Political Crossfire Forums

[Lowro8d6]

aLienaTeD wrote: Lowro8d6 wrote: I have never made a firm stance on abortion because i like to play devils advocate and argue both ways. But do you think if a person is pro-life than that person should not masturbate because whenever a person gets a playboy and a tissue he is in fact killing life?

Ive heard this argument once and just want to know what you people think...

I think its mass genocide! lol :shock: jk
Your logic is just as amazing as your use of grammar. :roll:

Ah, I love that "you people" s**t. Shall we see how far we can go by grouping individuals you disagree with into some stereotypical collective that exists only in your mind?

Now, can we return to why we are discussing the topic of abortion in the first place? It is not simply 'life' that makes abortion an issue, but human life; more specifically, the potential of human beings to become persons and the use of coercion by others to prevent that from happening.

I am just relaying information that was being argued on a talk radio show... I don't care for my grammar when iam writing something on a internet forum. Im not writing a paper for college. What would be the point? To show you that i am exceptionally intelligent? I dont care

Anyway, someone could certainly make the case that the beginning of life is in sperm, am i right? After all without sperm there would be no baby. I dont know for sure if this is right or wrong im just opening it up for debate.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: Finally after millions and millions and millions of your sperm brethren get sent to the big ovary in the sky, you, the exceptional one finally get to bond with that egg, only to find that the people who created you don't want you anymore. That is murder. How ignorant. Murder is the illegal killing of a person. All your sophistry and revisionist linguistic hyperbole won't change this.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: So...how exactly does bonding with an egg make it "murder" to kill it? It is now a full human being. It will be 9 months before it obtain sufficient individuality to become a "being."

Quote: Besides in each ejaculation there are roughly 400 million sperm. If one of those does happen to be strong enough or "man" enough to make it to the egg than it must deserve to live. Why?

Quote: Fits Darwin's theory of natural selection. Nope. You are mistaken about Natural Selection.

And Darwin proposed a Scientific Hypothesis, not a theory.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: No it is not beside the point. Pro-abortionists ... Who are they? You are not making false claims here or trying to start a name-calling war, are you? Feel free to retract your false claim to avoid this.

Quote: would make the point that if you believe a zygote or recently conceived child Zygote is correct, but there is no such thing as a "recently conceived child."

That is hyperbole, that is dishonest, revisionist linguistics.

Quote: is actually a child Which it isn't.

Quote: and killing it would be murder, Murder remains the illegal killing of a person. The only thing such a belief shows is extreme ignorance and a proclivity for deception.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: No actually I haven't. Before conception both the eggs and the sperm will die if they don't bond. Not every ejaculation inside a woman results in pregnancy, so you can see the insurmountable odds each sperm suffers. One finally does make it, meaning "he" beat out 399,999,999 other sperm. That one aparantly is special, aparantley he was destined to go on, at least until someone blithley and through an unnatural means kills it. Utter nonsense. Star Wars aside, there is no evidence for a "destiny," and 65-75% of all zygotes fail to implant, and their 'destiny" is to be food for sewer rats or bacteria.

Quote: And besides neither a sperm nor an egg by themselves are a complete human, once they bond though they do create a complete human, What do you mean with that vague term?

Quote: and I have a problem with killing it. Then don't have an abortion.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: It is my belief that every single human on the planet has a purpose, whether or not they fullfill that purpose is up to them, not another person. I don't share your belief. Please provide evidence for this "destiny" and of why this gives you the right to oppress and enslave women.

Quote: Besides after conception what is there is no longer just a bunch of cells, it is now a living being, The zygote lacks individuality enough to be a "being." It is no more a "being" than is your kidney or one of your hair.

Quote: and we have no right to cut that off prematurely, unless it is to save the life of the mother. Sure we do.

