Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
quebecoishistoryJan 23, 2012
This issue will continue to be a problem for many both pro and cont. But when it comes down to the issue and end in itself, it should be left up to the woman within her own personal convictions and the information they have obtained in consultation with her doctor. That aside, it really is not anyone's business.
crosstime_saloonJan 23, 2012
For those who remember and those who would turn back the hands of time:
Back alley abortions devastate families when a loved one dies because legal options have been taken away.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
That's like saying "if we outlawed muggings and murders, then muggings and murders would happen in back alleys!"
Well, I suppose that's true. Murders and muggings do happen in back alleyways.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
But isn't abortion legal?
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
Indeed it is. And in some places, it's legal to kill a Muslim who converts to Christianity.
Either way, it's legalized murder.
countess666Jan 23, 2012
[citation needed]
nickymouseJan 23, 2012
They call it Apostasy Laws. It has happened in Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Here is a good opinion piece abort Iran's practice. http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/21/opinion/saberi-iran-religion/index.html
countess666Jan 23, 2012
but they aren't in the actual law anywhere.
JustSayNoPartyJan 23, 2012
And, of course, that is where the debate lies. Many do not believe it's murder beginning right after conception. Thus, they do not wish to go back to the days where women used 'hangers' to abort or possibly faced legal action for events such as those listed in the article. Of course, if you see it as murder, you go down a very different interpretation.
superkendallJan 23, 2012
But some here apparently believe it's also not murder right up until birth, which to a lot of people is murder. Why is it murder one minute after birth and not one minute before?
There's a middle ground most people are OK with, since as you say right after conception most people are OK with stuff like mourning after pills.
I'm not sure there needs to be anti-abortion laws for those who dislike abortion - just a clear definition of when killing a fetus is murder and when it is not.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
What is it when you choose the life of the fetus over the life of the mother?
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
But so are war and capital punishment. I'm guessing you're against those too, right?
sonicgardenJan 24, 2012
the victim at hand is a parasite, that is stealing life from the host. i would say all fetuses, everywhere and anywhere are conspiring murder....
superkendallJan 23, 2012
It's not turning things back to say the states should be allowed to decide this.
The world has moved on, in only a handful of states (if that) would voters ban abortion at this point. And even they would open up permission before long, as women are a powerful political force today...
Meanwhile Roe v. Wade is one of the flag posts indicating the federal government should control states instead of the other way around. Which then leads to things like SOPA...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
MusicManGPJan 23, 2012
There's no reason for the states to have a say in this matter. Some things trump states rights - in this case, the people's rights.
superkendallJan 23, 2012
Yes!!! The PEOPLE'S RIGHTS! As in, they have they RIGHT to decide just what form of abortion is acceptable to their community!! I am FULLY FOR abortion, which is why it is important that Roe V. Wade falls so that the RIGHT to abortion comes from the PEOPLE, not dictated by the STATE!!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
Near the end of your rant you seem to replace the term State (like Alaska, Ohio, etc) with State (like a generic government authority), which unravels the meaning and consistency of your argument.
superkendallJan 23, 2012
Good point, I should have used "federal government" or something at the end... that said, everyone knows the distinction and should not be too confused by the dual use. That is English after all...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorJan 23, 2012Submitter
should states have the RIGHT to say that African Americans have to use separate (but "equal") drinking fountains and bathrooms?
peppermintpigJan 23, 2012
While acts of violence based in bigotry are deplorable, nothing about the action itself is made better or worse. Certainly the consequences of state enforced racist action carries with it moral hazards such as legitimizing individual acts of racist violence, but seeing as you don't appreciate economics and ethics in the slightest this knowledge is lost on you, particularly when you routinely justify government violence when it is seemingly applied equally. That's populism for you, though.
It is a safe bet that if I described an existing law, and claimed it only effected one ethic group over another, that people might find something wrong with the action itself. You can make similar comparisons with corporations vs individuals. Well, you couldn't do it without being a hypocrite, Novenator, but someone else with a record of consistency might.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyJan 23, 2012
No, they should not. That is a valid question. I too want many rights pushed to the states and further down to communities. Politics should be 'local' where possible. But, there are certain issues that should be addressed by the country as a whole. Certainly, race is one of those issues. I tend to believe abortion is as well. But, it's a touch one to sort out.
superkendallJan 23, 2012
No, because that is plainly part of the declaration of independence that affects the fundamental rights of all beings.
The problem with abortion is that you go from defining the rights of individuals, to the interaction of rights between a mother and a fetus that is not at all "fundamentally" clear. I would say it's plainly clear you should not be able to kill a baby one minute before birth; others on Digg disagree. Let the voters decide where that line is.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
Would you consider a baby a person? What's with this magical barrier that is the woman's vagina? On one side, you're a fetus and can be killed. On the other, you're magically a human being. A fetus, or unborn child as they are called, is a person and should have rights as well.
MusicManGPJan 23, 2012
I understand the appeal to the rights of the unborn. The problem I have with it is this notion that the unborn has precedence over the already born. The woman with the child is in the position to determine what should happen. Not the state. Not you.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
Can you define how the unborn has precedence over the already born?
MusicManGPJan 23, 2012
I don't presume that there is a precedence. That's why I leave it up to the woman that I know nothing about in the situation I know nothing about.
superkendallJan 23, 2012
You are bringing up a false bogeyman though, assuming that ANY state would disallow abortions when the mothers life was in danger. I do not think it would happen, and is already covered by the fundamental right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - no further laws required.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
And with me not having a vagina or a uterus or any female parts (that I know of--- not that there would be anything wrong with that) I don't have any strong feelings about abortion one way or the other. What concerns me is the inconsistency. There's the willingness to kill on behalf of the unborn and then there's what we see after children are born. We see those on the right (who insisted that bringing the child into the world must be a communal decision) later pissing and moaning and bitching endlessly about the communal cost to feed, clothe, educate and insure the very children they insisted must be born. We see right wingers making every excuse under the sun to starve, deprive, and render homeless, untold thousands of American children. We don't see how a right winger can claim their all about protecting "innocent life" while the child is just a speck and then later behaving as if they have no moral responsibility for the health and well being of an innocent 10 year old or 13 year old. All I'm trying to understand is where the consistency is in those two attitudes.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
You do know that copious amounts of our taxes go towards programs that help those children, right? You do realize that folks on the right and the left spend copious amounts of money towards charities that help these children in need, correct? Because if you don't and you make these statements then it's excusable. Ignorant, but excusable. If you did know and still make these statements then you're a hypocritical shill who openly lies as to further their agenda.
You're going to have to show facts that "right wingers making every excuse under the sun to starve, deprive, and render homeless, untold thousands of American children". Prove it or STFU.
All I am saying is that if you decide to perform an adult act you damn well better be ready to accept responsibility for it. If you can't, then don't do it. Or is that too much to ask of you, to be an adult? Use protection. If the female is on birth control and the male is using a condom you've got a .001% chance of making a baby. If you somehow DO end up making a baby, chalk it up to the fact that you decided to do a grown up thing and there were responsibilities to it.
I'll never understand those on the left. They're all for killing a baby yet fight tooth and nail for those who've been proven guilty of murder to not be executed. Do you see the hypocrisy? And I can see where folks can say I'm a hypocrite in the fact that I support capital punishment and have fought in some of our countries wars. A rational mind can see the difference.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
"You do know that copious amounts of our taxes go towards programs that help those children, right?
--I don't know how you define "copious" but the fact that we spend a lot of money on something isn't proof we're spending enough and it also doesn't disprove any of my other points. A lot of rabidly anti-abortion so called social conservatives are at least as rabidly anti "socialism" when it comes to America's children.
"Ignorant, but excusable. If you did know and still make these statements then you're a hypocritical shill who openly lies as to further their agenda. "
--Shill? Um, ok but I just spent the first quarter of my post explaining that I don't have a strong position one way or the other on abortion (mainly because I don't have a vagina, etc). I said my issue centers on inconsistency. How did you miss that?
"You're going to have to show facts that "right wingers making every excuse under the sun to starve, deprive, and render homeless, untold thousands of American children". Prove it or STFU."
