• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arguing for pro life . Yes it is possible . [W:506]

Un biased

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
1,642
Reaction score
522
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Oddly enough a few weeks ago I found myself starting to understand part of the pro life's argument when I was debating and a pro choice person ( not naming names ) had the audacity to say that a un wanted pregnancy would be like the baby raping the mother . Their are several reasons to be pro choice but having no respect for a fetus and accusing a being which is un aware and had no choice to be born of rape was appalling I found myself arguing for the life of the fetuses even agreeing with the argument's of people I never thought I would . Pro choice never use the fetuses raping mother argument it can easily be countered with the fact that since the fetuses has no choice it would be the other way around the mother would be forcing the baby to have intercourse with her .
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Oddly enough a few weeks ago I found myself starting to understand part of the pro life's argument when I was debating and a pro choice person ( not naming names ) had the audacity to say that a un wanted pregnancy would be like the baby raping the mother . Their are several reasons to be pro choice but having no respect for a fetus and accusing a being which is un aware and had no choice to be born of rape was appalling I found myself arguing for the life of the fetuses even agreeing with the argument's of people I never thought I would . Pro choice never use the fetuses raping mother argument it can easily be countered with the fact that since the fetuses has no choice it would be the other way around the mother would be forcing the baby to have intercourse with her .
Because many in the pro choice movement are that militant.
 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,181
Reaction score
4,037
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The same poster refers to humans conceived in rape as "human garbage" and being products of the devil.

Just for the record.

I was expecting this would have horrifed more people, but usually you just see plenty of "likes."
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
64,461
Reaction score
35,895
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oddly enough a few weeks ago I found myself starting to understand part of the pro life's argument when I was debating and a pro choice person ( not naming names ) had the audacity to say that a un wanted pregnancy would be like the baby raping the mother . Their are several reasons to be pro choice but having no respect for a fetus and accusing a being which is un aware and had no choice to be born of rape was appalling I found myself arguing for the life of the fetuses even agreeing with the argument's of people I never thought I would . Pro choice never use the fetuses raping mother argument it can easily be countered with the fact that since the fetuses has no choice it would be the other way around the mother would be forcing the baby to have intercourse with her .

I had never thought of this. I just don't understand representing the fetus, whose only crime is in being conceived, as a parasitic sexual marauder.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The same poster refers to humans conceived in rape as "human garbage" and being products of the devil.

Just for the record.

I was expecting this would have horrifed more people, but usually you just see plenty of "likes."
And which poster are you speaking of?
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
64,461
Reaction score
35,895
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
He said he didn't wish to call anybody out. Let's respect that.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
33,983
Reaction score
9,288
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Because many in the pro choice movement are that militant.

Any bombers among them? I can think of a few pro life folks that advocate murder and bombing. Just sayin..........
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Any bombers among them? I can think of a few pro life folks that advocate murder and bombing. Just sayin..........
The "pro lifers" that pull that are usually all around anacharists. But either way, they are wrong for doing it. I dont advocate violence to solve the problem.
 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,181
Reaction score
4,037
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Any bombers among them? I can think of a few pro life folks that advocate murder and bombing. Just sayin..........

Well, I can't.
 

Bob Blaylock

Electrician
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
13,745
Reaction score
8,546
Location
North 38°28′ West 121°26′
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I had never thought of this. I just don't understand representing the fetus, whose only crime is in being conceived, as a parasitic sexual marauder.

When one starts from the position of denying the humanity of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, and advocating that there should be a fairly unrestrained “right” to kill them; then there's really no point in being shocked or surprised at the depths of depravity to which one will go to defend that position. It is, after all, a rather horrendously depraved position to begin with. There really isn't much lower to go.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
The birth as rape argument is frankly absurd. Almost no one makes that argument, and it is entirely superfluous to the arguments to protect the right to an abortion.
 

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I see a nice collection of Abortion Opponents posting in this Thread, mostly spouting the same nonsense they spout elsewhere.

