Political Crossfire Forums

Coral · Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 2759 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Viability is an idiotic idea. As you said, the point of viability relies only on technology. Is the actual ethicality of the act changed by technology? no. Is the fetus more of a human as technology increases? no. Should the fetus have more rights just because technology is advancing? NO

so why do people still justify abortion with viability?

My,

I don't think anyone promotes abortion. Pro-choice supports choice. It supports not living under draconian rules. The fundamental argument comes down to who has rights. If a fetus has rights, the real deal human rights that override the woman's rights, the consequence is slavery for her. That might sound overstated but think long and hard of the legal issues. Most of the pro-lifers here support taking away a woman's choice when an embryo is this big -> . <-. The 4 pixel sized embryo is enough for them to charge women with murder, place them in forced birth facilities etc. The people wanting that right taken away expect society to live as per the "male birth control" thread. I prefer society stay free of government social engineering.

In my opinion the right for a woman not to be enslaved trumps any other argument this topic has to offer. The rest aren't even close.

If you consider not allowing someone to murder slavery, then so be it. The right to life overrides the right to freedom. Its also strange and sad that you would define a human life by size. Does a child have less of a right to life than an adult? No. You ignore the bottom line that the embryo is human and that killing it is murder. If you realize this then you will realize abortion is wrong no matter how "enslaved" the mother becomes by being pregnant.

I prefer society be free of legalized murder.

You prefer to live in the "male birth control" world. No thanks.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9068

Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Coral used IVF, remember, so he knows more than any of us that size does not matter, only potential life does.

Which is the one thing that really surprises me about him....

Using IVF opened my eyes to how rediculous it would be to have reproductive police meddling into every decision. We had more choices to make in our IVF journey that you could ever imagine Sailor. We spent two years making decisions on one thing or another. If anyone has put more thought than me into reproductive rights and decision-making I'd like to meet them.

No-one said anything about reproductive police. the issue at stake is the basic human right to life and the illegalization of murder.

I would argue that what is at stake is the right to personal autonomy over one's body, and the legalization of said choices.

Coral · Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 2759 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Coral used IVF, remember, so he knows more than any of us that size does not matter, only potential life does.

Which is the one thing that really surprises me about him....

Using IVF opened my eyes to how rediculous it would be to have reproductive police meddling into every decision. We had more choices to make in our IVF journey that you could ever imagine Sailor. We spent two years making decisions on one thing or another. If anyone has put more thought than me into reproductive rights and decision-making I'd like to meet them.

No-one said anything about reproductive police. the issue at stake is the basic human right to life and the illegalization of murder.

You seem to be a one-man reproductive police promoter. Just how do you propose your world of utopic embryo rights be enforced?

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Does anyone here have an actual sound, logical argument for abortion? Im doing a paper on it, so far i can't find anything that is even minorly convincing to me.

It is about freedom of choice. To dictate to women that they are no longer free to make decisions regarding their own bodies is to strip away one of the most basic of rights we have. You can morally disagree with abortion all you like, just as I do, but I know that each woman out there has a right to decide what happens to her body.

And, before you go in to the "but it's murder" mantra, let me point out that murder depends on two things. 1) a live victim, and 2) intent to kill said victim.

Beings that the medical community can not come to a mutally agreeable definition of when the fetus is alive, the first requirement is not meant. Therefore the second requirement becomes null and void.

Now, if you can provide for me any evidence to show where the medical community as a whole has agreed upon when a fetus is alive, I will gladly campaign for abortions to be made illegal after that point in the pregnancy is reached. But, it would still violate a woman's right to make it completely illegal.

I agree with your criteria for murder.
The medical community as a whole agrees on very little and wil lprobably never agree wholly on abortion. And since the medical community cannot come up with better criteria for a live human than viabilty, it is obvious that abortion should not be allowed. If we are not sure when an embryo becomes human other than at conception, it would be unethical to allow the killing of it. The only logical and discernable point of becoming a human is at conception. Prove otherwise.

If you agree with my criteria for murder, and that the medical community can not agree on when a fetus is alive, how does it stand that it, therefore, must be alive at conception? It is faulty reasoning.

I can not prove that a fetus ISN'T alive at conception any more than you can prove they are.

Oh, and your contention that it is unethical is merely subjective.

The whole medical community agrees that the fetus is alive, dont be an idiot. if it wasnt alive then there wouldnt be anything to kill, would there? The issue is not whether or not it is alive but when it becomes human, and the soundest argument for when it becomes human is at conception.

your "reasoning" is faulty.

Oh, and of course the ethicality is subjective. There will always be evil people who consider anything ethical. Yet laws still have to dictate whether or not something is legal, or ethical. These laws should be made through reason, not guesses on when a fetus becomes human.

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Coral used IVF, remember, so he knows more than any of us that size does not matter, only potential life does.

Which is the one thing that really surprises me about him....

Using IVF opened my eyes to how rediculous it would be to have reproductive police meddling into every decision. We had more choices to make in our IVF journey that you could ever imagine Sailor. We spent two years making decisions on one thing or another. If anyone has put more thought than me into reproductive rights and decision-making I'd like to meet them.

No-one said anything about reproductive police. the issue at stake is the basic human right to life and the illegalization of murder.

You seem to be a one-man reproductive police promoter. Just how do you propose your world of utopic embryo rights be enforced?

Well the first obvious step is to outlaw the murder of the embryo. Just because we wont be able to regulate every pregnancy and prevent every abortion doesnt mean we should allow it to be legal. Apply the same reasoning with murder and you will come to the same conclusion.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9068

Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Does anyone here have an actual sound, logical argument for abortion? Im doing a paper on it, so far i can't find anything that is even minorly convincing to me.

It is about freedom of choice. To dictate to women that they are no longer free to make decisions regarding their own bodies is to strip away one of the most basic of rights we have. You can morally disagree with abortion all you like, just as I do, but I know that each woman out there has a right to decide what happens to her body.

And, before you go in to the "but it's murder" mantra, let me point out that murder depends on two things. 1) a live victim, and 2) intent to kill said victim.

Beings that the medical community can not come to a mutally agreeable definition of when the fetus is alive, the first requirement is not meant. Therefore the second requirement becomes null and void.

Now, if you can provide for me any evidence to show where the medical community as a whole has agreed upon when a fetus is alive, I will gladly campaign for abortions to be made illegal after that point in the pregnancy is reached. But, it would still violate a woman's right to make it completely illegal.

I agree with your criteria for murder.
The medical community as a whole agrees on very little and wil lprobably never agree wholly on abortion. And since the medical community cannot come up with better criteria for a live human than viabilty, it is obvious that abortion should not be allowed. If we are not sure when an embryo becomes human other than at conception, it would be unethical to allow the killing of it. The only logical and discernable point of becoming a human is at conception. Prove otherwise.

If you agree with my criteria for murder, and that the medical community can not agree on when a fetus is alive, how does it stand that it, therefore, must be alive at conception? It is faulty reasoning.

I can not prove that a fetus ISN'T alive at conception any more than you can prove they are.

Oh, and your contention that it is unethical is merely subjective.

The whole medical community agrees that the fetus is alive, dont be an idiot. if it wasnt alive then there wouldnt be anything to kill, would there? The issue is not whether or not it is alive but when it becomes human, and the soundest argument for when it becomes human is at conception.

your "reasoning" is faulty.

Oh, and of course the ethicality is subjective. There will always be evil people who consider anything ethical. Yet laws still have to dictate whether or not something is legal, or ethical. These laws should be made through reason, not guesses on when a fetus becomes human.

By "alive" I am not simply meaning the strictist biological sense, such as that bacteria and viruses are alive. I mean that the medical community can not agree on when the fetus is alive in that, as you said, it is human. And since the medical professionals can not make that decision, I don't see what makes you feel so imminently qualified to do so.

Legality and Ethicality are not interchangable terms here. You claim that "there will always be evil people who consider anything ethical." But, on the inverse, there will always be people who consider anything they don't like to be unethical.

But, ethicality is not the issue. Legality is.

Sage Orator · Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 335

Mycroft147 wrote: Sage Orator wrote: I'm not sure what you would deem good. There are many different view points. I will share mine, I believe that the choice should be the woman's. I oppose any abortions past 20 weeks which only makes up about 2% of abortions. This is because at this time the fetus can be recognized as a living thing. It has a functional nervous system, all organs exist, the baby can breath, it can make conscious movements, and basically fits all of the characteristics of a living thing.

YOUR characteristics of a living thing maybe. Technically,scientifically, it is alive at conception. No, the characteristics tought by nearly every biology teacher in America. Prove to me that it is alive at conception.

Your criteria discriminates against humans who do not have all their organs, cannot breath without the help of machines,Can they breath though, yes they can. Gas exchange isn't even possible in babies before the 20 week mark. The fact that these people can use a machine to help them breath means that they are already capable of gas exchange. There is a big difference. Previous to the 20 week mark the majority of babies would not survive if they were to be born. are paralysed, or have damaged nervous systems.They have damaged ones but are they so ravaged that they cannot control any movements? Who that is paralyzed can not move at all? Also, even people who are paralyzed have the part of the brain that sends signals working while fetus' do not. 1The fetus basically has terets for about 14 weeks. According to you its ok to kill all adults with these problems. Think things through a bit before you say them.
No, I have thought this through. If you can find me a human being that is paralyzed, has no respiration, has a damaged nervous system, and is still alive then I may concede.

Coral · Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 2759 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Coral used IVF, remember, so he knows more than any of us that size does not matter, only potential life does.

Which is the one thing that really surprises me about him....

Using IVF opened my eyes to how rediculous it would be to have reproductive police meddling into every decision. We had more choices to make in our IVF journey that you could ever imagine Sailor. We spent two years making decisions on one thing or another. If anyone has put more thought than me into reproductive rights and decision-making I'd like to meet them.

No-one said anything about reproductive police. the issue at stake is the basic human right to life and the illegalization of murder.

You seem to be a one-man reproductive police promoter. Just how do you propose your world of utopic embryo rights be enforced?

Well the first obvious step is to outlaw the murder of the embryo. Just because we wont be able to regulate every pregnancy and prevent every abortion doesnt mean we should allow it to be legal. Apply the same reasoning with murder and you will come to the same conclusion.

So what happens when a woman does a back alley abortion, or attempts one. Describe the legal consequences and how the justice system enforces it all. What if she is raped? Do you wait for the court case some three years down the road to determine the next step.

Are saying the embryo has human rights? I want to find out precisely what it is you're promoting?

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

Sage Orator wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Sage Orator wrote: I'm not sure what you would deem good. There are many different view points. I will share mine, I believe that the choice should be the woman's. I oppose any abortions past 20 weeks which only makes up about 2% of abortions. This is because at this time the fetus can be recognized as a living thing. It has a functional nervous system, all organs exist, the baby can breath, it can make conscious movements, and basically fits all of the characteristics of a living thing.

YOUR characteristics of a living thing maybe. Technically,scientifically, it is alive at conception. No, the characteristics tought by nearly every biology teacher in America. Prove to me that it is alive at conception.

Your criteria discriminates against humans who do not have all their organs, cannot breath without the help of machines,Can they breath though, yes they can. Gas exchange isn't even possible in babies before the 20 week mark. The fact that these people can use a machine to help them breath means that they are already capable of gas exchange. There is a big difference. Previous to the 20 week mark the majority of babies would not survive if they were to be born. are paralysed, or have damaged nervous systems.They have damaged ones but are they so ravaged that they cannot control any movements? Who that is paralyzed can not move at all? Also, even people who are paralyzed have the part of the brain that sends signals working while fetus' do not. 1The fetus basically has terets for about 14 weeks. According to you its ok to kill all adults with these problems. Think things through a bit before you say them.
No, I have thought this through. If you can find me a human being that is paralyzed, has no respiration, has a damaged nervous system, and is still alive then I may concede.

