Political Crossfire Forums

Green

Brave New World, anyother anti-Utopian liteature, must I go on.

If abortion is necessary, then we are living in these books. We are living in a society that relies on death for existance. Where death is necesary for survival? We are living in a world full of euphemisims, and lies. Are we living in a world where there is no freedom of thought? Are we living in Hitler's dream world?

Is this the world we should live in? :td: Creepy eh? The books have come to life.

Pannic. This is a relevent thought.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Ya but you see if we have to control our behavior that means I have to be responsible, and well sorry wed rather just abort it. Afterall its just a clump of cells not a human life, right?

The Grandmaster · Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject:

AllAmericanMan wrote: Ya but you see if we have to control our behavior that means I have to be responsible, and well sorry wed rather just abort it. Afterall its just a clump of cells not a human life, right?

Good AMM, I see you're finally starting to come around.

Green · Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm Post subject:

Responsibility is a price we bust pay for freedom, acording to anti-utopian literature.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

freedom is the right to do the morally goodt thing. Respnsibility flows from that.

Zybthranger314 · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 29

Green wrote: We are living in a society that relies on death for existance. Where death is necesary for survival? We are living in a world full of euphemisims, and lies. Are we living in a world where there is no freedom of thought? Are we living in Hitler's dream world?

Death? Yes, death is required for existance and survival. That's just the way the world works.

Lies? They're everywhere and ingrained into society. Oh darn.

Freedom of thought? We still have that.

Hitler's dream? Don't know enought to say anything on that.

Just try to imagine existence without death. It doesn't work. Death is required. And because it's required, we try to spread it around fairly. Death of old people. Death of young people in war. Death of unborn cell collections. Spread it out.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

death is for the old who have lived a full life not for the young.

Green · Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:49 pm Post subject:

I think everybody is missing the point. What I am saying is that if abortion is trully necessary, these books have come to life. Death is necessary to keep society spinning.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5140 Location: Boston, MA

Green wrote: I think everybody is missing the point. What I am saying is that if abortion is trully necessary, these books have come to life. Death is necessary to keep society spinning.

You could not be more right and an example of HOW right you are is the concious political choice by the 1970s proABORTION groups to change the name of the terminonlogy and the conversation to PROCHOICE. This was perhaps the single most effective real example of Orwellian Newspeak in the past 50 years. To this day most pro-abortion/choice people talk only about the freedom of CHOICE and can not or will not face EXACTLY what the CHOICE is. In fact almost all of them will claim NOT to support abortion but only the CHOICE for abortion. It is an amazing example of mass self rationalization.

The dogmatic position is that CHOICE, whatever its results is supreme even when it obviously destroys a life, the self has been raised above all other beings.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Gilbert1908 wrote: Green wrote: I think everybody is missing the point. What I am saying is that if abortion is trully necessary, these books have come to life. Death is necessary to keep society spinning.

You could not be more right and an example of HOW right you are is the concious political choice by the 1970s proABORTION groups to change the name of the terminonlogy and the conversation to PROCHOICE. This was perhaps the single most effective real example of Orwellian Newspeak in the past 50 years. To this day most pro-abortion/choice people talk only about the freedom of CHOICE and can not or will not face EXACTLY what the CHOICE is. In fact almost all of them will claim NOT to support abortion but only the CHOICE for abortion. It is an amazing example of mass self rationalization.

The dogmatic position is that CHOICE, whatever its results is supreme even when it obviously destroys a life, the self has been raised above all other beings.

:clap:

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

read GODLESS by ann coulter and read chapter 4 i thin about abortion. its fun to read.

cup2006Sens · Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 208

Green wrote: Brave New World, anyother anti-Utopian liteature, must I go on.

If abortion is necessary, then we are living in these books. We are living in a society that relies on death for existance. Where death is necesary for survival? We are living in a world full of euphemisims, and lies. Are we living in a world where there is no freedom of thought? Are we living in Hitler's dream world?

Is this the world we should live in? :td: Creepy eh? The books have come to life.

Pannic. This is a relevent thought.

Hitler actually banned abortions as soon as he came to power, as did Stalin. Mentioned for historical truth and for no other reason.

cup2006Sens · Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 208

Green wrote: I think everybody is missing the point. What I am saying is that if abortion is trully necessary, these books have come to life. Death is necessary to keep society spinning.

Abortion is thousands of years old. So it isn't like we just suddenly started having abortions in the last lew decades or something.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

cup2006Sens wrote: Green wrote: I think everybody is missing the point. What I am saying is that if abortion is trully necessary, these books have come to life. Death is necessary to keep society spinning.

Abortion is thousands of years old. So it isn't like we just suddenly started having abortions in the last lew decades or something.

So is violence. Its not like man just started being stupid in the past couple decades or something.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

cup2006Sens wrote: Green wrote: Brave New World, anyother anti-Utopian liteature, must I go on.

If abortion is necessary, then we are living in these books. We are living in a society that relies on death for existance. Where death is necesary for survival? We are living in a world full of euphemisims, and lies. Are we living in a world where there is no freedom of thought? Are we living in Hitler's dream world?

Is this the world we should live in? :td: Creepy eh? The books have come to life.

Pannic. This is a relevent thought.

Hitler actually banned abortions as soon as he came to power, as did Stalin. Mentioned for historical truth and for no other reason.

Hitler and Stalin had no real respect for human life. Mentioned for historical fact and for no other reason. Hitler was also a vegetarian. Oh, and they both had mothers.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:26 am Post subject:

Green wrote: I think everybody is missing the point. What I am saying is that if abortion is trully necessary, these books have come to life. Death is necessary to keep society spinning.

Well, if all of a sudden everyone stopped dying, society would probably stop spinning.

Every few decades we have a war for the "sake of the free world," and the deaths of our soldiers keep society spinning.

Every life ends in death. Your arguments are nonsensical because you seem to claim that society can function in some other way. Societies, from the first to the most recent, are built on corpses. Is that morally right? Maybe not. But don't try to pretend it's a novel phenomenon.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:30 am Post subject:

Plodder wrote: read GODLESS by ann coulter and read chapter 4 i thin about abortion. its fun to read.

Taking moral cues from Ann Coulter is like taking weight loss tips from Alfred Hitchcock.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Green wrote: I think everybody is missing the point. What I am saying is that if abortion is trully necessary, these books have come to life. Death is necessary to keep society spinning.

Well, if all of a sudden everyone stopped dying, society would probably stop spinning.

Every few decades we have a war for the "sake of the free world," and the deaths of our soldiers keep society spinning.

Every life ends in death. Your arguments are nonsensical because you seem to claim that society can function in some other way. Societies, from the first to the most recent, are built on corpses. Is that morally right? Maybe not. But don't try to pretend it's a novel phenomenon. Do you have any clue what this forum is debating? Hes talking about the necessity to kill 1.5 million unborn children every year. Just to let you know.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: Taking moral cues from Ann Coulter is like taking weight loss tips from Alfred Hitchcock. I agree with her reasoning that she gives in that chapter.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject:

AllAmericanMan wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Green wrote: I think everybody is missing the point. What I am saying is that if abortion is trully necessary, these books have come to life. Death is necessary to keep society spinning.

Well, if all of a sudden everyone stopped dying, society would probably stop spinning.

Every few decades we have a war for the "sake of the free world," and the deaths of our soldiers keep society spinning.

Every life ends in death. Your arguments are nonsensical because you seem to claim that society can function in some other way. Societies, from the first to the most recent, are built on corpses. Is that morally right? Maybe not. But don't try to pretend it's a novel phenomenon. Do you have any clue what this forum is debating? Hes talking about the necessity to kill 1.5 million unborn children every year. Just to let you know.

Well, in the opening post, he's asking if we have become a society that "needs death to survive" and equates that, if I'm not mistaken, to "Hitler's dream world." Well, aside from the fact that Hitler did in fact ban abortion, so we are most certainly not living in his "dream world," I am challenging this assumption that a "culture that needs death to survive" is in any way novel, and therefore any more dangerous than other cultures. As I said, societies are built on corpses. That's not an empty sound bite; it's a fact. And regardless of state legitimization of it, abortion is almost as old as pregnancy. Taking these two facts into account makes Green's characterization of our society impotent and renders our argument down to the most basic question.

Of course I know what this forum is debating. I also know that every argument, every argument in the abortion debate can be boiled down to whether or not the person arguing believes a life exists from the moment of conception, or if they care that one does. And although it's been a while since I've posted on this forum, you might remember that I find it difficult to equate a blastocyst with a baby. People's minds are devilishly hard to change on this matter. There are perfectly legitimate arguments for both points and neither side will recognize the other as logical. So I generally stay out of this forum.