Rape Does Not Justify Abortion. Or... [W:593]

[JayDubya]

That message makes no sense. It takes females for some men to have people to declare themselves superior to. Otherwise they are nothing but the failures in life they actually are.

Boy you're just toeing the line there, ain'tcha buddy.

 

[JayDubya]

If I were as vile and inconsiderate toward women as some of the men in this forum must surely be toward women, I suspect I'd live a very lonely life. I think some of the most outspoken men against abortion don't have relationships with women...and have no kids.

:roll:

Your thinly veiled personal attacks are as accurate as everything else you say.

 

[The Mark]

Right. So you support the legality of the human rights abuse of abortion. You are pro-abortion.

If you told me you didn't want to own a slave but you didn't have any business telling others they couldn't own humans, I'd call you pro-slavery, too, and I'd be right.

Firstly, your opinion of abortion does not qualify as a discription for my position. Requiring pregnant women to continue being so no matter what is more of a human rights violation than the other option.

I do not consider it reasonable to oppose legal abortions, since the alternatives are worse.

Regarding your slavery tangent...unreasonable comparisons aside, I agree - if I accepted people having slaves because I did not consider it my place to interfere, it would be pro-slavery.

So as noted, your laughter is entirely derived from denial of reality.

Your reality.
Not mine.

Well then, I'm sure no salient argument is forthcoming from you, since all can manage is to deny reality.

Objectively, you support the legality of premeditated aggressive homicide. You have stated as such within this post I am quoting right now. It's downright insane that you're denying ever doing something you literally just did, but here we are.

Your opinion does not dictate reality.
I do not consier abortion to be "premeditated aggressive homicide", and have seen no evidence that it is such.
Therefor, claiming that because I'm opposed to making abortion illegal, I support "premeditated aggressive homicide", is idiotic.

It seems downright insane to ME that you insist on a position that has no evidence to support it.

"I'm rubber..."

Kinky.

Disturbing though.

 

[JayDubya]

Firstly, your opinion of abortion does not qualify as a discription for my position. Requiring pregnant women to continue being so no matter what is more of a human rights violation than the other option.

No, the state of not being legally allowed to kill another human being is not a human rights abuse. That's a downright crazy assertion on your part.

I do not consider it reasonable to oppose legal abortions, since the alternatives are worse.

I do not consider it reasonable to support the legality of abortion. In part, this is because none of you pro-aborts have ever presented anything approaching salient and rational argument for how a premeditated and aggressive homicide is justifiable. And yet, that is the burden of your position.

Regarding your slavery tangent...unreasonable comparisons aside, I agree - if I accepted people having slaves because I did not consider it my place to interfere, it would be pro-slavery.

Right. So you accept the aggressive killing of the unborn despite saying you don't want to kill anyone. So you're pro-abortion.

There's nothing unreasonable about that comparison; the only problem with the comparison is that abortion is worse than slavery, and that difference favors my argument.

Your reality.
Not mine.

How true that is...

The thing is, you're the one with the alternate reality of your own making where "a living organism of the species Homo sapiens" is somehow not a human being.

In actual reality here on planet Earth, that is the definition of the term "human being."

Your opinion does not dictate reality.

Quite right. However, I didn't state any opinion in that text. The only opinion I recall stating to you was that I find your support for aggressive violence repugnant.

I do not consier abortion to be "premeditated aggressive homicide", and have seen no evidence that it is such.

Which word among those three do you not know the definition of, then, for you to "consider" reality not to be so?

Kinky.

Disturbing though.

Never heard that saying, eh? Oh well.

 

[Lursa]

Your reality.
Not mine.

No one else's.

Declaring your own definitions of words and defining 'other people's positions' on issues is not discussing, it's deflectory only. It furthers no discussion and lends zero support to a position. As you have found out...and as such it 100% proves what I have previously written....such vitriol and dogmatism only HURT the cause they claim to defend. You said you were pro-life, and have now been completely alienated.

Sorry, but that's why I'm happy that people get such free rein to post. I do however, respect you for your honesty.

 

[joko104]

If I were as vile and inconsiderate toward women as some of the men in this forum must surely be toward women, I suspect I'd live a very lonely life. I think some of the most outspoken men against abortion don't have relationships with women...and have no kids.

I'm rather confident certain men on the forum do - and that is the reason for the raging against women.

 

[JayDubya]

You said you were pro-life, and have now been completely alienated.

No he didn't. He said he was or thought his position qualified as "pro-choice" and continued to describe his pro-abortion position.

P.S. You can also let me know what definitions of words you don't know and I can try to help you out since you also seem to live in an alternate reality where you and your friends get to pretend words mean anything you damn well please.