--Eeek. Calm down. I don't mind showing you proof but first (so I don't go running off on a wild goose chase and then have you tell me this or that government agency's stats are biased or that these comments in the Congressional record were transcribed by a liberal, etc.) let me know which kinds of unbiased, non-right wing sources you trust.
-All I am saying is that if you decide to perform an adult act you damn well better be ready to accept responsibility for it. If you can't, then don't do it. Or is that too much to ask of you, to be an adult?"
--Only when the people involved aren't adults. Otherwise that's a reasonable request. But what does responsibility have to do with the women who are raped? Anyway, the funny thing about responsibility is that it's not always a clear cut thing. For example, if my friends on the right don't want to pay for abortions AND they want to destroy Planned Parenthood and forbid the teaching of sex education in public schools, the line between who is or isn't being responsible starts to blur.
" If the female is on birth control and the male is using a condom you've got a .001% chance of making a baby. If you somehow DO end up making a baby, chalk it up to the fact that you decided to do a grown up thing and there were responsibilities to it. "
--But is it realistic to think people will always use good judgment as you define it? I don't think it is. And so it seems to me that it should be incumbent upon people who think the way you do to assume there will always be people who don't live by your rules.
"I'll never understand those on the left. They're all for killing a baby yet fight tooth and nail for those who've been proven guilty of murder to not be executed. Do you see the hypocrisy?"
--I can understand how someone could perceive it that way but, again (and not to belabor the point), I have not expressed my personal feelings about abortion here. I'm just pointing out inconsistency. The idea that someone has an abortion for fun (or that it's not a difficult decision) to me is ridiculous. My personal view is that people who want fewer deaths (by any cause) should be willing to compromise. For example, I don't think you can both insist that you care about the unborn and then later treat them like something on the bottom of your shoe. I don't think you can insist that we eliminate abortion while you work to make it as difficult as possible for people to behave responsibly.
theghoulJan 23, 2012
Ha. The government wants to own your uterus.
"You're going to have this incest baby and like it!"
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
If a baby is conceived, it's already too late to "end" it. You can, however, "murder" or "kill" it.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
with your logic anyone who eats eggs is guilty of murder and vandalizing a fetus....moron..get a frakkin clue.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
You are comparing chickens to humans you dolt. Or do you libtards eat babies now, too?
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
Yeah. I didn't know that killing a chicken or a human were the same thing.
Eggs are unfertilized, by the way.
austrologiJan 24, 2012
you are getting dug down, i think that means that the majority of people believe they are the same thing here?
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
(Chicken eggs, that is.)
countess666Jan 23, 2012
so we should no longer do IVF?
because that involves "conceiving" many egg's while implanting only 2 at a time. once conception is successful, the remaining eggs are destroyed.
those eggs are no more human then a just conceived fetus.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
"so we should no longer do IVF?"
IVF should be banned. It's a barbaric practice.
countess666Jan 23, 2012
wow... not only would you force women to have babies they don't want, but you would actually deny babies to women who do want them, and are ready for them but can't have them without some help.
now that's barbaric.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
As you explained, they fertilize many eggs, and kill the extras. It's as much "science" as Mengele's research.
countess666Jan 23, 2012
"As you explained, they fertilize many eggs, and kill the extras"
it works.
"It's as much "science" as Mengele's research."
Godwin?
sloppyjoes7Jan 25, 2012
Mengele performed science experiments on children, killing them, and using their parts for experiments.
This is completely comparable to embryonic stem cell research and IVF as commonly practiced.
Most people who bring up the Nazis are exaggerating. I am not.
countess666Jan 25, 2012
you say:
"Most people who bring up the Nazis are exaggerating. I am not."
right after saying:
"This is completely comparable to embryonic stem cell research and IVF as commonly practiced."
seriously? the process of giving children to parent who can't have them on their own is the same as a Nazi death camp. without exaggeration.
wow...
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
IVF doctors have purposefully killed MILLIONS of children in the past two decades.
So, no, I'm not exaggerating.
cavroneJan 23, 2012
I think abortions should be legal for the same reasons that drugs should be legal. Personally, I think abortion is more than wrong, but my beliefs obviously should not be mandated by law. Similarly, many people think drugs are bad, but their choice should not be imposed on everybody.
nickymouseJan 23, 2012
When your doing drugs, your not infringing on anyones right. A woman going through in abortion is killing another a human... infringing on the unborn child's right.
cavroneJan 23, 2012
yes this is all true. I don't believe in killing unborn children, but at the same time I don't feel the need to control the world. We don't prohibit alcohol, even though it's responsible for countless traffic deaths, not to mention alcoholism. Abortion needs to be legal to protect women who need them (ie will die from pregnancy).
cavroneJan 23, 2012
Similarly with the drug war, if drugs are legalized we must all accept that some people WILL abuse them, and certainly some will die. The world is far from perfect, but freedom will get us closer.
NeosopheusJan 23, 2012
Mr. George Carlin, what do you have to say about this?
"These conservatives are really something, aren't they? They are all in favor of the unborn, they will do anything for the unborn, but once you're born, you're on your own! Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that they don't want to know about you, they don't want to hear from you - no neo-natal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing! If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're f**ked.
Now, speaking of consistency, Catholics - which I was until I reached the age of reason -- Catholics and other Christians are against abortions, and they're against homosexuals. Well who has less abortions than homosexuals? Leave these f**king people alone, for Christ sakes! Here is an entire class of people guaranteed never to have an abortion, and the Catholics and Christians are just tossing them aside! You'd think they'd make natural allies. Go look for consistency in religion."
Well said, my friend; well said indeed.
craig1958Jan 23, 2012
As usual, Mr. Carlin said it better than most.
craig1958Jan 23, 2012
Two questions:
1. Did I just wake up in 1955?
2. Why the f**k would anyone live in that part of the world?
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
okay..instead of a clean and strile er it'll be done by an incompentant doctor in the baack of a 1989 ford econoline van filled w/ discarded drinks.....
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
Yes, let's completely ignore the precautions that a responsible person should be taking when performing an adult act like sexual intercourse. That part, responsibility, never seems to come into play with you libtards.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"That part, responsibility, never seems to come into play with you libtards."
In your attempt to be mature, you want to remove the means of responding to accidents. Since accidents always happen and really can't be predicted no matter your level of preparation, you are doing nothing more than removing an option and burdening millions.
Also, rape and incest often lead to pregnancies that get aborted. I've noticed that you have yet to mention this in all your posts about "personal responsibility". Since when did it become responsible to ignore things that disprove your heartless argument and support legislation that deprives and oppresses?
countess666Jan 23, 2012
"That part, responsibility, never seems to come into play with you libtards."
dear wingnut: please allow appropriate sexual education to teens and pre-teens.
"libtards" have been saying that for DECADES. but the wingnuts don't listen.
JustSayNoPartyJan 23, 2012
Is tylor a Liberal? Are you sure? Do you see 'dirty liberals' everywhere?
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
i believe in taking precautions but if you make Abortions illegal you take a person from being safe in a hospital and put them in the back of a dirty unsterile vehicle more than likely.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shivabeachJan 22, 2012
First of all, this is a primary reason to NOT give more power to the states. The religious wing nuts, the Koch and other wealthy entities can corrupt a state easier than playing Parcheesi. Once embedded, the rights afford to women will be gone. I have no idea why the women at the very least in these states are not going berserk with protests. No protest - more laws against them. Men, do you want to marry and end up with 8 kids and your wife possibly in prison? Like that low paying job and being in debt with all those kids? Wonder why Ron Paul wants the 14th repealed so that your kids wont have citizenship when born unless they serve in the military?
You can throw the life liberty and the happiness thing out the window. If these religious freaks get control of the states women, men and children will have nothing and the world will shun us. This is against everything an American is supposed to be
Are conservative men for this? The Digg fake conservatives for this?
davidnivenJan 22, 2012
Take a deep breath, dude. The Koolaid is really getting to you.
Seriously, though. You're lumping so many problems into one group and pointing fingers at a few people as though they are the cause.
"You can throw the life liberty and the happiness thing out the window. If these religious freaks get control of the states women, men and children will have nothing and the world will shun us. This is against everything an American is supposed to be"
The entire universe will not implode if the political landscape gets a little more conservative. Relax. We tried liberalism. It failed. Excuse us for wanting a little more balance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shivabeachJan 23, 2012
You should have read the article, you should take a look at the personhood laws a "few" are trying to pass in most states.
