Having not read this thread, I wonder how many replied to it negatively and just a couple weeks ago were holding up the prisoner that murdered the convicted child molester priest as a hero?
US anti-abortionist faces execution
by ignored_one 217 Replies latest social current
-
-
Savage_Buda
(heated response - your brought it and now I'm bringing it)
Good lord Yizuman...
You know I wasn't going to reply to this highly heated debate but dude give it a break. It is obivous that you think abortion is wrong good for you but are you for real? I think you are a butcher for your lack of acturate knowledge of anything related to the whole process of sex, birthing and abortion not to mention your weak attempt to flirt with the women posters - "*blush*" - please... Your like that guy that trys to get some but just doesn't get it. And why haven't you responded to Stinkypants?
And yes, if my son or daughter came to me and asked me what a safe abortion is, what a condom is, what drugs are, what is safe sex, what is hiv, I'd tell 'em. And yes there are safe abortions and unfortunately there are bad ones. Hello, that is the nature of any medical surgery - even now, you can go the hospital for a normal in and out surgery only to find yourself dead because the doctor made a mistake or for that matter the nurse helping you recover messes up. Wait forget the hospital what about as you drive home ans someone runs into you and now you can't walk. All this because you went to the hospital - Life is what life is.
Also "You are either a believer in child killing or you aren't" - like where do you get off? Wait, that seems to be the point - so when man jacks off and his semen is spent on the towel - is that murder?
And NO - abortion is not butchering - it's not plain and simple, its a choice. And no - it's a not a beatiful little baby within the first trimester. Fudge, you are so wrong, I can't even fathom your reasoning for your talk. Look - I can understand those of you that don't like abortions, think it's wrong, etc... that is your choice and I respect it but when you ignore the opinons of the people you are talking to - why are you even here? Speaking of God Blessing America - I am a proud American - land of the free - land of the choice.
When TH said get yourself a hooker, it was just that, you can't treat a women or a man with that talk of yours and expect them to listen to you. If you do find a women, who has the same beliefs as yours - good, marry her because I doubt any other woman would put up with you.
Damn, its like your posts are so blind that it reallys amazes me that you aren't hiding in your house afraid of the world. In your post about aids, you are sooooooooo wrong, like really wrong, as in not right as in not even close. Wearing a condom short of not having sex will protect you from getting the hiv virus. Oh wait, you said you can catch aids - like get out of 1980s and come to the light of 2003. YOu don't get aids, you get hiv - seriously although some other people may not respect your view, I do but what I don't respect is your weak debate on abortion based on inacturate facts or misconceived theories or even you stance of not accepting someone elses view that is oposing to yours.
Look, I can see your point where you think life begins at ejaculation, good, don't have one. Life is not black and white, there is no easy answer. If you are unable to see the points of others then don't respond. I see your only point, you feel strongly that abortion is wrong - I can respect that but you miss everyone's point about their stance on abortion - right or wrong.
Abaddon - you have a lot of good points
Aztec...I raised my son by myself because my ex-wife was first going to have an abortion and then tried to make me pay chlid support but now he stays with me. I agree and disagree with you but that is why I live in america - I have a choice...
Look abortion is not an easy subject to debate. It crosses the line of life, death, religion, rights of the individual and rights of the unborn. The issue that is the driving point is "where does life begin", my view is after the first trimister but to others it's after the second trimister and to even others it's right after "cumming". What is certain in my book and certain in the books of the local police department. What that guy did (murdering the doctor and security guard) is murder - plain and simple - regardless of his reason. He is no marter, he is sorry excuse for a man much less a human. I am pro-capital punisment for those crimes that deserve it. I'll say the same thing for him as I will say to Yizuman - don't like what is going on, talk to your congressman and reverse Roe vs Wade - otherwise abortion will be legal in this country regardless if YOu feel it's right or wrong regardless if it's the right time or not.
Savage
-
Abaddon
obiwan
First of all abaddon, don't include me in someone else's reply. If you don't have the courtesy of replying directly to me, then don't!
Sit down obiwan. Relax. You know why I had 'Merc' at the top of the section of text you took that quote from? Because I was too lazy to type mecurious?!
