How would you feel?

[BMS]

Nope.

It was an insult. That's all.

So what is your answer to the question on the other thread?

An acorn is the oak tree at its seed stage. You are saying it isnt, right?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

No, please stay.

Your question doesn't even remotely help anyone understand what abortion is.

By the way, if anyone is posting to this forum without understanding what abortion is, they should probably just delete their own account...

I agree with BMS: please stay!

Lest you do not get the subtle joke:

It isn't pro-lifers who don't understand what abortion is. Pro-lifers are pro-life precisely becasue they understand what abortion is.

It is abortion supporters (most) who do not know what abortion is. They are the ones who constantly conflate abortion with things like "choice" "empowerment" "health care" "freedom" etc.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Because you chose a very, very specific way of saying "I wish you were dead".

If she had said "I wish that you had died by X", would you be against X, no matter what it is?

If she had said "I wish you had died by cancer, car accident, plane crash, shooting, accident, etc," um--yeah I would.

I am against cancer, car accidents, plane crashes, shootings, accidents, disease, as much as I am against abortion. I am against anything that seeks to take the like of an innocent human being.

If a mother says to her child "I wish I had an abortion" indeed, what the mother is telling the child is that she wishes not just that her child is dead, she wishes she murdered her child when it was legal to do so.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

So what is your answer to the question on the other thread?

An acorn is the oak tree at its seed stage. You are saying it isnt, right?

Quite frankly, I do not think abortion supporters know what they are saying. I have yet to see an abortion supporter make a coherent argument for abortion.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

"If your mother said "I wish you had been hit by a car" would you be hurt?

Of course I would not be against cars!

Just when I thought your arguments could not get more strained and ridiculous, you make one of your silliest arguments yet.

Sir, let me explain something to you: the problem is not the car. The problem is with the driver who wasn't watching the road and driving safely--and or--the person who was walking without being aware of their surroundings. So in such a case, I would be against drivers who drive irresponsibly, or people who do not pay attention to where they are walking. Either way, the CAR, sir, is not the problem.

Follow the bouncing ball, sir: I am against people who want to have sex irresponsibly and then claim they need an abortion--as if the pregnancy itself is what it at issue and the pregnancy itself that caused the problem--just like I am against people not being responsible when they drive or walk around.

When a woman gets an unwanted pregnancy, the problem is not the pregnancy, sir. The problem is with irresponsible, indiscriminate sex.

Now, women certainly have the right to choose to have sex any time they want with whoever they want. But in such a case, if a woman gets pregnant, the problem is that the woman choose to have indiscriminate sex. The problem is not the pregnancy--because pregnancy is what is supposed to happen when two people have sex.

The answer to an unwanted pregnancy--is AVOIDING PREGNANCY. Abstinence is 100% effective at avoiding unwanted pregnancies. If a woman does not want to be abstinent, that is why there is birth control. If the pill is too costly, that is why there are prophylactics.

Abortion supporters what choice but they don't want responsibility. That isn't how it works. You cannot have choice without responsibility. You cannot have choice without consequences. If abortion supporters want choice, then they have to be willing to face the consequences of said choice.

 

[Eightcrackers]

If she had said "I wish you had died by cancer, car accident, plane crash, shooting, accident, etc," um--yeah I would.

I am against cancer, car accidents, plane crashes, shootings, accidents, disease, as much as I am against abortion. I am against anything that seeks to take the like of an innocent human being.

Interesting that you mention shootings, because that was one of the examples I would have gone with to make my point -

if some gun-toting 2nd Amendment supporter mother had told them

"I wish you'd been shot as a child"

would they then be against the 2nd Amendment? The choice to own guns being available?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Quite frankly, I do not think abortion supporters know what they are saying. I have yet to see an abortion supporter make a coherent argument for abortion.

Here it is:

in my opinion, the right of a woman not to carry an unborn child should trump the right of said unborn child to live inside her.