But one thing I will agree with: Pregnancy is a thing quite distinct from "rape". After all, any blastocyst that penetrates a vagina, instead of a uterus, is a doomed organism! The woman very probably won't even know it happened!

Now that that's out of the way, I can tackle the nonsense:

1. Unborn humans that are associated with an actual rape will obviously carry some of the genes of the rapist. As far as Evolution is concerned, the rapist has successfully contributed to the next generation. The Fact is, certain behaviors can be affected by genetics. For example, do most adult humans enjoy sex? Just consider Evolution and two different populations, one which enjoys sex and one that doesn't --which group is probably going to have more offspring? The genes associated with enjoyment of sex, and which thereby encourage sexual activities/behavior, are obviously passed on easily! Now, Nature doesn't care at all what method might work to pass genes on to the next generation. Consider the disease of "rabies"-- it affects the brain and encourages aggressive biting behavior, such that the genes of that disease can be passed on. So, it is therefore quite possible that rape-behavior has a genetic-tendency component. If the genes are passed on, then they can influence the behavior of members of a future generation. Logically, if a culture truly wants to eliminate rape, the most effective way, long-term, would be to make absolutely sure that every pregnancy got aborted, if it was associated with rape. There is nothing like the utter failure of a particular reproduction-strategy, to remove associated genes from a population! The problem here, of course, is that such a policy falls under the umbrella of "eugenics", which is almost as socially frowned-upon as rape itself. And, of course, that policy requires mandatory abortions, something that most pro-choicers are against, just as they are against mandatory births. Personally, I would also oppose a mandatory-abortion policy of pregnancies associated with rape. But I would want every woman involved to be fully informed of the relevant Facts (presented in this paragraph). If every fully-informed pregnant rape victim chooses abortion, such that the net effect ends up being the same as if mandatory-abortion policy existed, that's fine with me. Because choice was involved!

2. Unborn humans act parasitically; that is a Fact. They take nutrients without asking, and they dump toxic bio-wastes just as casually. The fact that they understand nothing about their actions only proves they are mere animals, not persons. And that takes us back to the faulty label "human beings", synonymous with "persons". Unborn humans simply don't qualify for that label. If they actually did qualify, it would be perfectly appropriate to call unborn humans "embryo beings" or "fetus beings" --but since even Abortion Opponents don't do that, they actually know that unborn humans are not persons, while adamantly refusing to admit it!

3. Unborn humans, after pregnancy begins, have two main components. There is the placenta, and there is the body-under-construction. Taken as a whole, the two main components comprise one single organism. Overall, it is the cellular descendant of a much-smaller blastocyst, the organism that implanted into the womb. If the umbilical cord connecting the two parts of the organism was cut, the overall organism dies, and both "main components" will eventually be expelled, much as if a Natural Miscarriage had occurred. Meanwhile, Abortion Opponents seem to be blind to the Fact that there is more to an unborn human than just the body-under-construction. Either that, or they deliberately ignore the placenta, in their futile attempt to convince others that a human embryo or fetus qualifies as a "baby". No, it does not --a genuine baby can survive without an umbilical cord and placenta being part of it!

4. Unborn humans are perfectly alive and perfectly human --it is just as Stupid to try to deny their human-ness as it is to try to claim that they are Persons instead of mere animals. No pro-lifer has ever offered one piece of evidence that an unborn human is, as it exists in the womb, superior to, say, an adult pig --an animal that most folks consider to be only good for eating (while others see them as excellent pets; they are more intelligent than cats and dogs). No, the only thing the human has going for it, over a pig, is "potential", but that is a nebulous and non-concrete thing --especially since the potential of every unborn human includes the possibility of being Naturally Miscarried! --and the potential of every Abortion Opponent includes the possibility of falling down a flight of stairs and breaking the neck. There Is No Requirement That Potential Must Be Fulfilled!
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
8,690
Reaction score
7,039
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Oddly enough a few weeks ago I found myself starting to understand part of the pro life's argument when I was debating and a pro choice person ( not naming names ) had the audacity to say that a un wanted pregnancy would be like the baby raping the mother . Their are several reasons to be pro choice but having no respect for a fetus and accusing a being which is un aware and had no choice to be born of rape was appalling I found myself arguing for the life of the fetuses even agreeing with the argument's of people I never thought I would . Pro choice never use the fetuses raping mother argument it can easily be countered with the fact that since the fetuses has no choice it would be the other way around the mother would be forcing the baby to have intercourse with her .

