My take on the abortion issue.

[Felicity]

I read your post and I'm confused? What do you mean that people are "pro-death"? Please show me of whom you speak? You want me to believe there's a movement out there that want to use abortion to promote death?

Yes...there is....

“It has been left to the very latest modernists to proclaim an erotic religion which at once exalts lust and forbids fertility.....The next great heresy is going to be simply an attack on morality, and especially on sexual morality.”

"Over-civilization and barbarism are within an inch of each other. And a mark of both is the power of medicine-men."

"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."

~~all quotes are the words of G.K. Chesterton

There is a culture war—and it is between those who favor life and morality and those who favor death and vice. Those at the fringe end of the death and vice side of the spectrum are pro-death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war

ARCHITECTS OF THE CULTURE OF DEATH
by Donald DeMarco & Benjamin Wiker
(Ignatius, 2004, 410pp, $33.00. Available from AD Books)
The "Culture of Death" has become a popular phrase, and is much bandied about in academic circles. Yet, for most people, its meaning remains vague and remote. DeMarco and Wiker have given the Culture of Death high definition and frightening immediacy. They have exposed its roots by introducing its "architects."
In a scholarly, yet reader-friendly delineation of the mindsets of twenty-three influential thinkers, such as Ayn Rand, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Jean-Paul Sartre, Alfred Kinsey, Margaret Sanger, Jack Kevorkian, and Peter Singer, they make clear the aberrant thought and malevolent intentions that have shaped the Culture of Death.
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2004/decjan2004p18_1830.html

You want to prevent a woman from choosing what to do with her body, which is her right and is protected by the Constitution and you make your argument by comparing this right to a societal breakdown that would allow for stealing and other crimes that are illegal? Need I remind you that abortion IS LEGAL?

Mr. Chesterton's quote again...
"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."

Fine...how about "lying"...When you say you are personally against something but that other people should have the right to do it....you say NOTHING. Can you be personally against lying...but support other's right to lie? Not if you have a respect for the truth you can't. That is the logic error I was pointing out to you. If you claim to dislike abortion personally, but you don't take a stand against it--you are either lazy--or for it. I don't respect either of those positions.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Yes...there is....

“It has been left to the very latest modernists to proclaim an erotic religion which at once exalts lust and forbids fertility.....The next great heresy is going to be simply an attack on morality, and especially on sexual morality.”

"Over-civilization and barbarism are within an inch of each other. And a mark of both is the power of medicine-men."

"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."

~~all quotes are the words of G.K. Chesterton

I must be mighty stupid because your quotes make zero sense to me? Chesterton died in 1936 and was a novelist. How do his words have any effect on Roe V. Wade and the term "Pro-Death"?

Chesterton was considered during his time to be "the ablest and most exuberant proponent of orthodox Christianity of his time" so what are you talking about? He was Roman Catholic. I'm sorry but your point eludes me and I cannot see how citing Chesterton proves that people who are Pro-Abortion = Pro-Death.

Source: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ27.HTM

Fine...how about "lying"...When you say you are personally against something but that other people should have the right to do it....you say NOTHING. Can you be personally against lying...but support other's right to lie? Not if you have a respect for the truth you can't. That is the logic error I was pointing out to you.

Huh? What are you talking about? Abortion is legal and it is Constitutional and stating that one believes a woman has the ultimate choice as to what happens to her body has nothing, repeat nothing to do with stealing as you wrote earlier nor lying as you just wrote.

The bottom line for me is that a woman should be able to decide what happens to her body and her life. The State cannot and must not prevent her from that choice. You choose to never have an abortion, that is your choice and you are electing to do what you believe in within the law. The same goes for a woman's right to an abortion. You can try to twist words anyway you like but at the end of the day you cannot stop another human being from excercising her legal right to choose.

For the umpteenth time: Abortion is LEGAL and will ALWAYS BE LEGAL. It is a ridiculous argument to condemn someone from abiding by the law, especially a law that will never, ever be changed.

I just get the feeling that anti-Abortion people simply will not accept the truth that abortion will always be legal so they continue to attack someone as if it were illegal! It's quite strange. The analogies are often as we've just read, you know, if you're OK with a woman's right to an abortion then you're OK with someone's right to steal, to kill, to lie etc. These people want us to believe that someone who is making a personal LEGAL choice would therefore condone law breaking! It's so disconnected, so untrue, so unfair.