Its up to you. Become informed or stay the way you are. This has nothing to do with liberalism. But your being incapable of thinking past that is evident
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
The "personhood" amendments would be the best laws passed in decades.
shivabeachJan 23, 2012
Getting rid of birth control?
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
No. Personhood amendments wouldn't touch birth control at all.
countess666Jan 23, 2012
it would make IVF illegal for a start.
and making abortion illegal would work about as well as prohibition did. with many of the same consequences... but probably less mob involvement.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
Making abortion illegal would work as well as making slavery illegal.
sbuckley00Jan 23, 2012
1st:
What was Liberal that failed?
2nd:
Not the entire universe but the planet, we call earth. If they make abortion illegal, guess f**king what??? Abortion will still happen at the same rate (just like the drug war proved.) And it will cause more deaths, money issues, and imprisonment corruption (also just like the drug war proved.)
You people do not get it. You make that s**t illegal and you are talking about causing more problems in society. How is that helping society as a whole? The answer is that making abortion illegal will not help society as a whole and will in fact hard it as a whole.
sbuckley00Jan 23, 2012
harm and not hard*** <== typo correction
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
I wonder why the argument AGAINST banning guns, when we on the right say the same thing as you are here, (if you make guns illegal people will still get them) is always shot down by you libtards yet you feel free to support your murderous agenda using the argument in the same vein. Hypocrisy at its finest.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sbuckley00Jan 23, 2012
1st... who said I was a Liberal? I am a human being on planet earth; that is my classification (if I have one.)
2nd... ALWAYS? really? I agree with you 100 percent on the gun point you bring up. It is correct that if guns were illegal, they would still exist. It would thus expand the underground gun trade and thus cause more issues in society (just like the drug war proved.) So, yes I would agree, we could not make guns illegal for those same FACTS.
I personally do not own a gun and wish they never exists. I also personally wish abortion never existed, as well. Unfortunately. they do both exist and for the aforementioned reasons, we do more harm than good when we make them illegal. As stated, pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion. It simply is looking at the facts and believing in the logical choice, that does less harm. Same thing with gun legislation.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
What about personal responsibility? Why is that aspect of this debate always ignored? If you're going to do grownup things, you have to be prepared for grownup situations that might arise. Killing the 'situation' cannot be a viable solution if we are to call ourselves civilized.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
@fgterpilotmafia
"Killing the 'situation' cannot be a viable solution if we are to call ourselves civilized."
I hope you don't support any type of war or capital punishment, because that would make you an enormous hypocrite.
Anyways, playing the 'Personal Responsibility' card is a callous mode of thinking. A condom breaking isn't the only way a pregnancy can occur. I'm sure the women who get pregnant after getting raped will feel better once you lecture them about their obviously terrible personal responsibility.
JustSayNoPartyJan 23, 2012
sbuckley, your points are consistent and I generally agree. So, where do 'we' draw the line as humans? Are abortions allowed up to a point in development? Same with guns. Are all manner of weaponry allowed? All Drugs?
Personally, I'm in support of 'Pro Choice'. But, I'm not in favor all the way to the third trimester. I'm in support of gun rights but not Automatic Weaponry except with very thorough background checks. And, I support legalizing drugs except perhaps drugs like 'cocaine'.
Thoughts?
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
Yes, Isaac, I am for capital punishment and I'm in the military. How is supporting innocent life vs ending the life of one who murders hypocritical? You've decried many in this debate in the fact that they can't see things as only black or white yet you try to frame your question towards me in the same light. That's being a hypocrite hoss.
Personal responsibility and the acceptance of it is in no way callus. The very fact that you feel this way shows your true colors. Imma get mine, the government will take care of me! Tell me, is the baby produced of rape an innocent individual or not? I'll even toss you an easy one. A baby BORN of rape, innocent or no?
I sincerely hope you're not an American, your way of thinking truly doesn't belong here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
superkendallJan 23, 2012
You are totally wrong. Most states, even religious states, would decide to keep abortion around. The world is very different now than when the law was passed.
Meanwhile the law stands as a shining example to create other laws that control all of us, like SOPA... a sickness which is terminal for society.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
While I agree with you about SOPA, I dugg you down because, "Most states, even religious states, would decide to keep abortion around." is a statement so incredibly untrue that it would funny if it weren't about something so serious.
u2canfailJan 22, 2012
Newt winning SC, tells us it is just those evil women that are to blame. Men, are excused and easily forgiven.
brianguy2000Jan 23, 2012
unprotected sex fail
gkiltzJan 23, 2012
And the need for those children in the gene pool also becomes increasingly obvious. Just because YOU don't want that child, that does NOT make it an UNWANTED child!!!
WHEN YOU GET PREGNANT, ALL OF A SUDDEN, SOMETHING OTHER THAN YOURSELF BECOMES IMPORTANT. YOU ARE NO LESS IMPORTANT, BUT OTHER PEOPLE BECOME IMPORTANT AS WELL!!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
garbagedumpJan 23, 2012
Time to abort Obama!
RavenshoodieJan 23, 2012
Over 50 million abortions in a mere 39 years.
adalseyJan 26, 2012
a topic that comes up every election - what a surprise. no-pro here. i hate it when this topic gets ask during the debate. How many elections that this question been asked and how many President actually did anything about it during their presidency? Useless comment and questions during the debate is what ticks me. When focus should be the future of this country, jobs, economy and our global standing.
adalseyJan 26, 2012
a topic that comes up every election - what a surprise. no-pro here. i hate it when this topic gets ask during the debate. How many elections that this question been asked and how many President actually did anything about it during their presidency? Useless comment and questions during the debate is what ticks me. When focus should be the future of this country, jobs, economy and our global standing.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
Not f**king once have I ever heard a libtard say anything about personal responsibility. Use a condom and be on birth control. If you still get pregnant, tough s**t. You've a .01% chance of it You're an adult performing an adult act that has adult conquiences. Deal with it. Not by murder. Not by being a sophist shill. Not by saying conservatives don't care what happens after the baby is born. You see, we do care. Quite a few of our tax dollars go towards government programs to help those affected. Moreover, the charities that we donate to of our OWN accord helps as well. You try to frame the debate to make it seem like those on the right are monsters for trying to save lives. You will never admit that what you're screaming for is for the mother to have the choice to kill her baby or not. Seriously, take a step back and look at it through my eyes. You're going to try to say the baby is nothing more than a parasite that can't survive outside the mother. That it has no consciousness. You're wrong again. By six weeks there are brain waves and I believe a baby has survived outside the mother at something like twelve weeks. You're going to say, sure they have but the baby had to have help to survive. Sure they do, but so does a one year old. In the case of a mother being harmed, let abortion be legal. In any other case, get bent and grow the f**k up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"In any other case, get bent and grow the f**k up."
Ignoring the astounding hypocrisy of putting an appeal to maturity and an insult in the same sentence, you seem to be unaware that women get raped.
So, if you are a woman who has an abortion after you get raped, fgterpilotmafia wants you to know that you are being personally irresponsible and should be forced to endure that "tough s**t".
Oh yea, and he's not a monster by the way. He says so himself.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
Stop with the logical fallacies. You're so edgy man. You've committed many of them yourself.
Is the baby innocent in the case of rape? Yes or no.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
What logical fallacies? Please, enlighten me.
Also, I find the fact that you apparently endorse forcing raped women to have the child incredibly inhumane and cruel. The fetus is innocent if you want to argue from the standpoint of a non-conscious cell group, but the raped woman was innocent too. You can't just force her to do what you want.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
Take your pick douche:
Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)
Affirming The Consequent
Appeal To Pity (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument)
Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal To Common Practice)
Argument By Dismissal
Argument By Generalization
Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion)
Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness)
Argument By Question
Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)
Argument by Rhetorical Question
Argument By Scenario
Argument By Selective Observation
Argument By Selective Reading
Argument By Vehemence
Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics)
Argument From Spurious Similarity
Bad Analogy
Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology)
Burden Of Proof
Causal Reductionism (Complex Cause)
Contrarian Argument
Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis)
Cliche Thinking
Error Of Fact
Euphemism
Extended Analogy
Failure To State
Fallacy Of Composition
Fallacy Of Division
Fallacy Of The General Rule
False Cause
Inconsistency
Inflation Of Conflict
Internal Contradiction
Least Plausible Hypothesis
Lies
Meaningless Questions
Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection)
Non Sequitur
So your answer to my question is that yes, a child produced by rape is still an innocent child?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 24, 2012
Do you not see how ridiculous you sound? You call me a douche, and the very first fallacy on your laundry list was "Ad Hominem".
