Responsibility [W:411]

[AGENT J]

For those who can read, I have no "position regarding women," I have a position favoring human equality.

That equality, and the human right to life preclude the possibility of a "right" to kill your own offspring in cold blood. There is no such right, and can be no such right. Not a human right, and certainly not a Constitutional right.

It is not in any way misogyny to state that fact, and as such you've damned yourself a liar. Now stop your filthy trolling, or expect this to be escalated.



As I said, saying a villain is a villain is not villifying anyone. Their actions - killing an innocent human being in cold blood - made them a villain.



Where you fail, and fail utterly, is suggesting that stating negative things about someone who kills other human beings in cold blood equates to stating negative things about ALL folks who might share some arbitrary physical characteristics. It's patently obvious - again, to anyone who can read - that the action is what is warranting the contempt.

as proven by many of your own words and posts this is factually false

and he has not lied at all :shrug:

if you disagree, FACTUALLY prove he lied, we will wait, I cant wit to read it actually

 

[AGENT J]

According to YOUR VERY OWN MORAL STANCE...you've villinized women for having an abortion.

EDIT: Most have broken no laws...

FACT: the above statement is not a lie and many people agree with it, from what i have seen here at DP, the majority agree with it

 

[AGENT J]

The EVIL ACTIONS THEY COMMIT are inside your own mind. Most women who have abortions do so legally, Jay...

Your person moral stance is all you argue. Not a legal one. You don't have to agree with the law, Jay. But don't villinize women who exercise their legal rights.

Yep this is also true, he is pushing his OPINION as facts and he is failing majorly

 

[Henrin]

That's not my problem. But apparently yours.

It's everyones problem when they come up with bull**** to justify something.

Henrin...we need to give it a break...at least for a little while. Being bombed by you and Jay at the same time...well, I need to go make a cup of java. Get reconstituted, ya dig?

Yeah, tomorrow then.

 

[AGENT J]

Yep, we're done, Jay....and no, I haven't attacked you personally, just your moral based opinions.

this is true there was no attack, as a matter of fact his own logic defeats his argument

IF he thinks what he said is not an attack on women how could your words possible be an attack on him. More examples of broken logic.

 

[AGENT J]

And now you're lying about lying. Your posts are right there, dude.

Please FACTUALLY prove he lied, i cant wait to read this logic

 

[Removable Mind]

FACT: the above statement is not a lie and many people agree with it, from what i have seen here at DP, the majority agree with it

In order to take this issue on...at least argue from a common premise...such as abortions are legal, but one could have the opinion that they disagree with the law. If that's they case, then I guess one has to make a decision about what proactive actions that he or she can take to change the law.

But it's totally out of order...and just bad to argue that women are murders...based on a person's own moral standard...not what current laws prevail.

That's all I'm saying.

And I just happen to agree with current laws that DON'T PERMIT AN UNBORN PERSONHOOD...and allows a woman the right to privacy in managing her own body and reproductive rights. That's all?

 

[JayDubya]

AGAIN... do you not understand something so bone simple...

... as to note that what you did... saying that I think all women are villains... saying that I don't view women as people...

... is accusing me directly, and in an unfounded manner, of misogyny. That is a personal attack. And it is completely uncivil. And it is bull****. And you need to own up to that.



You disagree that those who kill innocent human beings in cold blood are villains, and you don't want them locked up in prison where they can't kill again. That is your opinion. I disagree with it, but that is your opinion.


I value equality. Regardless of gender, I think violent killers should be locked up. That's certainly my opinion, and I stand by it. If you're going to spew unfounded personal attacks about me because of my opinion, I'm going to pursue action against you. It's that simple.

 

[AGENT J]

In order to take this issue on...at least argue from a common premise...such as abortions are legal, but one could have the opinion that they disagree with the law. If that's they case, then I guess one has to make a decision about what proactive actions that he or she can take to change the law.

But it's totally out of order...and just bad to argue that women are murders...based on a person's own moral standard...not what current laws prevail.

That's all I'm saying.

And I just happen to agree with current laws that DON'T PERMIT AN UNBORN PERSONHOOD...and allows a woman the right to privacy in managing her own body and reproductive rights. That's all?

there will NEVER be a common premise with some because some use facts, reality or laws and others just make stuff up and want to force their lies and false opinions on others.

Facts, laws, honesty and reality just rank very low with some posters and you arent going to have good luck convincing them otherwise BUT it is fun trying and watching them spin spin spin. My favorite is exposing their hypocrisy when they claim they are about equality but their own words prove they are factually not.

