Abortion Activists in U.S. Say They Are Losing the Battle

[ChristopherHall]

Since anti- Abortion groups are mostly religious groups and I know I will be accused of trolling but it’s just a question....

How do you feel about Gods chosen people approving abortions?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Health/abort1.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Health/abort.html

Since Gods chosen people allow it, can the US not do the same?

Throughout the Bible God's chosen people rebelled against him and committed terrible sin. At one time Molech worship (containing child sacrifice) was common in ancient Israel. Ultimately in New Testament times they rejected Christ Jesus, their Messiah. God's chosen are an oft mistaken bunch.

Frankly, it means nothing.

 

[steen]

[Pro-Life Demcrats Continued]

You are missing a bunch from South Dakota.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The fact still remains, Abortion will not always be around, it cannot go on for the simple fact that it is only the pro-choice that are killing themselves through abortion, the pro-life will eventually out number the pro-choice, it is just a matter of time, the sooner you realise this, the better.

It is simple plain logic.

Another problem with your incorrect logic....the Constitution is not decided by a majority, it's decided by interpretation and precedent.

Plus, people who have abortions do have children too, or are you so out of touch that you think people who have abortions never have kids?

I'll tell you what will work against the anti-choice crowd, that is if I were to apply the same convoluted logic that you employ. As Bush leaves the White House and Democrats recapture the Presidency more money and emphasis will be spent on EDUCATION meaning that more people will rely on thinking not religion to make critical decisions and the amount people against legal abortion will diminish...The better educated people are the more they are for pro-choice.

One last time....ABORTION will always be LEGAL in the USA...and there will always be protests against it, which is the American way.

 

[Felicity]

Since anti- Abortion groups are mostly religious groups and I know I will be accused of trolling but it’s just a question....

How do you feel about Gods chosen people approving abortions?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Health/abort1.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Health/abort.html

Since Gods chosen people allow it, can the US not do the same?

I think Paul calls them a "stiff-necked" people--and at one point Paul was one of the "stiffest." God gave them the "Law" in the first place because they were so damned stubborn to have it their way. The fact that they ARE the "chosen people" despite their "stiff-necks" shows the mercy of God and the covenantal relationship He has with His people.


There is no "covenant" between God and the U.S..

 

[Felicity]

The better educated people are the more they are for pro-choice.
.

Elitist, are you?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Elitist, are you?

Are you a word twister? Did you miss that I wrote this at the beginning of the paragraph that you cited and then changed it's meaning?

I wrote this...what do you think it means?

I'll tell you what will work against the anti-choice crowd, that is if I were to apply the same convoluted logic that you employ.

 

[jimmyjack]

Another problem with your incorrect logic....the Constitution is not decided by a majority, it's decided by interpretation and precedent.

Plus, people who have abortions do have children too, or are you so out of touch that you think people who have abortions never have kids?

I'll tell you what will work against the anti-choice crowd, that is if I were to apply the same convoluted logic that you employ. As Bush leaves the White House and Democrats recapture the Presidency more money and emphasis will be spent on EDUCATION meaning that more people will rely on thinking not religion to make critical decisions and the amount people against legal abortion will diminish...The better educated people are the more they are for pro-choice.

One last time....ABORTION will always be LEGAL in the USA...and there will always be protests against it, which is the American way.

The pro-life cause has been gaining strength ever since people have become educated, it is due to advances in technology that has made us realise how wrong abortion is. When abortion was first legalised people didn’t know about DNA, nor did we have the ability to see the foetus and its activity in the womb. The more we advance the more we see just how evil abortion is, and you do not have to be religious to see that abortion is a reckless action.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The pro-life cause has been gaining strength ever since people have become educated, it is due to advances in technology that has made us realise how wrong abortion is. When abortion was first legalised people didn’t know about DNA, nor did we have the ability to see the foetus and its activity in the womb. The more we advance the more we see just how evil abortion is, and you do not have to be religious to see that abortion is a reckless action.

What you seem to omit from your "logic" is that the Constitution gives EVERYONE the freedom to choose and that is an unalienable right...and remember...Abortion will ALWAYS be LEGAL in the USA, ALWAYS.

 

[jimmyjack]

What you seem to omit from your "logic" is that the Constitution gives EVERYONE the freedom to choose and that is an unalienable right...and remember...Abortion will ALWAYS be LEGAL in the USA, ALWAYS.

Not everyone has the freedom to choose, because a foetus does not see any choice.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Not everyone has the freedom to choose, because a foetus does not see any choice.

Please! A fetus is not a human being, it hasn't any rights in the eyes of the law.

 

[jimmyjack]

Please! A fetus is not a human being, it hasn't any rights in the eyes of the law.

What species is the foetus if it is not human?

Why do you claim it does not exist?

Was the law right when it took rights away from black people?

 

[vergiss]

Like I said, you are testimony to the Pro-life cause.

How ironic! You're testimony to the pro-choice cause.

 

[Felicity]

Are you a word twister? Did you miss that I wrote this at the beginning of the paragraph that you cited and then changed it's meaning?

I wrote this...what do you think it means?

Well...actually THIS is what you said....