I haven't committed any of those fallacies either. But it's nice to know that you figured out how to copy-paste lists from wikipedia.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 24, 2012
Scumbag isaac7719:
"I haven't committed any of those fallacies!"
Has committed all of these fallacies.
It wasn't from wikipedia, either.
isaac7719Jan 24, 2012
Now I'm a scumbag? I thought using an ad hominem was a bad thing. Can you point out where I made all these fallacies, or are you just blowing hot air?
fgterpilotmafiaJan 24, 2012
I guess you're not familiar with internet memes.
Using fallacies isn't a bad thing, we all do it. Pointing out others who are using fallacies while using them yourself......priceless. And yes, I've used a few myself. Yes, I can point out your fallacies. Peruse every post you've made and you will find them.
You're welcome.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 25, 2012
" Pointing out others who are using fallacies while using them yourself......priceless. "
You literally *just* did this.
But seriously, can you specifically quote me on anything?
You're refusal to provide anything specific is revealing the possibility that you are, indeed, just blowing hot air.
countess666Jan 23, 2012
"Not f**king once have I ever heard a libtard say anything about personal responsibility."
liberals have been arguing for years for proper and appropriate sexual education so teens and pre-teens have the right tools and knowledge to actually take that responsibility.
"You will never admit that what you're screaming for is for the mother to have the choice to kill her baby or not."
what we are screaming for is for mothers to have a choice of whether to be a parent or not. that is a huge life-choice and should be made conscientiously, not made for you because of a simple mistake.
we want children to have the best chance of growing up happy and healthy and be successful. they have the best chance of that if their parents consciously chose to have a child, when they are ready for it.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
When have I ever said that proper and appropriate sexual education shouldn't be offered? I am all for it. Teach the kids at an appropriate age. In doing that, it STILL doesn't remove the responsibilities an adult has for performing an adult act.
You said you want children to have the best chance at growing up. Funny, I feel the same way. If you're pro-abortion you cannot make that statement.
You say that you're only about the 'choice' that the mother makes, not about the life or death situation that this choice leads to. You make it seem as if you're only concerned about the woman and her 'decisions'. You lead the argument to the point that if we who are pro life get our way, that we are removing some sort of right from a woman. Listen, you only define the debate this way so you don't have to get dirty. You've placed something inbetween you and the fact that we're talking about killing a living human being. You do this so you don't have to get dirty with your argument. You do this to make yourself feel better. You're ignoring the fact that the choice you are trumpeting leads to the death of an innocent child simply by saying, "Hey, I'm all for a woman's choice. If she makes the decision to kill the baby that's not on me. I'm only arguing that she has that ability."
A simple mistake? Do you kill all of your simple mistakes in life? s**t, you can't pay your rent. Better go kill the landlord while he's asleep and unconscious. Hell, do it between breaths, cause if he's not breathing then that makes him not human. (You haven't used these arguments but others on your side have, my apologies.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Jan 23, 2012
"When have I ever said that proper and appropriate sexual education shouldn't be offered? I am all for it. "
you attacked liberals in general on personal responsibility but their response is sexual education and has been for years. so i wasn't talking about what you think, i was attacking your argument.
"You said you want children to have the best chance at growing up. Funny, I feel the same way. If you're pro-abortion you cannot make that statement."
your misinterpreting what i said, i said i want children that are born to have the best possible start in life, and the best possible childhood.
a child forced onto a mother who isn't ready for it is not the best possible start in life.
"You make it seem as if you're only concerned about the woman and her 'decisions'. You lead the argument to the point that if we who are pro life get our way, that we are removing some sort of right from a woman. Listen, you only define the debate this way so you don't have to get dirty. You've placed something inbetween you and the fact that we're talking about killing a living human being. "
except its not a human being.
a clump of cells it NOT a human being. a fish shaped object is NOT a human being. the same as a doctor putting some sperm and egg cells together does not make a hundred human being on a petri dish.
before the first month there is no brain development at all.
before 3 months nothing but the basic structures of a primitive animal brain has developed
it takes 6-7 months for anything even approaching a human brain to develop.
so I don't see any problem with allowing abortions up to 3 months at the very least.
"s**t, you can't pay your rent. Better go kill the landlord while he's asleep and unconscious."
ah right wingers. always with the absurd arguments.
first off liberals aren't the side arguing in favour of killing adults, that's your area of expertise.
and second, the land lord has been born already, has a lifetime of experiences making him a unique individual. one who has a fully developed and highly unique brain, one who has, most likely, friends and family who will miss him when he's gone.
and 3de, the responsibly for a child are nothing like missing your rent once. and if you dont want it, you aren't ready for it and therefore shouldn't have it.
and 4th, woman who do not want a child will get a abortion anyway. banning abortion is going to work just as well as prohibition did, with many of the same consequences, if less mob involvement.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
I always attack liberals and progressives.
Sexual education isn't a proper response, but is included in the proper response. You have to include personal responsibility. You are responsible for you actions, period.
A fetus is a human being, you cannot prove me wrong here.
So it's a developed brain that's the mark of a 'human'? Ok, so you have a child with Down's. Is it ok to kill them at say, the 33rd trimester? If a guy doesn't have friends and people that will 'miss' him, it's cool to throwdown? Any and all of our arguments are going to be absurd here. Yours and mine.
If you don't want a child, aren't ready for a child you shouldn't be having sex. If you're an adult who's ready to accept what might happen, go for it.
If abortions were illegal you advocate the back ally method. Why is that? Why not advocate for better adoption laws and for the female to OFFER HER BABY UP FOR ADOPTION????Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Jan 23, 2012
"Sexual education isn't a proper response, but is included in the proper response. You have to include personal responsibility. You are responsible for you actions, period."
countries with proper sexual eduction and legal abortions have some of the lowest abortion rates on the planet. lowest amount of teen pregnancies to.
"A fetus is a human being, you cannot prove me
wrong here."
it's not a human YET. its a clump of cell's. just like a sperm and a egg on a petri dish do not make a human.
but if you think it is a human, then you should be against IVF.
and now we get to the inevitable over the top reactions to my arguments, that you misinterpreter and take out of context.
"So it's a developed brain that's the mark of a 'human'? Ok, so you have a child with Down's. Is it ok to kill them at say, the 33rd trimester?"
has been born, has experiences, has a unique brain, had friend and family that love and would miss her.
"If a guy doesn't have friends and people that will 'miss' him, it's cool to throwdown?"
has been born, has experiences, has a unique and fully developed brain.
"If you don't want a child, aren't ready for a child you shouldn't be having sex."
yes... that should also work just about as well as prohibition did...
can you please stop bringing this up? teens will have sex. period!
"If abortions were illegal you advocate the back ally method. Why is that? Why not advocate for better adoption laws and for the female to OFFER HER BABY UP FOR ADOPTION????"
we have more then enough children looking for a home as it is.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
Why do you keep harping on sexual education? I've told you before, I'm all for it. Just another strawman fallacy.
A fetus is a human being. It's nothing but semantics. See, I can do it as well. You, right now, are nothing more than a clump of cells. A sperm and an egg separated doesn't make a human. Once they merge and the cells start to divide, we have a human being. How hard is that to understand? Why should I be against IVF?
Yes, my analogies were over the top. I even said they were. They were in response, though, to your over the top analogies. So let's rehash it. Your child was delivered c section (not 'born' as we know it) has developmental disadvantages and nobody loves/will miss her/him. By your logic, you should be able to commit murder. Do you SEE how asinine that is?
Personal responsibility is the key phrase here. If you're going to have sex, and yes teens will, you will know and understand the precautions and repercussions of the act. You will, as an adult capable of said act, respond as an adult if a pregnancy arises. You will either take care of the child or give it up for adoption. To simply abort because you couldn't keep your dick in your pants or your legs closed cannot be an option in today's world.
