• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hypocrites!

HTColeman said:
That depends on whether you support the death penalty or not, and thats a different argument

It may be a different arguement, but it has merit here. If you're pro life, you should be for ALL life, right?


So, we agree, I made a technical error, but it doesn't matter

Sure.


If someone in my family was shot, I would want to kill the the person that shot them with my barehands. However, that does not mean that is what I should do. We make better decisions when we can think rationally. So, what I would do may or may not be what I should do.

Are you trying to say that women that have abortions aren't thinking rationally?



I don't understand, #4 was one of the abortions? I thought she had 3.

Yes, She had one child, had three abortions, had another child, and has another child due next month.

Anyways, my point is what if she hadn't been ready for the oldest child?

Then she would have aborted him. Not like it matters, seeing as how he and his brother are no longer in her custody anyway.

What if she had decided to abort your nephew/niece.

See above. Besides, it would have happened before I had even joined the family, so I wouldn't know the difference anyway.

And you, if your mother decided she didn't want another child, didn't want you, you wouldn't be having this conversation b/c you would be dead. And that is what one is doing when they have an abortion, killing their child.

A matter of opinion. If my mother had decided she didn't want another child, so be it. I already pointed out that if she had aborted me, I obviously wouldn't know the difference and that I wouldn't be here. But, because I wouldn't know the difference, it doesn't really matter, now does it?
 
doughgirl said:
The courts do not execute her because they recognize that she is carrying a human being inside her body…. Why should a living being suffer because of someone elses crimes. They really should execute based on Roe v Wade.......because they don't in this ruling think the fetus has the right to live......abortion is legal. So why not go ahead with the execution?

Abortion is legal because the woman has the choice on what to do in regards to her own body. Her body does not belong to the state, therefore, they cannot execute her while she is pregnant because that would be taking away her choice on whether or not the fetus inside of her lives.

Mothers free choice? Ha ha What do you call what the doctors do? Who are the ones who actually kill the child?

What are you talking about? It's the woman's choice on whether or not to abort, not the doctor's.

The courts recognized in the Peterson case that Laci was carrying a child. Scott was convicted of killing not only Laci but that child. and they called him by name, Connor.

Whoop de do. They recognize the fact that whoever murdered Laci took away her choice on whether or not to keep "Connor".


You and all the other pro-death advocates would think that this verdict would have been wrong…….as you think that the baby isn’t a baby until birth, until it takes its first breath. So to you Scott did nothing.

Yes, because we're all so pro death. I think everyone in the world should die, right now. Anyone want some Kool Aid?

Again, stop assuming things, it gets you nowhere. I'm pregnant right now. Guess what? I want this baby, so it is a baby to me already. Women that have abortions? Don't want it, therefore, don't think of it as a fetus.

As far as the Peterson case, I'm not convinced that Scott is guilty, but that's beside the point. You have no idea what my feelings are regarding the rest of the case, so don't pretend you do. I'm fairly certain that you're not a mind reader, and I imagine it'd be kinda hard to read someone's mind over the internet anyway, so where do you get this stuff?

I think ya better do some investigating into that trial………you obviously are unaware of what the verdict said.

I'm perfectly aware of what the verdict was; you're the one that's reading too much into it.

Are laws are not consistent.

That doesn't make sense.

The question we all should be asking about the Peterson verdict is this…….. Abortion is legal in California, and is a "right" under federal constitutional law. So how can Peterson be found guilty of murdering the unborn? Additionally, how can it be second degree murder, when the murder of Laci Peterson was murder in the first degree?

Because Scott was not the one carrying "Connor" in his womb. Laci was, and whoever murdered her took away her right to decide what to do with that fetus.

In the pro-deaths camp you would think Scott got a bum rap right? You don’t think there was anything to kill?

Well, I wouldn't know, how 'bout you find someone that's actually pro death and ask them?

An in the pro-life camp we are wondering why Scott didn’t get first degree murder for killing Connor if the courts saw him as a person.

Well, maybe they didn't see him as a full person. They probably recognized that he was not a separate entity.

The jury saw the personhood in Connor or they would not have come down with that verdict.

Not necessarily. Do you know exactly what was going through each juror's mind?

" It makes all the difference in the world. Like I said, I'm 5 1/2 weeks pregnant. Of course, it's not just a fetus to me, because I WANT MY BABY.”

To hilarious to comment on. But, of course I can’t resist. Your baby is nothing more that a clump of cells not deserving of anyones protection. That is how your side, sees your fetus isn’t it?

Maybe that's how other people see it. Not me.