If you look you'll see I started quoting one of mercurious?'s comments;
maybe you ought to try reading all of what I wrote and answer to the issues that I raise
I figured people would figure out who I was replying to, and I figured wrong. So, regarding this comment;
First of all abaddon, don't include me in someone else's reply. If you don't have the courtesy of replying directly to me, then don't!
I can't take insult, only amusement, as I wasn't replying to you, unless of course you are also mecurious? and have just blown your cover. (But your not, unless you are posting from two seperate computers or spoofing your IP).
Regarding your post;
This is about one thing,the right for the child to live. People is this day and age, have lost perspective on responsibility. If two people, have sex, and a pregnancy occurs...why does the child have to pay?
Actually, you've already shown you have a presupposition when you entered the discussion; from this sentence you imply that the unborns are equal to the born.
Obviously in the later stages of pregnancy the difference is too close to call and the unborn's life should be protected unless the mother's is at risk. But in the earlier stages of pregnancy, as I have tried to show in this and the other current thread on the subject, you are dealing with a very human looking but non-sentient 18 grams, far different from 2,500+ grams of new born baby.
As there is such an obvious and measurable difference it is for YOU to show that they are the same, it is for YOU to show that it is wrong (as your presumption of wrongness stems from your presumtion of equality).
Of course, individuals have their own rights of choice. That is EXACTLY what I am in favour of.
Another flaw, you say that a woman should be able to keep a child even if a man decides he would rather her have an abortion. Ok, fine. Does this also mean that since the woman is imposing here will on the situation and decides to have the child, that the man also has a right not to support this child since he does not want it?
In our current society the presumption is that if a man has sex that results in children he legally shares financial responsibility but not any other kind. That's a seperate debate to whether abortion is right or wrong.
I personally feel our society is sufficiently immature for the wrong of men having such a situation forced upon them to be less wrong than more women and children living in starvation or poverty.
What do you think; is it better to have underfed and poor children, or make absent dads pay? To me it's a very simple question and I look forward to a very simple answer, especuially as you have been going on at legth about the rights of the child, and after the birth, we are in full agreement about these rights.
In a more mature society, where this would not be a risk even without paternal support, then I don't think the man should have to pay, but that not doing so should revoke all rights of contact or information.
Yiz
About the microscopic holes in condoms being 5 micron long while the AIDS virus is 1 micron long? It's still a fact. You can still catch AIDS with an condom on.
Yiz, I can find the thread and show you posted research based on LATEX GLOVES (do fundy Christians have starnge kinks I don't know of?). Where you made it sound like it was impossible to have sex with someone with HIV as even condoms couldn't protect you. I showed all this to be distortions and bad science.
Your misrepresentation of reality was just as bad this time. I await with interest your response to my rebutal of your 'facts'; I never got one about the condoms thing either so I can't say I expect much.
-
obiwan
Does this also mean that since the woman is imposing here will on the situation and decides to have the child, that the man also has a right not to support this child since he does not want it?
What do you think; is it better to have underfed and poor children, or make absent dads pay? To me it's a very simple question and I look forward to a very simple answer, especuially as you have been going on at legth about the rights of the child, and after the birth, we are in full agreement about these rights.
What are you smokin? Can I have some? Where did I say anything about starving children? Look, you want a simple answer from me. If you wouldn't try the rope a dope method of an answer you'd get one from me. Try answering the question directly, not some round about generalization.
This whole discussion got thrown off course with mens and womens rights. How can you say that the support of an unwanted child by a man, that the woman wants is for another discussion? They are pertinent to the conversation.
As there is such an obvious and measurable difference it is for YOU to show that they are the same, it is for YOU to show that it is wrong (as your presumption of wrongness stems from your presumtion of equality).
Of course, individuals have their own rights of choice. That is EXACTLY what I am in favour of.
Do you realize, the above sentence answers what your asking me to "prove" ? What kind of arrogant plain to you exist on. Why do you think, I have to prove what I believe to you or anyone else? Your sitting there telling me I'm wrong because of what you believe...arrogance! To your beliefs it is obvious. You see this from a different point of view. I would never tell anyone that they were "obviously wrong" about thier beliefs. Do you actually believe all the crap you spill out. Presumption of wrongness that stems from presumption of equality? Who do you think you are? Are you perfect? How can you point the finger at other people? Remember, when you point the finger, there are three pointing right back at you.