Being Pro Abortion does NOT mean that you are a lawbreaker, that you condone illegal acts, that you are in anyway immoral. Abortion is legal and Constitutional.

My challenge to those of you who want to change the Abortion laws is to start a Constitutional amendment and get it passed. That will decide this argument once and for all. How come the anti-Abortion crowd is against this tactic? Is it because it would never, ever have a chance of being passed?

 

[Felicity]

I must be mighty stupid because your quotes make zero sense to me? Chesterton died in 1936 and was a novelist. How do his words have any effect on Roe V. Wade and the term "Pro-Death"?

I'm sorry...I will be more clear...

The pro-death mentality has been around for a VERY long time. It is the idea that "freedom" is the same thing a "license," but then with license, people become slaves to their own desires--rather than free from want. Chesterton just saw it in society before many others did--and he's very good with aphoristic phrases....

Anyway...an example that demonstrates this idea of being a slave to license and relates to Roe-v-Wade is the Planned Parenthood -v- Casey ruling that specifically says that we have come to rely on unbridled license....

"(e) The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. Pp. 855-856. ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833 ).

This ruling is an example of the pro-death mentality. It recognizes that there is a reliance on the availability of a "death" option for people who have developed a particular lifestyle with regard to contraception and abortion--namely sexual license--and it protects that right of death.

Huh? What are you talking about? Abortion is legal and it is Constitutional and stating that one believes a woman has the ultimate choice as to what happens to her body has nothing, repeat nothing to do with stealing as you wrote earlier nor lying as you just wrote.

I wasn't talking about abortion or stealing or lying....I was talking about YOUR method of logic...which isn't logical. You can't be both against abortion and for it. That was my point. You are for abortion. Or if you want to be sticky with semantics....fine....you are for the right of people with superior power to be able to choose a death option for small humans that reside in a woman's womb.

The bottom line for me is that a woman should be able to decide what happens to her body and her life. The State cannot and must not prevent her from that choice. You choose to never have an abortion, that is your choice and you are electing to do what you believe in within the law. The same goes for a woman's right to an abortion. You can try to twist words anyway you like but at the end of the day you cannot stop another human being from exercising her legal right to choose.

The law is wrong...I cannot "choose" to end just anyone's life--only the life that resides in my womb. And why? No matter how you slice it--it's because those lives in the womb have no voice and no power and are "inconvenient" for some.

For the umpteenth time: Abortion is LEGAL and will ALWAYS BE LEGAL. It is a ridiculous argument to condemn someone from abiding by the law, especially a law that will never, ever be changed.

I don't agree--I think it will become a state issue and then it will be legal in some places but not everywhere.

I just get the feeling that anti-Abortion people simply will not accept the truth that abortion will always be legal so they continue to attack someone as if it were illegal! It's quite strange. The analogies are often as we've just read, you know, if you're OK with a woman's right to an abortion then you're OK with someone's right to steal, to kill, to lie etc. These people want us to believe that someone who is making a personal LEGAL choice would therefore condone law breaking! It's so disconnected, so untrue, so unfair.

Legal does not mean right.

Being Pro Abortion does NOT mean that you are a lawbreaker, that you condone illegal acts, that you are in anyway immoral. Abortion is legal and Constitutional.

Legal does not mean moral

My challenge to those of you who want to change the Abortion laws is to start a Constitutional amendment and get it passed. That will decide this argument once and for all.

It should be a state issue--if the Supreme Court would have done what it ought to have with the Roe case--it would still BE a state issue--but activist judges decided to craft law instead.

How come the anti-Abortion crowd is against this tactic? Is it because it would never, ever have a chance of being passed?

Because it's not how it is supposed to work. I have faith in our Constitution--I have faith UN Constitutional rulings will be overturned.

 

[Damien06]

My overall view on abortion is that it's wrong. Everybody has a purpose in life. Without getting into all that however, I will state that I am against murder, and to me, abortion is legalized homocide.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
The only odd thing in this forum is the mistaken way the pro-death folks think they can bamboozle everyone else with their verbal slight of hand.

The truly "odd" thing or is it the truly "ignorant" thing is that anyone would possibly write the term "pro-death." By using this purposeful attack the author completely exposes her prejudice and lack of intelligence.