 

[AGENT J]

AGAIN... do you not understand something so bone simple...

... as to note that what you did... saying that I think all women are villains... saying that I don't view women as people...

... is accusing me directly, and in an unfounded manner, of misogyny. That is a personal attack. And it is completely uncivil. And it is bull****. And you need to own up to that.



You disagree that those who kill innocent human beings in cold blood are villains, and you don't want them locked up in prison where they can't kill again. That is your opinion. I disagree with it, but that is your opinion.


I value equality. Regardless of gender, I think violent killers should be locked up. That's certainly my opinion, and I stand by it. If you're going to spew unfounded personal attacks about me because of my opinion, I'm going to pursue action against you. It's that simple.

its funny that you think your opinion trumps his(and many others) and makes his a lie when it FACTUALLY doesnt.

also it is factually not true that you value equality unless that excludes women when we are talking ZEF vs a woman. This fact has been proven by your own words and posts.

There was no personal attack, your stance factually values the ZEF over the woman. If you dont like this fact, change your stance but denying what your stance means doesn't change anything.

 

[digsbe]

Moderator's Warning:

Stop with discussing personal attacks and do not make personal attacks. Report posts you think may violate the rules

 

[AGENT J]

In order to take this issue on...at least argue from a common premise...such as abortions are legal, but one could have the opinion that they disagree with the law. If that's they case, then I guess one has to make a decision about what proactive actions that he or she can take to change the law.

But it's totally out of order...and just bad to argue that women are murders...based on a person's own moral standard...not what current laws prevail.

That's all I'm saying.

And I just happen to agree with current laws that DON'T PERMIT AN UNBORN PERSONHOOD...and allows a woman the right to privacy in managing her own body and reproductive rights. That's all?

on a side note about the bolded part

I have also tried this many times.

TO be honest there have been quite a few pro-lifers that can do this and understand that banning abortion does in fact value the zef over the woman just like unlimited abortion values the woman over the zef but some posters can never admit this. these are actually some of my favoritye poster to talk to even though we dont agree because they are honest. im not sure why its hard for some to admit the truth, im sure its different for each poster but the facts dont change. There is factually no such thing as equality when it comes to this debate, one life must always be chosen. Some people accept that fact some dishonestly deny it.

 

[Hard Truth]

It’s really not that simple. I’d like to see evidence that those who are pro-life are not genuinely motivated for the concern for life. You decide on the objective measurement—and just exactly what would this be? Charitable donations? Volunteer work at health-for-all clinics or providing housing for young families/single moms? Offering jobs and/or job training? What’s your evaluative standard for “concern for the life of the baby”?

It’s also not about “sluts keeping their legs together” and it’s also not “punishment”; it’s about women (and men too) being responsible. I don’t have any interest or motive in denying women healthy sex lives and lots of fun too. My objection is seeking an abortion because the baby you helped create is an inconvenience to you.

I don't wish to divert the thread to the topic, as serious and important as it is, of fathers' rights. Too often they have no say-so but do have legal financial responsibilities despite this. It's also true that they pressure the women they have impregnanted to "get rid of the problem," and very often, women do choose abortion because the father has said he won't stick around. (Check Guttmacher stats; these have been posted many times.)

The issue is compounding a mistake--an accidental pregnancy--by choosing a permanent solution to a temporary problem. There are other solutions that do not require killing an innocent life. They require conscience--integrity and courage. Your mistake shouldn't result in killing another human life.

From your response, I don't think you are the type of person I was referring to in my post. Doing anything to help children (that aren't your own) or poor people shows a genuine concern for people's lives. Adopting hard to place children is the best thing anti-abortion activists can do to reduce abortions besides advocating for better sex ed in schools and better access to contraceptives for poor and young people. For a pregnant minority woman, giving a child up for adoption is likely to mean condemning that child to a lifetime of bouncing around in various foster homes, many of them abusive or otherwise problematic, before getting into a near inevitable involvement with the criminal justice system.

 

[Hard Truth]

I think that one of the key differences of opinion between the pro and abortion factions is being lost in this discussion. Nearly all anti-abortion advocates are religious and believe that the fetus is human at conception and that humans are not just regular animals, but are sacred. (there is also the anti-non-marital sex for women belief as another major factor) This pro-choice advocate believes that the qualities that make an individual a human are developed gradually after conception and that the value of human life comes from this development and the investment/effort that the parents and others put into caring for the child. That is why I don't consider abortion murder because in the early stages the fetus is more like an internal organ inside the mother. It is only when the fetus develops to the point that it can be viable outside of the womb without extraordinary measures that the anti-abortion arguments seem more valid to me.