 

[Removable Mind]

I'm rather confident certain men on the forum do - and that is the reason for the raging against women.

:lol: Touché...that too, Joko...

 

[JayDubya]

I'm rather confident certain men on the forum do - and that is the reason for the raging against women.

:lol: Touché...that too, Joko...

Please take your thinly veiled, highly inflammatory, and absolutely ignorant / false insinuations elsewhere.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

No he didn't. He said he was or thought his position qualified as "pro-choice" and continued to describe his pro-abortion position.

P.S. You can also let me know what definitions of words you don't know and I can try to help you out since you also seem to live in an alternate reality where you and your friends get to pretend words mean anything you damn well please.

Jay, Jay, Jay. I like to pop into Abortion threads every six months or so just to see if your are still being dishonest about definitions. Apparently you are. Here is a definition that you consistently equivocate and twist: abortion. It is NOT "aggressive homicide". It's ABORTION. Now, I know you like to use your own definitions as an appeal to emotion logical fallacy and for dramatic effect, but that's really all it is. You look really bad in these debates when you have to be dishonest about a basic definition in order to attempt to "score points". Now, I don't expect you to listen in any way shape or form. My function here is just to point out this appeal to emotion logical fallacy you use when you use your "invented" definition. Hopefully others will... or already have, taken notice.

See you in 6 months.

 

[Peter King]

Jay, Jay, Jay. I like to pop into Abortion threads every six months or so just to see if your are still being dishonest about definitions. Apparently you are. Here is a definition that you consistently equivocate and twist: abortion. It is NOT "aggressive homicide". It's ABORTION. Now, I know you like to use your own definitions as an appeal to emotion logical fallacy and for dramatic effect, but that's really all it is. You look really bad in these debates when you have to be dishonest about a basic definition in order to attempt to "score points". Now, I don't expect you to listen in any way shape or form. My function here is just to point out this appeal to emotion logical fallacy you use when you use your "invented" definition. Hopefully others will... or already have, taken notice.

See you in 6 months.

Sadly it is an appeal that is going to fall on deaf ears. Everyone here who is not pro-life has stated this numerous times to him, and now you of course.

The same goes for the constant battle over the acronym ZEF, that he claims I have concocted and is a bigoted slur against all those innocent victims of the aggressive homicide that I the hatemonger so wholeheartedly support.

So in 6 months are are 2 options, either he has exploded out of anger and frustration and been banned/left stomping his feet in anger (which I hope does not happen, I may dislike his tactics, his opinion and has mannerisms) or he has seen the error of ways and I (as stated) hope the one option does not take place and I doubt the other option will take place either. So in 6 months time you will come here and most likely see the same discussion take place, and I am ready for it because I will not give up the fight and I doubt he will give up his fight.

So, see you in 6 months

 

[Lursa]

Sadly it is an appeal that is going to fall on deaf ears. Everyone here who is not pro-life has stated this numerous times to him, and now you of course.

The same goes for the constant battle over the acronym ZEF, that he claims I have concocted and is a bigoted slur against all those innocent victims of the aggressive homicide that I the hatemonger so wholeheartedly support.

So in 6 months are are 2 options, either he has exploded out of anger and frustration and been banned/left stomping his feet in anger (which I hope does not happen, I may dislike his tactics, his opinion and has mannerisms) or he has seen the error of ways and I (as stated) hope the one option does not take place and I doubt the other option will take place either. So in 6 months time you will come here and most likely see the same discussion take place, and I am ready for it because I will not give up the fight and I doubt he will give up his fight.

So, see you in 6 months

An additional false claim and 'personal' definition is that there's no such thing as a fertilized human egg. Seriously :doh

 

[JayDubya]

Jay, Jay, Jay. I like to pop into Abortion threads every six months or so just to see if your are still being dishonest about definitions.

Well, you see, to still be doing so, I'd have to have started.

abortion. It is NOT "aggressive homicide". It's ABORTION.

Great simple contradiction there, chief, without even a hint of rational argument.

I'm sorry you don't know the definition of the words involved and have no interest in learning. But thank you for very clearly and indisputably drive-by trolling this thread.

 

[nota bene]

I'm rather confident certain men on the forum do - and that is the reason for the raging against women.

I keep missing all this "raging against women." This is a pro-choice meme--pro-life men are misogynists--that is boring as well as ugly and unfair. I take remarks like this as seriously as I take the oft-repeated lie that those who are pro-life care only about the unborn and that their interest wanes when a baby is born.