You say we have more than enough children looking for a home as it is so we should simply murder them to alleviate the burden. How inhumane of you. By the way, your facts are wrong. There is a waiting list to adopt in this country, and in some places it is THREE YEARS LONG!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kjeffvJan 22, 2012
"The Struggle For Female Liberty Continues"
Incl'g the struggle for BABY female liberty? Jus' checkin'.
cosmicsurferJan 22, 2012
I stand with my baby sisters too BUT until they take a breath once leaving that birth canal, the woman carrying is my sister with whom I stand. It is HER choice and HER choice only
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
So, if a person gets his/her oxygen from the air, he/she is a human?
I didn't know that our method of obtaining oxygen is what makes us human.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
I didn't know that attacking semantics makes a good argument.
Oh wait, it doesn't. Maybe you should stop.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
I wasn't attacking semantics. I was attacking the concept that a human doesn't become a person "until they take a breath once leaving that birth canal."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
Yes, that is semantics. He obviously isn't arguing that breathing oxygen is the only qualification for being a person (and if you think he is, you're just a moron), but you still attacked that extremely specific part of his comment. You took literary exaggeration literally.
You have committed a textbook example of attacking semantics.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
The idea that a human isn't a "person" until he/she is born is arbitrary. As arbitrary as saying that someone isn't a "person" until he/she can breath unaided. It's not semantics. People ACTUALLY BELIEVE that the unborn aren't people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
It's just as arbitrary as saying someone is a person the exact moment an egg is fertilized.
But it is still semantics, because you ignored the meaning of his post to attack your literal interpretation of what he said.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
"t's just as arbitrary as saying someone is a person the exact moment an egg is fertilized."
That's not arbitrary. That's the literal, physical, biological, and scientific definition of a human being. It's just that some people want to deny human beings the right to be called "persons."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"That's the literal, physical, biological, and scientific definition of a human being."
False. It is a human embryo, not a human being. That is the actual biological/scientific definition, brought to you by someone who actually understands what science is.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
human being
1.any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
Science Dictionary
Homo sapiens (sā'pē-ənz)
The modern species of humans.
Well, being physical and biological creatures who reproduce sexually, it appears that a fertilized human egg is both a human being and a homo sapien.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"individual"
It's hard to call a non-viable lump of developing cells that requires what is essentially a parasitic relationship with a host to survive an "individual".
How can you expect people to support your arguments when you trip up right out of the gate?
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
YOU are a lump of cells with a parasitic relationship to other life forms, (such as plants and/or animals).
So, why would you classify YOURSELF as human?
I swear, it's like trying to convince someone, who's grown up his entire life being taught that blacks aren't human, that blacks are actually humans. It's like there's a mental block that prevents logic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"YOU are a lump of cells with a parasitic relationship to other life forms, (such as plants and/or animals)."
Ok, again, you tripped up right out of the gate. This sentence displays an ignorance of what the objective, scientific definition of a parasitic relationship is. Under your definition, *all* life is parasitic, and that obviously isn't the case.
superkendallJan 23, 2012
That's pretty sick dude. Most people are not OK with killing a nine-month old baby just because it happens not to have come out yet. Most people are OK with first trimester abortion because not much has gone on yet. But at nine months you defiantly have a baby that is thinking and feeling, a fully formed human...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
"Incl'g the struggle for BABY female liberty? Jus' checkin'."
--Until "BABY" female becomes CHILD female in need of health insurance. Then she's suddenly treated like something you scrape off the bottom of your shoe. Just sayin.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
It's all about personal responsibility. Something you libtards are lacking. Even here you're trying to put another responsibility on others. Just sayin.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 24, 2012
I just think when right wingers continually demonstrate their hatred and disdain for human life for innocent life after a child is born they should stop pretending that protecting innocent life is their number one concern. Everyone will feel better if you just admit that your primary goal is controlling other people and playing sex police (and not in a good way). ;-(
fgterpilotmafiaJan 24, 2012
I don't want to 'control' anyone. I want everyone to have a fair shake at life. This includes those who are unborn. I don't care whom you sleep with, when you do it, how you do it or why. You're an American and should be free to do what you like with a consenting adult. What I don't like is when you advocate killing more Americans by using semantics, saying they aren't real. That they don't exist because they haven't passed that magical vagina barrier. And you somehow call that disdain and hatred for human life.
I have to believe you see where I'm coming from and are only trolling to stir things up. There's no way an educated individual can believe what you've just written. Seriously, there's no way. If you truly do, you don't belong here. The fact that sons of bitches such as yourself can vote and express such backwards, unscientific s**t that will influence others is beyond me.
garbagedumpJan 23, 2012
The libs don't want to think too deep about it. Sooo many contradictions. China and India are wiping out generations of women thru abortion and not a word is said about that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidnivenJan 22, 2012
Keep in mind that the woman at the heart of this legal matter has been a Christian, renounced abortion, and is working to undue the evil that she helped cause.
She has rethought her stance on abortion and states' rights. Why don't you?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cosmicsurferJan 22, 2012
Just because she changed her mind on HER abortion doesn't negate the facts.
If they are outlawed, they will continue to occur for the same reasons they are used now except without the care, protections and sterile environments; without the protections from scams and black market butchers; the bulls**t claims of "easy" nonmedical abortions (generally poisons, placebos and pure bulls**t for quick cash without thought to the woman who is being used for that profit).
The War of the Coathangers wasn't pretty, Alan.
It created carnage all over the country from adolescents to middle aged women - all either poor or middle class - who had NO options other than a back street black market butcher. Underground clinics were few and far between.
Only the wealthy could afford real care by flying to Europe and getting real medical treatment.
I lost friends to that butchery - dead or ripped from stem to stern. One poisoned by her boyfriend.
THAT will all start again, Alan, and I will be damned if any uterophobic f**k head is going to start enslaving us again only to force women to have kids that will ultimately be used for cannon fodder or worse because those fearful, hate-filled idiots care more about the idea of the pre-born but don't give a f**k about the post born
IT IS NO ONES BUSINESS but the woman who happens to have a clump of cells attaching to the uterine wall
davidnivenJan 22, 2012
A clump of cells? No.
Take a took at the science itself - http://www.sfuhl.org
The unborn baby has its own DNA and metabolism.
4 weeks - eyes, ears, and respiratory systems begin forming
6 weeks - brain waves
8 weeks - heartbeat
9 weeks - feels pain
12 weeks - breathing fluid and can swallow
14 weeks - has fingerprints
15 weeks - taste buds
20 weeks - reacts to noise
23 weeks - rapid eye movement indicating active dream state
6 months - oil and sweat glands
7 months - stretching and kickingComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorJan 22, 2012Submitter
The funniest part about you anti-choice nuts is that you love the death penalty and war. To further demonstrate the fact that you have no moral compass, you do *nothing* for anybody after birth. Sort of shoots a whole in your whole argument that you care. This is just more big government authoritarianism typical of ultra-conservatives.
shivabeachJan 23, 2012
Dont let him turn the argument to Abortion. This goes far past abortion and not a one of these people can get past that.
crashdvisJan 23, 2012
And what's funny about you lefties is that you weep and cry for convicted murderers and terrorists but jump for joy when a baby gets murdered.
seidnuJan 23, 2012
whats even more funny is the left and right both cry like a bunch of little kids. That why I take neither side seriously. in the end you are both cheering for the same crooked pieces of s**tComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
GentlemanGhost542Jan 23, 2012
what is funny is how ideologically blind you are while having such a condescending attitude
seidnuJan 24, 2012
I calls em like I sees em
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
"The funniest part about you anti-choice nuts is that you love the death penalty and war."
Death Penalty: Ending a murderer's life is justice. It also prevents him/her from killing again, saving lives.
War: Nobody loves war. However, waging war can save lives. WWII being the best example.
Straw Man: Saying that someone "loves the death penalty and war" in response to somebody pointing out facts about unborn children.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorJan 23, 2012Submitter
I believe in wars to prevent ultra-conservative fascists from killing people like WWII, but what we have today is the US being the world's policeman and trying to justify hunting down fundamentalists hiding in caves while spending as much as the rest of the world combined.