[steen]

aLienaTeD wrote: Now, can we return to why we are discussing the topic of abortion in the first place? It is not simply 'life' that makes abortion an issue, but human life; more specifically, the potential of human beings to become persons and the use of coercion by others to prevent that from happening. Rather, the issue is that of coercion to enslave and control the woman.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: But they are not controling only their own body, they are controlling the body of a child as well, a child they created. Not until birth, when there actually is a child. You can drop your revisionist linguistic hyperbole; it merely gives the impression of you as being dishonest and deceptive.

Quote: This thing about people shouldn't force their morals on other people is really grating. Then don't do it. Don't try to enslave women.

Quote: I believe an unborn child is a person, and noone has a right to take that persons life. More ignorance, as "person" doesn't apply to the unborn. This is very consistent throughout US law.

And no, "child" is still a developmental stage hat begins AFTER birth.

Quote: Tell me, at what point does it become unnacceptable to abort? 5 months? 6 months? 15 minutes before it comes out of the mothers body? When the treating physician deems it so. It is a medical decision, and you or politicians have no business going there.

[Æ]

steen wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Now, can we return to why we are discussing the topic of abortion in the first place? It is not simply 'life' that makes abortion an issue, but human life; more specifically, the potential of human beings to become persons and the use of coercion by others to prevent that from happening. Rather, the issue is that of coercion to enslave and control the woman.
Who is coercing who? The 'pro-lifers' are certainly not coercing the 'pro-choicers'. Really, the only coercion being done is that of the mother coercing the child to die.

We are looking for truth. The truth is reality and it is philosophical analysis that leads us to it. So long as everything in that analysis is known to be unquestionably true, the links of that analysis form the path that leads us to the truth.

[LostSoul3412]

aLienaTeD wrote: Who is coercing who? The 'pro-lifers' are certainly not coercing the 'pro-choicers'. Really, the only coercion being done is that of the mother coercing the child to die.

Actually, for it to be considered a child, a sense of individually must be formed. (Thanks steen for bringing that up, I'd been looking for a way to define life, but it seems like you beat me to the punch) For example, in my opinion, a life is defined by a free thinking organism. (And despite what others may think, I believe that animals think just as humans do)What you are deeming a "child" is actually the potential for a child. If you are going to argue that a mother is taking away to potential for her child, then you would also have to say that masturbation is murder because it takes away the potential to have children. Potential for life, and life itself are two different things.

aLienaTeD wrote: We are looking for truth. The truth is reality and it is philosophical analysis that leads us to it. So long as everything in that analysis is known to be unquestionably true, the links of that analysis form the path that leads us to the truth.

Big words, but really no backing... or meaning. All that you said was that you are going to find the truth by creating a path of truths to the higher truth. Yet, this argument is entirely moral. There is no ultimate truth as to what a life is or isn't, it's all personal opinion. So while you argue that having an abortion is murder, I would say that it is only killing the potential child, just like masturbation.

But what the real issue I have is the idea of putting those morals into a general law. Morals and laws should never mix (and if you say that's impossible, then become an Anarchist and help to fix the problem). There is no right for anyone to tell another individual how to think, act, or feel. An abortion is a mother's choice, not a concerned citizen's.

[alclarkey]

steen wrote: alclarkey wrote: But they are not controling only their own body, they are controlling the body of a child as well, a child they created. Not until birth, when there actually is a child. You can drop your revisionist linguistic hyperbole; it merely gives the impression of you as being dishonest and deceptive.

Quote: This thing about people shouldn't force their morals on other people is really grating. Then don't do it. Don't try to enslave women.

Quote: I believe an unborn child is a person, and noone has a right to take that persons life. More ignorance, as "person" doesn't apply to the unborn. This is very consistent throughout US law.

And no, "child" is still a developmental stage hat begins AFTER birth.

Quote: Tell me, at what point does it become unnacceptable to abort? 5 months? 6 months? 15 minutes before it comes out of the mothers body? When the treating physician deems it so. It is a medical decision, and you or politicians have no business going there.

