Is America great?

[Granite]

I support the right of people to kill in self defence and to have sex in private and to get sick from too much alcohol, but I don't want to see undignified images of those things either.

If you consider the foetus in the image to have been a person, should it not have some dignity in death and the right not to be used anonomyously to bolster a web forum discussion?

Is it your position that TOL should host images of the dismembered corpses of victims of terrorist incidents or military attacks? Or are foetuses different?

Exploitation is exploitation, I don't care what justification is given.

 

[gcthomas]

So if you have abortion in your mind's eye, you prefer it be just some formless abstraction...just noble-sounding words. Got it.

I am content for abortions to happen, and I quite aware of the nature of the event. Why should TOL be used to disrespectfuly profane the image of a dead feutus? It is a breach of the 1st TOL commandment, even if it is one routinely ignored for favoured posters.

Baby.

It says 'fetus' in the caption, dummy. Are you telling me that the picture isn't of a 22 week old foetus?

Should it not have first been granted the dignity to have not been murdered?

That is not the argument I raised. It is not the act I was challenging (there are endless, unproductive threads here to that effect). I was questioning the act of posting disrespectful images.

Nope, it's all the same. ...Same with abortion photos which upset you so (which is really odd, given you support abortion).

Unlike you, I consider that the deceased should be afforded some dignity. If you don't think the dead deserve any sort of respect, then come out and say so clearly, or else explain how posting the image advances that person's (in your mind) dignity or is respectful of the suffering you claim they experience.

Same with abortion photos which upset you so (which is really odd, given you support abortion).

I have not been upset by them. Where did you get the idea I was so fragile in the face of the image of the body of a non-person? I was arguing, although you seem to ignore this, for the absence of such images. If you can't argue your case with rational debate and evidence, then you should give up before you resort to rhetorical and shallow emotional gambits. If you get that far you have already failed.

 

[resodko]

I am content for abortions to happen

have fun in hell :wave2:

Unlike you, I consider that the deceased should be afforded some dignity.

"the deceased" ??? :freak:

isn't it just a blob of cells?

 

[musterion]

"the deceased" ??? :freak:

isn't it just a blob of cells?

Yes, just look at it. It's just a nondescript clump of cells. No different from a malignant tumor that needs excising. A tumor with a face, maybe, but essentially just unwanted, potentially dangerous tissue.

 

[resodko]

A tumor with a face, maybe, but essentially just unwanted, potentially dangerous tissue.

now you're talking about my mother in law

 

[musterion]

I am content for abortions to happen

No kidding.

It says 'fetus' in the caption, dummy. Are you telling me that the picture isn't of a 22 week old foetus?

Fetus, when referring to humans, means "unborn child." A baby.

I was questioning the act of posting disrespectful images.

To whom is it disrespectful?

Unlike you, I consider that the deceased should be afforded some dignity.

How is this "fetus" deceased? Is an excised tumor "deceased"?

Does an excised tumor have dignity?

I have not been upset by them.

So why did you report it?

 

[gcthomas]

Fetus, when referring to humans, means "unborn child." A baby.

I don't object to your language - you objected to the correct term foetus. You seem to think that baby carries more emotional impact - which suggests your argument lacks the logical sharpness to win out on its own.

To whom is it disrespectful?

You think it was a person - don't you find that disrespectful? This is a Christian forum, I thought you'd have christian morals. Even Neanderthals treated their dead with respect.

How is this "fetus" deceased? Is an excised tumor "deceased"?

Isn't it an organism in its own right? A tumor is a piece of tissie from an organism. Didn't you study biology at school?

Does an excised tumor have dignity?

Nope. See above.

So why did you report it?

Because profane images should not be posted on TOL. (I wrote that before - is English your second language? Should I type slowly and loudly?)

 

[resodko]

I don't object to your language - you objected to the correct term foetus. You seem to think that baby carries more emotional impact - which suggests your argument lacks the logical sharpness to win out on its own.

you ask any pregnant woman whether she refers to the child she's carrying as a "fetus" or a "baby"

Because profane images should not be posted on TOL. (I wrote that before - is English your second language? Should I type slowly and loudly?)

you are unaware that Jefferson (the super moderator) uses a very similar image as his avatar?

