Pro-Life Protesting Behavior

[SallyNow]

Oh, please...

You disagree that a protester's time could be better spent fundraising for women who have to take off time from work so they can give birth and give their newborns up for adoption, and for pre-and-post natal care, or helping stable families with adoptions costs so children can tranfer out of the foster care system and be adopted by loving, stable families? Or setting up full-service medical clinics for those with low incomes?

 

[MikeMcK]

Educate yourself, alot more than abortions go on at PP.

I am educated, thank you.

Even those who support Planned Parenthood and their barbaric acts admit that abortions happen there.

When I was a paramedic, I was called to Cherry Hill Women's Center several times, so I saw what went on there first hand.

 

[MikeMcK]

i'm not a foundie or anything, but i am strongly anti-fur.
i don't understand how you can compare a person who thinks is ok to kill for the only purpose of fashion and don't even ask themeselves wheter this is right or wrong and will only end up having a coat ruined to women who are facing a really hard moment in their life, probably feel guilty and insecure and get attacked by a stranger who makes them feel like harlots and criminals. there's no way is the same...

YIKES!

Are you really saying that it's worse to kill an animal for food and clothing than it is to kill a baby for convenience?

 

[TuxThePenguin]

YIKES!

Are you really saying that it's worse to kill an animal for food and clothing than it is to kill a baby for convenience?

Please use one of the following terms :

Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo or Fetus.

Anything else is a lying and an emotional appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_(biology)#Physical_stages

 

[MikeMcK]

Please use one of the following terms :

Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo or Fetus.

Anything else is a lying and an emotional appeal.

No matter what you choose to call them, they're still innocent little babies in the womb and it is wrong to kill them.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

No matter what you choose to call them, they're still innocent little babies in the womb

by definition they are not.

and it is wrong to kill them.

I disagree.
I have a logically consistent rationale for my position backed up with evidence. Do you?

regarding the OP:

Harassment and Intimidation are wrong.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Please use one of the following terms :

Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo or Fetus.

Anything else is a lying and an emotional appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_(biology)#Physical_stages

Whatever. Save your New Speak garbage. It reminds me of the slave traders in the 1800's that would say "It's not a human, it's a negro". OK Tux, we'll just agree that it's OK to pluck you off. After all --you're not a human, you're a post-adolescent, right?

Furthermore, zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus are specially ambiguous and no one is arguing it is wrong to kill a canine zygote, we are specifically talking about humans here, so to spare confusion we'll just refer to them as unborn humans--to do otherwise is disingenuous.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Please use one of the following terms :

Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo or Fetus.

Anything else is a lying and an emotional appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_(biology)#Physical_stages

Whatever. Save your New Speak garbage. It reminds me of the slave traders in the 1800's that would say "It's not a human, it's a negro". OK Tux, we'll just agree that it's OK to pluck you off. After all --you're not a human, you're a post-adolescent, right?

Furthermore, zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus are specially ambiguous and no one is arguing it is wrong to kill a canine zygote, we are specifically talking about humans here, so to spare confusion we'll just refer to them as unborn humans--to do otherwise is disingenuous.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Please use one of the following terms :

Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo or Fetus.

Anything else is a lying and an emotional appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_(biology)#Physical_stages

Whatever. Save your New Speak garbage. It reminds me of the slave traders in the 1800's that would say "It's not a human, it's a negro". OK Tux, we'll just agree that it's OK to pluck you off. After all --you're not a human, you're a post-adolescent, right?

Furthermore, zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus are specially ambiguous and no one is arguing it is wrong to kill a canine zygote, we are specifically talking about humans here, so to spare confusion we'll just refer to them as unborn humans--to do otherwise is disingenuous.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

Whatever. Save your New Speak garbage. It reminds me of the slave traders in the 1800's that would say "It's not a human, it's a negro".

Just because someone says it doesn't make it true, some people say "He's not Christian , he's catholic" is that true?
Do you disagree that slaves in the 1800's were human?

OK Tux, we'll just agree that it's OK to pluck you off. After all --you're not a human, you're a post-adolescent, right?

I am
1) Born
2) Have a central nervous system and brain-stem I can feel pain have emotions and a sense of self.

Please don't strawman my position.

Furthermore, zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus are specially ambiguous and no one is arguing it is wrong to kill a canine zygote, we are specifically talking about humans here, so to spare confusion we'll just refer to them as unborn humans--to do otherwise is disingenuous.

To remove the ambiguity. when speaking of zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus. I was referring to 'human zygote' , 'human blastocyst', 'human embryo' and 'human fetus'.

This is another strawman as I never had a problem with the phrase 'unborn humans' . I had a problem with the use of 'baby'.

 

[MikeMcK]

by definition they are not.

And by God's definition, they are.

I disagree.
I have a logically consistent rationale for my position backed up with evidence. Do you?

OK. What is your "logically consistent rationale" that it is wrong to kill babies?

