Quote :

"so why exactly do antiabortion people not let a woman choose what she wants to do?"

4/27/2007 9:54:00 AM

Quote :

"It is a human being, and I'm okay with offing it. It's a human being inside another human being, which to me makes it a different type of human being, and it's cool to kill it."

Wow.

But somehow... I think this is what pretty much all pro-choice people are thinking. I never believed the "if we have a partial birth abortion it's not a person because the head is still inside the mother" argument actually fooled anyone... even the people who claim it. They are just holding on to a shaky argument to basically justify "my freedom to have sex without consequences is more important than another person's life".

These are murders of convenience. If you let people have up until the baby was a month old (after birth) to legally kill the baby, these women would still do it.

4/27/2007 10:47:57 AM

Quote :

" These are murders of convenience. If you let people have up until the baby was a month old (after birth) to legally kill the baby, these women would still do it. "

first thought. Abortion is not Murder. Murder is the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (Websters). Abortion is not unlawful and typically is done without malice.

So stop bring your emotion in to the debate it takes away from your credibility.

Second, I agree that if you let abortions happen one month before birth women would still do it. While I don't agree with it, there are circumstances that require it.

[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2007 11:00:42 AM

Quote :

"It is a human being, and I'm okay with offing it. It's a human being inside another human being, which to me makes it a different type of human being, and it's cool to kill it.""

Well thank you for your honesty at least.

With this type of thinking, we have to be wary of the slippery slope to genocide. Once we have declared that certain human beings have less right to exist than others, it's just a hop skip and a jump back to Concentration Camps. After all, unwanted babies are a drag on our fun-times, the mentally ill are a drain on resources, the elderly are going to be gone soon anyway, the homeless are really annoying, and why do those Jews get to own everything anyway?

Quote :

"Murder is the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought "

Excellent definition and still applicable. At some point, the baby in the womb is a person. We just have to decide when that point is reached. When the doctor performs the abortion, I would hope for the safety of the mother he is doing it with "aforethought". And it would be hard to imagine not killing someone with even just a tinge of malice while you're doing it.

[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 11:11 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2007 11:07:12 AM

I apologize for my use of synonyms. Should I have said "killings"? My point was that it's the "act of ending a human life", not that it was done with "malice" or "unlawful" (which according to your definition is the only difference).

Quote :

"So stop bring your emotion in to the debate it takes away from your credibility. "

And your cheap pot-shot there really lends to your credibility

[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 11:25 AM. Reason : ,]

4/27/2007 11:23:20 AM

^ I agree killing would be a better word, and I wasn't throwing a pot-shot. Murder is an emotion word in this context, and you can't debate with someone who is emotional. There is no point and their facts are usually exaggerated.

^^ I don't believe abortions are conducted with any malice from the doctor or mother. If I read correctly, you are implying they are? In many of the cases I have seen, the mother did it out of what she believed to be necessity at the time. Also in all the cases I have seen, save one, the mothers are remorse about their decisions, not regretful, remorse.

[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 11:52 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2007 11:50:54 AM

^^murder isn't the same thing as "killing" plain and simple

[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM. Reason : ./]

4/27/2007 11:53:01 AM

^^Ok, it wasn't intended to be an emotion word. It was used in the rest of the post I quoted... I was just rolling with it. I will use killing from now on to not be confusing though, because I see your point.

^ The end result (another human being being intentionally killed by another's hand) is the same. Yes, since one is a legal term, its different sorry.


This is what all Soap Box arguements come down to - criticizing people's choice of words, spelling, grammer, etc. sigh.

[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 11:56 AM. Reason : f]

4/27/2007 11:54:07 AM

the entire legal system is based on the criticism of word choice and shit like that

4/27/2007 11:59:21 AM

Quote :

"Well thank you for your honesty at least. With this type of thinking, we have to be wary of the slippery slope to genocide. Once we have declared that certain human beings have less right to exist than others, it's just a hop skip and a jump back to Concentration Camps. After all, unwanted babies are a drag on our fun-times, the mentally ill are a drain on resources, the elderly are going to be gone soon anyway, the homeless are really annoying, and why do those Jews get to own everything anyway?"

I gotta be honest. I mean, I can't pretend like a life isn't a life.

And I don't believe it's a slippery slope. There are 2 types of human beings: one is in the mother's tummy, the other isn't.

4/27/2007 11:07:32 PM

^
You forgot one.... the one that's halfway out waiting for its brain to be sucked out.

4/27/2007 11:11:27 PM

^OH, YOU GOT ME WITH THE PATHOS!!!

