The Term is Terrorism

[eohrnberger]

No, it doesn't go back to "if a fetus is a person". It goes back to - women's rights to privacy and due process should NEVER be reduced or dismantled.

What does privacy and due process have to do with abortion? Neither are being questioned nor threatened in a discussion about abortion.

Women's equality and liberty should never be less than that of men.

A woman's uterus should never be the imperative element used to discriminate against her...ever.

Umm, I believe in the vast majority of cases the woman decided to have sex, right? So I don't think this reasoning applies.

I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't agree to government forcing all male babies born to be given a reversible vasectomy. And that government will decide when it can be reversed. Right?

Whaaattt??? That's pretty bizarre. Equating an aborting with a reversible vasectomy. Who's your pharmacist?

Neither governments or religions should control what the size of a family should be...in either direction.

Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex or use contraceptives. Come on!

What pro-life just can understand is that the zygote, embryo, fetus is not a part of the pro-choice argument...AT ALL.

There is no possible way to give the unborn equal status to the born without serious social ramifications.

There's a post around here that deflates that argument, I think. I'll defer that question to that post.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Scraba...doesn't "Justifiable Homicide" exist in Canadian laws? If pro-life wanna play the "HOMICIDE" game. The US laws says abortion is "justifiable and unquestionable homicide" up until a fetus is viable.

As far as I know, we do not have justifiable homicide up here. However, our Criminal Code is pretty specific in spelling out that homicide only applies to the born.

And in Canada, there is not developmental stage limitations to commit "justifiable homicide". And yet, Canadian women have a higher percent of abortions over 90% in the first trimester than do American women. And Canadian women are more committed to taking birth control because they have better access. Amazing.

Exactly. We also have comprehensive sex ed up here, which I think contributes to a lower teen pregnancy rate.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex or use contraceptives. Come on!

Why should I, or any woman, abstain for sex for all of my fertile years just because *you* disagree with abortion?

 

[calamity]

I think the term "terrorism" is becoming grossly used these days.

There is a fine line between "free speech" and inciting violence. Calling doctors butchers and comparing legal medical procedures to mass murder is a good way to trigger a violent response, something that is not all that uncommon. So, the bottom line is that I can see where such rhetoric would trigger violent responses from those who are unhinged.

 

[calamity]

I think it comes from being excessively politically correct, thin skinned wimps. But I could be wrong. I'll admit that.

Posting wanted pictures of a doctor, calling him a mass murderer, calls to action those unbalanced enough to literally believe it. It is akin to waiving a red flag in front of a bull.

 

[calamity]

You have done no such thing. The only thing you ultimately assert is that banning abortion violates the "right" to an abortion.

IMO, the "saving babies"meme is a smokescreen for wanting to curtail women's sexual freedom. Vast numbers of you folks don't give a crap what happens to babies after they are born. So, why all the hype about the pre-born?

 

[eohrnberger]

Posting wanted pictures of a doctor, calling him a mass murderer, calls to action those unbalanced enough to literally believe it. It is akin to waiving a red flag in front of a bull.

In an earlier post I've already agreed that doing things on this nature most certainly crosses the line. I do not support those actions.

However, handing out pamphlets, peacefully protesting outside of a place of business at the prescribed distance, wanted or not, isn't across that line.

 

[eohrnberger]

Why should I, or any woman, abstain for sex for all of my fertile years just because *you* disagree with abortion?

Why is it reasonable to use abortions as a means of birth control?
You are going wildly off into the weeds here. No one is saying anything of that sort.

If you want to have unprotected sex, become pregnant, have an abortion, lather, rise, repeat, by all means, do please continue.

 

[JayDubya]

Calling these psychotic butchers what they are falls under the protection of free speech.

They are contract killers. They perpetrate mass homicide. That's unassailable fact.

They belong in prison forever, so "Wanted" posters are even thematically appropriate.

You don't like that exercise of free speech? Too bad.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Why is it reasonable to use abortions as a means of birth control?
You are going wildly off into the weeds here. No one is saying anything of that sort.

If you want to have unprotected sex, become pregnant, have an abortion, lather, rise, repeat, by all means, do please continue.

So, you are pro choice? Good.

BTW, I have never said I have unprotected sex. I don't.

 

[prometeus]

Calling these psychotic butchers what they are falls under the protection of free speech.

They are contract killers. They perpetrate mass homicide. That's unassailable fact.

They belong in prison forever, so "Wanted" posters are even thematically appropriate.

You don't like that exercise of free speech? Too bad.

Free speech is wonderful. One can learn a lot about the speaker even if not in agreement with the speaker and as a result be able to place the words of said speaker in their proper context.

 

[eohrnberger]

So, you are pro choice? Good.

BTW, I have never said I have unprotected sex. I don't.

I'm pro-choice from the fact that with the realm of pro-choice there is a choice that's pro-life.

