Astheworldturns.com website

[Theresa]

oh, those are excellent arguements.....they go into the trash can along with the babies whose murders you support.....

Do they show only voluntary abortions, or do they include those deemed medically necessary?

-yeah, and what would the porportion of those deemed "medically necessary" compared to those voluntary? What, 100 to 1? What difference does it make? Does the end justifiy the means?

Do they have pictures of people who died of complications from childbirth that could have been predicted and prevented?

-yeah, babies die of complications......the complication of having their brains sucked out.....that's kindof complicated.....but easy on the mother.....

 

[geocajun]

I could extend that argument to, say, people who eat meat, too.

I suppose you could, but that would quickly prove futile I am sure.

The debate has never been about the right to live, but over which of several different categories given entities go in.

There ins't a formal 'debate' per se, but you did discredit the picture under the premise that the source was corrupt because they broke the website.
I was simply showing how your near ad hominem attack on the author of the hack doesn't do anything to discredit the message itself. Attack the message of pro-life, not the method of delivery.
Sure its a desperate attempt, but that doesn't mean the message itself is wrong.

Can I trust them to be relevant to the questions I'm asking? Do they have any images of a two-week embryo?

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm#thumbnails

you can see abortion pictures for each week of the first trimester there.

Are the pictures on these sites representative of the abortions which happen in the world, or are they carefully selected to be the "worst"?

I am sure that question could not be answered to your satisfaction.

Do they show only voluntary abortions, or do they include those deemed medically necessary? Do they have pictures of people who died of complications from childbirth that could have been predicted and prevented?

What they show is dead babies from abortions. They have nothing on the site about the mothers who chose to kill their babies or anything like that.
Its not a documentary, but rather a picture archive.

I never trust anyone who tells only one side of a story.

We would tell the side of the victim, but the pro-choice folks had them killed.

 

[Theresa]

We would tell the side of the victim, but the pro-choice folks had them killed.

-wail.......wail....wail.......

I can't face abortion or I can't live in this world............

 

[seebs]

There ins't a formal 'debate' per se, but you did discredit the picture under the premise that the source was corrupt because they broke the website.
I was simply showing how your near ad hominem attack on the author of the hack doesn't do anything to discredit the message itself. Attack the message of pro-life, not the method of delivery.

My point is that, as a practical matter (and yes, this isn't a formal debate), anyone who resorts to underhanded messages is sending another message; "my message is not persuasive enough, and I need to resort to trickery to support it".

you can see abortion pictures for each week of the first trimester there.

Starting with week 7.

It's very hard to get them earlier.

What they show is dead babies from abortions. They have nothing on the site about the mothers who chose to kill their babies or anything like that.

Exactly. And because of this, you think "mothers who chose to kill their babies", and I think "mothers who were going to become dead if they didn't have a medically necessary abortion". Of course, it's not that cut and dried. There's a lot of variety involved here.

We would tell the side of the victim, but the pro-choice folks had them killed.

I expect better of you than this. I'm "pro-choice". Have I had any babies killed? No. When a friend of mine was told that she could get an abortion or risk dying when she miscarried in a few more months, I helped her cope a bit. Apart from that, I spend my effort trying to encourage people to avoid getting pregnant if they aren't ready to have kids, and consider adoption.

The two sides are not "mother" and "fetus". They are "pro-choice" and "pro-life", and if you would stop telling me what I think, and instead ask me what I think, you might learn a lot.

It's very hard for me to take the pro-life position seriously when it's so abundantly clear that most pro-life people are totally unwilling to even find out what I believe, or why. Respect is a two-way street.

As a general rule, I think that my approach to the abortion question is more likely to reduce the number of abortions, and increase the number of healthy and wanted children, in the world, than the traditional scorched-earth tactics of "pro-life" people.

I've never heard of pro-choice people pushing a pregnant woman roughly to the pavement to keep her going in for prenatal care.

 

[Credo]

What this tells me is that at least some pro-life people are willing to lie, cheat, and steal, to promote their agenda.