The main point i was trying to make is that you cant take a variety of characterisitcs that develop at different times and say they constitute the beginning of a human life. And in reference to your first comment, any intelligent biology teacher would agree that the embryo is alive. A group of living, developing cells is obviously a living being, its for sure not dead. The issue is when it becomes human, not whether or not it is alive. It is obvious that the ability to move the body doesnt make one human since paralytics are human, it is obvious that having a damaged nervous system does not make one non-human, and neither does the ability to breathe. Hospital patients are not considered dead until brain dead, not when they stop breathing. Embryos also have the potential to breathe and are developing into breathing humans. They are simply on a different stage in their human development, the same as we all are.

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Coral used IVF, remember, so he knows more than any of us that size does not matter, only potential life does.

Which is the one thing that really surprises me about him....

Using IVF opened my eyes to how rediculous it would be to have reproductive police meddling into every decision. We had more choices to make in our IVF journey that you could ever imagine Sailor. We spent two years making decisions on one thing or another. If anyone has put more thought than me into reproductive rights and decision-making I'd like to meet them.

No-one said anything about reproductive police. the issue at stake is the basic human right to life and the illegalization of murder.

You seem to be a one-man reproductive police promoter. Just how do you propose your world of utopic embryo rights be enforced?

Well the first obvious step is to outlaw the murder of the embryo. Just because we wont be able to regulate every pregnancy and prevent every abortion doesnt mean we should allow it to be legal. Apply the same reasoning with murder and you will come to the same conclusion.

So what happens when a woman does a back alley abortion, or attempts one. Describe the legal consequences and how the justice system enforces it all. What if she is raped? Do you wait for the court case some three years down the road to determine the next step.

Are saying the embryo has human rights? I want to find out precisely what it is you're promoting?

When a woman kills her baby it will be considered murder and will be tried as such. When an incident is discovered, legal repercussions will happen, same as every other crime. Rape has nothing to do with the embryos right to life. this whole time ive been saying that the embryo is a living human and is entitled to the first human right to life. does that answer your questiions?

Coral · Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 2759 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Coral used IVF, remember, so he knows more than any of us that size does not matter, only potential life does.

Which is the one thing that really surprises me about him....

Using IVF opened my eyes to how rediculous it would be to have reproductive police meddling into every decision. We had more choices to make in our IVF journey that you could ever imagine Sailor. We spent two years making decisions on one thing or another. If anyone has put more thought than me into reproductive rights and decision-making I'd like to meet them.

No-one said anything about reproductive police. the issue at stake is the basic human right to life and the illegalization of murder.

You seem to be a one-man reproductive police promoter. Just how do you propose your world of utopic embryo rights be enforced?

Well the first obvious step is to outlaw the murder of the embryo. Just because we wont be able to regulate every pregnancy and prevent every abortion doesnt mean we should allow it to be legal. Apply the same reasoning with murder and you will come to the same conclusion.

So what happens when a woman does a back alley abortion, or attempts one. Describe the legal consequences and how the justice system enforces it all. What if she is raped? Do you wait for the court case some three years down the road to determine the next step.

Are saying the embryo has human rights? I want to find out precisely what it is you're promoting?

When a woman kills her baby it will be considered murder and will be tried as such. When an incident is discovered, legal repercussions will happen, same as every other crime. Rape has nothing to do with the embryos right to life. this whole time ive been saying that the embryo is a living human and is entitled to the first human right to life. does that answer your questiions?

I got a lot of answers. One being that you have no interest in doing research.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Well, I dont think that murder is quite right, but child endangerment or something would be more like it.

Fetuses cant have rights or else women would be prosecuted for miscarriages and stillbirths... but prosecuting the killing of fetuses through abortion could be prosecuted. I do not find it fair to use "murder" or any other capitally punishable charge as being accurate, however-

I DO think that the person who actually performs the abortion, be it the woman or another individual should be charged with a capital offense. Theres not always an easy way to prove that someone coerced or threatened you into it, but to charge the people who actually fulfill the request- the abortionists- is the best solution I can find. That can even be aggravated battery or "fetal homicide", similar to a punishment equal to, say... assault with a deadly weapon? Or that could be the charge.. but the woman shouldnt get more than child endangerment, due to the coercive and threatening preabortion events that are often difficult to prove.

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Coral used IVF, remember, so he knows more than any of us that size does not matter, only potential life does.

Which is the one thing that really surprises me about him....

Using IVF opened my eyes to how rediculous it would be to have reproductive police meddling into every decision. We had more choices to make in our IVF journey that you could ever imagine Sailor. We spent two years making decisions on one thing or another. If anyone has put more thought than me into reproductive rights and decision-making I'd like to meet them.

No-one said anything about reproductive police. the issue at stake is the basic human right to life and the illegalization of murder.

You seem to be a one-man reproductive police promoter. Just how do you propose your world of utopic embryo rights be enforced?

Well the first obvious step is to outlaw the murder of the embryo. Just because we wont be able to regulate every pregnancy and prevent every abortion doesnt mean we should allow it to be legal. Apply the same reasoning with murder and you will come to the same conclusion.

So what happens when a woman does a back alley abortion, or attempts one. Describe the legal consequences and how the justice system enforces it all. What if she is raped? Do you wait for the court case some three years down the road to determine the next step.

Are saying the embryo has human rights? I want to find out precisely what it is you're promoting?

When a woman kills her baby it will be considered murder and will be tried as such. When an incident is discovered, legal repercussions will happen, same as every other crime. Rape has nothing to do with the embryos right to life. this whole time ive been saying that the embryo is a living human and is entitled to the first human right to life. does that answer your questiions?

I got a lot of answers. One being that you have no interest in doing research.

I cant research something that doesnt exist. Abortion is stil llegal if you didnt know. Obviously if it was illegal then it would be treated as a crime like it used to be. I dont understand what you want me to research or why youve gone so far off the topic.

Coral · Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 2759 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Coral used IVF, remember, so he knows more than any of us that size does not matter, only potential life does.

Which is the one thing that really surprises me about him....

Using IVF opened my eyes to how rediculous it would be to have reproductive police meddling into every decision. We had more choices to make in our IVF journey that you could ever imagine Sailor. We spent two years making decisions on one thing or another. If anyone has put more thought than me into reproductive rights and decision-making I'd like to meet them.

No-one said anything about reproductive police. the issue at stake is the basic human right to life and the illegalization of murder.

You seem to be a one-man reproductive police promoter. Just how do you propose your world of utopic embryo rights be enforced?

Well the first obvious step is to outlaw the murder of the embryo. Just because we wont be able to regulate every pregnancy and prevent every abortion doesnt mean we should allow it to be legal. Apply the same reasoning with murder and you will come to the same conclusion.

So what happens when a woman does a back alley abortion, or attempts one. Describe the legal consequences and how the justice system enforces it all. What if she is raped? Do you wait for the court case some three years down the road to determine the next step.

Are saying the embryo has human rights? I want to find out precisely what it is you're promoting?

When a woman kills her baby it will be considered murder and will be tried as such. When an incident is discovered, legal repercussions will happen, same as every other crime. Rape has nothing to do with the embryos right to life. this whole time ive been saying that the embryo is a living human and is entitled to the first human right to life. does that answer your questiions?

I got a lot of answers. One being that you have no interest in doing research.

I cant research something that doesnt exist. Abortion is stil llegal if you didnt know. Obviously if it was illegal then it would be treated as a crime like it used to be. I dont understand what you want me to research or why youve gone so far off the topic.

I thought you were writing a paper? Why did you arrive here pretending you wanted information when in fact all you want to do is promote female slavery?

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

Sailor Moon wrote: Well, I dont think that murder is quite right, but child endangerment or something would be more like it.

Fetuses cant have rights or else women would be prosecuted for miscarriages and stillbirths... but prosecuting the killing of fetuses through abortion could be prosecuted. I do not find it fair to use "murder" or any other capitally punishable charge as being accurate, however-

I DO think that the person who actually performs the abortion, be it the woman or another individual should be charged with a capital offense. Theres not always an easy way to prove that someone coerced or threatened you into it, but to charge the people who actually fulfill the request- the abortionists- is the best solution I can find. That can even be aggravated battery or "fetal homicide", similar to a punishment equal to, say... assault with a deadly weapon? Or that could be the charge.. but the woman shouldnt get more than child endangerment, due to the coercive and threatening preabortion events that are often difficult to prove.