While I will "discuss" issue's here. I will not tolerate people attacking what I beleive, simply because that person feels his beliefs are right.
This is what this dicussion has come to...telling an individual that his beliefs are wrong, because of another one's beliefs, and then wanting that person to "prove it".
I've stated my beliefs and aswered them, you've given me and alot of other people mostly round about answers while you want direct answers.
Answer as you like, however I'm just going to let this go.There is no need to further this issue on my part.
Have Good Day
-
Gozz
Abaddon said:
despite the fact that this guy’s actions were despicable, I can’t approve of his death by execution. If killing is wrong, killing is wrong; the minute you move away from this simple logic you get into areas where you have to make moral compromises
I thought that it was well worth repeating.
Englishman.
Abaddon, you conveniently sidestep the question about killing in self-defence. "If killing is wrong, killing is wrong" is a fatally flawed argument; like many such simple logic, it is also simply wrong.
If someone is such a danger to society (i.e. someone who did the crime and is liable to reoffend), then life imprisonment makes society safe from that person.
Except that such a person continues to murder other prison inmates and prison guards, eh?
-
funkyderek
Having not read this thread, I wonder how many replied to it negatively and just a couple weeks ago were holding up the prisoner that murdered the convicted child molester priest as a hero?
Perhaps you should read it. Then you wouldn't have to wonder anymore
-
Swickley
America the great -- has become a culture of hate, and is being run by those who seek to rip apart our Constitution (including our right to choose). How we treat the worst among us is what defines us as a nation. By the looks of it, we are a blood thirsty people -- executing our own people and applauding when inmates execute other inmates within prison walls.
Whether or not to have an abortion is a difficult desicion, but it is one that should only be made by a woman and her doctor. The state has no say so in the matter, neither do freakin zealots, nor those who think they know what's best.
Otherwise, how would we be any different than the Taliban --who force their women to live behind veils?
-
Stacy Smith
Out in the real world where you are arguing something like abortion with friends or coworkers I wonder if the people here are capable of stating their case without name calling or general pissyness.???
I am anti abortion. Most of my friends favor abortion. We have remained friends and have discussed this dozens of times without a single insult. Plus we are silly naive young kids mostly.
-
Abaddon
obiwan, it was very nice of you to be mature enough to admit you made a mistake by attacking me in your last post when I hadn't even done what you said I did.
Oh, hang on, you DIDN'T apologise - oh, good avatar by the way...
What are you smokin?
Right now? Nothing, I'm at work. When I do? Good quality cheap grass; I live in Holland.
Can I have some?
When you're mature enough to apologise for a mistake you've made, you'll be mature enough to have a spliff with me.
Where did I say anything about starving children? Look, you want a simple answer from me. If you wouldn't try the rope a dope method of an answer you'd get one from me. Try answering the question directly, not some round about generalization.
Do you have a problem with reading obiwan? First you sound off at me for something I didn't do, then you say I didn't do something I did do;
I said;
In our current society the presumption is that if a man has sex that results in children he legally shares financial responsibility but not any other kind. That's a seperate debate to whether abortion is right or wrong.
I personally feel our society is sufficiently immature for the wrong of men having such a situation forced upon them to be less wrong than more women and children living in starvation or poverty.
I quite clearly answered your question whilst pointing out financial responsibility for a child was a different issue to whether abortion was right or wrong.
This whole discussion got thrown off course with mens and womens rights. How can you say that the support of an unwanted child by a man, that the woman wants is for another discussion? They are pertinent to the conversation.
Not of whether abortion is right or wrong. Now, you said you'd answer if I answered; I answered, now, do you feel the contents of a man's wallet are more important than the contents of a childs tummy? I can't see how you can as you seem to associate being anti-abortion with being pro-children, which is, as I pointed out, a pre-supposition on your part.
You have been asking others here for proof with there idea of abortion. Where is yours with regard to abortion being right?