Actually, whatever pro-choice person said that an unwanted pregnancy would be like the baby raping the mother was mistaken. In the case of a pregnancy to which a woman does not consent, it can be argued that the presence and behavior of the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus fits the legal definition of rape/sexual assault, at least in all parts of the definition except that of conscious intent. Hence, legally, nonconsensual pregnancy is not "like" rape, but a form of rape.

There have been legally insane rapists. It is recognized that some psychiatric disorders are not under the voluntary control of the people who have them, and their criminal behavior cannot be used to find them legally guilty of committing those crimes on that account. But while they are threatening or performing that criminal behavior, the victim and third parties can use deadly force if necessary to prevent/stop that behavior anyway, because at the time of the threat or performance, it is not the intent that matters - only the behavior that threatens to victimize or actually victimizes matters.

Technically, it would be just as illegal for a zygote, blastocyst, embryo to come into existence in a woman's body, implant in her uterine tissue, stay implanted there, and do all the things that is usually does, without the woman's consent, as it would be for a legally insane rapist to put one of his body parts inside her body without her consent. The wording of the laws against rape and sexual assault and about the use of deadly force against the threat/commission of those crimes is such that those laws could technically encompass the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus if the woman has not consented to pregnancy in advance and does not continuously consent during the pregnancy.

This argument is not intended to persuade anyone of the morality of abortion. It is a legal argument that was developed in the 1990s as a defensive move in the face of the claim that zygotes and fetuses are persons to protect the legal right of a woman to abortion and the legal right of a doctor to perform abortion, regardless of anyone's moral objections.

Earlier, the philosophical argument used to support the right to abortion even if challenged by the claim that the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus is a person was the Judith Jarvis Thomson argument that no person has the right to use another person's bodily resources for life support without that person's express and ongoing permission. But the law concerning the right to use deadly force to stop someone might not apply if a person forcibly used a person's bodily resources that way, as that forcible use might be interpreted as mere assault and not, e.g., sexual assault or robbery.

As to your last statement, it would be legally impossible to counter this as you suggest simply by claiming that fetuses have no choice and that the woman was forcing the zygote, blastocyst, embryo to be there if the woman had not consented to pregnancy in the first place and did not continuously consent to pregnancy.

But the better argument is that, if a government bans abortion, that government is threatening to rape the woman using a fetus or a doctor as a rape tool during childbirth because in vaginal delivery the fetus penetrates the vagina and in caesarian delivery the doctor cuts open one of the woman's sex organs (uterus) with a scalpel, and if the woman refuses to consent to the first, it's rape, and if she refuses to consent to the second, it's aggravated sexual assault. The fetus and doctor are then completely innocent tools of a criminal government. That could, in fact, be worked into an excellent legal argument against the banning of abortion.


If people do not want such a legal case to be made on the grounds that it is distasteful, then stop trying to get government to assert that a zygote is a person, as that is also distasteful.
 
Last edited:

Bob Blaylock

Electrician
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
13,745
Reaction score
8,546
Location
North 38°28′ West 121°26′
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
When one starts from the position of denying the humanity of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, and advocating that there should be a fairly unrestrained “right” to kill them; then there's really no point in being shocked or surprised at the depths of depravity to which one will go to defend that position. It is, after all, a rather horrendously depraved position to begin with. There really isn't much lower to go.