4/27/2007 11:12:55 PM

^
I knew there was still a bit of humanity in your heart

4/28/2007 12:02:27 AM

Quote :

"There are 2 types of human beings: one is in the mother's tummy, the other isn't."

Two type of human beings? sounds like rationalization.

[Edited on April 28, 2007 at 12:19 AM. Reason : ,]

4/28/2007 12:18:30 AM

^Yeah, it is. That's what rational people do, you know.

Fucking dumbass.

4/28/2007 12:49:30 AM

The one is the mother's stomach is the same kind of human being ASSHOLE.

4/28/2007 1:50:18 PM

Quote :

"It is a human being, and I'm okay with offing it. It's a human being inside another human being, which to me makes it a different type of human being, and it's cool to kill it."

Quote :

"I think this is what pretty much all pro-choice people are thinking."

That's a shame, because it's not what all pro-choice people are thinking. If I can't provide for my child emotionally, mentally and financially, I don't think I should have it. No, I don't think adoption is necessarily a better alternative. Also, if the baby will have a debilitating disease, I think it is better to not put the child through it.

4/28/2007 2:34:53 PM

in related news...i'm all for killing clones no matter what age they are...they are fucking clones- they wouldnt even exist naturally, so it shouldnt matter if they are killed

for example- if someone cloned me i'd be the one to kill my clone, cause he is the clone and i'm the real one

for example...someone loses an arm in a car accident...that person clones themself to get a new arm, and then kills their clone...i do not find anything wrong with that...if the person hadnt lost his arm, the clone would have never been created...killing a clone that wouldnt have otherwise been created should not be wrong

[Edited on April 28, 2007 at 2:56 PM. Reason : clarification]

4/28/2007 2:52:01 PM

Quote :

"^Yeah, it is. That's what rational people do, you know."

Yes, but most of the time the purpose of rationalization is to figure out the correct or most logical answer. Not to make you feel better about doing something that ,for the most part, could be perceived as morally wrong. (i.e. killing a human being)

here is an example of improper rationalization:

"I believe killing a human being is wrong. I also believe in abortion, which is killing a human being. therefore, a fetus must be a different type of human being because I believe killing a human being is wrong. There, now I can believe in abortion."



[Edited on April 28, 2007 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2007 3:24:03 PM

^^ You are either trolling or very, very stupid.

4/28/2007 3:31:31 PM

^ hmmmmmmm. hard decision.

4/28/2007 3:36:14 PM

Quote :

"mrfrog: The one is the mother's stomach is the same kind of human being ASSHOLE."

No, one is in the mother's stomach. The other is not. One physically lives off the mother. The other does not.

Two kinds. Two types. Two brands of baby.

Quote :

"HappyPappy: Yes, but most of the time the purpose of rationalization is to figure out the correct or most logical answer. Not to make you feel better about doing something that ,for the most part, could be perceived as morally wrong. (i.e. killing a human being) here is an example of improper rationalization: "I believe killing a human being is wrong. I also believe in abortion, which is killing a human being. therefore, a fetus must be a different type of human being because I believe killing a human being is wrong. There, now I can believe in abortion.""

I know what you meant by "rationalization." But what I said makes perfect sense to me. This is what I consider "improper rationalization":

Quote :

"mcfluffle: If I can't provide for my child emotionally, mentally and financially, I don't think I should have it. No, I don't think adoption is necessarily a better alternative. Also, if the baby will have a debilitating disease, I think it is better to not put the child through it."

But nobody's calling her out. Cause she's pushing the argument that folks can stomach more easily.

4/28/2007 4:54:19 PM

Quote :

"But nobody's calling her out. Cause she's pushing the argument that folks can stomach more easily."

She is giving legitimate reasons for aborting the baby, and by do so, she obviously understands she is killing a baby.

Stating that a baby is a different human being is clearly an attempt to morally justify the act of abortion. Apparently, the thought of actually taking the life a small child and/or fetus (which ever) doesn't sit well with you, but you can not bare the idea of someone telling you what to do with your body. hence the rationalization. An improper one I might add, since you show no real scientific way (I doubt one exists) to rate a human being hierarchy.

4/28/2007 5:23:07 PM

Quote :

"But nobody's calling her out. Cause she's pushing the argument that folks can stomach more easily."

That looks pretty much like a different argument. Just because someone is on the side (pro-life/pro-choice) doesn't mean they should concede arguments that suck. Maybe that's also rationalizing.