You said you want your baby? YOUR WHAT? YOUR WHAT? YOU DIDN’T SAY BABY DID YOU? NO, YOU COULDN’T HAVE? IT’S NOT A BABY HONEY……………..IT'S NOTHING REMEMBER….NOT UNTIL ITS BORN……..

You said it, not me. Stop getting so emotional, it's not conducive to logical debate.

A fact is a fact……….you fail to see this.

I beg to differ, especially seeing as you obviously don't know anything about me, but please, continue.

The fetus you are carrying is real it’s alive and it deserves to live. Your fetus is NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER WOMANS FETUS. ITS RIGHTS ARE THE SAME. By saying just because you want it…………it should live and if another woman doesn’t want it its ok to kill it is just insane.

No, my fetus is no different than any other, except for the fact that it is WANTED. That's the point you seem to miss so consistently. Fetuses, however, are not granted any rights. If a woman doesn't want a baby, she should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Not even for adoption.

Honey you talk out both sides………..I don’t think you really know what you believe.

1. Don't call me honey, I'm not your friend.

2. How exactly am I talking out both sides?

3. I know what I believe. You THINK you know what I believe, but obviously, you don't.



I have no problem whatsoever with labels.

Yes, we've noticed.

I am a Jesus Freak, conservative, Christian…….pro-lifer……..a pro-life fanatic..........

Great, good, lovely, wonderful....so you must not support the death penalty, right?

You are pro-abortion in pro-lifers eyes.

So, you speak for every person that calls themselves pro life? I doubt that. Trust me, I am not "pro abortion", not in the least.

[QUOTE[You advocate a womans right to kill, to murder her unborn child. [/QUOTE]

We've gone over this....abortion is legal, therefore, it can't be murder, because murder is illegal.

You say nothing you do nothing to help these helpless children.

Really? You know what I do in my spare time? Do you know what charities I donate to?

I didn't think so.

By remaining quiet you advocate their deaths.

See above.

Say what you want but its only way to make yourself feel good.

I don't need to say anything to you to make myself feel good. I don't need to justify myself to you. I'm perfectly comfortable with who I am, what I do, and what I believe in.

We know what you advocate.

Obviously, you don't.

You said yourself you are NOT PRO-LIFE.

Not in the sense that you are. As far as this debate is concerned, I am pro choice.

And as I said, you have guts, guts the others do not have. They hide behind works and definitions. You flat out said it.

And you obviously misinterpreted what I said. Not unusual, though.


It saddens you?

Yeah, it does.

You have a funny way of showing it then.

And you would know this, how, exactly? Again, you don't know me in real life, and it's kinda hard to convey every thought and every emotion through a keyboard.

I know nothing of her situation and I really don’t need to know anything.

And your point is......I mean, we don't necessarily want or need to know about your niece, but you bring that up a lot. How is that any more relevant than my sister in law?

I believe abortion is wrong.

And you're entitled to that opinion.

If you had said she was dying and she aborted to save her life then………..that is different. But you said she had NOT ONE OR TWO………..BUT THREE ABORTIONS. You need not explain………that is enough.

Enough for what? Who are you to judge her and her actions? It is not your place to do so. And if you're so staunchly pro life as far as a fetus is concerned, why would her having an abortion to save her own life be any different? In your eyes, she'd still be killing a baby, wouldn't she? Why is her life more valuable in that instance only?
 
Stace said:
It may be a different arguement, but it has merit here. If you're pro life, you should be for ALL life, right?

It seems you assume that since I am against abortion, I'm republican and for the death penalty (which the donkey symbols to your left would disagree). I am not for the death penalty, it is not up to us to decide who dies and who lives.



Are you trying to say that women that have abortions aren't thinking rationally?

Yeah, thats exactly what I said:roll:, I am saying that a woman who has been raped is, to say the least, emotional and we, as humans, don't make the best decisions when they are based soley on emotion.



Then she would have aborted him. Not like it matters, seeing as how he and his brother are no longer in her custody anyway. See above. Besides, it would have happened before I had even joined the family, so I wouldn't know the difference anyway. A matter of opinion. If my mother had decided she didn't want another child, so be it. I already pointed out that if she had aborted me, I obviously wouldn't know the difference and that I wouldn't be here. But, because I wouldn't know the difference, it doesn't really matter, now does it?

So it doesn't bother you that your nephew was that close to never being born? And it doesn't matter to you whether or not your alive?
 
HTColeman said:
It seems you assume that since I am against abortion, I'm republican and for the death penalty (which the donkey symbols to your left would disagree). I am not for the death penalty, it is not up to us to decide who dies and who lives.