For a person who has advocated against judging others, you quickly attach "odd", "ignorant", "prejudice", and "lack of intelligence" to one who disagrees with your ideas. On the basis of what you wrote, If one were so disposed, one might easily and correctly conclude that you and the word "hypocrite" make a good fit.

Be that as it may, you know perfectly well that in the matter of a child in the womb, it's either life or death. No other choice; no gray area. Barring a natural occurrence, the child will either live or die.

Therefore, regardless of the masquerade of words, anyone who harbors no qualms with respect to the wilful taking of the life of an unborn child is, plain and simple, pro-death.

Early in the "battle", the advocacy side called itself "Pro-Abortion". It soon became apparent that such a name was too descriptive, too harsh, too gruesome. So, the public relations folks searched around and quickly came up with the euphemistic title "Pro-Choice".

However, they never state that the actual choice is to kill an unborn child, do they?

People who are pro-Abortion are no more pro-death than anyone else. It is total bull$hit rhetoric to suggest otherwise. Speaking purely for myself I can clearly state that I am anti-abortion, that I do not want anyone to have one. HOWEVER I am also PRO-CHOICE and strongly believe that no one has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body, period.

It sounds more like trying to salve a bruised conscience for your confessed past deeds.

Listing the number of abortions performed as "murders" or calling people "pro-death" are losing tactics only employed by people who are unable to express an intellectual argument against a woman's right to her own body.

On the contrary, the purpose is to counter the politically correct denial of a biological fact with exposire to the truth.

Those who are anti-abortion are the majority! No one wants anyone else to have an abortion, that is fact. However this is no way the same thing as being against the right to have an abortion.

Fortunately abortion is and will always be a legal choice for women in the USA. Even Justice Roberts has made it clear his opinion, namely that Roe V. Wade is now "Stare Decisis" AKA respect for precedent.

Sooner or later, in every situation, men of strength emerge to correct errors of the past. Circumstances alter cases. As you may be aware, decisions of earlier courts have been reversed by later courts more than two hundred times. Who knows that the next challenge will entail? Perhaps it will revolve around Associate Justice Blackmun's "speculation". If so, that could "abort" Roe.

Of course each and everyone of us is entitled to their opinion however the ignorance and hate that is meant and implied when using terms like "pro-death" is deplorable and does discount that persons "argument" due to the ignorance that term and the justification to use it connotes.

I for one have little or no respect for people who think that using harsh talking point terminology to make their argument is wise and meaningful. What ever happened to one's ability to intellectually express one's view?

I've been taking lessons from the socialist-lib-dem playbook.

I guess I'm living in a "Fantasea" world, right?

Since you're asking me, if you're striving for accuracy, don't you think a far better choice would be "Fool's Paradise"?

 

[steen]

When it becomes apparent that one is not working from ignorance or denial--it is correct to call them what they are.

But when you call them what they are not, then you are lying. Lying as usual, to nobody's surprise.

You have amply shown that the prolife tactics generally rely on outright lying- a lot of it.

 

[steen]

My overall view on abortion is that it's wrong. Everybody has a purpose in life.

Sure they do. Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Chauchesku, Bin Ladin. All have a purpose.

Without getting into all that however, I will state that I am against murder, and to me, abortion is legalized homocide.

And your subjective belief has no bearing on reality, that abortion is legal and thus is nor murder, nor homicide. Your wishful thinking doesn't match reality.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Abortion is a prime example which re-inforces my view, that we live in a society that is based on Darwinian principles and the law of the jungle. The quote "law of the land" is sham and their is no true justice in this world. We talk about the right to life, liberty and property, yet we find the Darwinist practice of abortion acceptable. I think our country needs to figuire out if we are going to live by the law of the land, a law based on respect and protection of human life or we can live by Darwinism, the law of the jungle, where human life is snuffed out as "acceptable losses." Or where only the strong survive and at times prey on weaker members of society. The law has been written on behalf of special interests groups and people with money and not written on behalf of freedom and the protection of human life. Our principles and laws are not consistent in any whatsoever with true justice. It seems our laws are strictly written to ensure the survival of the species rather than sticking with true principles based on justice. I guess it's only natural for human societies to write laws that ensure the survival of the species. A scientist might argue that abortion is acceptable because it helps to ensure the survival of the human species. I would like to be able to live in a soceity that is based on solid moral principles rather than the law of the jungle personally. To say that a woman has the right to end the life of a child she got herself prenganted with is like saying it is OK for me to choose to take a gun and wax somebody. I don't have the right to do that and neither should a woman have the right to kill because she can't at least accept responsibility for her actions. But it seems, our society lives by the law of the jungle so it doesn't surprise me. I don't take society very seriously until society's principles become consistent.