Actually, whatever pro-choice person said that an unwanted pregnancy would be like the baby raping the mother was mistaken. In the case of a pregnancy to which a woman does not consent, it can be argued that the presence and behavior of the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus fits the legal definition of rape/sexual assault, at least in all parts of the definition except that of conscious intent. Hence, legally, nonconsensual pregnancy is not "like" rape, but a form of rape.
·
·
·​
If people do not want such a legal case to be made on the grounds that it is distasteful, then stop trying to get government to assert that a zygote is a person, as that is also distasteful.

Quod erat demonstrandum.
 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,181
Reaction score
4,037
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Actually, whatever pro-choice person said that an unwanted pregnancy would be like the baby raping the mother was mistaken.

Well, I'm pretty sure you know exactly which pro-abortion person said exactly that. You know her very well.
 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,181
Reaction score
4,037
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Now that that's out of the way, I can tackle the nonsense:

You don't tackle nonsense, FI, you smear it around everywhere.

1. Unborn humans that are associated with an actual rape will obviously carry some of the genes of the rapist. As far as Evolution is concerned, the rapist has successfully contributed to the next generation. The Fact is, certain behaviors can be affected by genetics. For example, do most adult humans enjoy sex? Just consider Evolution and two different populations, one which enjoys sex and one that doesn't --which group is probably going to have more offspring? The genes associated with enjoyment of sex, and which thereby encourage sexual activities/behavior, are obviously passed on easily! Now, Nature doesn't care at all what method might work to pass genes on to the next generation. Consider the disease of "rabies"-- it affects the brain and encourages aggressive biting behavior, such that the genes of that disease can be passed on. So, it is therefore quite possible that rape-behavior has a genetic-tendency component. If the genes are passed on, then they can influence the behavior of members of a future generation. Logically, if a culture truly wants to eliminate rape, the most effective way, long-term, would be to make absolutely sure that every pregnancy got aborted, if it was associated with rape.

That's true, of course, children are like clones of their parents and they always copy their behavior. Oh wait, no, that's not true at all, that's complete bull****. Carry on.

2. Unborn humans act parasitically; that is a Fact.

Willful, vindictive ignorance at this point. Parasitism is negative symbiosis between two (or more) organisms of different species. Please stop pretending I have not educated you on this fact so you can keep deliberately lying to the people of this board.


3. Unborn humans, after pregnancy begins, have two main components. There is the placenta, and there is the body-under-construction. Taken as a whole, the two main components comprise one single organism.[/quote]

A placenta is an organ jointly made by mother and offspring; it is not entirely a part of either organism.

4. Unborn humans are perfectly alive and perfectly human --it is just as Stupid to try to deny their human-ness as it is to try to claim that they are Persons instead of mere animals.

Well, I meet a lot of "stupid" people (by your definition) who deny the humanity or life of Homo sapiens in utero.

Whether or not all humans should be legal persons is a subjective and moral question, not a question of science or fact; I say yes, because I value equality. That's not a question of objective fact vs. ignorance of fact, you know, like calling mammalian reproduction "parasitism." That's just plain stupid.
 

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
59,750
Reaction score
30,423
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
What I really don't see is how somebody who shows such contempt for a baby that's in the womb, such that they support it's destruction at all stages can turn a complete 180 and claim to believe that once it's actually born it's something entirely different. Whether the baby is inside the womb or out, it is the same baby.
 

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You don't tackle nonsense, FI, you smear it around everywhere.
I see you are actually describing yourself. Thank you!

FutureIncoming said:
If the genes are passed on, then they can influence the behavior of members of a future generation.
That's true, of course, children are like clones of their parents and they always copy their behavior. Oh wait, no, that's not true at all, that's complete bull****. Carry on.
I see you still don't know how to read. The word "influence" does not mean "copy". And, "a future generation" need not be the children; it could be the grandchildren, or even later. Behaviors are complex and very seldom is just one gene involved in affecting behavior. And each child of a rapist only gets half of the relevant genes. But, since others also carry those genes, eventually they can combine again, pretty much at random. So long as they continue to be passed on, of course. It is probably almost impossible to completely eliminate the relevant genes from the whole population. But their prevalence can be diminished significantly, so long as no offspring of a rapist ever gets born.