No, I didn't assume you're Republican, I'm not exactly stupid, I can see the donkeys just as well as anyone else. But partisanship does not dictate whether or not you support abortion OR the death penalty.



Yeah, thats exactly what I said:roll:, I am saying that a woman who has been raped is, to say the least, emotional and we, as humans, don't make the best decisions when they are based soley on emotion.

If a woman has been raped, she's got a few weeks before she'd find out whether or not she became pregnant as a result of that, therefore, a few weeks to calm down and get counseling. Besides, not all abortions are the result of a rape.



So it doesn't bother you that your nephew was that close to never being born? And it doesn't matter to you whether or not your alive?

He's only my nephew by marriage. If he had been aborted, he never would have been my nephew, and I woudn't have known the difference. Besides, he's not even in her custody anymore, so it's not like any of us ever see him.

Of course, I like being alive, but the point is moot because if I had been aborted, I wouldn't be here and obviously wouldn't know the difference. It doesn't bother me, which I'm sure in some people's minds makes me cold and heartless, but I'm looking at this logically, not emotionally.
 
So Stace--is your position that the the life in the womb is completely defined and dependent upon the carrier's notion of its value? Whether it is a human being of worth or a clump of cells is determined solely by the person who has the uterus? And (if this is your view) do you see any contradiction in claiming a logic-based position when this perspective of the pro-choice side has such an emotional and arbitrary definition of the value of human life?




BTW--I know you've been wanting to have a baby of your own--Congratulations! and I hope your pregnancy progresses in health and well being.
 
That fetus is not life itself, it is not born. It completely depends on the aid of the woman to survive, therefore, it is her choice.
a 6 month old child COMPLETELY depends on someone to survive too.

does that mean its up to the provider to decide if it lives or dies?
 
Stace said:
No, I didn't assume you're Republican, I'm not exactly stupid, I can see the donkeys just as well as anyone else. But partisanship does not dictate whether or not you support abortion OR the death penalty.

Correct, as far as I am concerned, we do not have the right to end anyones life.


If a woman has been raped, she's got a few weeks before she'd find out whether or not she became pregnant as a result of that, therefore, a few weeks to calm down and get counseling. Besides, not all abortions are the result of a rape.

I'm pretty sure the emotional damage from such an experience lasts much longer than a few weeks. No, all abortions are not the result of rape, they are the result of someone arbitrarily deciding that the child inside them is not alive.

I don't understand how someone could decide that the fetus is not alive. It feeds and needs nourishment, it grows and develops. I mean, no one comes through the birth canal and tada, you're a human!


He's only my nephew by marriage. If he had been aborted, he never would have been my nephew, and I woudn't have known the difference. Besides, he's not even in her custody anymore, so it's not like any of us ever see him.

Of course, I like being alive, but the point is moot because if I had been aborted, I wouldn't be here and obviously wouldn't know the difference. It doesn't bother me, which I'm sure in some people's minds makes me cold and heartless, but I'm looking at this logically, not emotionally.

Its nothing emotional to enjoy living, and no you wouldn't know the difference, but with hindsight aren't you glad your mother didn't have an abortion? I am.
 
HTColeman said:
So if no one knows about it, its okay? A fetus is an unborn child, but a child nonetheless. A child is the product of sex.
Utter nonsense. A fetus is no more an unborn child than you are an "undead corpse, but a corpse nonetheless."

Pro-life revisionist linguistic hyperbole is just plain silly.
 
HTColeman said:
I disagree, once it is concieved it is a living being, despite how small, and it is human, not a full human, but human nonetheless. Even though the woman doesn't want it, that doesn't make it worthless.
And thus, according to you, a hydatidiform mole is a "human" and a "living being." :roll:
 
HTColeman said:
And you, if your mother decided she didn't want another child, didn't want you, you wouldn't be having this conversation b/c you would be dead.
false, he would never have existed as a sentient being, and thus never known the difference.

And that is what one is doing when they have an abortion, killing their child.
Nope, they are killing an embryo, or sometimes killing a fetus. Your revisionist linguistic hyperbole merely makes you look ignorant.
 
steen said:
false, he would never have existed as a sentient being, and thus never known the difference.

Nope, they are killing an embryo, or sometimes killing a fetus. Your revisionist linguistic hyperbole merely makes you look ignorant.

And what basis do you have on that, what makes someone human?

BTW, your 'intellectually' snobbish approach to debating is very obnoxious, it makes me not want to talk with you.
 
HTColeman said:
And what basis do you have on that, what makes someone human?
I said nothing about "human." Why are you making false claims regarding my post, thus bearing false witness?