Again, I'll say that I don't think the website was hacked or hijacked...none of the websites listed on Google use the url astheworldturns.com:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Arts/Television/Programs/Soap_Operas/As_the_World_Turns/

 

[seebs]

o-yeah, and what would the porportion of those deemed "medically necessary" compared to those voluntary? What, 100 to 1? What difference does it make? Does the end justifiy the means?

That's a good question. How many people do you know who would be dead now if they hadn't had ectopic pregnancies terminated? I know two women off the top of my head who would be DEAD now, and their children, the ones who lived, would never have been born.

The point here is, whether it's 100 to 1, or 1 to 100, if you condemn people for something not worthy of condemnation, you greatly weaken your position on the things you *rightfully* condemn.

-yeah, babies die of complications......the complication of having their brains sucked out.....that's kindof complicated.....but easy on the mother.....

Would it be too much to ask that you not twist my words quite this much?

I was thinking of things like endometriosis, or ectopic pregnancies. Things that can result in the mother dying, leaving her other kids parentless, even though the "baby" in question never had a chance anyway.

 

[seebs]

Again, I'll say that I don't think the website was hacked or hijacked...none of the websites listed on Google use the url astheworldturns.com:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Arts/Television/Programs/Soap_Operas/As_the_World_Turns/

Fair enough. In that case, I guess my comments refer to the hypothetical world described in the original post, not to the real one.

 

[BAChristian]

Again, I'll say that I don't think the website was hacked or hijacked...none of the websites listed on Google use the url astheworldturns.com:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Arts/Television/Programs/Soap_Operas/As_the_World_Turns/

You're right...I just assumed my wife goes there since she's always going to soapcity anyway...

Ok folks, this IS NOT a security issue...rather, a legit website. Sorry for the confusion. Even we security d00ds get lazy sometimes and just take our wives soap sites for granted...

Here's the whois info:

Registrant:
Pro-Life domains Not For Sale
5444 Arlington Ave. #g14
Bronx, NY 10471
US
718-543-3664

Domain Name: ASTHEWORLDTURNS.COM
Administrative Contact:
barry, john rt4567@hotmail.com
5444 Arlington Ave. #g14
Bronx, NY 10471
US
718-543-3664

Technical Contact:
barry, john rt4567@hotmail.com
5444 Arlington Ave. #g14
Bronx, NY 10471
US
718-543-3664

Record last updated 11-14-2003 10:35:54 PM
Record expires on 10-04-2008
Record created on 10-04-1999
Domain servers in listed order:
NS0.DIRECTNIC.COM 204.251.10.100
NS1.DIRECTNIC.COM 206.251.177.2

 

[Theresa]

My point is that, as a practical matter (and yes, this isn't a formal debate), anyone who resorts to underhanded messages is sending another message; "my message is not persuasive enough, and I need to resort to trickery to support it".

-the trickery of the reality of it all. Very underhanded.

Starting with week 7.

It's very hard to get them earlier.

-they have pills for that, or the "mothers" don't know they are pregnant.

Exactly. And because of this, you think "mothers who chose to kill their babies", and I think "mothers who were going to become dead if they didn't have a medically necessary abortion". Of course, it's not that cut and dried. There's a lot of variety involved here.

-I'm sure. We'd need some statistics. Because some mothers have complications and require an abortion, which I would imagine is fairly low on the scale, then all mother's should be able to dispose of their babies at will.

I expect better of you than this.

-ha.....then all our expectations are diminished. If you're only arguement is, oh, it doesn't matter because of the way it was presented or, it could have been deemed medically necessary, then.....

I'm "pro-choice". Have I had any babies killed? No. When a friend of mine was told that she could get an abortion or risk dying when she miscarried in a few more months, I helped her cope a bit. Apart from that, I spend my effort trying to encourage people to avoid getting pregnant if they aren't ready to have kids, and consider adoption.

-My family was well informed prior the birth of my children, if it's a choice between the child or me...let me die.....I've already lived.....

The two sides are not "mother" and "fetus". They are "pro-choice" and "pro-life", and if you would stop telling me what I think, and instead ask me what I think, you might learn a lot.

-if what you thought ever coincided with Christianity then maybe it wouldn't be so much a problem......