4/28/2007 6:18:08 PM

happypappy has some sense

4/28/2007 7:02:19 PM

Quote :

"HappyPappy: She is giving legitimate reasons for aborting the baby, and by do so, she obviously understands she is killing a baby."

I have stated that abortion is killing a baby.

And I'm not going to bother with the reasons for aborting a human life. We already know there are reasons--hence, abortion. And those reasons are negligible in this matter of life and death.

If we say, "Abortion is okay if you can't provide for the child emotionally, financially, etc..." then that begs the question of whether or not we can kill children that are already born if we can't provide for them. And that's not a joke. There have been instances, particularly with men, where a person loses their job, gets over their head in debt, and under the pressure of having to provide for three, four other people, they've killed their whole family to "save" them. mcfluffle would say that that's not okay. So why is it okay to in the case of abortion? Well, because in the case of abortion, it's an unborn child; in the case of the man killing his whole family, the children are already born.

And we end up right back where I had us: two types of human beings--unborn and born, in the tummy and not in the tummy. And I'm personally okay with killing the first.

It's killing. You're either okay with it, or you're not okay with it.

4/28/2007 8:17:16 PM

honestly if the baby wasnt born yet whats so bad about killing it, it doesnt even learn to talk like 14 months in, etc etc etc, i could go on about psychological learning, all of it leads to:

"if a woman wants to, fuck it, let her do it"

thats my opinion- i've never cared for abortion, like i could care less...but i side with the chicks that want their own choice

technically its not killing it if it isnt born yet

[Edited on April 28, 2007 at 8:53 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2007 8:49:32 PM

Quote :

"If we say, "Abortion is okay if you can't provide for the child emotionally, financially, etc..." then that begs the question of whether or not we can kill children that are already born if we can't provide for them. And that's not a joke. There have been instances, particularly with men, where a person loses their job, gets over their head in debt, and under the pressure of having to provide for three, four other people, they've killed their whole family to "save" them. mcfluffle would say that that's not okay. So why is it okay to in the case of abortion? Well, because in the case of abortion, it's an unborn child; in the case of the man killing his whole family, the children are already born."

In all honesty, you don't know what I'd say about that. I wouldn't advise it for reasons that are highly complicated, but I wouldn't say that it was that much worse than abortion.


But seriously, not cool to put words in my mouth. kthx.

4/28/2007 9:33:44 PM

^I apologize. I just assumed that you would not be okay with killing your two-year-old because you couldn't support him or her And I didn't realize your reasoning for not killing him or her would be "highly complicated."

Jesus Christ.

[Edited on April 28, 2007 at 9:47 PM. Reason : sss]

4/28/2007 9:39:09 PM

^I wouldn't, but I wouldn't ultimately condemn someone else for it, is what I was saying.

[Edited on April 28, 2007 at 9:57 PM. Reason : x]

4/28/2007 9:56:22 PM

You wouldn't condemn a person who killed his or her two year-old because he or she couldn't provide for it?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condemn

I'd have sympathy, but I'd absolutely condemn a person for such an action.

4/28/2007 9:58:41 PM

I did say the reasoning was complicated.

4/28/2007 10:11:17 PM

Fill me in, please.

I put "please" in there geniunely.

4/28/2007 10:23:22 PM

I don't think i would condemn such a person. I think I would put them in jail.

4/29/2007 6:32:49 PM

^That would be #2.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condemn

And it's prison, not jail.

What was your point again?

4/29/2007 8:16:24 PM

^ you could put them in jail.

Although, abortion would have to be a misdemeanor with <1 year sentence. Still, it is a possibility.

[Edited on April 29, 2007 at 10:08 PM. Reason : .]

4/29/2007 10:01:04 PM

wait, i'm confused, where is an abortion a misdemeanor? or is that just in the happypappy world?

In my world it would require a future commitment of like 100 hours of community service. Just so that ppl won't be having one every month.

4/30/2007 1:56:19 AM

^I thought we were talking about someone who kills their two-year-old. That's what mcfluffle and I were discussing when we mentioned condemnation.

4/30/2007 7:11:01 AM

^ killiing two years old. Why would you want to do that? Think your taking this abortion thing too far. No one would allow you to abort a two year old.

4/30/2007 8:41:33 AM

4/30/2007 8:44:41 AM

^^Are you trying to bait me?

Cause you know I never said shit about wanting the right to kill two-year-olds. In fact, mcfluffle was the one who said she wouldn't condemn a person for it. Ask her. Not me.

4/30/2007 9:28:24 AM