BTW, your 'intellectually' snobbish approach to debating is very obnoxious, it makes me not want to talk with you.
Oh, my goodness. Stop the pro-life deceptions, hyperbole and pro-life lies, and we can have a meaningful conversation. If all you do is spew the rhetorics, pro-life lies and stupid revisionist linguistics, then why the %$@#$ should I pay any attention to you, other than counter your falsehoods? If you want respect, earn it by not making the false claims and misrepresentations that you spew.
 
Stace says, “Are you trying to say that women that have abortions aren't thinking rationally?”

I am saying that the majority of the woman getting abortions do not know the facts. They are not educated about fetal development. I have counseled and talked to scores of woman who have no clue to what medical science says about the development of the child they carry. Even pregnant woman are not aware of what the fetus can do at each trimester.

Stace you said, “She had one child, had three abortions, had another child, and has another child due next month…………….Then she would have aborted him. Not like it matters, seeing as how he and his brother are no longer in her custody anyway..”

Good land what a sad situation.


“What are you talking about? It's the woman's choice on whether or not to abort, not the doctor's.”

Well who is the one who actually kills the child? Who inserts the vacuum? Who is the one who dismembers or burns the fetus?

“Whoop de do. They recognize the fact that whoever murdered Laci took away her choice on whether or not to keep "Connor".”

Whoop de do? Wow what a comment about two lives so tragically taken. Lacis life and her childs life was taken away by a husband who premeditated their deaths. Nevertheless, Connor was in the courts eyes a person……..or they would not have found Scott guilty of two murders.

“Yes, because we're all so pro death. I think everyone in the world should die, right now. Anyone want some Kool Aid?”

You are pro-death; you said it, I did not. “Everyone should die”……….probably so, especially those who value life. Kool aid? Lmao


Listen to yourself…You said, “I'm pregnant right now. Guess what? I want this baby, so it is a baby to me already. Women that have abortions? Don't want it, therefore, don't think of it as a fetus.”

You want this BABY. BABY? It’s a baby? Wow, I didn’t think your camp thought so? How far along are you? So it’s in the mothers mind to what it medically is? If she thinks it a baby it is, if she doesn’t think it’s a baby it isn’t? lmao
You don’t think of it as a fetus eh? Or a clump of cells?

I dare the pro-abortion crowd to make comment on this little comment. Ha ha
Hey Steen tell Stace here that she is deluded like you tell us. Tell her the thing inside here isn’t really a baby.
I bet not one of you will comment.

“As far as the Peterson case, I'm not convinced that Scott is guilty, but that's beside the point.”

Well lets put it this way……..for a convicted man who was sentenced to death row, he showed no signs of any emotion when the verdict was read. In fact he showed no emotion except a few crocodile tears in the beginning……..Now stace if you were just convicted of a crime you did not commit, wouldn’t you have shouted out.. I am innocent or done soemthing? Wouldn’t you have taken a lie detector test? Wouldn’t you have done just about anything to prove your innocence?

When I said our laws are not consistent I meant this. Our country does not value life and recognize the worth of the fetus in the womb. Our courts say it is alright to abort a fetus up until its natural birth. They do not protect it.

then they turn around and...
“In Illinois, a pregnant woman who takes an illegal drug can be persecuted for delivering a controlled substance to a minor.
In 1974, the U.S. Congress voted unanimously to delay capital punishment of a pregnant woman until after the delivery of the baby to spare its life.
(This delay was made to protect the fetus who wasn't responsible for its mother's actions and therefore wasn't also punished through death. However, when a woman is impregnated through rape, the fetus is still not responsible for its father's actions. Why in this case can the fetus still be punished by death?)
Minnesota has a law requiring abortion clinics to dispose of aborted fetuses in a "humane" fashion, burying or cremating them. (Why do this if that which was aborted wasn’t a person?)”

http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/legalityessay1.shtml


GRAND RAPIDS, Mich., March 27, 1997 /PRNewswire/ -- Right to Life of Michigan applauds today's unanimous vote by the Michigan Senate of Senate Bill 21. The Pregnant Woman & Prenatal Protection Act is a significant step forward in providing consistent protection in Michigan law for unborn children. The bill seeks to overturn outdated court decisions that restrict instances where charges could be brought against individuals whose criminal or negligent behavior causes injury or death to an unborn child.
"This bill will create appropriate penalties for a drunk driver or violent assailant who causes harm to a pregnant woman and injures or kills her unborn child," said RLM president Barbara Listing. "The courts have expressly asked the Legislature to put these penalties in place. The 36-0 vote by the Senate shows that unborn children are indeed worthy of legal protection."
RLM is advocating the swift passage of S.B. 21 in the House of Representatives, along with a recently introduced House bill. House Bill 4524 will allow parents who have lost their unborn child to a wrongful act the opportunity to recover damages through a civil suit. A combination of these two Bills will provide broad protection for unborn children.
http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/legalityessay2.shtml

You said, “Well, I wouldn't know, how 'bout you find someone that's actually pro death and ask them?”