I pointed out that if you want to show abortion is wrong, as the demonstrable facts that everyone shares indicate a huge gulf between an early foetus and a new born, it's down for people to prove that it is wrong with other facts, as any stance based on equivalency is not proven by the facts. At every point I have emphasized that those who don't want abortions shouldn't have them, so I can't see why you are confused over my view of what you should do; I don't give a stuff what you do, it's your business.
What kind of arrogant plain to you exist on. Why do you think, I have to prove what I believe to you or anyone else?
I would never tell anyone that they were "obviously wrong" about thier beliefs.
Yes you would; child molesters, serial killers, people of the opposite political wing to you, Jehovah's Woitnesses... and whatever plain I live on, I read threads well enough to have a coherent argument...
How can you point the finger at other people? Remember, when you point the finger, there are three pointing right back at you.
Is that 'cause the animators of the Simpsons only draw three fingers? I have just said that abortion is a personal choice, and have only criticised those who would have their beliefs imposed upon others or who have attacked other because they hold different beliefs by pointing out the facts do not allow anyone to condemn another for abortion other than on grounds of faith.
I will not tolerate people attacking what I beleive, simply because that person feels his beliefs are right.
Which is what I was doing, and which convinces me you don't read posts properly.
This is what this dicussion has come to...telling an individual that his beliefs are wrong, because of another one's beliefs, and then wanting that person to "prove it".
No, that's how it was started by an anti-choicer who calls people baby murderers; if this isn't;
'telling an individual that his beliefs are wrong, because of another one's beliefs'.
... what the hell is?
I'm sorry you missed so much of the thread.
I've stated my beliefs and aswered them, you've given me and alot of other people mostly round about answers while you want direct answers.
And that is bollocks as anyone whose actually read the thread can attest to.
Answer as you like, however I'm just going to let this go.There is no need to further this issue on my part.
Yeah, you attack someone for what they didn't do, and then display a complete ignorance of what's going on in the thread, and then you take the moral high ground and semblance of maturity walk away; don't let you big flat floppy feet trip you up obiwan (again).
Gozz;
you conveniently sidestep the question about killing in self-defence. "If killing is wrong, killing is wrong" is a fatally flawed argument; like many such simple logic, it is also simply wrong.
I have expanded on this statement above, you must have missed it. Read the thread.
Your comment regarding imprisonment:
Except that such a person continues to murder other prison inmates and prison guards, eh?
You are suggesting that it is okay for the state to kill people in cold blood to avoid the possibility of them killing people - whether they are in prison or out of prison makes no difference to the argument, and this is the entire argument for the death penalty. However, you are using what is called a slippery slope argument as you imply there is no other solution and that such a person would automatically be at risk of doing such a thing. Both these arguments are invalid as they are not so.
Do you know how many people are killed in prison each year, or the difference between, say the US penal system with regard to murders within prison, and the UK penal system and murders within prison? Come up with some facts that show that a high murder rate within prison may be an argument against using life imprisonment - but remember, if one country has a lower murder rate within prison and another country has a high murder rate within prison, then you are seeing a difference caused, not by imprisoning murders for life, but by different penal system.
I'll look forward to your sharing the results with us.
-
Yizuman
Tinkerbell wrote: a fetus and a baby are not the same thing.
That's where I know you are in error. They are the same thing and I can't understand why people want to second or third class a baby while in the womb or treat it as a sub-human before it's considered a human after the baby has been birthed into the world.
Babies are the most precious and innocent human beings in the world. Why people would think otherwise is beyond me.
Another thing about abortion is that it's teaching society that human beings have no value, hence that's why mothers are dumping their babies in the dumpster after they are born for whatever reason they had in mind (one example could be they are too embarrassed to be seen with a baby. What's so embarrassing about a baby?)
having an abortion is hardly russian roulette. if you want me to post the statistics of deaths caused by botched abortions, i gladly will, but i doubt you want that since they don't support your opinion at all.
One botched abortion is too many.
i know i said this before, but i'll go ahead and say it AGAIN....i DO NOT support partial birth abortions except in those rare emergency situations.
Ok, question: What if the baby is a full 9 month baby and your so called "doctor" tells you to kill the baby because you will die if you try to birth the child. What would you do then? Kill him/her?
Yiz