 

[iangb]

Right. So you're pro-abortion then. Thanks for clearing that up.

How many times am I going to have to school you in this thread?

Support for the legality of X does not indicate agreeing with X itself. You can support the right to free speech without agreeing with pro-choice rallies, you can support the freedom of the press without agreeing with MSNBC, you can support the establishment clause without agreeing with Scientology, you can support the right to choose (or 'legal ability' if you want to make a fuss about 'rights') without agreeing with abortion.

You have long established yourself as being a hardcore supporter of constitutional rights. However, I doubt very much that you would call yourself 'pro-' everything that people do with those rights. For the second (at least!) time in this thread, you've applied an argument to someone else but refused to apply it to yourself.

 

[JayDubya]

How many times am I going to have to school you in this thread?

Oh, it's you again? I forget, is this the thread where you told me that you're not responsible for someone's death if you have them violently killed? It all becomes a blur of bizarre and incomprehensible content from you pro-aborts, honestly. That you would think such content constitutes "schooling" anyone remains simultaneously amusing and tragic.

Support for the legality of X does not indicate agreeing with X itself. You can support the right to free speech without agreeing with pro-choice rallies, you can support the freedom of the press without agreeing with MSNBC, you can support the establishment 1clause without agreeing with Scientology, you can support the right to choose (or 'legal ability' if you want to make a fuss about 'rights') without agreeing with abortion.

You have long established yourself as being a hardcore supporter of constitutional rights. However, I doubt very much that you would call yourself 'pro-' everything that people do with those rights. For the second (at least!) time in this thread, you've applied an argument to someone else but refused to apply it to yourself.

Already addressed:

Right. So you support the legality of the human rights abuse of abortion. You are pro-abortion.

If you told me you didn't want to own a slave but you didn't have any business telling others they couldn't own humans, I'd call you pro-slavery, too, and I'd be right.

He agreed, by the way, that we would call someone who was only personally opposed to slavery "pro-slavery." And we would, and we'd be right to do so.


I am absolutely pro-free speech, and yes, I know what sort of awful things people do with it; hell, how could I not - the Westboro Baptist Church has nothing on you people.

You cannot tell me that you sort of like the idea of free speech but you want the government to ban unpopular speech and thus it's not black and white or something. Yes, it's still black and white. Such a position is "anti-free speech."


It's also weird how you were citing Constitutional rights and then all of a sudden you tangentially switch to talking about abortion.

 

[joko104]

No, the state of not being legally allowed to kill another human being is not a human rights abuse. That's a downright crazy assertion on your part.



I do not consider it reasonable to support the legality of abortion. In part, this is because none of you pro-aborts have ever presented anything approaching salient and rational argument for how a premeditated and aggressive homicide is justifiable. And yet, that is the burden of your position.



Right. So you accept the aggressive killing of the unborn despite saying you don't want to kill anyone. So you're pro-abortion.

There's nothing unreasonable about that comparison; the only problem with the comparison is that abortion is worse than slavery, and that difference favors my argument.



How true that is...

The thing is, you're the one with the alternate reality of your own making where "a living organism of the species Homo sapiens" is somehow not a human being.

In actual reality here on planet Earth, that is the definition of the term "human being."



Quite right. However, I didn't state any opinion in that text. The only opinion I recall stating to you was that I find your support for aggressive violence repugnant.



Which word among those three do you not know the definition of, then, for you to "consider" reality not to be so?



Never heard that saying, eh? Oh well.

Any rational person understands the difference between opposing something personally and wanting the government to outlaw what the person opposes.

I oppose racial slurs. I do not want it made a criminal offense for a person to use racial slurs. Virtually everyone but you understands the difference between personal opposition to something and wanting the government to force others to comply with your own personal viewpoints.

Nor do your views represent the major view of those who are prolife. The majority of prolife do not favor imprisoning girls and women for abortion. Rather, either the just morally/religiously oppose abortions or want the procedure prohibited (entirely or at certain stages of pregnancy). Even of those few who want abortion criminalized in relation to the girls/women, virtual none use your intensely hateful accusations and name calling against women.

 

[JayDubya]

Any rational person understands the difference between opposing something personally and wanting the government to outlaw what the person opposes.

Which works for victimless things where freedom of choice actually applies.

I am absolutely in favor of the legality of smoking. I absolutely oppose the heavy hand of government telling private businesses they cannot permit smoking in their establishments. I most assuredly would not recommend smoking (unless I wanted bad things to happen to you).

If we were dealing with the prospects of a smoking ban and we were arguing for or against it, then pro-smoking and anti-smoking would not be terrible terms. It is understood that in that context what is being discussed is the legality. Or rather, it should be understood by any rational person, to turn those tables right back on you.