I challenge you to just once, pull baby from its mothers womb at 20 weeks. I challenege you to look at it's little hands and it's little feet, and it's little eyes and it's little heart. And then I challenge you to drive a knife through it's heart, to hear the skin break, and the bones crunch, and to watch it curl up and writhe in pain until it dies. Don't rely on some doctor, you do it yourself. It shouldn't be too diffucult right? I mean it isn't person yet is it?

PS You can have doctor remove it from your womb, but you have to strike the killing blow.

[The Grandmaster]

aLienaTeD wrote: steen wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Now, can we return to why we are discussing the topic of abortion in the first place? It is not simply 'life' that makes abortion an issue, but human life; more specifically, the potential of human beings to become persons and the use of coercion by others to prevent that from happening. Rather, the issue is that of coercion to enslave and control the woman.
Who is coercing who? The 'pro-lifers' are certainly not coercing the 'pro-choicers'. Really, the only coercion being done is that of the mother coercing the child to die.

I’m not so sure this is entirely true. The bombing of many abortion clinics by anti-choicers may very well be considered an act of coercion by any sense of the definition, as well as the sometimes overwhelming social stigma placed on those having received abortions by the anti-choicers. Furthermore, that there is a child in question is assuming the very thing anti-choicers are trying to prove, and is not a settled matter, even by science.

aLienaTeD wrote: We are looking for truth. The truth is reality and it is philosophical analysis that leads us to it. So long as everything in that analysis is known to be unquestionably true, the links of that analysis form the path that leads us to the truth.

Indeed, so long as a set of premises are proven true and thus become axioms, and entail a conclusion, the conclusion must also be true. Basic formal logic. However, the problem is, the agreement upon which premises are unquestionably true, and in this case, those used by the pro-life crown have not been proven unquestionably.

[alclarkey]

The Grandmaster wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: steen wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Now, can we return to why we are discussing the topic of abortion in the first place? It is not simply 'life' that makes abortion an issue, but human life; more specifically, the potential of human beings to become persons and the use of coercion by others to prevent that from happening. Rather, the issue is that of coercion to enslave and control the woman.
Who is coercing who? The 'pro-lifers' are certainly not coercing the 'pro-choicers'. Really, the only coercion being done is that of the mother coercing the child to die.

I’m not so sure this is entirely true. The bombing of many abortion clinics by anti-choicers may very well be considered an act of coercion by any sense of the definition, as well as the sometimes overwhelming social stigma placed on those having received abortions by the anti-choicers. Furthermore, that there is a child in question is assuming the very thing anti-choicers are trying to prove, and is not a settled matter, even by science.

aLienaTeD wrote: We are looking for truth. The truth is reality and it is philosophical analysis that leads us to it. So long as everything in that analysis is known to be unquestionably true, the links of that analysis form the path that leads us to the truth.

Indeed, so long as a set of premises are proven true and thus become axioms, and entail a conclusion, the conclusion must also be true. Basic formal logic. However, the problem is, the agreement upon which premises are unquestionably true, and in this case, those used by the pro-life crown have not been proven unquestionably.

If they haven't been proven unquestionably, then why choose death over life?

Pro-Choicer-- Well we aren't sure if whats inside a womans womb is a child or not, so lets just kill it.

[The Grandmaster]

alclarkey wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: steen wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Now, can we return to why we are discussing the topic of abortion in the first place? It is not simply 'life' that makes abortion an issue, but human life; more specifically, the potential of human beings to become persons and the use of coercion by others to prevent that from happening. Rather, the issue is that of coercion to enslave and control the woman.
Who is coercing who? The 'pro-lifers' are certainly not coercing the 'pro-choicers'. Really, the only coercion being done is that of the mother coercing the child to die.