I was commenting on the hypocrisy of claiming to be "pro-life" when most of these anti-choice nuts support war and the death penalty. It completely destroys any credibility they think they have.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
It's not hypocritical to support the killing of terrorists (who attacked us and killed thousands) while opposing the murder of innocent children.
sbuckley00Jan 23, 2012
Sloppyjoes7 loves the c**k!
kjeffvJan 23, 2012
Well, *someone* certainly does. I believe it would be the guy who brings it up constantly. "Latent worship" is the term here.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
You're such a liberal shill. I would like nothing more than to teach you the facts of life on some dark and dusty street corner.
We do nothing for anybody after birth, so you say. Your point is rendered moot. Our taxes and charitable donations have done more for the less fortunate in this country than anything you and your ilk could imagine. Deal with it s**t bag.
Who loves capital punishment and war? No one that I know. Both must be accomplished in a civil society. It's not all peace love and rainbows. Trust me, I've seen it. Go f**k yourself if you're too simple minded to understand it.
I relish the fact that the people who think like I are the majority in this society. Someday soon, abortion will be illegal. It's going to happen. Deal with it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
RavenshoodieJan 23, 2012
You're absolutely correct. People who make the 'clump of cells' argument are ignorant of the facts.
countess666Jan 23, 2012
there is quit a long time when it is just a clump of cells.
after that it starts looking like a fish, then it grows a tail. and only after that does it start growing some human features. but its brain is still nothing like a humans, without any of the higher functions that make us human.
sbuckley00Jan 23, 2012
You forget one thing it does not have yet, consciousness. The bottom line is that we all should be able to choose what we do with our own bodies. These rights should fall under the same rights we have for our personal property. Each persons body is their personal property; and thus they should be allowed to do what they want with their own personal property. Unless said act harms another 'Conscious' human being.
cavroneJan 23, 2012
i don't think consciousness defines a human. If that were true, what if someone kills you in your sleep? what about the disabled or mentally challenged?
also, premature babies aren't conscious in the womb, but they can and do develop normally, not to mention fully conscious.
(i'd like to say i don't think the law has any part to play regarding abortion, i say make it legal.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sbuckley00Jan 23, 2012
Obviously the word 'conscious' has taken on MANY meanings on our planet. I said, YET, and yes I did make a typo, so I apologize for the confusion. The point was that they do not gain true consciousness during the first few months (or so they say.) Regardless, my second point still hold true and negates the conscious arguments.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
By your logic, the moment you're knocked unconscious someone has every right to kill you. When you're sleep, you're not 'concious'. You libtards have such tiny brains. I firmly believe that you would be completely safe in a zombie uprising. In fact, I think most of the zombies portrayed in the movies are nothing more than stunned liberals walking around. With no more babies to kill, others' income to steal and no more MSM/Big Daddy Government to tell you how to think/live you just wander the wasteland aimlessly with no direction.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sbuckley00Jan 23, 2012
did you see the word YET? Please see my above comment, as it explains it a little more.
"In fact, I think most of the zombies portrayed in the movies are nothing more than stunned liberals walking around. " <=== this sentence was funny and made me laugh.. I commend you for your comedic efforts.
sbuckley00Jan 23, 2012
MSM/Big Daddy Government to tell you how to think/live <=== common misconception, so I will clear it up for you. I want less government involvement and more freedom, period. Ironic how the very thing you are speaking up for (pro-life); involves "MSM/Big Daddy Government to tell you how to think/live." <=== now who has a Tiny Brain-- OH yes, IT IS YOU!!
Sincerely,
Big brain (compared to fgterpilotmafia's)
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"By your logic, the moment you're knocked unconscious someone has every right to kill you. When you're sleep, you're not 'concious'. You libtards have such tiny brains."
Do you honestly think he supports murder during sleep? If you're remotely sane, of course you don't.
I'm not sure which is more amazing; Your habit of immediately attacking semantics, or your inability to tell the difference between semantics and a genuine argument.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
"Do you honestly think he supports murder during sleep? If you're remotely sane, of course you don't."
I made that point before. Again, you seem to realize the insanity of basing someone's "personhood" on his/her consciousness, yet you somehow fail to make the obvious connection. "If you're remotely sane, of course you don't" support abortion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
For f**ks sake, at least *pretend* to try not to always exploit semantics.
You interpret sentences far too literally, and it makes conversing with you impossible, because you irrationally twist everything to the point of nonsensical idiocy.
"Again, you seem to realize the insanity of basing someone's "personhood" on his/her consciousness, yet you somehow fail to make the obvious connection."
Being asleep/unconscious is not the same as not having a developed consciousness in the first place. Understand this critical distinction, and cease your flow of bulls**t, please.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
Then if the argument is "it's not human until it develops the capacity to have consciousness," that's the same thing as saying "it's not human until it reaches a certain stage of development."
As usual, it comes down to age. Not old enough? Not human.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
Again, you are ignoring the importance of developing consciousness. If you must be dishonest with yourself to support your positions, why continue to support them?
Consciousness is what differentiates a thinking, observing organism from basic organic matter. You clearly do not understand the enormous philosophical and scientific implications of this development.
Anyways, I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain this to you, because you refuse to even grant me the civility of not warping everything I saw into a half-baked strawman.
JustSayNoPartyJan 23, 2012
OK, enough with the 'libtard' crap. Please just argue the issues. Libtard, Rethuglican, etc. are simply labels attempting to group people in to neat little categories. Hopefully, most are smart enough to know that there are 'conservatives' that are pro-choice, Democrats that are for small government, etc. People are just not so easily 'labeled'.
superkendallJan 23, 2012
Since you are so interested in FACTS how about the FACT that striking down Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal anywhere, it simply lets voters decide.
Are you that strongly against voter choice? Well then hello SOPA which gets to us by similar channels. You can't shake the hand of the Big Government Devil and not get burned.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
Personal responsibility. Learn it and live it you damn dirty douche canoe. Stop murdering babies.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
No other option besides back street black market butchers?
Really?
Like they couldn't have just acted like an adult and had the child, loved it and raised it?
It's like personal responsibility doesn't even exist to you f**kers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorJan 22, 2012Submitter
Because prolife is a lie, you don't care if women die.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
WE ALWAYS CARE IF WOMEN DIE.
But we won't murder thousands of children to save a single woman. That's (quite literally) crazy talk.
sbuckley00Jan 23, 2012
How about one.. so one woman can live? <== cause that is the REALITY. Stop comparing apples to oranges.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
If the woman will absolutely die if you allow her child to live, then we take it on a case-by-case basis.
sbuckley00Jan 23, 2012
That is a very honorable stance and I would agree with you except for one fact. And that fact is that humans are fallible. Thus, if there is even the slightest chance of the mother dying, SHE should be able to make the choice. If ANYONE else makes that choice (assuming case by case, someone else would decide), then a wrong decision (for her) could be made. Second point, no doctor knows that a woman will absolutely die 100 percent of the time. It is simply an VERY educated guess.
shivabeachJan 23, 2012
Then how can you say the personhood amendment is the best law ever passed? You don't know whats in it do you. You think its all about abortion and that's just a small part of it
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
It's not complicated. In fact, it's one of the simplest amendments in history.
superkendallJan 23, 2012
To play devils advocate, since you are for murdering both female and male babies, doesn't that make you twice as evil?
chilidogsJan 23, 2012
Eggs aren't chickens, acorns aren't trees you are an idiot.
cavroneJan 23, 2012
this is short-sighted (esp. if you're talking about unfertilized chicken eggs). A fetus, let alone anything more mature, is much more recognizable as human. Also, one cannot deny how completely normal premature babies turn out.
at the same time abortion should not be illegal. It's wrong to impose one's beliefs on everyone. like the drug war, or prohibition, personal opinions should not stand in the way of personal freedom.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
Tree = full grown plant.
Adult = full grown human.
Acorn = beginning of life for some plants.
Fertilized egg = beginning of life for all mammals.