As a general rule, I think that my approach to the abortion question is more likely to reduce the number of abortions, and increase the number of healthy and wanted children, in the world, than the traditional scorched-earth tactics of "pro-life" people.

I've never heard of pro-choice people pushing a pregnant woman roughly to the pavement to keep her going in for prenatal care.

-no, they just pat her on the back and tell her that killing her child is a good solution, and it's ok, God really doesn't care. God just gave her a child so that it could go to the dump.

 

[Theresa]

That's a good question. How many people do you know who would be dead now if they hadn't had ectopic pregnancies terminated? I know two women off the top of my head who would be DEAD now, and their children, the ones who lived, would never have been born.

-from what I understand, ectopic pregnancies aren't even in the same ballpark because there is no chance for the baby's survival. When you suck a child's brains out at 32 weeks, it's not quite the same, the baby can survive.....and make sure you only deliver the head, because it's illegal to do such a thing if the baby has been born fully alive, be very, very careful.....wouldn't want to do anything illegal like murder.....

The point here is, whether it's 100 to 1, or 1 to 100, if you condemn people for something not worthy of condemnation, you greatly weaken your position on the things you *rightfully* condemn.

-not quite. It's a sympathy card. Don't you feel sorry for this woman who was raped? It's not the babies fault, but the mother doesn't want the child so.......that's ok as long as it justifies the death of billions and billions of voluntary abortions, because of sympathy.....

Would it be too much to ask that you not twist my words quite this much?

I was thinking of things like endometriosis, or ectopic pregnancies. Things that can result in the mother dying, leaving her other kids parentless, even though the "baby" in question never had a chance anyway.

-which is not quite the case of most abortions, which was my point.

 

[geocajun]

Exactly. And because of this, you think "mothers who chose to kill their babies", and I think "mothers who were going to become dead if they didn't have a medically necessary abortion". Of course, it's not that cut and dried. There's a lot of variety involved here.

and I think that is an unreasonable line of thought.
When abortion was illegal, how many mothers died because of it? You must know this in order for you to immediatly conclude that every dead baby picture is the result of a saving the life of the mother.

I expect better of you than this. I'm "pro-choice".

Really? I was pretty impressed with my response myself

Have I had any babies killed? No.

If you are pro-choice then you are an enabler to the killing of babies.
Weather you are the instrumental cause of the babies death or not is not relevent as you are working to enable that murder to occur.

The two sides are not "mother" and "fetus". They are "pro-choice" and "pro-life", and if you would stop telling me what I think, and instead ask me what I think, you might learn a lot.

It's very hard for me to take the pro-life position seriously when it's so abundantly clear that most pro-life people are totally unwilling to even find out what I believe, or why. Respect is a two-way street.

pro-life is not about you - or your opinion. its all about the life of the baby, and fighting to stop that fundamental right to live from being denied.
Your statement is very selfish.
I couldn't care less about how you want to rationalize out killing an innocent baby. No amount of mixing words is going to change the fact that murder is murder.

As a general rule, I think that my approach to the abortion question is more likely to reduce the number of abortions, and increase the number of healthy and wanted children, in the world, than the traditional scorched-earth tactics of "pro-life" people.

"Your approach to the abortion question.."
very PC seebs. I guess this disclaimer of yours is supposed to make you one of the more likeable abortion advocates?

I've never heard of pro-choice people pushing a pregnant woman roughly to the pavement to keep her going in for prenatal care.

no, thats too "visable" for a pro-choice advocate.
They want to get the killing off the street, and into a private office room where the baby can be killed in a more private setting.

 

[BAChristian]

Hey seebs, I'll ask you...

What do you believe? Well, you stated your a pro-choice'er.

So, have you had any kids?

Are you married?

Do you believe it's ok to abort a baby, sayyyyy...if you're 17 and you just got pregnant and you think your Dad is going to disown you if he finds out?

Finally, you sure are defensive about all of this. Right off the bat...you were like the fourth person who responded and you instantly got defensive.

So since this site hasn't been hacked or illegally presented, then....what now? Can you disprove these photos? Can you disprove murder? I don't think you can.

Let me ask you again, why are you defensive? Do these photos disturb you? I bet they do don't they...

 

[geocajun]

You're right...I just assumed my wife goes there since she's always going to soapcity anyway...

Ok folks, this IS NOT a security issue...rather, a legit website. Sorry for the confusion. Even we security d00ds get lazy sometimes and just take our wives soap sites for granted...

There you have it seebs, now your gonna have to find a new reason for ignoring the dead baby picture.

 

[Susan]

Every life is precious. How could anyone even think that murdering a baby is allowable under any code, under any belief? A weak, defenseless child who has done nothing wrong?

Abortion, no matter if it's on the first or the last day of pregnancy, is murder. The murder of an innocent.

Oh, and if you're unwilling to die for your child-you shouldn't take on the responsibility of having sex in the first place.

People have no sense of responsibility and no care for the lives of others.

 

[seebs]

and I think that is an unreasonable line of thought.
When abortion was illegal, how many mothers died because of it? You must know this in order for you to immediatly conclude that every dead baby picture is the result of a saving the life of the mother.

Nah. I'm just biased by default. In reality, I assume it's mostly volitional, and presuambly immoral, abortions.

If you are pro-choice then you are an enabler to the killing of babies.

And yet, strangely, where I go, fewer babies die.

pro-life is not about you - or your opinion. its all about the life of the baby, and fighting to stop that fundamental right to live from being denied.

And that's all begging the question, so far as I can tell.

I couldn't care less about how you want to rationalize out killing an innocent baby. No amount of mixing words is going to change the fact that murder is murder.

And no amount of mixing words would change the fact that things which aren't murder aren't murder.

This is an issue on which I have seen reasonable people disagree.

no, thats too "visable" for a pro-choice advocate.
They want to get the killing off the street, and into a private office room where the baby can be killed in a more private setting.

LISTEN TO YOURSELF!

Did you even read what I wrote? Did what you say have anything to do with it?

You seem to have missed the key point, which is that I think abortions should be a lot rarer than they are.

Yeah, by being pro-choice, I may be somehow causing abortions to happen. And by being in favor of freedom of religion, I may be somehow causing people to worship false gods. I am in favor of people making their own moral choices in almost all cases. Late-term abortions are one of the cases where I am skeptical, but early-term abortions are not as simple an issue. Can anything without brain waves be called a "person"? I don't know. It's a tough call, and one I'd rather people made of their own volition, prayerfully, than at gunpoint.

 

[seebs]

So, have you had any kids?

Not yet.

Are you married?

Yup. Nine years this last Friday.

Do you believe it's ok to abort a baby, sayyyyy...if you're 17 and you just got pregnant and you think your Dad is going to disown you if he finds out?

I don't, but on the other hand, I place a lot more blame on the dad than on the kid in that circumstance. A 17-year-old is not entirely ready to be making moral decisions, and should not be pressured to have an abortion, directly or indirectly.

Finally, you sure are defensive about all of this. Right off the bat...you were like the fourth person who responded and you instantly got defensive.

Yup. I'm defensive about it because I saw one brief moment during which people stopped telling people on the other side what the propaganda says they think, and started listening to each other, and working together towards the shared goal of eliminating the vast majority of abortions, and then saw propaganda destroy it.

So since this site hasn't been hacked or illegally presented, then....what now? Can you disprove these photos? Can you disprove murder? I don't think you can.

Murder is an "innocent until proven guilty" charge. You need to kill a person, with malice aforethought, for it to be "murder". That's a pretty tough case to make.

Let me ask you again, why are you defensive? Do these photos disturb you? I bet they do don't they...

Yup. But what's new about that? I think late term abortions are almost certainly immoral except in the case of dire medical emergency. I actually lean strongly towards what is apparently the Orthodox Jewish position; until birth, you can abort only to protect the life of the mother, but once birth has started (baby is coming out), you can't even do that. The line may not be perfect, but it's easy to understand, and it's Biblically supported.

 

[seebs]

Every life is precious. How could anyone even think that murdering a baby is allowable under any code, under any belief? A weak, defenseless child who has done nothing wrong?