The reason this debate has gone on so long is that the anti-abortion position that the fetus is human at conception and that humans are are sacred is based on belief, not verifiable facts. There is no way that a discussion or any facts will change that viewpoint. The main thing that I have seen change the opinions of someone who is anti-abortion is actually having themselves or someone close to them in the position of being pregnant in a situation where the mother's life would be significantly harmed by having a child.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Sorry, Henrin...you'll have to take that up with the Supreme Court.

And most won't because after all they are all powerless to stop anything the supreme court would brush them away like little children

So picking a fight with the poor women who had an abortion fits them properly and quite entertaining also

 

[AGENT J]

I think that one of the key differences of opinion between the pro and abortion factions is being lost in this discussion. Nearly all anti-abortion advocates are religious and believe that the fetus is human at conception and that humans are not just regular animals, but are sacred. (there is also the anti-non-marital sex for women belief as another major factor) This pro-choice advocate believes that the qualities that make an individual a human are developed gradually after conception and that the value of human life comes from this development and the investment/effort that the parents and others put into caring for the child. That is why I don't consider abortion murder because in the early stages the fetus is more like an internal organ inside the mother. It is only when the fetus develops to the point that it can be viable outside of the womb without extraordinary measures that the anti-abortion arguments seem more valid to me.

The reason this debate has gone on so long is that the anti-abortion position that the fetus is human at conception and that humans are are sacred is based on belief, not verifiable facts. There is no way that a discussion or any facts will change that viewpoint. The main thing that I have seen change the opinions of someone who is anti-abortion is actually having themselves or someone close to them in the position of being pregnant in a situation where the mother's life would be significantly harmed by having a child.

well this is mostly true but i think its more than that

I have an OPINION of when I think abortion should be cut off, why and when and im fine with that OPINION and understand others may disagree or have different reasons why they disagree.

Im fine with people being honest and admitting they value the woman more or that they value the ZEF more for what ever opinions they have.

But as soon as people start lying or being dishonest or pushing their opinions as facts theres no way to have an objective conversation. There are people on both sides that can completely honest but then there are others that cant be, constantly lie, become uncivil and just go on the attack. These people are easily identified by how angry they get and the insults they throw around. ANd the biggest identifier is when they are asked for FACTS to support their lies or asked to admit its only their opinion, they run and hide doing only drive by posting or simply deny the facts presented to them to destroy their false claims.

Be pro-life, be pro-choice, i dont really care, just be honest about your view otherwise many posters will simply call you out on it. Anybody boosting "equality" and "human rights" but is mostly or all pro abortion or pro choice is being dishonest right from the start and will always get exposed, if they dont like it, they should simply be more honest :shrug:

 

[Henrin]

Nearly all anti-abortion advocates are religious

Most of the pro-life posters here are not religious. rof

 

[JayDubya]

The reason this debate has gone on so long is that the anti-abortion position that the fetus is human at conception

What, you mean the scientific fact?

There is no way that a discussion or any facts will change that viewpoint.

No, there is little chance of a discussion of fact deterring people who know facts from knowing facts. :doh

You could stand to learn a few, though.

 

[Henrin]

And most won't because after all they are all powerless to stop anything the supreme court would brush them away like little children

So picking a fight with the poor women who had an abortion fits them properly and quite entertaining also

They killed their child, so they're open to ridicule. You don't need to like it, but that is how it is. The fact is they are not a poor woman being mistreated, but a cold blooded killer that is being treated accordingly.

 

[Removable Mind]

I think that one of the key differences of opinion between the pro and abortion factions is being lost in this discussion. Nearly all anti-abortion advocates are religious and believe that the fetus is human at conception and that humans are not just regular animals, but are sacred. (there is also the anti-non-marital sex for women belief as another major factor) This pro-choice advocate believes that the qualities that make an individual a human are developed gradually after conception and that the value of human life comes from this development and the investment/effort that the parents and others put into caring for the child. That is why I don't consider abortion murder because in the early stages the fetus is more like an internal organ inside the mother. It is only when the fetus develops to the point that it can be viable outside of the womb without extraordinary measures that the anti-abortion arguments seem more valid to me.

The reason this debate has gone on so long is that the anti-abortion position that the fetus is human at conception and that humans are are sacred is based on belief, not verifiable facts. There is no way that a discussion or any facts will change that viewpoint. The main thing that I have seen change the opinions of someone who is anti-abortion is actually having themselves or someone close to them in the position of being pregnant in a situation where the mother's life would be significantly harmed by having a child.