Basic biology, taught in elementary school.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsJan 23, 2012
One thing leading to another doesn't make it the same thing, champ. Dough isn't bread, lumber isn't a house and a fetus isn't a baby just because it may be one later.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
Child is to Adult, as
Fetus is to Child.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
fail. prolife isn't a lie. it's a choice.
cavroneJan 23, 2012
this is an example of a 'straw man' logical fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html). prolifers (at least the sane ones) don't flippantly condemn pregnant women to death.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
And you don't care if babies are murdered. Pro-death. That's what you and your ilk should be called.
darkwater37Jan 22, 2012
A woman's pregnancy is her problem wanted or not. It is her decision what she wants to do about it, not governments or the righteous, she has a fully developed life. A unborn has to be carefully supported and drains the resources of the mother from day one until it is able to fend for itself. Unbridled unlimited births makes the the mother much like a puppy mill for society to use that child for whichever they want to use that life for. The government's war machine and or for adding to the numbers for the righteous to add to their flock. There are a few that make it to be geniuses but how many are dead weights to society that we should make sure every last one is born, no matter what the consequences are. This is a personal decision by the parents especially the mother. Government and busybodies need to find something else to do and stay out of it.
shivabeachJan 23, 2012
Its a "free market" thing
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
"This is a personal decision by the parents especially the mother."
Murder is never, ever, ever, a "personal decision" that should be legalized.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"Murder is never, ever, ever, a "personal decision" that should be legalized."
Never, ever, ever, huh? So you would be against deliberately inflicting death because you want to protect the sanctity of life? So, why do you support the death penalty?
Even if you rationalize this with your barbaric "eye for an eye" mentality, you're still depriving an individual of their life.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
Isaac, multiple times, you have compared a child to a murderer, and said that killing a murderer is as bad as killing an innocent child.
I reject the comparison.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
I have never compared a child to a murderer. The only person making that comparison is you, as you warp and twist what I say to attack a strawman. With maybe two or three exceptions, that is what you have *always* done to my posts, in every single conversation we've ever had.
Besides, it was you who said that, and I'll quote, "MURDER IS BLACK AND WHITE. PERIOD".
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
Murder IS black and white. And I don't consider capital punishment "murder." In other words, not all "killing" is murder. For example, shooting a mad gunman, saving lives, is not "murder."
Killing an innocent child, on the other hand, IS murder. Most people are capable of making these distinctions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"Most people are capable of making these distinctions."
Your idiocy is only surpassed by your arrogance.
You make a blanket statement declaring an issue black and white, and then you start making exceptions and shades of grey with your personal opinions on what constitutes "murder". You're being astoundingly inconsistent and hypocritical.
Killing a mad gunman in the defense of others is murder, but it is justifiable murder. You use the legal term 'manslaughter' to support your position, but ignore the equally valid legal term 'justifiable homicide'.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
I made no exceptions.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
You decided that capital punishment, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide are not murders. That is a pretty cut-and-dry case of making exceptions.
Murder is when a person's life is lost at the hands of another person. Not all murder should be criminally punished (self-defense), and not all murder is deliberate or intended (manslaughter, accident). These are the shades of gray I was taking about. This is not a difficult concept.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
That is not the common definition of "murder." Rarely do people assert that killing someone in self-defense is "murder."
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
It's murder, but it's justifiable and shouldn't be prosecuted as homicide.
You need to understand that 'murder' is not just a deliberate and intentional killing. It is any action which takes a life.
What you have a partial grasp on, is that not all murder should be criminalized; murder in self-defense being a perfect example.
superkendallJan 23, 2012
To a point it is her choice. When the brain of the infant starts functioning (remember how early Premies can arrive and still live) it ceases to become just her choice unless her own life is in peril.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stubearJan 23, 2012
Listen here you stupid neanderthal mother f**ker. If abortions were made illegal in this country my wife would be DEAD right now. How about that? Do you give a f**k about her and her life? No? I didn't think so. Your f**king mind is so juvenile and incapable of critical thinking to look past your own narrow-minded brainwashed view points to think that maybe, just maybe, there's some middle ground to be had. No, in stead you'd rather see my wife dead fro your own f**king religious views (which are not mine or my wife's by the way). And before you open your f**king pie hole and s**t out some more stupid bulls**t, we just celebrated the birth of our first child but we definitely support the woman's right to choose, even now.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
There are rare instances where killing one person could save another person's life. Such decisions are difficult, terrible, and not to be taken lightly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stubearJan 23, 2012
But you Neanderthal mother f**kers want to outlaw abortion, period. End of f**king story. And I'm for one quite sick and f**king tired of it. You f**king assh**es don't think about others, only yourself. The world isn't black and white and it this country has absolutely no f**king room your bronze age cult intolerance. You want to live in a Christian theocracy? Go to some other f**king country and destroy it with your narrow minded views.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
Who said anything about religion? Take that aspect out of it and you're still committing murder. Herp derp and ll of that. You are dismissed.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
MURDER IS BLACK AND WHITE. PERIOD.
I don't care if you think people who oppose murder are "neanderthals."
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"MURDER IS BLACK AND WHITE. PERIOD."
No, actually it's not.
If it was, then people who kill in self defense, or kill someone on accident, or just happen to be driving the vehicle that a suicidal individual leapt in front of, or commit any other non-deliberate/accidental action that is technically 'killing', would all suffer the same legal consequences of calculating, deliberate murderers.
Gee, that sure sounds fair. Life must be easy when you can't think beyond black and white.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
"Murder" excludes, by definition, the killing of an innocent person. It also excludes the accidental killing of a person, which is usually called "manslaughter."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
"MURDER IS BLACK AND WHITE. PERIOD."
Do you oppose the death penalty?
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
No, sloppy, "Murder", is when someone takes the life of another person. Accidental murder is not an oxymoron or a paradox.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
The death penalty is not murder. I know that some people think it is.
I, however, see it as justice, with several benefits, such as preventing that person from murdering again, and acting as a deterrence. In other words, capital punishment saves lives.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"The death penalty is not murder. I know that some people think it is."
Those people are right. Just because it may be justified, and it may save lives, and it may be a deterrent, it is still murder. Manslaughter, justifiable homicide, whatever the legal term is, it's still murder. The different legal terms only exist because murder *isn't* black and white, and our legal system has a decent understanding of that fact (which is good).
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
All right. So you think capital punishment is "murder."
Fine.
Still, you must recognize SOME DIFFERENCE between executing a murderer and killing an innocent child, right? Or, to you, is there really no difference at all?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
"The death penalty is not murder. I know that some people think it is."
And guess what? There are a LOT of people who don't think abortion is murder. The Supreme Court agrees.
So why does your opinion count more than the law?
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
"Still, you must recognize SOME DIFFERENCE between executing a murderer and killing an innocent child, right? Or, to you, is there really no difference at all?"
That murderer was an "innocent child" once too. Could very well have been a zygote that the mother wanted to abort, but couldn't because abortion was outlawed.
Now that unwanted child who lived a horrible unwanted life killed another innocent human being.
Why is one life more valuable?
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"Still, you must recognize SOME DIFFERENCE between executing a murderer and killing an innocent child, right? Or, to you, is there really no difference at all?"
Of course I recognize the difference between executing a murder and killing an innocent child, you assh**e. This is what I've been saying all along. There are gradients to murder, aka shades of grey. It's why I disagreed with you when you said murder was black and white in the first place.
Oh yea, and I'm going to stop you right now before you warp what I said about an innocent child to be some kind of hypocrisy about abortion. An embryo is not a child.
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
"There are rare instances where killing one person could save another person's life"
There are very real correlations between legalized abortions and the drop in violent crimes decades later. The unwanted children that would have been neglected/born into poverty and crime don't grow up to kill other people.
So the people you, and others like you, vilify are the "innocent lives" you only care about up until birth. By outlawing abortion, you are sentencing other innocent people to death.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
"So the people you, and others like you, vilify are the "innocent lives" you only care about up until birth."
Ridiculous. I support and donate to organizations which help women who have chosen not to abort their children.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
Have you donated 220k? Because that would cover the cost of raising ONE CHILD. Your token donation is just making you feel better about judging others life choices.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
So, if you think blacks should be allowed to be called "people," and allowed to own property, work, etc, should you also pay to raise them through childhood?
What an absurd comparison. Just because I oppose murdering people doesn't mean I should pay for everyone else to live.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
I can't make sense of your comment. What do blacks have to do with anything?
