Abortion?

[89Hen]

See, what you're doing there is imposing your own conditions about what bestows a right to life on other members of your species. You're creating this concept of a "...feeling, thinking, independent human being..." on other living Homo sapiens and saying that if they're not that they can be killed as a matter of convenience. You're imposing subjective concepts.

The only objective determination for marking the transition between existence and non existence for a member of our species is...unless and until cloning gets established...conception. Once that happens you've got a living animal. Objective fact. Homo sapiens, Objective fact. Member of our species. Objective fact.

Your life began at conception pal. And if someone had aborted you they would have killed you. Not just a mass of cells. You. Yes, you've developed since then in may ways. But it was still you.

Oh shut the fuck up, Mr. It's Okay To Abuse Animals and Gays Aren't Equal Human Beings.

You're wrong, per usual.

In this case, he's not.

[D1B]

Oh shut the fuck up, Mr. It's Okay To Abuse Animals and Gays Aren't Equal Human Beings.

You're wrong, per usual.

In this case, he's not.

Yeah, to you. Until that fetus is off the umbilical cord, it's a parasite and the mother calls the shots.

[89Hen]

In this case, he's not.

Yeah, to you. Until that fetus is off the umbilical cord, it's a parasite and the mother calls the shots.

That's your opinion and it's lonely in your camp.

[YoUDeeMan]

Cluck your entire premise is a waste on this thread. You are making a case against killing people in the name of war, NOT making abortion morally acceptable.

Not so. You are against killing innocent babies in the womb. What is different about that than killing innocent babies, kids, women, people outside the womb?

Wait...for you it is a matter of a word called "war". That is a line you draw when deciding it is OK to kill people...even innocent people that are killed as collateral damage because...well, it is a matter of numbers. Or maybe it is a matter of inconvenience...as long as it is more of the bad people killed (even the innocent bad people) versus more of our people. And that goes along with the idea that you are OK with whom we've identified as enemies...identification provided by people you only know through TV during election season. Maybe you have as much faith in your government as you do your God (no offense) when it come to identifying the people who are targeted to die (and those accidental deaths of innocents among those targeted).

In the end, you value those people's lives - the innocent, and perhaps not so innocent "enemy", far less than you value your own...and people like you.

So it is OK to kill them...it is a cost of maintaining your lifestyle.

Yet you argue against people who hold a lesser value towards a fetus in a womb. But there is a similarity...many people who argue for abortion simply don't want more poor, unwanted babies in this world...they would be a drain on resources. So, those aborted babies are simply collateral damage from another kind of war.

I am not arguing whether a fetus is a human with a right to live...to me it doesn't matter. But it is too funny to watch people say that a fetus has a right to live while a child's killing in Libya is acceptable collateral damage because we want our God given right to that oil...oh, and we think there are bad people over there.

Morality.

[89Hen]

Cluck your entire premise is a waste on this thread. You are making a case against killing people in the name of war, NOT making abortion morally acceptable.

Not so. You are against killing innocent babies in the womb. What is different about that than killing innocent babies, kids, women, people outside the womb?

Wait...for you it is a matter of a word called "war". That is a line you draw when deciding it is OK to kill people...even innocent people that are killed as collateral damage because...well, it is a matter of numbers. Or maybe it is a matter of inconvenience...as long as it is more of the bad people killed (even the innocent bad people) versus more of our people. And that goes along with the idea that you are OK with whom we've identified as enemies...identification provided by people you only know through TV during election season. Maybe you have as much faith in your government as you do your God (no offense) when it come to identifying the people who are targeted to die (and those accidental deaths of innocents among those targeted).

In the end, you value those people's lives - the innocent, and perhaps not so innocent "enemy", far less than you value your own...and people like you.

So it is OK to kill them...it is a cost of maintaining your lifestyle.

Yet you argue against people who hold a lesser value towards a fetus in a womb. But there is a similarity...many people who argue for abortion simply don't want more poor, unwanted babies in this world...they would be a drain on resources. So, those aborted babies are simply collateral damage from another kind of war.

