ElvisFan42
Senior Veteran
Thanks. That is what I indicated.
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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Also, I don't consider the term "Pro-Abort" to be disrespectful. I consider it to be truthful.
An unborn child is not a parasite. It is a human being. It is a person with rights!
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.
Also, I don't consider the term "Pro-Abort" to be disrespectful. I consider it to be truthful.
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
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.
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.
Going by your logic then the baby has rights over its own body as well.
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.
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.
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.Going by your logic then the baby has rights over its own body as well.
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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."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.
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?
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
The onus is on you to prove the facts wrong.
....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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?