Ha ha I'm asking ya.

“Not necessarily. Do you know exactly what was going through each juror's mind?”

Well we do know now don’t we? Guilty of two murders, Laci and oh what did they call him? CONNOR

“I beg to differ, especially seeing as you obviously don't know anything about me, but please, continue.”

But Stace we do know a bit about you. You have a sister in law that has proudly had three abortions. She is pregnant now and has kids that were taken away from her. You are pregnant now.

“Great, good, lovely, wonderful....so you must not support the death penalty, right?’

No, I do not support the death penalty. I support solitary confinement. I support throwing away the key. I support a life of unbelievably hard labor.

“So, you speak for every person that calls themselves pro life? I doubt that. Trust me; I am not "pro abortion", not in the least.”

Ah but ya are. You have already said I am NOT PRO-LIFE. You said that, and then tried to get out of it later.

“Not in the sense that you are. As far as this debate is concerned, I am pro choice.”

Your like a chameleon, you change colors :mrgreen: depending on who you are talking to and what mood you are in. Your not pro-life, your pro-life, you don’t condone abortion….you condone it……………make your mind up. :doh

“And your point is......I mean, we don't necessarily want or need to know about your niece, but you bring that up a lot. How is that any more relevant than my sister in law?”

Both are actually relevant to this conversation and to the abortion debate. My niece was a success story. Of course Steen and the pro-death camp would not think so……….but she was. She was born at 21 ½ weeks……….and survived, showing that babies at this gestational age have a chance. And that abortions are done way longer than 21 weeks.
Your sister in law, obviously uses abortion as a quick method of birth control. She is an example of those in the statistics that show……….
60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children….and….. 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions. And obviously she is in this statistic that shows… 8% of women having an abortion say they have never used contraception. (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm)

“Enough for what? Who are you to judge her and her actions? It is not your place to do so. And if you're so staunchly pro life as far as a fetus is concerned, why would her having an abortion to save her own life be any different? In your eyes, she'd still be killing a baby, wouldn't she? Why is her life more valuable in that instance only?”

Three abortions? :confused: ……………As I said, it’s sad and if you were really pro-life you would think her irresponsible and sad as well. But you obviously do not. Doesn’t seem to bother ya a bit.

What is most unfair to unwanted children is to kill them.

It is extremely rare that an abortion is required to save a life. I think it’s less than 1%. The use of this argument to justify abortion in general is a smoke screen. One life saved is better than two lives lost. If a mother has a fast spreading cancer. The surgery to remove the cancer may result in the loss of the child’s life. In an ectopic pregnancy the child is developed outside the uterus with no hope of survival. It might have to be removed to save the mothers life. These are rare and tragic situations, but even if one life must be lost, the life that can be saved should be. More often than not that life is the mothers not the childs. There are rare cases in later stages of pregnancy when the mother can’t be saved but the baby can. Again one life saved is better that two lost.
Abortion to save the mothers life was legal before convenience abortion was legalized and would continue to be if abortion were made illegal again. Woman’s lives will never be in jeopardy.
 
Let's try this one more time.....perhaps it will finally sink in.

doughgirl said:
I am saying that the majority of the woman getting abortions do not know the facts.

But amazingly enough, most of them know enough to realize that they don't want a baby yet, or this particular baby for whatever reason, and realize that they don't want to carry a pregnancy to term, only to hand the baby off to someone else.

They are not educated about fetal development. I have counseled and talked to scores of woman who have no clue to what medical science says about the development of the child they carry.

And even those that do know, if they're planning an abortion, odds are, it doesn't faze them a bit.

Even pregnant woman are not aware of what the fetus can do at each trimester.

Funny, because every woman I've known that's been pregnant (and that's been just about every woman I've known over the past couple of years) has read and reserached everything she can to find out what's going on with, and inside of, her body. But hey, they all wanted their babies.



Good land what a sad situation.

What, the fact that my sister in law has had three abortions, doesn't have custody of her sons, and will probably immediately lose custody of her daughter? Yeah, it is sad, but some people aren't fit to be parents. Some people in this world are just too selfish to care for another human being.