What do you say to the family that has a loved one killed in a robbery by a person who was going to be aborted because the mother didn't want a child/couldn't afford a child? She wanted to have an abortion, but you thought it was "murder" and decided to force your morality on her.
Now innocent people have been killed by that child that was neglected, ignored, raised to know nothing but crime. Why was the innocent person's life that was lost because you imposed your morality on someone else any less important?
Who are you to choose for others? Who made you God?
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
kingnova, you're making as much sense as somebody who says "blacks should all be killed, because they could grow up to be murderers."
superkendallJan 23, 2012
Aren't you basically the Neanderthal, dictating that people be able to kill babies right up until the very moment of birth?
If sacrificing infants is not barbaric, I don't know what is. Do you eat their hearts as well?
What makes you think that ANY states would ban abortion where the mothers life is in danger? Remember we live in a modern society and 99% of voters (yes, even religious ones) would agree that is OK. But you are trying to take things too far the other way and mandate what every single state says about abortion.
That too is being quite the caveman, caring only for yourself and not others...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsJan 23, 2012
A fetus isn't a baby. That's why there are different words for them.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
Racist: "A n***** isn't a person. That's why there are different words for them."
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
A fetus and a baby are different medical and scientific terms with very specific meanings and biological conditions. "gentlemen" is just racist diatribe.
Apples to oranges, man.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
The only difference between a fetus and a baby is stage of physical development. Or age, if you wish.
For example, the following is true:
"An infant and adult are different medical and scientific terms with very specific meanings and biological conditions."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"The only difference between a fetus and a baby is stage of physical development."
You're marginalizing the importance of this difference. Before a certain stage of physical development, there is no consciousness. This raises enormous and important philosophical, scientific and political implications that you are completely dismissing.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
Scientifically, the only difference is stage of physical development.
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
f**k off you inbred piece of s**t. Abortions would be allowed in the case of harm to the mother. Another logical fallacy from another egotistical, left leaning douche nozzle.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
garbagedumpJan 23, 2012
160 million missing girls -‘Sex selection’ is creating a new endangered species: women. A journalist investigates the countries with too many men.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/06/05/160_million_missing_girls/?page=fullComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stevanoskiJan 22, 2012
Ladies and Gentlemen (said circus barker style) come and collect yer trophy babies for yer mantle. Good job killin' babies and calling it a woman's right to choose. Millions upon millions for you to choose from, toll greater than the holocaust.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shivabeachJan 23, 2012
This simply indicates how uninformed you are. The rights in question certainly are the right to choose or not to choose, but included in that is the right to birth control, the right to not be arrested if your baby is born dead (still born) among other things that happen to women. Basically you choose to ignore the fact that if birth control is taken away just as many babys will die, and even more born into poverty and bad family situations.
Its not all about Abortion, but I can see you havent that that far ahead or in depth
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
"the right to not be arrested if your baby is born dead (still born)"
Nobody has ever argued that women with stillborns should be arrested. It's a strawman.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cavroneJan 23, 2012
READ THE GODDAMN ARTICLE
"In Mississippi, a woman is charged with murder for giving birth to a still born. In Alabama, a mother of three awaits a ten year sentence for a Cesarean that resulted in the death of her baby. In South Carolina, over 300 women have been charged with some form of fetal homicide. In Indiana, a young woman who tried to kill herself by taking rat poison is in jail, charged with murder and attempted fetal homicide."
(this was literally the FIRST paragraph!)
here you go: http://digg.com/newsbar/Politics/roe_v_wade_38_the_struggle_for_female_liberty_continues
fgterpilotmafiaJan 23, 2012
And a drunk driver who kills an expecting mother is also charged the same way. Where's your outcry on that one?
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
You're talking about cases where women killed (or are accused of killing) children.
Do you know the difference between a natural death and homicide?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"Do you know the difference between a natural death and homicide?"
The people who make these laws don't understand that, and that's the issue here. Fetuses can be aborted completely naturally by the body, often without the mother even being aware she was pregnant. It happens *all the time*. But what these lawmakers are fighting for will criminalize a completely unpredictable and natural process.
How on earth you maintain such an ideologically warped view of the world amazes me. Here you are, staring your own hypocrisy and ignorance in the face, and you blame it on someone else.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
"But what these lawmakers are fighting for will criminalize a completely unpredictable and natural process."
Wrong. People die all the time, (old age, cancer, disease, etc.) without someone else being charged with that person's murder.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"Wrong. People die all the time, (old age, cancer, disease, etc.) without someone else being charged with that person's murder."
This is a deflection towards unrelated topics. We're not talking about old age, cancer or disease. We're talking about natural/spontaneous fetal abortion or fetal death from premature birth, which IS a natural process that IS being criminalized. Did you even read cavrone's comment? What part of, "In Mississippi, a woman is charged with murder for giving birth to a still born" don't you understand?
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
Isaac, I'll try to be more concise:
A woman would only be charged with murder of her unborn (stillborn) child if she INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY killed her child. This excludes 99.999% of stillborn cases.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"Isaac, I'll try to be more concise:
A woman would only be charged with murder of her unborn (stillborn) child if she INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY killed her child. This excludes 99.999% of stillborn cases."
You have obviously not read these laws, and if you have, you obviously do not understand how these laws can be, will be, and are abused. Just as was expected when news about these laws surfaced a few years ago, women who have completely natural miscarriages are being prosecuted for murder. This is incredibly unjust and destructive, and this is what we are arguing against.
You on the other hand refuse to believe that it is even happening, despite the fact that evidence of such legal atrocities has been thrust right in front of your face.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
Obviously some people will be falsely accused of murdering their stillborn children.
Likewise, some people have been falsely accused of murdering their wives.
You're simply arguing that the justice system is prone to errors, and for that reason, we should legalize murder. That's atrocious.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"Obviously some people will be falsely accused of murdering their stillborn children."
So why should we even have this legislation in the first place? Laws against murder already exist, and they already cover women who deliberately kill their children. Even though you don't understand the difference, this doesn't include medical abortions. All this law does is give the state more ambiguously-worded legislation to exploit, and you're all for it.
"You're simply arguing that the justice system is prone to errors, and for that reason, we should legalize murder."
This is a gross misrepresentation of everything I've been saying. If you seriously believe this, you're either too dishonest to have a constructive conversation with, or you're too stupid to understand what you're talking about.
shivabeachJan 23, 2012
Its not a straw man, its at the base of this article and this discussion. Its happening NOW. And by your approval of the personhood amendment you prove you don't care.
superkendallJan 23, 2012
Only a fool would think handing over this choice to the states would mean abortion and birth control would go away. I'd bet no state would ban birth control, and only a handful, if any, would ban abortion. The world is in a different space now and the majority of people accept both.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crashdvisJan 23, 2012
Auto-buried for politicsusa spam.
chilidogsJan 23, 2012
Deep thinker here.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
Abortion is a huge double standard for the left since it discriminates based on gender and thus violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. A man with no desire to be a father has no ability to terminate his parental rights and responsibilities to avoid paying child support for a kid he doesn't want. However, at her discretion a woman can abort the baby or give it up for adoption to avoid the responsibilities of raising it.
There should be a male equivalent ability to sign away all rights and responsibilities. Of course, the left loves its victims, so its not very well going to let that happen to its single moms.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
"A man with no desire to be a father has no ability to terminate his parental rights and responsibilities to avoid paying child support for a kid he doesn't want."
"There should be a male equivalent ability to sign away all rights and responsibilities. Of course, the left loves its victims, so its not very well going to let that happen to its single moms."
Why are you blaming the left in this issue? The small group of people who are brave enough to actually voice this opinion are usually more left-leaning individuals anyways. I support this notion entirely and I'm not really what you would consider "right-wing".
Stop playing the name game, bro.
jaketyson85Jan 23, 2012
All our problems got worse when 1) we let women start voting, and 2) a black man became the president.
chilidogsJan 23, 2012
What an amazing summary of republican opinion.
cavroneJan 23, 2012
this is a sweeping generalization. when you demonize republicans, you reduce yourself to Bill O'Riley levels of partisan bigotry. common people, don't lower yourselves!!!
cavroneJan 23, 2012
common = come on
davidnivenJan 24, 2012
Sounds more like southern Democrat KKK types.