Well, in general, they don't think "murdering a baby" is allowable. They think "terminating a pregnancy" is allowable. Read up on ectopic pregnancies, ofr instance.

Oh, and if you're unwilling to die for your child-you shouldn't take on the responsibility of having sex in the first place.

What if you'd be dying for nothing - say, an ounce or two of defective tissue?

I can understand being willing to die for a baby that has some hope of being born and living. That seems reasonable enough to consider. But in the case where it doesn't?

The only counter I've seen is "well, God could make it work out". Yeah. And God could miraculously make an abortion turn into a live birth of a full-grown baby. In practice, we generally act as though there won't be a miracle.

People have no sense of responsibility and no care for the lives of others.

I generally agree with this, which is why I am strongly opposed to abortion in most cases.

 

[geocajun]

And no amount of mixing words would change the fact that things which aren't murder aren't murder.

taking the life of an innocent person is always murder

You seem to have missed the key point, which is that I think abortions should be a lot rarer than they are.

Then join the fight to stop them from being legal!

Yeah, by being pro-choice, I may be somehow causing abortions to happen.

It amazes me that you can recognize that and live with yourself in good conscience.

And by being in favor of freedom of religion, I may be somehow causing people to worship false gods. I am in favor of people making their own moral choices in almost all cases.

Allowing people freedom of religion is far different than allowing them freedoms which infringe on others freedom by their own choice.
Permitting someone to choose to murder another is an injustice.

Late-term abortions are one of the cases where I am skeptical, but early-term abortions are not as simple an issue. Can anything without brain waves be called a "person"? I don't know. It's a tough call, and one I'd rather people made of their own volition, prayerfully, than at gunpoint.

The baby has its own DNA which will never be repeated again, and basically we are all just DNA. Humans cannot reproduce and create anything other than humans.

 

[seebs]

taking the life of an innocent person is always murder

Except when it's manslaughter, such as when it is accidental or unknowing, or a side-effect of something else.

Then join the fight to stop them from being legal!

No. I think that drunkenness is bad for people, but I would devote a great deal of time and effort to opposing any attempt to outlaw alcohol, because Prohibition was worse than availability of alcohol.

I prefer to spend my time working to eliminate the causes of abortion. It's a symptom; treating the disease will do better than trying to deal with the symptom.

Allowing people freedom of religion is far different than allowing them freedoms which infringe on others freedom by their own choice.
Permitting someone to choose to murder another is an injustice.

But I don't think it's murder; I think it's much more like manslaughter, and furthermore, in at least some cases, I think that self-defense would be an acceptable justification.

I'd rather try to deal with the underlying trends that cause women to seek abortions.

The baby has its own DNA which will never be repeated again, and basically we are all just DNA. Humans cannot reproduce and create anything other than humans.

Then 75% or more of the humans who have ever lived died before anyone was even aware of them, because the majority of fertilized eggs never implant, or get miscarried within the first week or two.

We are not just DNA. We have souls. I don't know when we get them; I don't know whether God gives souls to all the fertilized eggs, even the ones that will spontaneously miscarry within two weeks, or whether He only gives souls to some of them - perhaps only the ones who will live to breathe on their own, for instance.

I can't accept "unique DNA" as a source for sanctity of life; that would argue that it's not immoral to kill one of a pair of identical twins, for instance.

 

[geocajun]

Then 75% or more of the humans who have ever lived died before anyone was even aware of them, because the majority of fertilized eggs never implant, or get miscarried within the first week or two.

We are not just DNA. We have souls. I don't know when we get them; I don't know whether God gives souls to all the fertilized eggs, even the ones that will spontaneously miscarry within two weeks, or whether He only gives souls to some of them - perhaps only the ones who will live to breathe on their own, for instance.

I can't accept "unique DNA" as a source for sanctity of life; that would argue that it's not immoral to kill one of a pair of identical twins, for instance.

All living things have souls seebs. Souls are the material principle of life.
The baby is human, thus is has a soul, that is unless you contend its a dead human (corpse) at conception.
If a child misscarries naturaly, then its just that, an act of nature - thus no crime committed.
the reference to Unique DNA was only used to show that its an unique life from the mother.