 

[steen]

Abortion is a prime example which re-inforces my view, that we live in a society that is based on Darwinian principles and the law of the jungle.

There is no jungle where I live, and Darwin is dead.

The quote "law of the land" is sham and their is no true justice in this world. We talk about the right to life, liberty and property, yet we find the Darwinist practice of abortion acceptable.

Your claim makes no sense. Where do you get the idea of a "Darwinist practice of abortion"? It doesn't particularly fit anything that Darwin ever worte. You are not making sense.

I think our country needs to figuire out if we are going to live by the law of the land, a law based on respect and protection of human life or we can live by Darwinism, the law of the jungle, where human life is snuffed out as "acceptable losses."

Really? That is "Darwinism"? I think you are babbling about stuff you don't understand, as "Darwinism" deal with the Scientific exploration of changes in genetic composition of a population over time. So it has little relevance to the legal system.

.... It seems our laws are strictly written to ensure the survival of the species rather than sticking with true principles based on justice.

Hmm, are you saying that abortion contributes to the survival of the species? Generally, prolifers claim the exact opposite.

I guess it's only natural for human societies to write laws that ensure the survival of the species. A scientist might argue that abortion is acceptable because it helps to ensure the survival of the human species.

The Scientists are not saying a lot about whether abortion is "acceptable." That would not be an argument of science, so I fail to see the justification for you trying to drag science into the political debate. It seems immediately rather dishonest. BUt I am sure you didn't mean to be dishonest, so I am sure you will clarify and correct that mistake, right?

I would like to be able to live in a soceity that is based on solid moral principles rather than the law of the jungle personally.

Good. I have solid moral principles, so just do what I say is moral, right?

To say that a woman has the right to end the life of a child she got herself prenganted with is like saying it is OK for me to choose to take a gun and wax somebody.

But then, the law doesn't say that the woman has the right to kill children. In fact, nobody have the right to kill children. So your argument again doesn't make sense. You are arguing against something that doesn't exist. I must now ask you if you happen to be delusional, by any chance?

etc....

 

[TimmyBoy]

There is no jungle where I live, and Darwin is dead.
Your claim makes no sense. Where do you get the idea of a "Darwinist practice of abortion"? It doesn't particularly fit anything that Darwin ever worte. You are not making sense.
Really? That is "Darwinism"? I think you are babbling about stuff you don't understand, as "Darwinism" deal with the Scientific exploration of changes in genetic composition of a population over time. So it has little relevance to the legal system.
Hmm, are you saying that abortion contributes to the survival of the species? Generally, prolifers claim the exact opposite.
The Scientists are not saying a lot about whether abortion is "acceptable." That would not be an argument of science, so I fail to see the justification for you trying to drag science into the political debate. It seems immediately rather dishonest. BUt I am sure you didn't mean to be dishonest, so I am sure you will clarify and correct that mistake, right?
Good. I have solid moral principles, so just do what I say is moral, right?
But then, the law doesn't say that the woman has the right to kill children. In fact, nobody have the right to kill children. So your argument again doesn't make sense. You are arguing against something that doesn't exist. I must now ask you if you happen to be delusional, by any chance?

etc....

I think you're out of touch with reality man. Have you even read Darwinism, the process of natural selection, the survival of the fittest?

Here, check out this excerpt from Darwin's theory, listen and learn:

For many people natural selection is the core of Darwin's theory. Perhaps because of his use of the concept of selection, the core element of Darwin's theory seems to have baffled nearly everyone. Could it be, as Lyell, Herschel and Darwin's great American defender Asa Gray would ask, an ‘intermediate cause’, i.e. a causal principle instituted and sustained by God? Or is it in its very nature the antithesis of such a principle, as his old geology teacher Sedgwick believed? Could it possibly create species, or is it by its nature a negative force, eliminating what has already been created by other means? In one of his copies of On the Origin of Species, Alfred Russell Wallace crosses out ‘natural selection’ and writes ‘survival of the fittest’ next to it. Wallace always felt that ‘selection’ inappropriately imported anthropomorphic notions of Nature choosing purposefully between variants into natural history. And, in a devastating review Fleeming Jenkin happily accepted the principle of natural selection but challenged its power to modify an ancestral species into descendent species, and thus limited it scope to the production of varieties. A number of reviewers, even some sympathetic ones, questioned the possibility of extending the theory to account for the evolution of those characteristics that differentiate humans from their nearest relatives.