Willful, vindictive ignorance at this point.
Indeed, you are still describing yourself perfectly!

Parasitism is negative symbiosis between two (or more) organisms of different species.
FALSE, because I've twice before linked a definition from a Biology Dictionary that proves you are wrong. Yet you continue to exhibit Stupidity, thinking that your opinion is more valid than the Facts. Tsk, tsk!

Please stop pretending I have not educated you on this fact so you can keep deliberately lying to the people of this board.
I'm not pretending in the least that you have spouted and continue to spout Lying Propaganda, Stupidly. I have the facts to back that statement up! (See above linked definition, for one!)


FutureIncoming said:
3. Unborn humans, after pregnancy begins, have two main components. There is the placenta, and there is the body-under-construction. Taken as a whole, the two main components comprise one single organism.
A placenta is an organ jointly made by mother and offspring; it is not entirely a part of either organism.
Nope, another Stupid Lie. Why do you say things that are so easily shown to be false?


Well, I meet a lot of "stupid" people (by your definition) who deny the humanity or life of Homo sapiens in utero.
IRRELEVANT. Nothing exists to change the fact that unborn humans are animal organisms, not person-class organisms.

Whether or not all humans should be legal persons is a subjective and moral question, not a question of science or fact; I say yes, because I value equality.
ANOTHER STUPID LIE. Because if you really wanted to grant animals equality with persons, you would not Immorally and Stupidly exhibit Blatant Prejudice, and only try to do that granting for human animals. You would seek to grant person status to cockroaches and chickens, rats and pigs, sheep and spiders, cattle and chlamydia, and so on.

That's not a question of objective fact vs. ignorance of fact, you know, like calling mammalian reproduction "parasitism." That's just plain stupid.
WHAT ACTUALLY IS STUPID IS TRYING TO TWIST WHAT I SAY. Mammalian reproduction is distinct from parasitism because the uterus exists to support offspring. However, each offspring still acts parasitically, in making use of the uterus. It takes nutrients and dumps toxic bio-wastes without the conscious permission of the hostess. The distinction should be obvious to any non-stupid person. Do note that for mere animals, the matter of "conscious permission" is irrelevant; they don't have Free Will like humans. Even their breeding-cycle behavior is pre-programmed by DNA. Natural Evolution simply uses what works. Humans managed to escape a fixed breeding-cycle behavior, as proved by the fact that human-female ovulation is very un-obvious, as compared to other species. For us, sex is not linked to reproduction in the same way as for other species. It is simply part of our heritage of Free Will, that humans can choose whether or not to accept a pregnancy. We haven't been slaves to biology for at least 150,000 years (estimate of age of earliest anatomically modern humans), but Ignorant Abortion Opponents Stupidly Think They Know Better Than Nature. Tsk, tsk!
 

Bob Blaylock

Electrician
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
13,745
Reaction score
8,546
Location
North 38°28′ West 121°26′
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I see you still don't know how to read. The word "influence" does not mean "copy". And, "a future generation" need not be the children; it could be the grandchildren, or even later. Behaviors are complex and very seldom is just one gene involved in affecting behavior. And each child of a rapist only gets half of the relevant genes. But, since others also carry those genes, eventually they can combine again, pretty much at random. So long as they continue to be passed on, of course. It is probably almost impossible to completely eliminate the relevant genes from the whole population. But their prevalence can be diminished significantly, so long as no offspring of a rapist ever gets born.

There is no way out of the fact that what you are advocating and defending is the killing of an innocent human being, on the very shaky premise that since that person's father was a criminal, that this child might carry some possibly increased genetic predisposition toward committing the same crime that his father did, or that this child's descendants might carry this predisposition.