Well who is the one who actually kills the child? Who inserts the vacuum? Who is the one who dismembers or burns the fetus?

And that matters.....how, to our discussion? We're talking about the woman's choice, not the doctors that perform the procedure.



Whoop de do? Wow what a comment about two lives so tragically taken.

Sorry, but sad as it may be, I find it really hard to truly care about people I didn't know.

Lacis life and her childs life was taken away by a husband who premeditated their deaths. Nevertheless, Connor was in the courts eyes a person……..or they would not have found Scott guilty of two murders.

And of course, even though multiple people have mentioned this, you refuse to consider the fact that maybe they recognized the fact that Laci's choice was taken away. Just like when someone harms a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry...a lot of courts will rule that as murder, because the woman's choice on what to do with the fetus is taken away.



You are pro-death; you said it, I did not.

No, I didn't.

“Everyone should die”……….probably so, especially those who value life.

Ever heard of a little thing called sarcasm? I was trying to point out how ridiculous your label is.

Kool aid? Lmao

Apparently, you've never heard of Jim Jones.


You want this BABY. BABY? It’s a baby?

Yes. *sigh*....we've been over this before. Repeating myself is getting tiresome.

Wow, I didn’t think your camp thought so?

My camp? Oh, what, you mean the pro choice crowd? Well, in that case.....Medically speaking, no, it's not a baby. However, Since I actually want this baby, yeah, it's a baby to me. It'd be kinda stupid for me to talk about my embryo and fetus to everyone.

How far along are you?

Not like it really matters to you, but 6 weeks.

So it’s in the mothers mind to what it medically is?

Not medically....personally.

If she thinks it a baby it is, if she doesn’t think it’s a baby it isn’t?

Nope. Medically, it is still an embryo or fetus or any other medical terminology you can come up with. Personally, it's either a baby or....a "thing", depending on if you wanted this pregnancy.

You don’t think of it as a fetus eh? Or a clump of cells?

No, because I'm not a doctor, nor am I considering an abortion. This pregnancy wasn't "planned", per se, but it is very much wanted.

I dare the pro-abortion crowd to make comment on this little comment. Ha ha

Well, first you'd have to find a pro abortion crowd.

Hey Steen tell Stace here that she is deluded like you tell us. Tell her the thing inside here isn’t really a baby.
I bet not one of you will comment.

So nice of you to try and use my pregnancy to suit your own twisted purposes. Nice of you to try and turn something that is a wonderful experience for myself and my husband into a mockery.



Well lets put it this way……..for a convicted man who was sentenced to death row, he showed no signs of any emotion when the verdict was read.

And your point is?

In fact he showed no emotion except a few crocodile tears in the beginning……..Now stace if you were just convicted of a crime you did not commit, wouldn’t you have shouted out.. I am innocent or done soemthing? Wouldn’t you have taken a lie detector test? Wouldn’t you have done just about anything to prove your innocence?

Hmmm....something tells me that he probably took a lie detector test, otherwise known as a polygraph, sometime after he was arrested but before the trial. But guess what? Even polygraphs aren't 100% fool proof.

If he had started shouting, he would have risked being held in contempt. Yeah, don't think that would have gone over so well.

When I said our laws are not consistent I meant this. Our country does not value life and recognize the worth of the fetus in the womb. Our courts say it is alright to abort a fetus up until its natural birth. They do not protect it.

Because it's not the government's choice as to what a woman can do concerning her body. There's over 200 million people in this country that are already living and breathing that they're more concerned about.


Ha ha I'm asking ya.


And again, since I'm not pro death, I wouldn't know. Is that statement so hard to comprehend?


Well we do know now don’t we? Guilty of two murders, Laci and oh what did they call him? CONNOR

Still doesn't tell me what each and every juror thought.



But Stace we do know a bit about you.

You think you do, anyway.

You have a sister in law that has proudly had three abortions. She is pregnant now and has kids that were taken away from her.

And that has nothing to do with me as a person, therefore, you don't know anything about ME here.

You are pregnant now.

Yes, I am. But that's only a small part of who I am. You don't know anything about me as a person, you only know what you read here and how you interpret it, which past experience shows to be vastly different from what is actually presented.



No, I do not support the death penalty. I support solitary confinement. I support throwing away the key. I support a life of unbelievably hard labor.

Well, at least you're consistent in that. Most people aren't.



Ah but ya are. You have already said I am NOT PRO-LIFE. You said that, and then tried to get out of it later.

Wrong. Saying that I am not pro life does not mean I think abortion is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Saying that I am not pro life means I think that a woman has a right to choose what happens to her own body, regardless of my personal feelings towards abortion.