I am not arguing whether a fetus is a human with a right to live...to me it doesn't matter. But it is too funny to watch people say that a fetus has a right to live while a child's killing in Libya is acceptable collateral damage because we want our God given right to that oil...oh, and we think there are bad people over there.

Morality.

The fact that this post is much longer doesn't change the fact that "You are making a case against killing people in the name of war, NOT making abortion morally acceptable."

[89Hen]

many people who argue for abortion simply don't want more poor, unwanted babies in this world...they would be a drain on resources. So, those aborted babies are simply collateral damage from another kind of war.

Many people who are pro-life are very opposed to war too. Go figure.

[D1B]

Yeah, to you. Until that fetus is off the umbilical cord, it's a parasite and the mother calls the shots.

That's your opinion and it's lonely in your camp.

Maybe so, but I'm right. Women are calling the shots here. In the not too distant future, third trimester abortions will be performed in the drive thru at Carls Jr.

[89Hen]

That's your opinion and it's lonely in your camp.

Maybe so, but I'm right. Women are calling the shots here. In the not too distant future, third trimester abortions will be performed in the drive thru at Carls Jr.

You're only right in your head. The sentiment in this country is swinging my direction D, that's a fact. Just about the only fact on this thread.

[∞∞∞]

Maybe so, but I'm right. Women are calling the shots here. In the not too distant future, third trimester abortions will be performed in the drive thru at Carls Jr.

You're only right in your head. The sentiment in this country is swinging my direction D, that's a fact. Just about the only fact on this thread.

I'm not sure where it's a fact, but most (all?) polls I've seen on abortion show that the percentage of Americans agreeing with Roe v. Wade has increased in the last few years, but the issue on the morality of abortion is still evenly split. Certainly the people in my generation (I'm 24) seem to all be pro-Roe v. Wade.

[D1B]

Maybe so, but I'm right. Women are calling the shots here. In the not too distant future, third trimester abortions will be performed in the drive thru at Carls Jr.

You're only right in your head. The sentiment in this country is swinging my direction D, that's a fact. Just about the only fact on this thread.

Women are taking over the world, Hen. Third tri abortions will be and are rare because birth control and morning after pills will be readily available. I was exaggerating, but abortion will not carry the negative stigma that it has today.

[travelinman67]

"Women are taking over the world, Hen. Third tri abortions will be and are rare because birth control and morning after pills will be readily available. I was exaggerating, but abortion will not carry the negative stigma that it has today."

[D1B]

"Women are taking over the world, Hen. Third tri abortions will be and are rare because birth control and morning after pills will be readily available. I was exaggerating, but abortion will not carry the negative stigma that it has today."

They're taking over, Tdog.



"Yes, honey, I'll fold the socks the way you showed me."

[travelinman67]

They're taking over, Tdog.

They've always been in charge...just indirectly.

Point is, everyone understands that abortion is murder. The feminist aberration which attempted to convince women that murdering their children was a form of empowerment, has been debunked. Hate never empowers.

[89Hen]

Women are taking over the world, Hen. Third tri abortions will be and are rare because birth control and morning after pills will be readily available. I was exaggerating, but abortion will not carry the negative stigma that it has today.

I don't have a problem with birth control that prevents fertilization. As long as there are people who realize it is murder and not tumor removal, it will hopefully always carry a negative stigma.

[YoUDeeMan]

The fact that this post is much longer doesn't change the fact that "You are making a case against killing people in the name of war, NOT making abortion morally acceptable."

Not really. Morals, and the definition of morality, change based upon circumstance. You don't have the same morals as someone who is Muslim. And you certainly don't have the same morality of a Spartan.

In your case, you are saying that a fetus is a person and that abortion is killing an innocent person (and thus not moral acceptable). But what makes killing one person morally acceptable while killing another person is not? Well, that probably comes down to your definition of what makes a person innocent...and that further comes down to how much you value that person's life versus your life (and, more often than not, your lifestyle).

We make all sorts of excuses for killing other people in order to maintain our lifestyle. If you want to make people feel a bit guilty about abortions, then you should campaign to have people feel the same way about our consistent and continual involvement in killing people in Third World countries in order to support our God given right to live the American way. Otherwise, don't be surprised when people give you the same shoulder shrug about killing a fetus.

People simply don't see a fetus as any more human than a faceless, nameless, kid that gets killed by one of our bombs in Bajaur.

[kalm]

The fact that this post is much longer doesn't change the fact that "You are making a case against killing people in the name of war, NOT making abortion morally acceptable."

Not really. Morals, and the definition of morality, change based upon circumstance. You don't have the same morals as someone who is Muslim. And you certainly don't have the same morality of a Spartan.

In your case, you are saying that a fetus is a person and that abortion is killing an innocent person (and thus not moral acceptable). But what makes killing one person morally acceptable while killing another person is not? Well, that probably comes down to your definition of what makes a person innocent...and that further comes down to how much you value that person's life versus your life (and, more often than not, your lifestyle).

We make all sorts of excuses for killing other people in order to maintain our lifestyle. If you want to make people feel a bit guilty about abortions, then you should campaign to have people feel the same way about our consistent and continual involvement in killing people in Third World countries in order to support our God given right to live the American way. Otherwise, don't be surprised when people give you the same shoulder shrug about killing a fetus.

People simply don't see a fetus as any more human than a faceless, nameless, kid that gets killed by one of our bombs in Bajaur.

I think deaths in southeast Asian factory fires involving Walmart suppliers should be rare and safe.

[89Hen]

The fact that this post is much longer doesn't change the fact that "You are making a case against killing people in the name of war, NOT making abortion morally acceptable."

Not really. Morals, and the definition of morality, change based upon circumstance. You don't have the same morals as someone who is Muslim. And you certainly don't have the same morality of a Spartan.

In your case, you are saying that a fetus is a person and that abortion is killing an innocent person (and thus not moral acceptable). But what makes killing one person morally acceptable while killing another person is not? Well, that probably comes down to your definition of what makes a person innocent...and that further comes down to how much you value that person's life versus your life (and, more often than not, your lifestyle).

We make all sorts of excuses for killing other people in order to maintain our lifestyle. If you want to make people feel a bit guilty about abortions, then you should campaign to have people feel the same way about our consistent and continual involvement in killing people in Third World countries in order to support our God given right to live the American way. Otherwise, don't be surprised when people give you the same shoulder shrug about killing a fetus.

People simply don't see a fetus as any more human than a faceless, nameless, kid that gets killed by one of our bombs in Bajaur.

Keep banging the drum cluck. You still have said a single thing that makes abortion OK.

[YoUDeeMan]

I think deaths in southeast Asian factory fires involving Walmart suppliers should be rare and safe.

Excelllent. Then you can sleep at night after paying an extra $15 for each sweater and shirt.

[kalm]

I think deaths in southeast Asian factory fires involving Walmart suppliers should be rare and safe.

Excelllent. Then you can sleep at night after paying an extra $15 for each sweater and shirt.

I either get my clothing at thrift stores and garage sales or I make my wife or some hippie at the farmers market hand knit it for me. I'm consistent!

[YoUDeeMan]

Keep banging the drum cluck. You still have said a single thing that makes abortion OK.

Perhaps not to you...and that is the point. You establish your morals...which you will change according to your needs. Others will establish theirs according to their needs.

You are banging the drum that killing fetuses, whether they are seen as little, helpless people or not, is morally wrong. That is your standard...not other's. And yet you fail other people's moral standards all the time. Shame on you for eating pork, you selfish, ignorant infidel.

People do morally wrong things every day...and they justify those things for the reason du minute. We kill people and innocent children all the time...simply by choosing to purchase clothes, diamonds, oil, and other items that help us live our lifestyle. That's a fact...and one most people ignore. After all, morality is a bit fluid for most folks.

In the end, you will not be able to say a single thing that will not be hypocritical regarding your actions as it involves the killing of innocent people.