The premise that one is innocent until proven guilty is one of the most essential and vital foundations of our whole system of justice. We don't get to punish anyone for a crime that we think that person “might” commit. We don't get to punish someone for a crime until he has actually committed that crime, and that a high standard of proof has been met, through a specific due process, of proving that he has committed this crime.

What you advocate is about the most outrageous violation imaginable of the “innocent until proven guilty”*principle.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What I really don't see is how somebody who shows such contempt for a baby that's in the womb, such that they support it's destruction at all stages can turn a complete 180 and claim to believe that once it's actually born it's something entirely different. Whether the baby is inside the womb or out, it is the same baby.
Ghouls such as the pro abortion movement see no issue with it.
They see the female body as nothing more than a playground. They are more concerned about what a baby will take from them. Money, job, career, other men, clothes, vacations, nightclubbing, or whatever else the immature mind needs to get through the day.
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
8,690
Reaction score
7,039
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
A placenta is an organ jointly made by mother and offspring; it is not entirely a part of either organism.

The woman's body does not actively participate in making the placenta. The blastocyst takes some of the woman's tissue to use in making the placenta, which is however mostly made of its own tissue. It is no more a part of the woman than is the embryo, but that is not true for the embryo, for various reasons, but I will offer only one: if the placenta and embryo are removed from the woman's body, this has no serious negative effect on her health, because neither has a positive function for the woman's organism, but if the embryo is separated from either the woman's body with the placenta or just separated from the placenta, it will die, because both the woman's organism and the placenta both have positive functions for the embryonic organism.
 
Last edited:

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
8,690
Reaction score
7,039
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
What I really don't see is how somebody who shows such contempt for a baby that's in the womb, such that they support it's destruction at all stages can turn a complete 180 and claim to believe that once it's actually born it's something entirely different. Whether the baby is inside the womb or out, it is the same baby.

Well, pro-choice people just don't share the way you think. I'm pro-choice and that is the way I think, and to me, the locations of fetus and born infant categorically separate them in an absolute way.
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
8,690
Reaction score
7,039
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ghouls such as the pro abortion movement see no issue with it.
They see the female body as nothing more than a playground. They are more concerned about what a baby will take from them. Money, job, career, other men, clothes, vacations, nightclubbing, or whatever else the immature mind needs to get through the day.

You are sick. A woman does not see her body as a playground. The inside of it is PRIVATE and she has the right to decide who or what is going to be inside the most PRIVATE parts of it. It is unbelievable that you are so self-centered and selfish that you imagine your mother had an absolute obligation to grow your organism and give birth to you. She had no such obligation - she just did you a favor, and if you had any decent values you'd be grateful for the favor instead of trying to justify your own selfishness.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You are sick. A woman does not see her body as a playground. The inside of it is PRIVATE and she has the right to decide who or what is going to be inside the most PRIVATE parts of it. It is unbelievable that you are so self-centered and selfish that you imagine your mother had an absolute obligation to grow your organism and give birth to you. She had no such obligation - she just did you a favor, and if you had any decent values you'd be grateful for the favor instead of trying to justify your own selfishness.

I would rather think of my mother as a decent person that didn't see my life as expendable. I rather not view her as selfish or uncaring about her own children, thank you.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Oddly enough a few weeks ago I found myself starting to understand part of the pro life's argument when I was debating and a pro choice person ( not naming names ) had the audacity to say that a un wanted pregnancy would be like the baby raping the mother . Their are several reasons to be pro choice but having no respect for a fetus and accusing a being which is un aware and had no choice to be born of rape was appalling I found myself arguing for the life of the fetuses even agreeing with the argument's of people I never thought I would . Pro choice never use the fetuses raping mother argument it can easily be countered with the fact that since the fetuses has no choice it would be the other way around the mother would be forcing the baby to have intercourse with her .

Arguing with that type of a ridiculous belief is just being a reasonable person.
 
Top Bottom