Well, I can't totally disagree in that some believe human life, beginning at conception, is sacred...whether or not that stems from a religious belief or not, I can't say it for sure, but it seems to have.

Nobody is disputing that when a conception has occurred that it is anything less than a beginning human stage of reproduction, which invariably produces another human being when brought to full-term. That's simply a no-brainer.

I think the division is more along the lines of one expressing a personal moral standard that is attempted to be portrayed as a universal legal standard.

 

[Hard Truth]

Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
The reason this debate has gone on so long is that the anti-abortion position that the fetus is human at conception

What, you mean the scientific fact?

I don't dispute that the fetus has human DNA, but the definition of human is subjective and a clump of cells does not meet my definition of human whether it is a fetus or a removed kidney.

 

[JayDubya]

I don't dispute that the fetus has human DNA

Well yes, that's true, but that's not quite relevant now is it? I didn't say anything about DNA.

but the definition of human is subjective

Hardly. An organism is or is not a Homo sapiens. There is nothing wishy washy or subjective about that.

and a clump of cells does not meet my definition of human

We are, all of us, glorified "clumps of cells."

And of course, I mean, you can tell me your own personal, subjective definition of five is "the number that comes after two," but uhhh....

 

[AGENT J]

Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
The reason this debate has gone on so long is that the anti-abortion position that the fetus is human at conception



I don't dispute that the fetus has human DNA, but the definition of human is subjective and a clump of cells does not meet my definition of human whether it is a fetus or a removed kidney.

see you just encountered exactly what i said you would, some people deny facts and falsely push their opinion as truth.

a zygote is human (adj) and this is a fact
stating a zygote is a human (noun) is nothing more than an OPINION and this fact has been proven with facts and links to medical and scientific sites and professionals along with dictionary definitions.

But yet, some will still claim otherwise no matter what the facts state.

Whats even more entertaining is that no matter what somebody's opinion of what to call a zygote: baby, child, human, kid, human being, person etc etc etc

its MEANINGLESS to the abortion debate because what is factually is that there are TWO lives at play and banning abortion or having abortion unlimited factually views one of the lives as a lesser.

Classifying the ZEF as an equal only further shows the hypocrisy of somebody stating they are for equality or rights when they factually are not because the are all or mostly pro-life/abortion.

 

[Removable Mind]

well this is mostly true but i think its more than that

I have an OPINION of when I think abortion should be cut off, why and when and im fine with that OPINION and understand others may disagree or have different reasons why they disagree.

Im fine with people being honest and admitting they value the woman more or that they value the ZEF more for what ever opinions they have.

But as soon as people start lying or being dishonest or pushing their opinions as facts theres no way to have an objective conversation. There are people on both sides that can completely honest but then there are others that cant be, constantly lie, become uncivil and just go on the attack. These people are easily identified by how angry they get and the insults they throw around. ANd the biggest identifier is when they are asked for FACTS to support their lies or asked to admit its only their opinion, they run and hide doing only drive by posting or simply deny the facts presented to them to destroy their false claims.

Be pro-life, be pro-choice, i dont really care, just be honest about your view otherwise many posters will simply call you out on it. Anybody boosting "equality" and "human rights" but is mostly or all pro abortion or pro choice is being dishonest right from the start and will always get exposed, if they dont like it, they should simply be more honest :shrug:

Too-Shay on most of what you said.

We have to start to separate fact from opinions or individual moral positions on issues related to abortion. Otherwise...things get heated and spin out of control...as they often do regarding a topic such as abortion.

We can't engage in debates where one side is talking "personal moral standards" and the other is talking about "legal standards and/or constitutional interpretations of a woman's right to privacy concerning her body and reproduction role".

I my opinion, debates wouldn't be so fired up and emotional if...posters pick one specific side of a point or the other to debate (moral standards or legal)...but don't mix the two as though they are the same thing. They're just not.

Thanks for your posts...

 

[AGENT J]

Too-Shay on most of what you said.

We have to start to separate fact from opinions or individual moral positions on issues related to abortion. Otherwise...things get heated and spin out of control...as they often do regarding a topic such as abortion.

We can't engage in debates where one side is talking "personal moral standards" and the other is talking about "legal standards and/or constitutional interpretations of a woman's right to privacy concerning her body and reproduction role".

I my opinion, debates wouldn't be so fired up and emotional if...posters pick one specific side of a point or the other to debate (moral standards or legal)...but don't mix the two as though they are the same thing. They're just not.

Thanks for your posts...

No problem, some posters HAVE to mix their arguments because thats the only way they can make them make sense to themselves. But in reality they are still just as faulty as when they first stated them.