 

[joko104]

How many times am I going to have to school you in this thread?

Support for the legality of X does not indicate agreeing with X itself. You can support the right to free speech without agreeing with pro-choice rallies, you can support the freedom of the press without agreeing with MSNBC, you can support the establishment clause without agreeing with Scientology, you can support the right to choose (or 'legal ability' if you want to make a fuss about 'rights') without agreeing with abortion.

You have long established yourself as being a hardcore supporter of constitutional rights. However, I doubt very much that you would call yourself 'pro-' everything that people do with those rights. For the second (at least!) time in this thread, you've applied an argument to someone else but refused to apply it to yourself.

His messages again escalating to even accusing prolife members who do not want 13 year old girls imprisoned for life for having an abortion of being "pro-abortion" who "support aggressive homicide" by "psychopathic" women is just his shouting that he is doing everything he can to make himself center of attention to press people into interacting with his deliberately offensive and rabidly radical messages.

 

[joko104]

Which works for victimless things where freedom of choice actually applies.

I am absolutely in favor of the legality of smoking. I absolutely oppose the heavy hand of government telling private businesses they cannot permit smoking in their establishments. I most assuredly would not recommend smoking (unless I wanted bad things to happen to you).

If we were dealing with the prospects of a smoking ban and we were arguing for or against it, then pro-smoking and anti-smoking would not be terrible terms. It is understood that in that context what is being discussed is the legality. Or rather, it should be understood by any rational person, to turn those tables right back on you.

Second hand smoke harms people, particularly children. So if I followed your reasoning I would now rage at you in the next 100 messages and forever that you proactively WANT children to get lung disease and that you WANT children to die from cancer and OCPD, desiring to kill children in psychopathic sick minded form of aggressive homicide deserving life in prison and forever banned from being around any child.

How could a person be more evil than WANTING children to get cancer and die of lung disease, which in your logic OBVIOUSLY you promote being pro-cancer, pro-OCPD and pro-killing children. For any message you post, I would accuse you of being pro-aggressive homicide against children, along with all the condemnatory and insulting words you use about girls and women.

However, I'm not like you, don't play those games, and don't make such accusation against you because I prefer rational, normal debate on a logical and realistic level.

You couldn't even come up with a decent and logical example trying to make your point.

Once again, you are not the voice of the majority of prolifers. Your messages are the voice of an angry man raging at and about women.

 

[joko104]

The biology behind gestation is an amazing, magical, miraculous process that definitely displays the wonders of the body, and not just the human body but all life forms from animals to insects to plants, it's a really cool process and shows how nature really has it all figured out. Think about it, it goes from a sperm and an egg to a walking, breathing life. That's cool. However, just to throw this scenario out there, the fact of the matter is that our bodies have natural abortions over 30% of the time after conception, sometimes at an even higher average percentage, and so if an abortion is murder and your body has a natural abortion such as a miscarriage then is that to be considered a lesser crime like manslaughter or abuse? Is there a significant difference between your body aborting the fetus at seven weeks and you making the decision to abort the fetus at seven weeks or sooner? It's pretty much the same physical person aborting the pregnancy, right, but just one is unintentional.

The biology of homo sapiens is amazing also in mental ability. Among those is the mental capacity to increasingly develop manners to regulate pro-creation, which offers significant advantage over other species.

However, self regulating having offspring is not unique to humans. Many species regulate having offspring on both an individual and collective level. The difference is humans have developed ways to do so more precisely and without killing born offspring as many species, particularly the most advanced species, will do. Fortunately, homo sapiens do not have to wait until birth to prevent unwanted offspring for whatever reason offspring are not wanted at that time. This is a significant superiority of homo sapiens over other species.

 

[JayDubya]

Since second hand smoke harms people, particularly children. So if I followed your reasoning I would now rage at you in the next 100 messages and forever that you proactively WANT children to get lung disease and that you WANT children to die from cancer and OCPD, desiring to kill children in psychopathic sick minded form of aggressive homicide deserving life in prison and forever banned from being around any child.

Yeah, okay chuckles. If you voluntarily go to a place where other people are smoking, you absolutely consent to the risks thereof. Personal responsibility.

In terms of your "children" handwringing, ridiculous hyperbole that it may be, I would agree that ones own kids do not get to voluntarily consent to that risk and forcing your kids to consume any of the toxins from your cigarette is not appropriate, so you can and should smoke outside or otherwise not around them. Of course, to empower CPS to intervene in cases other than acute intentional abuse would be a slippery slope into hell, because then we're comparing the relative harm of routine Happy Meals to second hand smoke. I think we can agree at least that forcing a kid to smoke the cigarettes themselves would be abuse.