Yes, it's an opinion.
But so is the reverse - it's opinion vs opinion, with nothing to settle the debate objectively.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Interesting that you mention shootings, because that was one of the examples I would have gone with to make my point -

if some gun-toting 2nd Amendment supporter mother had told them

"I wish you'd been shot as a child"

would they then be against the 2nd Amendment? The choice to own guns being available?

Another ridiculous, ludicrous argument. Sir, do you realize your arguments just keep getting more and more ridiculous the longer you debate this? You might want to consider going back to the JV forums. It is clear you aren't up for varsity level debate.

Sir, people like me who support second amendment rights, (note that the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly written in the Constitution, while the right to abortion is NOT) support RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and RESPONSIBLE gun use. We do NOT support the ABUSE of the second amendment, we do not support IRRESPONSIBLE or CRIMINAL use of the second amendment. In other words--the second amendment is not a license to commit crimes or murder people, anymore than the right to privacy gives women a license to abort their children.

When someone uses a gun to commit a crime, one is not using the gun OR exercising the second amendment for the purposes for which the gun and the second amendment exist. So in such a case, if someone uses a gun to commit murder, the problem is not the with the gun, or the second amendment, the problem is with the person who misused and abused the right to keep and bear arms, and misused and abused the gun.

Guns are for three purposes: 1) self defense of life, limb, and loved ones, 2) sport, 3) hunting. This is why the second amendment exists also.

You are so typical of liberal abortion supporters in that whenever people commit crimes with guns, you think the gun, not the person is the problem, you think the second amendment, not the person is the problem. And I guess I can understand this. You see, for liberal abortion supporters, they tend to see criminals as victims--and thus--blame everyone or anything but the criminal for the crime in question.

 

[mikeT]

It isn't pro-lifers who don't understand what abortion is. Pro-lifers are pro-life precisely becasue they understand what abortion is.

An insult?

It is abortion supporters (most) who do not know what abortion is. They are the ones who constantly conflate abortion with things like "choice" "empowerment" "health care" "freedom" etc.

If having an opinion different from yours constitutes me not understanding the subject, then you don't understand Christianity.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Here it is:

in my opinion, the right of a woman not to carry an unborn child should trump the right of said unborn child to live inside her.

Yes, it's an opinion.
But so is the reverse - it's opinion vs opinion, with nothing to settle the debate objectively.

If we weren't dealing with truth, you would be right.

But this debate, sir, isn't just a matter of personal taste. The debate about abortion isn't just a debate over "I like Chocolate, you like Vanilla" or "My favorite color is Blue, you hate Blue but love Red." Those would be opinions and not have any bearing on anything.

When it comes to the question or abortion, someone is right and someone is wrong. This is not just opinion. It is just like the question of slavery, whether we should have allowed Hitler to rise to power, etc. These are all questions of the most important order.

 

[Eightcrackers]

When someone uses a gun to commit a crime, one is not using the gun OR exercising the second amendment for the purposes for which the gun and the second amendment exist.

Said gun was available to said criminal because of the 2nd Amendment - do you not wonder why homicide rates are so much higher in countries where guns are legal?

It's because the legality of guns caused them to proliferate.

Guns are for three purposes: 1) self defense of life, limb, and loved ones, 2) sport, 3) hunting. This is why the second amendment exists also.

Hilarious - "we need the 2nd Amendment so we can defend ourselves from all the criminals that have guns because of the 2nd Amendment!"

You are so typical of liberal abortion supporters in that whenever people commit crimes with guns, you think the gun, not the person is the problem, you think the second amendment, not the person is the problem.

Given the firearms homicide rate in the US compared with other nations, you either have a lot more "problematic" people per capita... or the 2nd Amendment is the cause.

 

[Eightcrackers]

If we weren't dealing with truth, you would be right.

But this debate, sir isn't just a matter of personal taste. The debate about abortion isn't just a debate over "I like Chocolate, you like Vanilla" or "My favorite color is Blue, you hate Blue but love Red."

When it comes to the question or abortion, someone is right and someone is wrong. This is not just opinion.

Then prove it.
Prove that you are objectively correct to elevate the rights of the unborn over the rights of the pregnant woman.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

An insult?


If having an opinion different from yours constitutes me not understanding the subject, then you don't understand Christianity.

Well, if you reframe abortion as "choice" etc, then, it isn't just that you have a different opinion from me, it is that you do not know what abortion is. Abortion isn't choice.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Said gun was available to said criminal because of the 2nd Amendment - do you not wonder why homicide rates are so much higher in countries where guns are legal?

It's because the legality of guns caused them to proliferate.

Hilarious - "we need the 2nd Amendment so we can defend ourselves from all the criminals that have guns because of the 2nd Amendment!"

Given the firearms homicide rate in the US compared with other nations, you either have a lot more "problematic" people per capita... or the 2nd Amendment is the cause.

So because people misuse and abuse a right, we need to take rights away. Is that your logic? Shall we take driving privileges away from everyone since some people drive irresponsibly? Funny thing with liberals: they only want to take rights away when they do not like the right in question. They love the right of free speech as long as people exercise that right to promote liberal causes and liberalism. As soon as conservatives start using the right, liberals want to shut it down. Liberals hate the right to keep and bear arms, so they want to take it away, despite it being a constitutional right. Liberals LOVE abortion so even though the constitution says nothing about abortion, they will project the right into the constitution and then claim it is not only a constitutional right, but a divine right!

Sir: if you think we cannot take the right of abortion away from women becasue that right is enshrined somewhere in the constitution, somehow, why do we get to take away the right to keep and bear arms, which IS EXPLICITLY in the Constitution?

How about we just ensure that people who misuse and abuse rights--like the right to keep and bear arms--are severely punished?

The cause of the problem is NOT the second amendment, the cause of the problem is criminals.

You know--you just gave me insight now into why liberals think pregnancy, rather than irresponsible sex is the problem, and why they would think abortion is the solution to the problem of irresponsible sex. Liberals conflate SYMPTOMS of the problem with the problem itself. Liberals think treating the SYMPTOM of the problem is as good as treating the problem itself.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Then prove it.
Prove that you are objectively correct to elevate the rights of the unborn over the rights of the pregnant woman.

The reason we do not elevate rights of the woman over than of the rights of the unborn is because both people are human lives. When it comes to human life, there is no one person who has more rights than others. We are all equal. There is no one person who is more important or more vital than someone else. The minute you start with the claim that some people are more important than others, and some are more deserving of rights than others, you go down the road Hitler went down.

Our rights do not come from WHAT WE CONTRIBUTE but what we ARE.

 

[Eightcrackers]

The reason we do not elevate rights of the woman over than of the rights of the unborn is because both people are human lives.

"We" being anti-abortioners, I take it.
OK - while I recognize that some aborted pregnancies are human lives (the idea of "human from conception" is laughable to me), I would still favour the woman.

Continue.

When it comes to human life, there is no one person who has more rights than others.

If you are opposed to abortion, that is not true - the unborn not only has a right to life, but a right to live inside another person.
A right that the woman does not have.

Each of us grants one party rights over the other. Do not pretend otherwise.

The minute you start with the claim that some people are more important than others, and some are more deserving of rights than others, you go down the road Hitler went down.

A poorly disguised slippery slope fallacy - my lack of objection to women abortion their own pregnancies does not entail anything else.

And certainly not genocide.


So, no objective facts, but more opinions, and a fallacy.

 

[shnarkle]

When a woman gets an unwanted pregnancy, the problem is not the pregnancy, sir. The problem is with irresponsible, indiscriminate sex.

It's a bit more than that. It takes two to tango, and too often a woman's partner is either nowhere to be found, and has therefore shirked their responsibility, or they have no say in the matter to begin with. Either way, the underlying problem is making bad decisions. It starts with being with irresponsible, flaky people, then deciding to have sex with them, then deciding to murder their offspring; one bad decision after another.

Now, women certainly have the right to choose to have sex any time they want with whoever they want.

False. See above, and note that condoning fornication is one of the most effective paths to damnation according to both Christ and Paul. God did not give humanity the right to sin. Humanity has been deceived into believing we have these rights by the father of lies, Satan himself.

But in such a case, if a woman gets pregnant, the problem is that the woman choose to have indiscriminate sex.

Women can be quite discriminating in who they choose to have sex with. That's not the problem. The problem is in choosing to have sex when one doesn't intend to get pregnant in the first place. This is confusion.

If a woman does not want to be abstinent, that is why there is birth control.

If someone does not want to follow God's will, that is why there is birth control.

Abortion supporters what choice but they don't want responsibility. That isn't how it works.

That is clearly how they work it though. That's clearly been the case since Roe v. Wade.

You cannot have choice without responsibility. You cannot have choice without consequences. If abortion supporters want choice, then they have to be willing to face the consequences of said choice.

And they have accepted the consequences by opting to murder unborn human beings.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Sir: if you think we cannot take the right of abortion away from women becasue that right is enshrined somewhere in the constitution, somehow, why do we get to take away the right to keep and bear arms, which IS EXPLICITLY in the Constitution?

Where did I say I wanted it taken away? I am in the UK - this doesn't really affect me.

I think the 2A is a ridiculous anachronism from the days when it took so long to load a gun that you could go for a pint and come back to your assailant, and the 2A mentions, in its opening sentence, a "well-regulated millitia" that is utterly absent.

How about we just ensure that people who misuse and abuse rights--like the right to keep and bear arms--are severely punished?

Yes - "severely punish" all those school shooters. That will bring their victims back to life and deter other school shooters!

/sarcasm.

The cause of the problem is NOT the second amendment, the cause of the problem is criminals.

Why do so many criminals have access to guns...?
Guns sure make things easier for them.

You know--you just gave me insight now into why liberals think pregnancy, rather than irresponsible sex is the problem, and why they would think abortion is the solution to the problem of irresponsible sex. Liberals conflate SYMPTOMS of the problem with the problem itself. Liberals think treating the SYMPTOM of the problem is as good as treating the problem itself.

There being no real way to curb what you call "irrespsonsible sex" - abstinence-only education actually makes things worse, for example - treating the "symptoms" is all we can do.

For the record, I am all for reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. It's just that I include abortion as a last-resort means to do so.

 

[shnarkle]

And certainly not genocide.

Most certainly genocide, especially when one considers the over 50 million dead since Roe.

genocide (n.) from Greek genos "race, kind" (from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups) + -cide "a killing."

*gene-
*genə-, also *gen-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

-cide
word-forming element meaning "killer," from French -cide, from Latin -cida "cutter, killer, slayer," from -cidere, combining form of caedere "to strike down, chop, beat, hew, fell, slay," from Proto-Italic *kaid-o-, from PIE root *kae-id- "to strike."

So, no objective facts, but more opinions, and a fallacy.

Perhaps if you paid more attention to the actual meaning of words, this wouldn't be such a problem.

 

[shnarkle]

Why do so many criminals have access to guns...?

Because criminals don't follow gun laws to begin with. Removing guns from law abiding citizens isn't equivalent to removing them from criminals. Laws cannot keep guns out of the hands of the criminal element. If that were the case, then convicted felons would not be shooting up neighborhoods, or executing their girlfriends and her children.

Guns sure make things easier for them.

They make it easier to stop them as well.

For the record, I am all for reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. It's just that I include abortion as a last-resort means to do so.

There are a lot of unwanted people in this world as well, perhaps we would include eliminating them as a last resort as well, no?