Here, I'll do you a favor:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/#2.2

Check it out sometime. Read it, you might learn something.

Anyway, you are either some sort of rich kid who had everything handed to them on a silver platter and never had to go out in the real world work his ass off to survive and provide, or you are just somebody who so strongly supports abortion, that somebody throwing the truth in your face about how Abortion fits into the grand scheme of law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, survival of the species rather than the grand scheme of honest, true justice, that you simply must attack the messenger or try to discredit the truth. Because you can't acknowledge the truth, that would shatter your false reality of the world. But that's the kind of world you live in buddy. The law is paid for and written by the rich, politicans are brought and paid for. The strong prey on the weak, lives are needlessly wasted all in the name of "right to choose." Or better yet, Hitler thought his extermination of the Jews was a good thing, was justice, was OK and doing mankind a favor. Abortion to me is murder in the name of "right to choose." But then again, I guess it's just Mother Nature and mankinds way of not letting the population get too big in our world of limited resources. But that's the world we live. We live in a jungle. We don't live by the "law of the land." Heck the "law of the land" in many instances is twisted around to prey on the innocent.

 

[TimmyBoy]

The world is based on injustice, abortion fits into the grand scheme of how the world operates. It's all about survival of the fittest, not justice. Justice is a word used to hang somebody who has become too much of a threat to other people's survival. But human beings operate on the principle of survival of the fittest and do not value each other's life. You examine the world and all the genocides and injustices and it's quite clear that human beings are an evil, dirty, barbaric species.

 

[steen]

I think you're out of touch with reality man.

And I think you're out of touch with reality man

Have you even read Darwinism, the process of natural selection, the survival of the fittest?

I have read several of darwin's books, yes. Of course, they were written 150 years ago and therefore only have limited relevance with todays science, just like the Wright brothers only have limited application in space shuttle design.

I trust you catch my point?

Here, check out this excerpt from Darwin's theory, listen and learn:

No need. I have read it before. It again deals with the writings of 150 years ago, and thus with little relevance for any science of today.


Any particular point in this that you want to raise?

Anyway, you are either some sort of rich kid who had everything handed to them on a silver platter and never had to go out in the real world work his ass off to survive and provide,

Not really. I grew up on the farm. But that still has nothing to do with the weird stuff you wrote in your original post about "darwinism" and abortion. So no, your attemt at an ad hominem doesn't erase that your original point was flawed. Is there any particular reason why you are avoiding dealing with that?

or you are just somebody who so strongly supports abortion, that somebody throwing the truth in your face about how Abortion fits into the grand scheme of law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, survival of the species rather than the grand scheme of honest, true justice, that you simply must attack the messenger or try to discredit the truth.

I haven't attacked you. I have asked for clarification, as your remarks don't make sense. And they still don't. I still don't see where Darwin has a connection to abortion, nor of what you seem to be trying to imply as "social darwinism," a term you may have heard, but which has nothing to do with Darwin.

Because you can't acknowledge the truth, that would shatter your false reality of the world.

You neglected to tell me what 'truth" you are talking about. Hopefully, it is not the nonsense of the original post, as there was no 'truth" in it.

But that's the kind of world you live in buddy. The law is paid for and written by the rich, politicans are brought and paid for.

Certainly. The M.O. of the conservatives. I agree.

The strong prey on the weak, lives are needlessly wasted all in the name of "right to choose." Or better yet, Hitler thought his extermination of the Jews was a good thing, was justice, was OK and doing mankind a favor.

Hmm, even in Mein Kampf does he not make that claim, so I am not sure where you got that from. Could you give me a source?

Abortion to me is murder in the name of "right to choose."

And again, your personal opinion doesn't necessarily fit reality.

But then again, I guess it's just Mother Nature and mankinds way of not letting the population get too big in our world of limited resources.

Not really. But your antrophomorpizing is a bit weird here.