I’m not so sure this is entirely true. The bombing of many abortion clinics by anti-choicers may very well be considered an act of coercion by any sense of the definition, as well as the sometimes overwhelming social stigma placed on those having received abortions by the anti-choicers. Furthermore, that there is a child in question is assuming the very thing anti-choicers are trying to prove, and is not a settled matter, even by science.

aLienaTeD wrote: We are looking for truth. The truth is reality and it is philosophical analysis that leads us to it. So long as everything in that analysis is known to be unquestionably true, the links of that analysis form the path that leads us to the truth.

Indeed, so long as a set of premises are proven true and thus become axioms, and entail a conclusion, the conclusion must also be true. Basic formal logic. However, the problem is, the agreement upon which premises are unquestionably true, and in this case, those used by the pro-life crown have not been proven unquestionably.

If they haven't been proven unquestionably, then why choose death over life?

If it hasn’t been proven to be a life, there is no “death” to even be chosen in the equation. Avoiding stripping a person of the right to their body over conjecture seems a pretty good reason to me.

alclarkey wrote: Pro-Choicer-- Well we aren't sure if whats inside a womans womb is a child or not, so lets just kill it.

Anti-Choicer -- Well, even though we cannot demonstrate it is a life, we’ll deny this woman the sovereignty of her body and force to her birth by penalty of jail because we disapprove that she’s had sinful sex. We'll simply deny established rights in favor of conjectured rights.

[alclarkey]

The Grandmaster wrote: If it hasn’t been proven to be a life, there is no “death” to even be chosen in the equation. Avoiding stripping a person of the right to their body over conjecture seems a pretty good reason to me.

Of course there is a death, actions must be taken to make it stop growing, stop breathing, stop pumping blood, stop processing nutrients. It is a life in the same sense as a corn stalk is a life, being that cutting down a cornstalk is killing it. I guess I should have said "person" rather than Life. So I repeat if you are not sure it is a person why would death be your first choice as to what to with it?

The Grandmaster wrote: alclarkey wrote: Pro-Choicer-- Well we aren't sure if whats inside a womans womb is a child or not, so lets just kill it.

Anti-Choicer -- Well, even though we cannot demonstrate it is a life, we’ll deny this woman the sovereignty of her body and force to her birth by penalty of jail because we disapprove that she’s had sinful sex. We'll simply deny established rights in favor of conjectured rights.

She denied her own sovereignty when she had sex. A pro-lifer isn't about punishing sinful sex, a pro-lifer is about punishing murder. Besides I don't understand how anyone can view pregnancy as being a punishment, because if it were there would be very few women who actually try to get pregnant, but they do. They must be masochistic then, huh?

[The Grandmaster]

alclarkey wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: If it hasn’t been proven to be a life, there is no “death” to even be chosen in the equation. Avoiding stripping a person of the right to their body over conjecture seems a pretty good reason to me.

Of course there is a death, actions must be taken to make it stop growing, stop breathing, stop pumping blood, stop processing nutrients. It is a life in the same sense as a corn stalk is a life, being that cutting down a cornstalk is killing it. I guess I should have said "person" rather than Life. So I repeat if you are not sure it is a person why would death be your first choice as to what to with it?

It is not a matter of death being the first choice as to what to do with it. Anti-choicers invariably only speak of what is inside, and not what is hosting it. To them, the women does not exists in most cases, or at least in most cases. Upon pregnancy, she becomes nothing more than an amoral vessel used to carry that which is inside to term. To hell with her, they believe. Death is not my first choice as to what to do with it. It is a matter of overriding the rights of the women to her body. We know she has a right to her body with certainty, but if we do not know if something is a person, then we do not know if something has rights, and conjectured rights do not take precedence over certain rights. If you are to take away the right to govern her body, it must be for a certain reason, and not a reason derived from a ‘possibility’ that something exists.
Unfortunately for the anti-choice crowd, even if it could be shown with certainty that it is a person, a life, I do not believe this matters either. I do not believe there is such a thing as “A right to live inside the body of another.”

alclarkey wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: alclarkey wrote: Pro-Choicer-- Well we aren't sure if whats inside a womans womb is a child or not, so lets just kill it.