I'll tell you what will work against the anti-choice crowd, that is if I were to apply the same convoluted logic that you employ. As Bush leaves the White House and Democrats recapture the Presidency more money and emphasis will be spent on EDUCATION meaning that more people will rely on thinking not religion to make critical decisions and the amount people against legal abortion will diminish...The better educated people are the more they are for pro-choice.

Educated="'thinking' not religion" with the implication that if you are "religious" you are not a "thinker"--i.e. "UNeducated."

Better education=those who are less religious.


As I said...Elitist, eh? and maybe I should add, "bigoted against religion" since you make such a sweeping generalization....or was it just an unintentional suggestion that people who subscribe to a religion are not as smart as people who don't?

BTW--(...keep dreaming about the white house...:rofl )

 

[vergiss]

As I said...Elitist, eh? and maybe I should add, "bigoted against religion" since you make such a sweeping generalization....or was it just an unintentional suggestion that people who subscribe to a religion are not as smart as people who don't?

No. 26 X World Champs would fully realise that some people with faith are intelligent enough to actually think for themselves, rather than let dogma do it for them.

 

[Felicity]

No. 26 X World Champs would fully realise that some people with faith are intelligent enough to actually think for themselves, rather than let dogma do it for them.

I hope that's the case--but it isn't clear from the posts..hence the questions.

 

[paulmarkj]

What species is the foetus if it is not human?

Why do you claim it does not exist?

Was the law right when it took rights away from black people?

1) It is a human foetus, but not human in entirety. Just as my little finger is a human finger but not a human being.

3) No, because they were/are human beings. Fully formed, born.

 

[jamesrage]

Abortion Activists in U.S. Say They Are Losing the Battle

By Gudrun Schultz

January 30, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After thirty-three years of abortion-on-demand in the US, abortion activists are saying they can feel their grip on the country starting to slide away.

I hope murdering a baby before he or she leaves his or hers mother's womb will soon be a crime and these little nazis who facilitate these baby murders/abortion can be rounded up shot.

 

[jimmyjack]

1) It is a human foetus, but not human in entirety. Just as my little finger is a human finger but not a human being.

3) No, because they were/are human beings. Fully formed, born.

Wrong, a more accurate analogy is that your sperm is like a piece of your finger because the DNA is an equal match. However, a foetus has its own DNA, totally unique to you and the mother and anyone else in the world, and the blood type is of a different group from its own mother even at such an early stage. Your piece of finger, will not grow, neither will your finger develop a heart that will beat after a few weeks. So we can see the foetus is an individual human, whereas your finger is not an individual, it is part of you; a foetus is a separate entity.

And to address your second point: Is a man with one leg not a human being, merely because he is not fully formed? I don’t think so.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Well...actually THIS is what you said....

Educated="'thinking' not religion" with the implication that if you are "religious" you are not a "thinker"--i.e. "UNeducated."

Better education=those who are less religious.

As I said...Elitist, eh? and maybe I should add, "bigoted against religion" since you make such a sweeping generalization....or was it just an unintentional suggestion that people who subscribe to a religion are not as smart as people who don't?

Let's try again, OK? I wrote this:

I'll tell you what will work against the anti-choice crowd, that is if I were to apply the same convoluted logic that you employ

See what I said? IF I WERE TO APPLY THE SAME CONVOLUTED LOGIC THAT YOU EMPLOY.

Do you know what CONVOLUTED means? It means:

Intricate; complicated: convoluted legal language; convoluted reasoning.

OK? I was saying that the posters logic was absurd and if I were to apply the same WRONG logic it would sound like what I wrote. OK?

In no way do I subscribe to that theory. Religious belief is not a measuring stick for intelligence, or lack thereof.

Clear now?

 

[Felicity]

Do you know what CONVOLUTED means? It means:

Do you know what POMPOUS means?

OK? I was saying that the posters logic was absurd and if I were to apply the same WRONG logic it would sound like what I wrote. OK?

So you don't really think that educated people are "thinkers--not religious?" The WAY you wrote something--or used convoluted logic has nothing to do with the whether you adhere to the conclusion you reach or not--it's just how you got there.

In no way do I subscribe to that theory. Religious belief is not a measuring stick for intelligence, or lack thereof.

So what was your point? To say something you really didn't think?

Clear now?

Not really--it's probably due to all the back paddling to distance what you actually said from what you'd like to admit you believe. That's the only conclusion I can draw since you state that religious belief is no measuring stick for intelligence--and yet you clearly indicated that education was something OTHER THAN religious conviction and educated people lean pro-choice. Either you were saying something you didn't think or ....you goofed and want to distance yourself from it. Whatever...I think my point is made.

I'm pretty educated--I'm pro-life--BECAUSE of what I know about abortion and BECAUSE of the twisted logic the pro-choice side must use to deny an abortion kills an immature individual human being.

 

[steen]

I hope murdering a baby before he or she leaves his or hers mother's womb will soon be a crime and these little nazis who facilitate these baby murders/abortion can be rounded up shot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

 

[26 X World Champs]

Do you know what POMPOUS means?