But that's the world we live. We live in a jungle. We don't live by the "law of the land." Heck the "law of the land" in many instances is twisted around to prey on the innocent.

So get rid of the conservatives. That will vastly improve things.

 

[George_Washington]

He's right, in Mein Kampf Hitler basically said those things, in so many words. Hitler believed in Darwinism and twisted it to suit his own purposes. He thought that the Aryan race was biologically superior to all other races.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Hello, all!!

I see folks here arguing over some of the same things that have been thrashed out in the "Explain Your Reasoning" Message Thread. I INVITE ALL PRO-CHOICE WRITERS in this forum to copy/paste/use in this Thread and others, any/all of the large amount of data which I have posted in that Thread. You will find MANY things there which NO pro-life writer has been able to refute with facts. Instead they try to ignore the facts, or cover them over with unfounded beliefs. Lies have been exposed; they have not posted one single argument against abortion there which has not been utterly demolished. Should they happen to present something new there, I wll remain alert to demolish it, also. I do not have the time to duplicate my efforts there, in this and other Message Threads, and so that is why I am waiving any claim to copyright of my postings. We need to take this victory and spread it throughout all abortion debate forums nationwide, so that not even a fully Conservative Supreme Court can ignore it.
Thank you!

 

[Fantasea]

Hello, all!!

I see folks here arguing over some of the same things that have been thrashed out in the "Explain Your Reasoning" Message Thread. I INVITE ALL PRO-CHOICE WRITERS in this forum to copy/paste/use in this Thread and others, any/all of the large amount of data which I have posted in that Thread. You will find MANY things there which NO pro-life writer has been able to refute with facts. Instead they try to ignore the facts, or cover them over with unfounded beliefs. Lies have been exposed; they have not posted one single argument against abortion there which has not been utterly demolished. Should they happen to present something new there, I wll remain alert to demolish it, also. I do not have the time to duplicate my efforts there, in this and other Message Threads, and so that is why I am waiving any claim to copyright of my postings. We need to take this victory and spread it throughout all abortion debate forums nationwide, so that not even a fully Conservative Supreme Court can ignore it.
Thank you!

Clutching at straws as you feel yourself sinking, I see.

I wonder how many will heed your cries for help.

If you disagree, then:

1. Post factual information from a recognized scientific, medical, obstetric, fetology, or genetic source which denies that human life begins at conception.

2. Post factual information from a recognized scientific, medical, obstetric, fetology, or genetic source which affirms the concept of personhood which claims that some unborn children are persons and some unborn children are non-persons.

3. Post factual information from a recognized scientific, medical, obstetric, fetology, or genetic source which justifies the aborting of nearly fifty million unborn children since Roe v. Wade.

4. Cite some of the lies to which you refer.

5. Cite some of your statements, which you consider factual, which have not been refuted, or as you say, "demolished".

Copyrighted posts? :rofl

 

[MrFungus420]

Hello, all!!

I see folks here arguing over some of the same things that have been thrashed out in the "Explain Your Reasoning" Message Thread. I INVITE ALL PRO-CHOICE WRITERS in this forum to copy/paste/use in this Thread and others, any/all of the large amount of data which I have posted in that Thread. You will find MANY things there which NO pro-life writer has been able to refute with facts. Instead they try to ignore the facts, or cover them over with unfounded beliefs. Lies have been exposed; they have not posted one single argument against abortion there which has not been utterly demolished. Should they happen to present something new there, I wll remain alert to demolish it, also. I do not have the time to duplicate my efforts there, in this and other Message Threads, and so that is why I am waiving any claim to copyright of my postings. We need to take this victory and spread it throughout all abortion debate forums nationwide, so that not even a fully Conservative Supreme Court can ignore it.
Thank you!

Ok, first off, I am pro-choice. However, after only a few seconds worth of reading your posts, I saw very little other than insults. If that is what you are reduced to in your arguments, then I'm afraid that they must not have much substance to them.

When an argument is reduced to insults, it usually means that the argument can't be defended logically.

Between the insults, and you blowing your own horn, I don't think that any arguments that I may put forth would be bolstered by your input.

 

[steen]

He's right, in Mein Kampf Hitler basically said those things, in so many words. Hitler believed in Darwinism and twisted it to suit his own purposes. He thought that the Aryan race was biologically superior to all other races.

And the KKK claims that the Bible proves this. So?