Anti-Choicer -- Well, even though we cannot demonstrate it is a life, we’ll deny this woman the sovereignty of her body and force to her birth by penalty of jail because we disapprove that she’s had sinful sex. We'll simply deny established rights in favor of conjectured rights.

She denied her own sovereignty when she had sex.

Fascinating. If it were true that the act of sex entailed the loss of a right to determine how ones body processes were used, then after a woman had sex, we could from this point on force her to give blood, donate organs, or do anything to her body we wished, for remember, she no longer has a right to body sovereignty. Since we do not regard this as right, we do not regard a person as losing body sovereignty merely by having sex.

Rights are only taken away when one person harms another in some way. Since consensual sex harms no one, it does not by it’s very nature result in the loss of any rights.

alclarkey wrote: A pro-lifer isn't about punishing sinful sex,

Your own allies who claim again and again that legal abortion is bad because it allows for people to have free sex works against your claim here.

alclarkey wrote: a pro-lifer is about punishing murder.

A pro-lifer is about punishing an act that up to a point, he cannot show to exist.

alclarkey wrote: Besides I don't understand how anyone can view pregnancy as being a punishment, \

Let me see. The loss of freedom, horrible financial hardships, the possibility of a screaming kid around you for years, intense pain, ruined school career, interrupted professional career, and a badly damaged body that will never return to normal are a few things that come to mind. For those that do not want this, this is a punishment worse than death.

alclarkey wrote: because if it were there would be very few women who actually try to get pregnant, but they do. They must be masochistic then, huh?

I believe they are, yes. To me, the thought of bearing and raising a child is something I would gladly die before enduring, even if I were a women. For those that do not want this, it is a terrible thing. For those that do, and are ready, good for them.

[alclarkey]

The Grandmaster wrote: alclarkey wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: If it hasn’t been proven to be a life, there is no “death” to even be chosen in the equation. Avoiding stripping a person of the right to their body over conjecture seems a pretty good reason to me.

Of course there is a death, actions must be taken to make it stop growing, stop breathing, stop pumping blood, stop processing nutrients. It is a life in the same sense as a corn stalk is a life, being that cutting down a cornstalk is killing it. I guess I should have said "person" rather than Life. So I repeat if you are not sure it is a person why would death be your first choice as to what to with it?

It is not a matter of death being the first choice as to what to do with it. Anti-choicers invariably only speak of what is inside, and not what is hosting it. To them, the women does not exists in most cases, or at least in most cases. Upon pregnancy, she becomes nothing more than an amoral vessel used to carry that which is inside to term. To hell with her, they believe. Death is not my first choice as to what to do with it. It is a matter of overriding the rights of the women to her body. We know she has a right to her body with certainty, but if we do not know if something is a person, then we do not know if something has rights, and conjectured rights do not take precedence over certain rights. If you are to take away the right to govern her body, it must be for a certain reason, and not a reason derived from a ‘possibility’ that something exists.
Unfortunately for the anti-choice crowd, even if it could be shown with certainty that it is a person, a life, I do not believe this matters either. I do not believe there is such a thing as “A right to live inside the body of another.”
While a woman has the choice of whether or not to have sex, the unborn do not, they must live inside a uterus, or they will not live. And they are not there by choice either. However, if one could and would to ask a fetus whether or not it wanted die to so its mother could retain the rights to her body, as well as her convenience, what do you think it's answer would be?

The Grandmaster wrote: alclarkey wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: alclarkey wrote: Pro-Choicer-- Well we aren't sure if whats inside a womans womb is a child or not, so lets just kill it.

Anti-Choicer -- Well, even though we cannot demonstrate it is a life, we’ll deny this woman the sovereignty of her body and force to her birth by penalty of jail because we disapprove that she’s had sinful sex. We'll simply deny established rights in favor of conjectured rights.

She denied her own sovereignty when she had sex.