 

[MikeMcK]

Whatever. Save your New Speak garbage. It reminds me of the slave traders in the 1800's that would say "It's not a human, it's a negro".

Negros were considered to be only 3/5 human.

In the same way, Hitler justified killing Jews by claiming them to be "sub-human", and crippled people by declaring them "useless eaters".

So, justifying such acts by attempting to define away the humanity of the victims is a long tradition.

 

[Archivist]

Whatever. Save your New Speak garbage. It reminds me of the slave traders in the 1800's that would say "It's not a human, it's a negro".

Actually it was never claimed that slaves were not human as you have stated. They were counted in the US Census and were used as a factor in determining representation in the US House and the Electoral College (the 3/5's rule).

 

[HazyRigby]

And yes, the Bible does speak to abortion. People love to quote "an eye for an eye..", but almost nobody knows where it comes from. It's in the Old Testament, in a section describing what punishment any person who harms an unborn child should recieve. If the child lost an eye, the person who caused it was to loose an eye; if the child suffered any other injury, the offender was to recieve the same injury; if the child died... well, I'll let you figure that part out.

Can you please show me where in the Bible it says that?

The only place that I'm aware of any discussion on the matter is in Exodus 21:22–25:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine].

And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

. . . which is very clearly saying that killing an unborn fetus deserves a fine. But if you kill a woman, then it's an eye for an eye. Which clearly demonstrates that the fetus's life is not as important as the mother's.

 

[MikeMcK]

. . . which is very clearly saying that killing an unborn fetus deserves a fine. But if you kill a woman, then it's an eye for an eye. Which clearly demonstrates that the fetus's life is not as important as the mother's.

Actually, that isn't what it says at all. It simply says that there is a difference between killing a child by accident and killing a woman on purpose.

 

[christalee4]

Blocking the entrance to clinics, or blocking the sidewalks near clinics, and holding very graphic or rude signs can be just as bad as "crazies hollering".

Perhaps a better use of protester's time would be fundraising for women who have to take off time from work so they can give birth and give their newborns up for adoption, and for pre-and-post natal care.



There are many threads about abortion. This thread is about the harassment that is caused to women getting medical treatment.

Indeed, because the underlying thinking behind shutting down the clinics is that single women and girls have no business having access to birth control, since it's "immoral", and that married women shouldn't have birth control, because it's "against God's plan" to be fruitful and multiply.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/m...92772f01a5c709&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Abortion is only a small part of the issue, which is all about taking the decision-making process of sexuality out of women's hands.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

And by God's definition, they are.

I'd like to see the evidence for that. As far as I am aware different religions don't agree about the start of person-hood. Varying from conception through quickening to birth (breath).
What is 'Gods definition'?

OK. What is your "logically consistent rationale" that it is wrong to kill babies?

http://www.christianforums.com/t3217898

 

[KarateCowboy]

Just because someone says it doesn't make it true, some people say "He's not Christian , he's catholic" is that true?
Do you disagree that slaves in the 1800's were human?

I am
1) Born
2) Have a central nervous system and brain-stem I can feel pain have emotions and a sense of self.

Please don't strawman my position.

To remove the ambiguity. when speaking of zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus. I was referring to 'human zygote' , 'human blastocyst', 'human embryo' and 'human fetus'.

This is another strawman as I never had a problem with the phrase 'unborn humans' . I had a problem with the use of 'baby'.

OK so I admit I am not one hundred per cent sure your stance on the issue, but it's good we kind of agree. Personally I don't see anything wrong with the term 'baby'.

 

[Texas Lynn]

It amazes me that you label your self as a Christian, but do not consider an unborn child to be a person.

This sort of self-admitted "Amazement" is why I suggested you need to educate yourself about Christianity. You are apparently not cognizant of the fact most Christians are pro-choice and the "fetus is a person" position is a recent fiction in contrast to centuries of wisdom otherwise.

At what point does a person, to you, suddenly qualify to be worthy of God's love? At birth?

I believe persons all are thus "worthy"....that does not change the fact a fetus is not a person.

God says He knows us BEFORE we are born, and as such we are therefore "people" before we are born. At least in His eyes.

There is certainly no evidence of this.

If laws were to change suddenly and an unborn was recognized as a person, would your values also suddenly change to match the law?

Not one whit. That would guarantee we lived in a fascist country and that subversion and-or rebellion had become necessary.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Oh, so now we've switched from me not knowing about Christianity... which means following Christ... to not understanding the beliefs of "...many Christians." I don't care what they say, just what the Bible says.

Christianity may mean "following Christ" but it is a religion nevertheless and to know about it is to know what its adherents believe, which you apparently don't. The Bible is entirely silent on the topic.

So you don't think that what the Bible says about harming unborn children applies to abortion? Why not?

Oh, the penalty if two men are fighting and knock over a pregnant woman and cause a termination of the pregnancy? That's a property rights issue, nothing about abortion at all.