Pro-Aborts Commit Violence Too

[ElvisFan42]

Fine. I am going to use pro-life and pro-choice as terms. I suspect that you will respect me and refer to me as pro-life.

Thanks. That is what I indicated.

Also, I don't consider the term "Pro-Abort" to be disrespectful. I consider it to be truthful.

You can't agree to something without getting a shot in? You don't have to comprehend it to accept it, but pro-choice people are not for abortion.

 

[CSmrw]

An unborn child is not a parasite. It is a human being. It is a person with rights!

The rights it's host gives it. You have absolute authority over your own body or liberty means nothing.

 

[Cerberus~]

I am not by any means saying that the pro-life side is perfect. Neither side is perfect. The pro-life side is correct, the pro-abortion side is incorrect. I am only exposing the pro-abortion side.

Way to be biased.

Also, I don't consider the term "Pro-Abort" to be disrespectful. I consider it to be truthful.

It's a slanderous lie regardless of what you 'consider'.

 

[JGG]

Pro-Abortions Commit Vilence too:

• 880 homicides and other killings
• 86 attempted murders
• 23 arsons and bombings
• 787 assaults
• 1,798 sex crimes
• (including 169 rapes)
• 59 kidnappings
• 420 cases of vandalism
• 270 drug-related crimes
• 1,577 medical crimes

Extreme pro-lifers are not the only ones guilty of violence against the opposition.

A free CD here:

http://www.abortionviolence.com/av_order_form.php

Ummm...I propose that the categories these numbers represent have been very poorly defined, and therefore false. What sort of "drug related crime" would we be talking about in this sense?

I am not by any means saying that the pro-life side is perfect. Neither side is perfect. The pro-life side is correct, the pro-abortion side is incorrect. I am only exposing the pro-abortion side.

Argument from two wrongs make a right.

Fine, if you want to use the term "pro-choice" (which is false, what about the choice of the unborn baby?) then there is a lot of "pro-choice" violence too.

Well, I think you mistake the idea behind pro-choice. The choice is the in the way we define "life." Life is an abstract concept that we cannot objectively define, or even scientifically prove. There are a number of different ways in which we can define life, and in our culture we tend to define a human to be alive when it emerges from the womb (we legally define our time on earth from the date we emerge from the womb, not by the date of our conception).

We could also determine life from a social perspective, as in we are alive when we can form social bonds, at which point life would begin earlier than our "birth" definition. This is considered the philosophical view of life.

There are a number of other ways to determine life, but I won't get into all of them. My point is, the choice, when you get right down to it, is the right to choose your own definition of life, as there is no objective way to define it. Therefore, to say that the baby doesn't get to choose is a misnomer, it requires removing choice, and defining life the way you want us to. So defining a clump of cells as a baby, is simply an emotional plea, and not a particularly persuasive argument.

Going by your logic then the baby has rights over its own body as well.

That depends on when you ask. Its possible that there is no baby there at all depending on how one defines "life."

 

[Ave Maria]

What is it that you're "exposing?"
That the pro-choice side can contain crackpots too? I don't think that was ever seriously in dispute by anyone. At least not anyone I've seen on this board. So I'm not sure what it is that you think you're enlightening anyone on.

Believe it or not, I had never heard of pro-choice violence until I came to that site a while back. I suspect it is the same with others.

 

[Ave Maria]

What is it that you're "exposing?"
That the pro-choice side can contain crackpots too? I don't think that was ever seriously in dispute by anyone. At least not anyone I've seen on this board. So I'm not sure what it is that you think you're enlightening anyone on.

The rights it's host gives it. You have absolute authority over your own body or liberty means nothing.

Going by your logic then the baby has rights over its own body as well.

 

[Ave Maria]

Way to be biased.



It's a slanderous lie regardless of what you 'consider'.

That is your opinion and frankly, this particular opinion of yours means little to me. I mean this in no offense.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Going by your logic then the baby has rights over its own body as well.

Darn. You beat me to the punch on that one... Good call.

Trickster

 

[CSmrw]

An unborn child is not a parasite. It is a human being. It is a person with rights!

Going by your logic then the baby has rights over its own body as well.