Fascinating. If it were true that the act of sex entailed the loss of a right to determine how ones body processes were used, then after a woman had sex, we could from this point on force her to give blood, donate organs, or do anything to her body we wished, for remember, she no longer has a right to body sovereignty. Since we do not regard this as right, we do not regard a person as losing body sovereignty merely by having sex.
If you want to take it that far, then I suppose you are right. However pro-lifers only care about the processes involved in nurturing the unborn.

So I'll revise my statement. She denied the right to the bodily processes that nurture the unborn when she had sex.

The Grandmaster wrote: Rights are only taken away when one person harms another in some way. Since consensual sex harms no one, it does not by it’s very nature result in the loss of any rights.
In a way consexual sex does harm someone. By having sex and creating a baby you have forced that thing to exist, that would not have existed had you not had sex. You have forced a being to be dependent on another persons bodily functions to continue existing.

The Grandmaster wrote: alclarkey wrote: A pro-lifer isn't about punishing sinful sex,

Your own allies who claim again and again that legal abortion is bad because it allows for people to have free sex works against your claim here.
If I can convince anyone that abortion is wrong without resorting this "free sex is bad" argument, then the fact that they have said that is irrelevant. Besides they are who they are, and I am who I am.

The Grandmaster wrote: alclarkey wrote: a pro-lifer is about punishing murder.

A pro-lifer is about punishing an act that up to a point, he cannot show to exist.
I don't quite follow. It looks like you are saying we are out to punish sex, but we can't prove that sex exists? I'm not being flippant, I just need clarification.

The Grandmaster wrote: alclarkey wrote: Besides I don't understand how anyone can view pregnancy as being a punishment,

Let me see. The loss of freedom,
More than made up for with joys of watching them grow/

The Grandmaster wrote: horrible financial hardships,
One can support a child on roughly $4000 a year, not that much considering that the average household income is about $38,000 a year.

The Grandmaster wrote: the possibility of a screaming kid around you for years,
With proper parenting tecniques one can have a well-ajusted child.

The Grandmaster wrote: intense pain,
Abortions can be quite painful too.

The Grandmaster wrote: ruined school career,
My sister is still in school...

The Grandmaster wrote: interrupted professional career,
There are plenty of women who have children and still have vibrant careers.

The Grandmaster wrote: and a badly damaged body that will never return to normal are a few things that come to mind. For those that do not want this, this is a punishment worse than death.
There aren't very many women who go through all this stuff you mentioned who would say they would have rather had an abortion, once they have seen their child grow, even the ones who considered it.

And finally one can avoid the loss of freedom, financial hardship, screaming baby etc. by simply putting a child up for adoption.

The Grandmaster wrote: alclarkey wrote: because if it were there would be very few women who actually try to get pregnant, but they do. They must be masochistic then, huh?

I believe they are, yes. To me, the thought of bearing and raising a child is something I would gladly die before enduring, even if I were a women. For those that do not want this, it is a terrible thing. For those that do, and are ready, good for them.
For starters I notice from your profile that you are male, meaning you are not phsycologically, or physiologically prepared to bear a child, that might be one explanation as to why the thought is abhorrent to you. Women on the other hand are prepared for it. And if a woman really didn't feel ready, she should abstain from having sex, or at least have her lover wear a condom or have had a vasectomy, there really is no good justification for having an abortion.

[steen]

aLienaTeD wrote: Who is coercing who? The 'pro-lifers' are certainly not coercing the 'pro-choicers'. Really, the only coercion being done is that of the mother coercing the child to die. pro-life falsehoods. Pro-life want to coerce wo,en to give birth against their will.

(OH, and by the way, there is no child until birth, your deceptive, revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding).

Quote: We are looking for truth. Given that so many pro-life claims are based on falsehoods, that seems an odd statement.

Quote: The truth is reality and it is philosophical analysis that leads us to it. Ah, so THAT is what you call pro-life sophistry today?