I see the choice of an abortion a very personal, private and emotional matter, that's best made between the expectant mother and her family if she chooses.

That being said, I think that it's under stressed what exactly the result of an abortion really is. Now, I've been told that the unborn don't count as much, or aren't valued as much as the born. I can see the point, true, but it concerns me. I'm concerned that the tiniest, weakest, least able to defend themselves in the society, ones that have no voice of their own, are the ones that are bearing the results of the decision made. I'm also concerned that there is an active segment of the population that is trying to minimize and squelch this concern, which I consider a legitimate one.

 

[JayDubya]

The more I think about it, the idea of the wanted posters is a really good one. When possible, the public should know when a dangerous killer with no respect for their human rights is amongst them.

 

[Removable Mind]

What does privacy and due process have to do with abortion? Neither are being questioned nor threatened in a discussion about abortion.

Umm, I believe in the vast majority of cases the woman decided to have sex, right? So I don't think this reasoning applies.

Whaaattt??? That's pretty bizarre. Equating an aborting with a reversible vasectomy. Who's your pharmacist?

Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex or use contraceptives. Come on!

There's a post around here that deflates that argument, I think. I'll defer that question to that post.

Who do the vast majority of women have sex with? Possibly a guy who is loaded with sperm? Men need to find some other form release for their sexual tension. They are causing women to be at risk of conception or bodily harm if they are force to give birth.

Right to Privacy and Due Process -- You don't have a clue as to the Constitutional importance those are to you, as a man? Do you realize that the Constitution would be toilet paper without Due Process clauses?

No, my vasectomy comment is completely in line with Pro-life's argument. Do you want the government controlling your testicles or not? Simple question and it's relevant....and if you can't see how it is relevant you don't need to be replying to my post. Obviously you want the government to control women's uteruses.

Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex or use contraceptives. Come on!

- Exactly -DON'T DEPOSIT SPERM in a woman's vagina. No sperm - no pregnancy, now you're catching on.

Are you now claiming that you have the right to tell somebody how large or small our nations women's family should be? You obviously want government to that.

 

[jet57]

Intimidating tactics designed to prevent people from participating in a lawful activity--terrorism.

The Disturbing Levels Of Stalking And Intimidation Plaguing Abortion Doctors | ThinkProgress

It's evangelical Christian thuggery, nothing more. They do attempt to terrorize the general public in their lawful exercise however.

 

[calamity]

In an earlier post I've already agreed that doing things on this nature most certainly crosses the line. I do not support those actions.

However, handing out pamphlets, peacefully protesting outside of a place of business at the prescribed distance, wanted or not, isn't across that line.

Depends on what's on the pamphlet, IMO. Listing an abortion doctor's children and where they go to school, for example, is irresponsible to say the least, although I agree it is probably 100% legal.

 

[Ikari]

There is a fine line between "free speech" and inciting violence. Calling doctors butchers and comparing legal medical procedures to mass murder is a good way to trigger a violent response, something that is not all that uncommon. So, the bottom line is that I can see where such rhetoric would trigger violent responses from those who are unhinged.

Yeah, well when bombings and shootings become mainstream, then you may have some argument for terrorism. Until then, it's people running their mouths.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)So after the abortion the fetus is still living? You are claiming to be based on facts? :lamo
2.)I'm speaking results. Seems that you are speaking intent. The two are very different.
3.) It goes back to 'Is a fetus a person'. I guess that depends on how much you value human life, or not.

1.) YES sometimes that is a fact, hence why there has been laws written to protect the fetuses in these cases and its one of the reason doctors who break this law have gone to jail. Seems you are severely uneducated on this specific topic because yes thats based on FACT. Im glad i could help clear up your mistake, you're welcome.

2.) no im speaking FACTS, you are speaking fantasy and dishonesty

3.) this has nothing to do with the fact abortion =/= to homicide lol
here ill try to further clear up your mistake and educate you.

A woman is pregnant, her fetus dies inside the womb, in her particular situation its safest to have an abortion to end her pregnancy. SO she has an abortion.
Can you show us where the "killing" is to make it a homicide?

thanks

 

[AGENT J]

Objectively false and just as horrifically stupid as the first time you said it, it has been corrected so many times since then and never offered any kind of logical support by you. Yet you keep on saying it. Is this a comedy routine?

can you provide ONE fact that supports your claim?
i mean since you are claiming the oppisiet is "horrifically stupid" and a "comedy routine"it should be VERY easy for you to support your claim

please in your next post we beg you to present ONE single fact that makes your claim true. We would LOVE to read it lol, thank you

who wants to bet this request, like always is dodged?

 

[AGENT J]

1.)They are contract killers. They perpetrate mass homicide. That's unassailable fact.
2.) They belong in prison forever, so "Wanted" posters are even thematically appropriate.

You don't like that exercise of free speech? Too bad.