Someone who tries to tell another human being what they can or cannot do with their body? Someone who tries to impose their religious beliefs onto the secular government that our Constitution setup?

So you don't really think that educated people are "thinkers--not religious?" The WAY you wrote something--or used convoluted logic has nothing to do with the whether you adhere to the conclusion you reach or not--it's just how you got there.

So what was your point? To say something you really didn't think?

What???? Are you unable or is it unwilling to comprehend that my entire point was that the other poster was using ridiculous logic to make a ridiculous point and that if that same methodology of ridiculous logic were applied by someone with a different agenda you would end up with ridiculous conclusions. I've now had to explain this to you multiple times and this will be the last time. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make her drink....

Not really--it's probably due to all the back paddling to distance what you actually said from what you'd like to admit you believe. That's the only conclusion I can draw since you state that religious belief is no measuring stick for intelligence--and yet you clearly indicated that education was something OTHER THAN religious conviction and educated people lean pro-choice. Either you were saying something you didn't think or ....you goofed and want to distance yourself from it. Whatever...I think my point is made.

UGH.....see above and try a little harder to connect the dots, please?

I'm pretty educated--I'm pro-life--BECAUSE of what I know about abortion and BECAUSE of the twisted logic the pro-choice side must use to deny an abortion kills an immature individual human being.

Then why don't you enact a Constitutional amendment banning abortion? That is the one and only way abortion will ever become illegal in the USA. How come anti-choicers who espouse the same rhetoric that you're writing always "cut and run" when the Amendment suggestion is raised? Is it because you're smart enough to know that such an Amendment would never, ever be passed and that it would be a finality to a legal argument? In other words are you afraid to actually confront and eventually decide whether America wants to amend it's laws to allow for infringements on our civil rights?

It looks like a "put up or shut up" challenge made to anti-choice supporters always ends in a diversion away from truly resolving the question? Instead of trying to subplant the Constitution why don't you do what the Constitution outlines as the method for change?

You know what the odds of an amendment passing are? ZERO! Which is why people who are anti-life avoid this simple question like the plague.

 

[Felicity]

Someone who tries to tell another human being what they can or cannot do with their body?

Like a mother aborting the body that lives inside hers? Like that mother telling that human being "you must die so that I can continue my own life how I please?"

Someone who tries to impose their religious beliefs onto the secular government that our Constitution setup?

Have I arguesd a "religious belief?" By the way--our constitution didn't "set-up" anything--the founding fathers did.

What???? Are you unable or is it unwilling to comprehend that my entire point was that the other poster was using ridiculous logic to make a ridiculous point and that if that same methodology of ridiculous logic were applied by someone with a different agenda you would end up with ridiculous conclusions.

So are you now saying your conclusions were ridiculous? I agree.

I've now had to explain this to you multiple times and this will be the last time. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make her drink....

:drink a toast to you since we agree that what you said was ridiculous--no matter what course of twisted logic you took to get there!

Then why don't you enact a Constitutional amendment banning abortion?

Because it should have been a state issue from the VERY beginning and it should go back to the states.

That is the one and only way abortion will ever become illegal in the USA. How come anti-choicers who espouse the same rhetoric that you're writing always "cut and run" when the Amendment suggestion is raised?

It's irrelevant if it is a state issue.

Is it because you're smart enough to know that such an Amendment would never, ever be passed and that it would be a finality to a legal argument? In other words are you afraid to actually confront and eventually decide whether America wants to amend it's laws to allow for infringements on our civil rights? It looks like a "put up or shut up" challenge made to anti-choice supporters always ends in a diversion away from truly resolving the question? Instead of trying to subplant the Constitution why don't you do what the Constitution outlines as the method for change? You know what the odds of an amendment passing are? ZERO! Which is why people who are anti-life avoid this simple question like the plague.

Lovely emotional appeal....:applaud ...utterly irrelevant...:spin:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Like a mother aborting the body that lives inside hers? Like that mother telling that human being "you must die so that I can continue my own life how I please?"

You nailed it, exactly. An unborn fetus is not a human being yet, and does not have the same rights. The rights of the "host" supercede the non-rights of the fetus and that is what the law says now, BTW.

So are you now saying your conclusions were ridiculous? I agree.
:drink a toast to you since we agree that what you said was ridiculous--no matter what course of twisted logic you took to get there!

The simple fact that you were never able to comprehend the analogy I was making from the very beginning is a reflection of your misunderstanding, not mine. You seemed to be unable to recognize how stupid that poster's logic was despite my repeatedly explaining the idiocy of with an illustration of what made it absurd. I'm happy that my repeatedly explaining the same thing to you finally got through. My conclusion was always the same, your inability to grasp the conclusion is what delayed your and my reaching the same place.

 

[Felicity]

your inability to grasp the conclusion is what delayed your and my reaching the same place.

No..it was your refusal to admit that what you said was elitist blather...but now that it's obvious by your own admission that your statements were "ridiculous conclusions," I'm happy to let you off the hook without insisting you actually say the words "I was wrong" or admiting your elitist outlook. :2wave: I see why you have chosen that Yogi Berra quote for your sig. line....:mrgreen: