Because many in the pro choice movement are that militant.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 .
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 .
And which poster are you speaking of?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."
Because many in the pro choice movement are that militant.
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.Any bombers among them? I can think of a few pro life folks that advocate murder and bombing. Just sayin..........
Any bombers among them? I can think of a few pro life folks that advocate murder and bombing. Just sayin..........
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.
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 .
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.
·
·
Actually, whatever pro-choice person said that an unwanted pregnancy would be like the baby raping the mother was mistaken.
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.
2. Unborn humans act parasitically; that is a Fact.
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.
I see you are actually describing yourself. Thank you!You don't tackle nonsense, FI, you smear it around everywhere.
FutureIncoming said:If the genes are passed on, then they can influence the behavior of members of a future generation.
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.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.
Indeed, you are still describing yourself perfectly!Willful, vindictive ignorance at this point.
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!Parasitism is negative symbiosis between two (or more) organisms of different species.
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!)Please stop pretending I have not educated you on this fact so you can keep deliberately lying to the people of this board.
Nope, another Stupid Lie. Why do you say things that are so easily shown to be false?A placenta is an organ jointly made by mother and offspring; it is not entirely a part of either organism.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.
IRRELEVANT. Nothing exists to change the fact that unborn humans are animal organisms, not person-class organisms.Well, I meet a lot of "stupid" people (by your definition) who deny the humanity or life of Homo sapiens in utero.
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.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.
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!That's not a question of objective fact vs. ignorance of fact, you know, like calling mammalian reproduction "parasitism." That's just plain stupid.
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.
Ghouls such as the pro abortion movement see no issue with it.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.
A placenta is an organ jointly made by mother and offspring; it is not entirely a part of either organism.
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.
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.
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 .
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?