1.) facts to support your claim please
2.) see #1

many posters destroying the opinions you call facts making them lies gets easier and easier

 

[eohrnberger]

1.) YES sometimes that is a fact, hence why there has been laws written to protect the fetuses in these cases and its one of the reason doctors who break this law have gone to jail. Seems you are severely uneducated on this specific topic because yes thats based on FACT. Im glad i could help clear up your mistake, you're welcome.

2.) no im speaking FACTS, you are speaking fantasy and dishonesty

3.) this has nothing to do with the fact abortion =/= to homicide lol
here ill try to further clear up your mistake and educate you.

A woman is pregnant, her fetus dies inside the womb, in her particular situation its safest to have an abortion to end her pregnancy. SO she has an abortion.
Can you show us where the "killing" is to make it a homicide?

thanks

Of course removing a dead fetus to save the woman from infection. No fetal killing involved. You are being ridiculous.
However, isn't that a DNC?

Justifying aborting of still living fetuses by equivocating to the case of saving life of the woman's life in the case of a in utero fetus death when the two are clearly not he same thing is questionable logic, I think.

Or is it that you discount the life of the fetus that severely that it's not even worth mentioning or considering?

I still stand by:
* fetus is a living human being
* killing a living human being is murder
* an abortion is the killing of a fetus
* an abortion is the killing a human being
* killing a human being is murder

With the caveat that it's sanctioned and legal to do so.

With all your arm waving, you've still not dispelled none of these facts. Again, your equivocating of a in utero fetal death with an abortion of a living fetus is pitiful. Do you not see that there's a difference between the two? Hint: One's living and the other isn't.

 

[eohrnberger]

Depends on what's on the pamphlet, IMO. Listing an abortion doctor's children and where they go to school, for example, is irresponsible to say the least, although I agree it is probably 100% legal.

I think we disagree on the pamphlet, however, we agree that it's irresponsible about the children, and a pity that it isn't against the law.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Of course removing a dead fetus to save the woman from infection. No fetal killing involved. You are being ridiculous.
However, isn't that a DNC?
2.)Justifying aborting of still living fetuses by equivocating to the case of saving life of the woman's life in the case of a in utero fetus death when the two are clearly not he same thing is questionable logic, I think.
3.)Or is it that you discount the life of the fetus that severely that it's not even worth mentioning or considering?
4.)I still stand by:
5.) fetus is a living human being
6.) killing a living human being is murder
7.) an abortion is the killing of a fetus
8.) an abortion is the killing a human being
9.) killing a human being is murder

With the caveat that it's sanctioned and legal to do so.

10.)With all your arm waving, you've still not dispelled none of these facts.
11.) Again, your equivocating of a in utero fetal death with an abortion of a living fetus is pitiful. Do you not see that there's a difference between the two?
12.) Hint: One's living and the other isn't.

1.) translation abortion is not homicide then by definition, you just agreed, you can't have it both ways. "killing" is not part of an abortion definition or crucial to its meaning.
and yes a D&C is ONE of the types of ABORTIONS
2.) good thing i never did this lol so that strawman completely failed
3.) wow this nonsensical emotional strawman is even worse. Are you going to stay on topic or just make stuff up as you go along? lmao
4.) stand by what ever you want some of your claims are factually 100% false as proven already and standing by them doesnt change that
5.) correct
6.) false
7.) false
8.) false
9.) already said this and its still false

10.) actually every single one that is labeled false has been proven so. Denying this fact wont change anything, Yesterday they were false, today they are false and tomorw they will be false. Your feelings and opinions(just like mine) are meanignless and have ZERO impact to facts
11.) another failed strawman, again please stay on topic and discuss what is ACTAULLY being said
12.) correct . . HINT: . . BOTH are still abortions by facts and medical definitions :shrug:

Additional Hhint: 2 =2 because 2 = 2 all the time, not SOME of the time, if its was SOME of the time then they would NOT be equal lol
saying abortion = homicide is like saying shooting a gun = homicide its 100% factually false :shrug: this fact will never change

hence the fact remains abortion =/= homicide

again if you disagree simply stay on topic and PLEASE provide ONE single fact that makes them equal in your next post . . . ONE, thank you

 

[Lursa]

I get it. The unborn are not yet people. Therefore you are fully justified in valuing them less and the born, unless I have it wrong.

That's my opinion. Yes. Less does not mean 'none.'

However I provided a statement why I believe in valuing born people more. It also clearly has benefits for society overall, whereas no negative affects on society have been demonstrated.

Since they cannot be treated equally under the law...which do you value more?

No answer?

 

[Lursa]

Well, other than to ease the consciences of those who abort the unborn. But to each their own.

So those with no regard for women's lives and health and futures have the higher moral ground? They have clear consciences?

Why is that? Why are the unborn more deserving of those things than women?

No answer?