Quote: So long as everything in that analysis is known to be unquestionably true, the links of that analysis form the path that leads us to the truth. Ah, lets try:

Ted can't fly.
A rock can't fly.

See, both statements are true, so therefore it leads to the conclusion that Ted is a rock. Pro-life-type sophist at its best.

No philosophical sophistry doesn't lead us anywhere but to whatever way you can justify your preconceived notions.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: I challenge you to just once, pull baby from its mothers womb at 20 weeks. Still not a baby. Your claim is still deceptive and false. It is called a FETUS! Perhaps you have heard about it? pro-life ignorance is staggering.

Quote: I challenege you to look at it's little hands and it's little feet, Shaped tissue. So what?

Quote: and it's little eyes Well, the eyelids would likely be closed by then. But then, the eyes aren't functioning till later anyway. Whopetidoo.

Quote: and it's little heart. Automatic muscle-contracting tissue. So what?

Quote: And then I challenge you to drive a knife through it's heart, to hear the skin break, and the bones crunch, and to watch it curl up and writhe in pain until it dies. There is not even the physical possibility for feeling pain until 6 weeks later, and then it seems that it takes another 5-6 weeks before the brain's cortex then can actually perceive stimuli as pain.

So we are back to pro-life lying hyperbole. Do you honestly thing that such lying, emotional histrionics has any impact other than further confirming how truly dishonest that pro-lifers are?

Quote: Don't rely on some doctor, you do it yourself. It shouldn't be too diffucult right? I mean it isn't person yet is it? More emotional histrionics. And, of course, as 88% of abortions are done in 1st trimester, it is just ever so more pro-life sensationalism and deception. You are really a piece of work. Not a lick of factual knowledge anywhere in your posts, all hype and emotional chest beating and yammering. :lm:

Quote: PS You can have doctor remove it from your womb, but you have to strike the killing blow. Yadda, yadda. The little fantasy scenario of your overheated imagination has only relevance to you.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: If it hasn’t been proven to be a life, there is no “death" to even be chosen in the equation. Avoiding stripping a person of the right to their body over conjecture seems a pretty good reason to me. Of course there is a death, actions must be taken to make it stop growing, stop breathing, stop pumping blood, stop processing nutrients. It is a life in the same sense as a corn stalk is a life, being that cutting down a cornstalk is killing it. Nothing more, yes.

Quote: I guess I should have said "person" rather than Life. There is no person until birth.

Quote: So I repeat if you are not sure it is a person why would death be your first choice as to what to with it? We know it is not a person. And we KNOW that the woman is a person. So that point still stands, of pro-lifers wanting to remove the woman's established rights for made-up rights of an embryo with mere potential for personhood.

Quote: She denied her own sovereignty when she had sex. That would be the same as saying that smokers denied their own sovereignty when they smoked, and that therefore lung cancer surgery should be illegal. It is nonsense, but IS evidence that pro-lifers are more about pro-FAULT, about moral condemnation, about using pregnancy as punishment for the woman not living up to your ideas of what is moral. It clearly shows the desire of pro-lifers to oppress and control women, punishing them for not "behaving." Disgusting demonstration of misogyny.

Quote: A pro-lifer isn't about punishing sinful sex, Baloney. You just showed how it was about her being at fault. Speaking out of both sides of the mouth today, aren't you! :roll:

Quote: a pro-lifer is about punishing murder. Murder is the illegal killing of a person, and thus has no bearing on abortions.

Oh, I forgot. pro-lifers can't argue unless they engage in emotional histrionics and deceptive, revisionist linguistic hyperbole. That is right, your argument is so weak on its merits that you MUST engage in such lame deceptions.

Quote: Besides I don't understand how anyone can view pregnancy as being a punishment, If they don't want to be pregnant, then forcing them to remain pregnant is very much a punishment, an enslavement.

Quote: because if it were there would be very few women who actually try to get pregnant, but they do. They must be masochistic then, huh? Friggin' lame. Grow up! :roll: