Political Crossfire Forums

[The Comrade]

Prog wrote: Varyag wrote:
Compromise is for the weak.

No, uncompromising and rigid stances such as your's are for the weak-minded; compromise is for the wise.


I like the "compromise idea" yet, it simply will never come to pass as the objectively reasonable idealist must inevitably deal with the narrow-minded rhetorisists such as Varyag here.

bingo.


one side can deal with an "in the middle" approach, but the other side "is no abortion or bust."

stubborness is not a very good quality when trying to negotiate.

[Prog]

Varyag wrote: 1% of those abortions are legitimate, thats more than enough. No need for compromise, babykilling can't be defended, even from a legal standpoint.
ahhh...but it seems you can compromise after all!

Your compromise is in baby-killing no more than 1% of the baby population.

Hmmmmmm.....a 99% moral commitment to anti-abortion......interesting compromise ya have there V :roll:

:P

[Green]

Otacon wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: Green wrote: No matter when you do an abortion, it is still murder.

I am ok with contraceptive pills.

Not true. You can not tell me that a glob of cells at 2 weeks is a human life, because it is not.
It is human... that's simple biology.

At conception the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the sperm and the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the ovum come together, they form 46 diploid chromosomes. At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.

Let me ask you this: Why the f**k do you care if we kill a glob of cells?

Would you care if we f**king killed somebody?

I did not think so.

[Varyag]

Prog wrote: Varyag wrote: 1% of those abortions are legitimate, thats more than enough. No need for compromise, babykilling can't be defended, even from a legal standpoint.
ahhh...but it seems you can compromise after all!

Your compromise is in baby-killing no more than 1% of the baby population.

Hmmmmmm.....a 99% moral commitment to anti-abortion......interesting compromise ya have there V :roll:

:P

It's not a compromise. Those 1% are justifiable, if pregnancy for whatever is going to kill the mother, chances are the child is going to go with her, so in this sense one can justify aborting the child, becuase it saves the mother at least. Saving one and losing one is better than losing two. Outside this no compromise is needed, just time.

[The Comrade]

Varyag wrote: Prog wrote: Varyag wrote: 1% of those abortions are legitimate, thats more than enough. No need for compromise, babykilling can't be defended, even from a legal standpoint.
ahhh...but it seems you can compromise after all!

Your compromise is in baby-killing no more than 1% of the baby population.

Hmmmmmm.....a 99% moral commitment to anti-abortion......interesting compromise ya have there V :roll:

:P

It's not a compromise. Those 1% are justifiable, if pregnancy for whatever is going to kill the mother, chances are the child is going to go with her, so in this sense one can justify aborting the child, becuase it saves the mother at least. Saving one and losing one is better than losing two. Outside this no compromise is needed, just time.


if a woman gets an abortion for whatever the reason, it's just one death.

[Varyag]

The Comrade wrote: Varyag wrote: Prog wrote: Varyag wrote: 1% of those abortions are legitimate, thats more than enough. No need for compromise, babykilling can't be defended, even from a legal standpoint.
ahhh...but it seems you can compromise after all!

Your compromise is in baby-killing no more than 1% of the baby population.

Hmmmmmm.....a 99% moral commitment to anti-abortion......interesting compromise ya have there V :roll:

:P

It's not a compromise. Those 1% are justifiable, if pregnancy for whatever is going to kill the mother, chances are the child is going to go with her, so in this sense one can justify aborting the child, becuase it saves the mother at least. Saving one and losing one is better than losing two. Outside this no compromise is needed, just time.


if a woman gets an abortion for whatever the reason, it's just one death.

Zero deaths is better than one death :wink:

[Obilisk18]

The Comrade wrote: Prog wrote: Varyag wrote:
Compromise is for the weak.

No, uncompromising and rigid stances such as your's are for the weak-minded; compromise is for the wise.


I like the "compromise idea" yet, it simply will never come to pass as the objectively reasonable idealist must inevitably deal with the narrow-minded rhetorisists such as Varyag here.

bingo.


one side can deal with an "in the middle" approach, but the other side "is no abortion or bust."

stubborness is not a very good quality when trying to negotiate.

Who's trying to negotiate? And why do you suppose you're supposedly more willing to deal with a "middle" approach? Because the interests you're eager to protect are simply less compelling.

[Prog]

Varyag wrote: Prog wrote: Varyag wrote: 1% of those abortions are legitimate, thats more than enough. No need for compromise, babykilling can't be defended, even from a legal standpoint.
ahhh...but it seems you can compromise after all!

Your compromise is in baby-killing no more than 1% of the baby population.

Hmmmmmm.....a 99% moral commitment to anti-abortion......interesting compromise ya have there V :roll:

:P

It's not a compromise. Those 1% are justifiable, if pregnancy for whatever is going to kill the mother, chances are the child is going to go with her, so in this sense one can justify aborting the child, becuase it saves the mother at least. Saving one and losing one is better than losing two. Outside this no compromise is needed, just time.

Nonetheless, Same fetus, same procedure......It's still child-killing. You are justifying the murder of a child!!

Varyag: ".....babykilling can't be defended, even from a legal standpoint."

Seems your justifications defend it.

[johnshotme]

Green wrote: No matter when you do an abortion, it is still murder.

I am ok with contraceptive pills.

I agree.

We shouldnt compromise on unnecessary killing of human life.

[Selfish_Meme]

Its a bunch of cells, human, living, yes, but not really any more special than any other cells. To imply you would kill a real newborn baby before killing a bunch of cells is sick.

[Erasmus]

The problem with a compromise is that abortion is to intertwined with peoples core beliefs. Asking for a compromise is like asking asking two different religions who worship two different forms of God, to compromise and become one religion. It just does not work that way, not without changing what people believe.
In other words, you either are, or your not.

[The Comrade]

Obilisk18 wrote: Who's trying to negotiate? And why do you suppose you're supposedly more willing to deal with a "middle" approach? Because the interests you're eager to protect are simply less compelling.

pro-lifers and pro-choicers are negotiating. both sides aren't willing to compromise though.


why should i suppose upon something i myself believe in?

how is that supposedly true?

why is what i said become a hypothetical question?


and what interests am i eager to protect?

[Varyag]

Prog wrote: Varyag wrote: Prog wrote: Varyag wrote: 1% of those abortions are legitimate, thats more than enough. No need for compromise, babykilling can't be defended, even from a legal standpoint.
ahhh...but it seems you can compromise after all!

Your compromise is in baby-killing no more than 1% of the baby population.

Hmmmmmm.....a 99% moral commitment to anti-abortion......interesting compromise ya have there V :roll:

:P

It's not a compromise. Those 1% are justifiable, if pregnancy for whatever is going to kill the mother, chances are the child is going to go with her, so in this sense one can justify aborting the child, becuase it saves the mother at least. Saving one and losing one is better than losing two. Outside this no compromise is needed, just time.

Nonetheless, Same fetus, same procedure......It's still child-killing. You are justifying the murder of a child!!

Varyag: ".....babykilling can't be defended, even from a legal standpoint."

Seems your justifications defend it.

It's not the same, and I have explained why, if you're too dense please move on.

Ok give anti-abortionists a reason to comprimise when -

* Anti-abortionists conrtol the white house (up to the prez himself)
* Anti-abortionists control the senate (right up to majority leader Frist)
* Anti-abortionists control the house
* Anti-abortionists control (or are at least equal) in the supreme court
* 2/3 of the American popluation want to see the procedure banned or restricted
* 2/3 of people in this thread want the same :lol:

:wink:

[Prog]

Varyag wrote: Prog wrote: Varyag wrote: Prog wrote: Varyag wrote: 1% of those abortions are legitimate, thats more than enough. No need for compromise, babykilling can't be defended, even from a legal standpoint.
ahhh...but it seems you can compromise after all!

Your compromise is in baby-killing no more than 1% of the baby population.

Hmmmmmm.....a 99% moral commitment to anti-abortion......interesting compromise ya have there V :roll:

:P

It's not a compromise. Those 1% are justifiable, if pregnancy for whatever is going to kill the mother, chances are the child is going to go with her, so in this sense one can justify aborting the child, becuase it saves the mother at least. Saving one and losing one is better than losing two. Outside this no compromise is needed, just time.

Nonetheless, Same fetus, same procedure......It's still child-killing. You are justifying the murder of a child!!

Varyag: ".....babykilling can't be defended, even from a legal standpoint."

Seems your justifications defend it.

It's not the same, and I have explained why, if you're too dense please move on.


My dense-ass is just curious how pro-lifer's can arbitrarily and conveniently switch off 'n on the absolute moral status of an unborn "baby" to suit their particular agenda! (such being the case here)

So, explain to me....is it not a BABY when the mother's life is in peril or is that highly-emotive, disingenuous and maniplative, pre-natal classification (BABY) only used in non-ectopic-based abortions?

[Hypocritical_Hypocrisy]

There is no way to manipulate morality like that. It's not a freakin' lightbulb. It's a different situation entirely when the mother's life is in peril. I believe that is one of the only times that abortions are under any means justifiable. Anything other than that is just a lack of responsibility for what they have done. There is no change of what the baby really is, a baby. But in choices concerning their mortality, I believe the mother is in her rights to terminate the baby.

[Prog]

Hypocritical_Hypocrisy wrote: There is no way to manipulate morality like that. It's not a freakin' lightbulb. It's a different situation entirely when the mother's life is in peril. I believe that is one of the only times that abortions are under any means justifiable. Anything other than that is just a lack of responsibility for what they have done. There is no change of what the baby really is, a baby. But in choices concerning their mortality, I believe the mother is in her rights to terminate the baby.

Then the moral status of the unborn is in fact subjective. Since you advocate abortion as a subjective decision in one case, you cannot reproach another for making a differing, morally subjective decision to abort (or not).

[The Comrade]

Hypocritical_Hypocrisy wrote: There is no way to manipulate morality like that. It's not a freakin' lightbulb. It's a different situation entirely when the mother's life is in peril. I believe that is one of the only times that abortions are under any means justifiable. Anything other than that is just a lack of responsibility for what they have done. There is no change of what the baby really is, a baby. But in choices concerning their mortality, I believe the mother is in her rights to terminate the baby.


kill the mother to let the child live. one life for another.

thus the life cycle is complete.


it seems moral to me. why is it all of a sudden to save the mother you can kil lthe baby?

do you care more for the mother then the innocent unborn?

[Obilisk18]

Prog wrote: Varyag wrote: Prog wrote: Varyag wrote: Prog wrote: Varyag wrote: 1% of those abortions are legitimate, thats more than enough. No need for compromise, babykilling can't be defended, even from a legal standpoint.
ahhh...but it seems you can compromise after all!

Your compromise is in baby-killing no more than 1% of the baby population.

Hmmmmmm.....a 99% moral commitment to anti-abortion......interesting compromise ya have there V :roll:

:P

It's not a compromise. Those 1% are justifiable, if pregnancy for whatever is going to kill the mother, chances are the child is going to go with her, so in this sense one can justify aborting the child, becuase it saves the mother at least. Saving one and losing one is better than losing two. Outside this no compromise is needed, just time.

Nonetheless, Same fetus, same procedure......It's still child-killing. You are justifying the murder of a child!!

Varyag: ".....babykilling can't be defended, even from a legal standpoint."

Seems your justifications defend it.

It's not the same, and I have explained why, if you're too dense please move on.


My dense-ass is just curious how pro-lifer's can arbitrarily and conveniently switch off 'n on the absolute moral status of an unborn "baby" to suit their particular agenda! (such being the case here)

So, explain to me....is it not a BABY when the mother's life is in peril or is that highly-emotive, disingenuous and maniplative, pre-natal classification (BABY) only used in non-ectopic-based abortions?

Certainly it's a baby. But when a madman attempts to stab me, and I shoot him in defense, he's still a man. Even if he were to accidentally fall towards me with a knife, an action I took to guard my person, even if it resulted in his death, would be justified.

[Prog]

Obilisk18 wrote:

Certainly it's a baby. But when a madman attempts to stab me, and I shoot him in defense, he's still a man. Even if he were to accidentally fall towards me with a knife, an action I took to guard my person, even if it resulted in his death, would be justified.


Ahhhh...the self-defense argument. First hypothetical: You equate a fetus to a mad-man with a knife?! :shock:

Second: Would you be justified killing a clumsy chef? I think not.
Excessive force against a clumsy person becomes twisted into "guarding your person"? You must be a lawyer. :lol:

No, the fetus was neither clumsy nor violent, the fetus is the innocent victim in this scenario. As ironic and silly as it may seem the mother's body is at fault and if anyone has the right (acording to the lifer's) to self-protection it is the fetus against the mother .

Nonetheless, this point is directed at lifer's who morally proclaim that the fetus is a baby and the absolute moral and legal equivilant to the mother.

The only moral thing for the lifer's to do, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, is to let both the mother and her fetus die a natural death. No?

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: Hypocritical_Hypocrisy wrote: There is no way to manipulate morality like that. It's not a freakin' lightbulb. It's a different situation entirely when the mother's life is in peril. I believe that is one of the only times that abortions are under any means justifiable. Anything other than that is just a lack of responsibility for what they have done. There is no change of what the baby really is, a baby. But in choices concerning their mortality, I believe the mother is in her rights to terminate the baby.


kill the mother to let the child live. one life for another.

thus the life cycle is complete.

it seems moral to me. why is it all of a sudden to save the mother you can kil lthe baby?

do you care more for the mother then the innocent unborn?

I am safe in assuming you are being sarcastic, correct?