my point. Absent the unborn having a right to its existence there's no case to be made against it. A crime against nature? In what sense? Or, make the case that abortion is a crime absent consideration of the child. That would be some pleading.

 

[Rusha]

Really? Than why doesn't he have the right to legally veto a pregnancy?

He does ... it's called abstinence. So does she. It's called abstinence. Outside of abstinence, men and women are EQUALLY responsible for pregnancy via consensual sex.

That's the one-sidedness of women such as yourself- noting is ever solely the woman's fault, but when there is fault to be had, there must be something of the man to account for.

What part of "it takes two to tango" do you not understand? The ONLY instance of a man or woman not being responsible for a pregnancy would be rape (which is still not a valid excuse to abort).

You are the one with the womb, remember? YOU are the one who controls the uterus, REMEMBER?

I am also the one who understands how babies are created. It's too bad that your bitterness and *blame it all on women mantra* has left you incapable of honesty in these types of discussions.

All that double standard nonsense just flops right out the window when anything of brain function enters in

Oh ... you have an issue with brain function. Sorry to hear it. Read a few biology books and try to memorize them. It may help.

No it's not.
That's special pleading.
It's not about the rights of the unborn, it's about the sin of the born lain:

You are completely clueless (or heartless) on the topic of abortion. You dismiss unborn babies out of anger towards their mothers.

 

[Crucible]

He does ... it's called abstinence. So does she. It's called abstinence. Outside of abstinence, men and women are EQUALLY responsible for pregnancy via consensual sex.

This is the bastardized mindset of feminist philosophy:
'We have the uterus, and men do not tell us what to do with our bodies. We have control and ownership of the fetus, but it is theirs, too, if we keep it, even if it is from his body as well and he rejects.'

A complete double standard.

It may not of crossed your one sided mind, but in most events of unplanned pregnancies, the male suffers the most while the woman simultaneously benefits. That's a parasitic state of affairs.

The only remedy to this is if the man could force the woman to abort the fetus, which of course you all refuse because, after all, it never was about fairness was it? It is about inflating female interest over men's.

You are completely clueless (or heartless) on the topic of abortion. You dismiss unborn babies out of anger towards their mothers.

So says the one calling women of abortions murderers :doh:

 

[Crucible]

I wrote that I only know of one virgin birth:

No, it's orthodoxy.

You said the Immaculate Conception

As for everything else, I'm done with it for now. It's just as productive for me to shout to the grass that it's green at this point.

 

[Rusha]

This is the bastardized mindset of feminist philosophy:
'We have the uterus, and men do not tell us what to do with our bodies. We have control and ownership of the fetus, but it is theirs, too, if we keep it, even if it is from his body as well and he rejects.'

A complete double standard.

:yawn: That argument hasn't been made by anyone other than ... you.

It may not of crossed your one sided mind, but in most events of unplanned pregnancies, the male suffers the most while he woman simultaneously benefits. In technical terms, that's a parasitic state of affairs,

Oh ... poor guys. Practicing consensual sex and becoming a father equates to *suffering*.

The only remedy to this is if the man could force the woman to abort the fetus, which of course you all refuse because, after all, it never was about fairness was it? It is about inflating female interest over men's.

WRONG. Though I am not at all surprised that you believe a man should be allowed to force abortion on the mother of his child. What part of "this is about the interest of THE UNBORN CHILD" are you still not getting?

So says the one calling women of abortions murderers :doh:

Anyone who has an abortion is intentionally killing their unborn baby. Anyone who promotes abortion is promoting the killing of unborn babies. Unlike you, I don't pick and choose if an action is wrong based on the gender of the person committing the act.