For the rest of your garbage, see "Yeah okay, chuckles."

You couldn't even come up with a decent and logical example trying to make your point.

Yes, I did. I'm in favor of the legality of smoking and oppose governmental bans against smoking and I oppose the pigovian taxes that punish people for buying cigarettes. I would not advise anyone smoke. For purposes of anyone who wants to ban smoking, I am their adversary no matter whether I would advise anyone smoke or not.

I have provided an example in which one in black and white terms is opposed to the legality of something or not. There are many who advocate for banning smoking.

Once again, you are not the voice of the majority of prolifers. Your messages are the voice of an angry man raging at and about women.

Once again you lie and make up nonsense.

 

[JayDubya]

The difference is humans have developed ways to do so more precisely and without killing born offspring as many species, particularly the most advanced species, will do. Fortunately, homo sapiens do not have to wait until birth to prevent unwanted offspring for whatever reason offspring are not wanted at that time. This is a significant superiority of homo sapiens over other species.

Praise for eugenics. Wow.

 

[iangb]

Oh, it's you again? I forget, is this the thread where you told me that you're not responsible for someone's death if you have them violently killed? It all becomes a blur of bizarre and incomprehensible content from you pro-aborts, honestly. That you would think such content constitutes "schooling" anyone remains simultaneously amusing and tragic.

It's frankly quite amazing that your mind has already managed to twist a conversation from only a day or so ago into something that resembles very little of what actually occurred.

For the record, I told you no such thing. As I stated at the time, I was mimicking your post where you said that someone's death was "not your problem" if you disconnected yourself from them when you were the only thing keeping them alive - something remarkably similar to how several abortion procedures work (working under the assumption that a zygote/embryo counts as a 'person'). This displayed your similar levels of hypocrisy to the argument you are making here.

Post #473; it's not hard to look up.

Already addressed:

He agreed, by the way, that we would call someone who was only personally opposed to slavery "pro-slavery." And we would, and we'd be right to do so.

That your argument applies in one situation does not mean that it applies in all situations. That your argument does not apply in another situation proves that it does not apply in all situations; and I have provided plenty of situations where your argument does not apply. The only reason your argument does apply to slavery, incidentally, is because there is no simple term for someone who supports the legality of slavery but not the practice; slavery was a much more clear-cut issue whereas there are so many more shades in abortion, as all of the different viewpoints on this forum demonstrate (eg opinions on rape, incest exceptions etc).

Pro- the legality of abortion does not equate to pro- the act of abortion. "Pro-abortion" indicates the latter; not the former - "pro-choice" indicates the former, not the latter. I reference the famous phrase: "abortions should be safe, legal, and rare" - I am not expressing a fringe opinion here, but one which many people hold.

While you may personally use the words in a different way; you do not get to call your views any more objective than mine and apply them to other people as if you spoke with any kind of authority.

I am absolutely pro-free speech, and yes, I know what sort of awful things people do with it; hell, how could I not - the Westboro Baptist Church has nothing on you people.

You cannot tell me that you sort of like the idea of free speech but you want the government to ban unpopular speech and thus it's not black and white or something. Yes, it's still black and white. Such a position is "anti-free speech."

By your logic you should term yourself 'pro-WBC'.

And your example is backwards. I don't think the government should ban unpopular speech (hence I am 'pro free speech') but I don't like some of the consequences of it (hence I am 'anti-WBC'). In the same way people can think the government should not ban abortions (hence they are 'pro-choice') but they don't like the consequences (hence are still 'anti-abortion').

It's also weird how you were citing Constitutional rights and then all of a sudden you tangentially switch to talking about abortion.

The argument applies to anything which is legal, 'natural rights' or not. Supporting the legality of cars does not make you 'pro-traffic-fatalities', even though this is a direct consequence of cars being legal. Opposing the illegality of suicide attempts does not make you 'pro-suicide', and as mentioned above, supporting the legality of smoking does not make you 'pro-cancer'.

With that said, though, the Supreme Court is established by the constitution, and vested with the "judicial power of the United States". I reference another famous phrase - "they are not final because they are correct, they are correct because they are final". So far, they have not ruled in your favour.

 

[joko104]

Praise for eugenics. Wow.

OK, now you're on record as claiming contraceptives and birth control is "eugenics." How very Catholic of you.

Just keep on charging off seeking the record for the most extremist member of the forum.

(You don't really understand what the word eugenics means, do you?)