 

[gcthomas]

you ask any pregnant woman whether she refers to the child she's carrying as a "fetus" or a "baby"

Don't you guys read before posting? I don't care what you call it, I don't object. Sheesh.

you are unaware that Jefferson uses a very similar image as his avatar?

Hence my comment about favoured posters. Don't you read before posting?

 

[Granite]

The only humane reaction would be a decent burial, not a photo op.:nono:

 

[gcthomas]

The only humane reaction would be a decent burial, not a photo op.:nono:

Humanity seems absent here all to often.

 

[resodko]

The only humane reaction would be a decent burial, not a photo op.:nono:

nope

just toss it in the incinerator with the rest of the medical waste

 

[resodko]

Hence my comment about favoured posters.

oh, i see

you were just whining about how unfair it is here

 

[musterion]

I don't object to your language - you objected to the correct term foetus. You seem to think that baby carries more emotional impact - which suggests your argument lacks the logical sharpness to win out on its own.

That's exactly the point. Baby choppers have insisted for decades on fetus in order to dehumanize the child and REMOVE all the natural gut-emotional impact it SHOULD and DOES have when unfiltered by people like you. They also dislike pictures such as the one above being shown publicly, for the same reason. They HAVE to have "the product of abortion" as dehumanized as possible. Just like the Jame Gumb character in Silence of the Lambs; he referred to his victims as "it" to make them easier to cut apart.

Was the subject of the picture above a human, or an "it"?

You think it was a person - don't you find that disrespectful? This is a Christian forum, I thought you'd have christian morals. Even Neanderthals treated their dead with respect.

Are you that far gone? Do you even realize what you just said about yourself as a pro-abortionist?

Because profane images should not be posted on TOL. (I wrote that before - is English your second language? Should I type slowly and loudly?)

It can only be profane if it is, in fact, a murdered human. Are you conceding that?

 

[gcthomas]

oh, i see

you were just whining about how unfair it is here

Nope. I don't attract infractions so I'm not affected, despite the attentions of the 'mass reporters' on the site occasionally.

I object to the photo. Simple. Short words for you, even. Is it so difficult?

 

[noguru]

I am content for abortions to happen, and I quite aware of the nature of the event. Why should TOL be used to disrespectfuly profane the image of a dead feutus? It is a breach of the 1st TOL commandment, even if it is one routinely ignored for favoured posters.



It says 'fetus' in the caption, dummy. Are you telling me that the picture isn't of a 22 week old foetus?



That is not the argument I raised. It is not the act I was challenging (there are endless, unproductive threads here to that effect). I was questioning the act of posting disrespectful images.



Unlike you, I consider that the deceased should be afforded some dignity. If you don't think the dead deserve any sort of respect, then come out and say so clearly, or else explain how posting the image advances that person's (in your mind) dignity or is respectful of the suffering you claim they experience.



I have not been upset by them. Where did you get the idea I was so fragile in the face of the image of the body of a non-person? I was arguing, although you seem to ignore this, for the absence of such images. If you can't argue your case with rational debate and evidence, then you should give up before you resort to rhetorical and shallow emotional gambits. If you get that far you have already failed.

It is no wonder that rational people just laugh at the emotionally overcharged right wing zealots around. Their over zealous nature blinds them from their own stupidity. You can warn them, but they just keep repeating the idiocy.

 

[Granite]

Humanity seems absent here all to often.

Struck me for a very long time that the ones calling themselves pro-life are the ones parading pictures of corpses.

 

[brinny]

Struck me for a very long time that the ones calling themselves pro-life are the ones parading pictures of corpses.

corpses of what, specifically?

Thank you kindly.

 

[noguru]

Struck me for a very long time that the ones calling themselves pro-life are the ones parading pictures of corpses.

In their apparent "zeal" to expose what is already known, they are willing to post offensive pictures in the name "obedience to their God". And if the left is concerned about children from parents incapable of supporting children, they just walk away saying "It's their own fault!" The hypocrisy is so obvious and blatant, yet they still want to be taken seriously.

 

[noguru]

corpses of what, specifically?

Thank you kindly.

I think any rational person would admit that a fetus is an unborn human and therefore a corpse in that regard if aborted. Some people have an issue about physical dependency on the mother and who has the right to decide about carrying it to full term.