Your like a chameleon, you change colors :mrgreen: depending on who you are talking to and what mood you are in. Your not pro-life, your pro-life, you don’t condone abortion….you condone it……………make your mind up. :doh

Let's try this one again; one day, it'll sink in. I am not pro life in the manner that you are. I have never said that I was, nor will I ever. I have also never said that I condone abortion, but I do realize that it is sometimes the best option for certain women. While I think that in an ideal world, abortion would not be necessary, I recognize that we do not live in an ideal world, and that it is not my place to tell another woman what she can or cannot do, as it is her life that is being affected, not mine.





Both are actually relevant to this conversation and to the abortion debate. My niece was a success story. Of course Steen and the pro-death camp would not think so……….but she was. She was born at 21 ½ weeks……….and survived, showing that babies at this gestational age have a chance. And that abortions are done way longer than 21 weeks.
Your sister in law, obviously uses abortion as a quick method of birth control. She is an example of those in the statistics that show……….

Really? You know everything about my sister in law to say that she fits into all of those statistics? The first two are obvious, certainly, but what about the third?

And saying that she uses abortion as a quick method of birth control....yes, I've accused her of the same thing, but then again, I don't know all of the circumstances surrounding her abortions, as I was not yet a part of the family when she had them.


As I said, it’s sad and if you were really pro-life you would think her irresponsible and sad as well. But you obviously do not. Doesn’t seem to bother ya a bit.

Well, I've already stated that I don't subscribe to your version of pro life. And obviously, you still don't know the first thing about me, nor do you bother to actually read my posts, or you wouldn't have made that statement at all. But hey, you just keep assuming things about me all you want; even if I've already clearly stated my opinion or feelings on something.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of your response because a)I already tried and the post was too long, and I don't feel like breaking it up, and b)it really didn't have much to do with the discussion at hand.
 
Stace said, “But amazingly enough, most of them know enough to realize that they don't want a baby yet, or this particular baby for whatever reason, and realize that they don't want to carry a pregnancy to term, only to hand the baby off to someone else.”

They still do not know the facts. Have you ever worked in this area Stace? Ever worked a rally or fair or gone to schools and talked to the general public about fetal development? How many people have you known in your short life that have had abortions? I stood with hundreds of woman at the rally today……….that regret having abortions. PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS.

“And even those that do know, if they're planning an abortion, odds are, it doesn't faze them a bit”

Well I am not going to make fun of you Stace because of your age. I have a daughter who is 24 and a son who is 21, so if I come across as sounding like a parent, that is because I am one. You are young. When I was your age nothing bothered me either. And the abortion I got didn’t bother me at the time. I like you thought it was nothing. But as one ages and matures and experiences what life brings……..you begin to change. And some change is good and some is bad. Past mistakes have a way of coming back to haunt. There are millions of woman across this land that regreted their decision to abort. You have no clue. I stood with many of them today. I matured and had children of my own.........it was then I relalized what my actions really did. Try living with it Stace.

When youre young nothing phases you…………but let me tell ya, some choices we make in our life………they never go away. Some choices you can take back and they don’t seem so important…….. abortion you never can take back. It affects you the rest of your life.

“Some people in this world are just too selfish to care for another human being.”

Yes they are selfish. But God love those woman who chose adoption and gave their child a chance, a better chance than to have murdered them. We need to make sure that woman know that adoption is a choice that millions of families want to adopt.

“Sorry, but sad as it may be, I find it really hard to truly care about people I didn't know.’

Why do we need to know people first before helping them?

Stace you said and I quote, I am not pro-life. You tell me what the opposite of pro-life would be? Pro-death.

“Well, first you'd have to find a pro abortion crowd.’

Come on Stace that isn’t so hard. Just read the majority of the posts here.

“So nice of you to try and use my pregnancy to suit your own twisted purposes. Nice of you to try and turn something that is a wonderful experience for myself and my husband into a mockery.”

I am not trying to use your pregnancy to suit twisted purposes. And I pray Stace that this pregnancy changes your heart about abortion. I pray that you have such a wonderful pregnancy and birth experience that you will be so overwhelmed that……after you give birth you will come back and be 100% pro-life like Felicity, Coleman and me. Then you will know in your heart……….that abortion is wrong. Just wait until you feel the little one kick. Just remember there are those like FutureInComing and Steen and others……..who say aborting at that stage is fine. Just picture dismembering alive the child you carry inside you. I does not matter if a child is wanted or not Stace.......it is still a life.