Yep. Anyone living inside that baby is at it's mercy, assuming it's mother doesn't kill it before it can make a decision.

 

[Ave Maria]

Way to be biased.



It's a slanderous lie regardless of what you 'consider'.

Darn. You beat me to the punch on that one... Good call.

Trickster

Thank you.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yep. Anyone living inside that baby is at it's mercy, assuming it's mother doesn't kill it before it can make a decision.

Considering that a fetus living inside a fetus is extremely rare and virtually impossible, your comment is of no effect.

 

[CSmrw]

Considering that a fetus living inside a fetus is extremely rare and virtually impossible, your comment is of no effect.

I didn't bring it up.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yep. Anyone living inside that baby is at it's mercy, assuming it's mother doesn't kill it before it can make a decision.

Ummm...I propose that the categories these numbers represent have been very poorly defined, and therefore false. What sort of "drug related crime" would we be talking about in this sense?



Argument from two wrongs make a right.



Well, I think you mistake the idea behind pro-choice. The choice is the in the way we define "life." Life is an abstract concept that we cannot objectively define, or even scientifically prove. There are a number of different ways in which we can define life, and in our culture we tend to define a human to be alive when it emerges from the womb (we legally define our time on earth from the date we emerge from the womb, not by the date of our conception).

We could also determine life from a social perspective, as in we are alive when we can form social bonds, at which point life would begin earlier than our "birth" definition. This is considered the philosophical view of life.

There are a number of other ways to determine life, but I won't get into all of them. My point is, the choice, when you get right down to it, is the right to choose your own definition of life, as there is no objective way to define it. Therefore, to say that the baby doesn't get to choose is a misnomer, it requires removing choice, and defining life the way you want us to. So defining a clump of cells as a baby, is simply an emotional plea, and not a particularly persuasive argument.



That depends on when you ask. Its possible that there is no baby there at all depending on how one defines "life."

The numbers are no more false than the fact that a man stepped on the moon is false. The numbers are facts and you can deny them all you want but the facts stand.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yep. Anyone living inside that baby is at it's mercy, assuming it's mother doesn't kill it before it can make a decision.

I didn't bring it up.

Then why did you say tha Anyone living inside that baby is at it's mercy? Seems like you brought it up to me.

 

[JGG]

The numbers are no more false than the fact that a man stepped on the moon is false. The numbers are facts and you can deny them all you want but the facts stand.

They aren't facts yet. Maybe you made them up. Back them up with a reasonably reliable source of some sort.

And that whole post, and that's all your going to comment on?

 

[TricksterWolf]

Yep. Anyone living inside that baby is at it's mercy, assuming it's mother doesn't kill it before it can make a decision.

Do you think if most people saw a mostly-developed fetus, they would say, "Hey, look, it's a fetus." Or would they say, "Hey, look, it's a part of a woman. You know, the fetus part."

You're getting into the same essentialistic arguments you claimed to reject with the whole "part of the body" definition.

Trickster

 

[Ave Maria]

They aren't facts yet. Maybe you made them up. Back them up with a reasonably reliable source of some sort.

And that whole post, and that's all your going to comment on?

The onus is on you to prove the facts wrong.

 

[Ave Maria]

They aren't facts yet. Maybe you made them up. Back them up with a reasonably reliable source of some sort.

And that whole post, and that's all your going to comment on?

Do you think if most people saw a mostly-developed fetus, they would say, "Hey, look, it's a fetus." Or would they say, "Hey, look, it's a part of a woman. You know, the fetus part."

You're getting into the same essentialistic arguments you claimed to reject with the whole "part of the body" definition.

Trickster

They would undoubtedly say it is a fetus.

 

[JGG]

The onus is on you to prove the facts wrong.

....that's really not how it works, but I'll throw this out there. Ready for it?

Your facts are wrong.

Now its up to you to prove me wrong.

 

[Ave Maria]

....that's really not how it works, but I'll throw this out there.

Okay, your facts are wrong. Now its up to you to prove me wrong.

That's not how it works either. I, the OP, declare that this thread is not about whether the facts are right or wrong but is about abortion violence and the discussion will be strictly related to abortion violence and that only.