Why would child endangerment be a better term than murder for the killing of your child? Of course a miscarriage would not be consodered murder, it is a natural occurence and unless evidence shows otherwise it is unintended and natural, not murder. The mother and the abortionist are guilty, technically the abortionist would be guilty of murder. Someone who payed an assassin to kill someone else would be something like the role that the mother would be guilty of, and she should suffer the same consequences.

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

im going to stop our deadly cycle of quotes and quote just this:

I thought you were writing a paper? Why did you arrive here pretending you wanted information when in fact all you want to do is promote female slavery?

As a matter of fact i am writing a paper, if you reaaally want then i can post the whole thing on here...if your gonna be that picky. Im pretty sure i havent said anything about promoting female slavery, thats just your twisted definition of pregnancy.

Coral · Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 2759 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

Mycroft147 wrote: im going to stop our deadly cycle of quotes and quote just this:

I thought you were writing a paper? Why did you arrive here pretending you wanted information when in fact all you want to do is promote female slavery?

As a matter of fact i am writing a paper, if you reaaally want then i can post the whole thing on here...if your gonna be that picky. Im pretty sure i havent said anything about promoting female slavery, thats just your twisted definition of pregnancy.

You promote the incarceration of women for their reproductive choices. I think people who attempt to legislate this sort of nonsense should be strung up by their reproductive organs. They would be in my house, legal or illegal.

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: im going to stop our deadly cycle of quotes and quote just this:

I thought you were writing a paper? Why did you arrive here pretending you wanted information when in fact all you want to do is promote female slavery?

As a matter of fact i am writing a paper, if you reaaally want then i can post the whole thing on here...if your gonna be that picky. Im pretty sure i havent said anything about promoting female slavery, thats just your twisted definition of pregnancy.

You promote the incarceration of women for their reproductive choices. I think people who attempt to legislate this sort of nonsense should be strung up by their reproductive organs. They would be in my house, legal or illegal.

I promote the incarceration of women for murder. You fail to bring up any logical arguments why it wouldnt be murder, all you do is twist my meanings with different terms. Say something new and relevant. Do you think everyone who has tried to make murder illegal should be subjected to your stringing?

Coral · Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 2759 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: im going to stop our deadly cycle of quotes and quote just this:

I thought you were writing a paper? Why did you arrive here pretending you wanted information when in fact all you want to do is promote female slavery?

As a matter of fact i am writing a paper, if you reaaally want then i can post the whole thing on here...if your gonna be that picky. Im pretty sure i havent said anything about promoting female slavery, thats just your twisted definition of pregnancy.

You promote the incarceration of women for their reproductive choices. I think people who attempt to legislate this sort of nonsense should be strung up by their reproductive organs. They would be in my house, legal or illegal.

I promote the incarceration of women for murder. You fail to bring up any logical arguments why it wouldnt be murder, all you do is twist my meanings with different terms. Say something new and relevant. Do you think everyone who has tried to make murder illegal should be subjected to your stringing?

Get back to your paper kid. Nothing worse than listening to snot-nosed naivety.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:17 pm Post subject:

Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: im going to stop our deadly cycle of quotes and quote just this:

I thought you were writing a paper? Why did you arrive here pretending you wanted information when in fact all you want to do is promote female slavery?

As a matter of fact i am writing a paper, if you reaaally want then i can post the whole thing on here...if your gonna be that picky. Im pretty sure i havent said anything about promoting female slavery, thats just your twisted definition of pregnancy.

You promote the incarceration of women for their reproductive choices. I think people who attempt to legislate this sort of nonsense should be strung up by their reproductive organs. They would be in my house, legal or illegal.

I promote the incarceration of women for murder. You fail to bring up any logical arguments why it wouldnt be murder, all you do is twist my meanings with different terms. Say something new and relevant. Do you think everyone who has tried to make murder illegal should be subjected to your stringing?

I see. Yes you are one of those who rely on the shift of the burden of proof for their stance on abortion. Suppose you woke up one day, and your rights were gone. Would you not ask, “Why are my rights gone?” or would you say “Well, it is my place to tell you why I should keep my rights.”

You would say the former, because a person wants justification for the loss of their bodily autonomy. So provide this justification Mycroft.