As far as Scott Peterson, he refused a lie detector. Face contempt?…………he got the death penalty why should he care if he shouted anything out?
 
steen said:
I said nothing about "human." Why are you making false claims regarding my post, thus bearing false witness?

'thus bearing false witness'? wait, is this the king james version of debatepolitics?

Anyway, my question is what makes something human, as in why do you not consider a fetus human?

Oh, my goodness. Stop the pro-life deceptions, hyperbole and pro-life lies, and we can have a meaningful conversation. If all you do is spew the rhetorics, pro-life lies and stupid revisionist linguistics, then why the %$@#$ should I pay any attention to you, other than counter your falsehoods? If you want respect, earn it by not making the false claims and misrepresentations that you spew.

Oh mah goodness, basically you're saying I should just agree with you, b/c if someone doesn't agree with thou Steen they are spewing lies from thine mouth
 
HTColeman said:
'thus bearing false witness'? wait, is this the king james version of debatepolitics?

Anyway, my question is what makes something human, as in why do you not consider a fetus human?
Which, of course, your question did NOT say.

That aside, the species designation has not been put in doubt, so why the meaningless point?

Oh mah goodness, basically you're saying I should just agree with you, b/c if someone doesn't agree with thou Steen they are spewing lies from thine mouth
Nope, not at all.
 
HTColeman asked steen: "Anyway, my question is what makes something human, as in why do you not consider a fetus human?"

I see steen answered that, acknowledging that unborn humans are members of the human species, but I'd like to add my two-cents-worth. Per our previous posts, (#852 and the as-yet-unanswered #856), we are agreed that the IMPORTANCE of humans is an arbitrary claim. Well, since humans can decide to claim whether or not something is important, and it is known that humans can also decide to claim WHEN AND TO WHAT EXTENT something is important, it logically follows that unborn humans can be assigned zero importance, and infant humans can be assigned moderate importance, and well-developed humans can be assigned great importance. Since all the assignments are arbitrary, anyway, why should the chosen assignments of the pro-lifers be considered superior to the chosen assignments of the pro-choicers?
 
Hello, FutureIncoming.

You challenged the pro-lifers on the basis of determining individual human life compared to the other life forms on the world. I would like to state that I am not pro-life, but I am answering your question because it seems that you want to put humans on a level with the animals, maybe even the plants. Maybe that is not your intent, but that is the impression I recieved. Forgive me if I am mistaken.

There is the obvious statement that humans are seperate from animals because we have a civilization. No other living thing has managed to create the technology and architecture that we as a species have made a fact of everyday life.

A more subtle point, I believe, is to say that humans have the power to alter their environments almost completely to fit their own whims and desires. What other living thing has morphed and adapted their environment for simply aesthetic reasons, or for the complex practicality that humans employ in all their dealings with nature?
 
Re: Hello, FutureIncoming.

Reason said:
A more subtle point, I believe, is to say that humans have the power to alter their environments almost completely to fit their own whims and desires. What other living thing has morphed and adapted their environment for simply aesthetic reasons, or for the complex practicality that humans employ in all their dealings with nature?
I think it is a bit more gray. Other animals adapt their environment, but we are the only one who can adapt our environment to multiple different outcomes, the only ones who chose what kind of adaptation we will have.
 
Reason wrote: "You challenged the pro-lifers on the basis of determining individual human life compared to the other life forms on the world. I would like to state that I am not pro-life, but I am answering your question because it seems that you want to put humans on a level with the animals, maybe even the plants. Maybe that is not your intent, but that is the impression I recieved. Forgive me if I am mistaken."

OK, you're forgiven. I do not want to put humans on a level with the animals, I want humans to recognize that they ARE on a level with the animals, a basic level. Humans are Animals-Plus, animals that also have significant mental powers. Those powers DON'T eliminate/alter the fundamental animal aspects of humans. Why should this be difficult accept, when it is Measurable Fact?



Reason also wrote: "There is the obvious statement that humans are seperate from animals because we have a civilization. No other living thing has managed to create the technology and architecture that we as a species have made a fact of everyday life."

SO? The humans who did those things were NOT of the unborn variety. Unborn humans are ONLY animals, because they haven't developed the "Plus" factor of significant mental abilities.




Reason also wrote: "A more subtle point, I believe, is to say that humans have the power to alter their environments almost completely to fit their own whims and desires. What other living thing has morphed and adapted their environment for simply aesthetic reasons, or for the complex practicality that humans employ in all their dealings with nature?"

Again, what you are talking about does NOT apply to ANY unborn or even newborn human. Animals they are. Animals with potential for more, certainly. Animals that MUST fulfill that potential? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
 
Back
Top Bottom