Pro-abortion group violence

[Yakuda]

A pro-life pregnancy center's office building in Buffalo, New York, was vandalized and the scene of suspected arson. June 8 Fox News.

At least 23 pro-life organizations have reportedly been vandalized in recent weeks. The pro-life organizations have been either firebombed or vandalized by radical leftists, according to Catholic Vote: Hollywood, FL

Wicked
Incredible hate in the Pro-abortion clusters.

I remember years ago the libs used to say if you don't like the abortion laws vote in people who will change them. I guess they never actually thought it would happen and here we have it and they HATE it. I thought they loved democracy and

 

[Yakuda]

An adult human with XX chromosomes.

Now, what do you mean by "Pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion in the abortion trades."

?

I am not "in the abortion trade".

But if that adult human with XX chromosomes identifies as a man is that person actually a man?

Maybe youd be the second poster on this site to directly answer that question but youre too cowardly to reply to me.

 

[Temujin]

So you think when enough people thought slavery was right, that it was a moral thing to do to keep slaves? Just Yes or No answers the question.

I have answered this. No.

I never claimed any church was the "only possible morality". Copy and paste where I made such a claim. This is how I know when you people become unhinged. So by virtue of your Olympic record jump to a conclusion you're not only wrong but off your nut.

Where do you think morality originates? Is it God or not? Yes or No answers the question.

Have you gained this insight from a church member? Yes or No will do.

 

[Temujin]

America was sold slaves by your backward tribal Islanders. Ungodly!



Then your people paid off the slave owners and not the slaves at the end of your slavery decades.

I don't think even you are ignorant enough to try to compare the record of your country on slaves with mine.

 

[Yakuda]

I have answered this. No.

That's not what you said though. I know you people like using double talk but it's nonsense.

Where do you think morality originates? Is it God or not? Yes or No answers the question.

Yes I do think that but admit, unlike you that not everyone have the same view of God as me. What I know is that a belief that morals and the resulting rights are from man is a fools belief. The fact that I even have to try and explain why frightens the daylights out of me but people like you really do exist.

Have you gained this insight from a church member? Yes or No will do.

No I've told you where I gained this insight but clearly you are challenged.

 

[Yakuda]

I don't think even you are ignorant enough to try to compare the record of your country on slaves with mine.

You're too busy being ignorant believing morals and rights come from men. That's beyond asinine.

Can you tell us where else in life the nature of something changes based on people's personal beliefs.

 

[BMS]

An adult human with XX chromosomes.

Now, what do you mean by "Pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion in the abortion trades."

?

I am not "in the abortion trade".

Not quite clear enough.

So a woman is an adult female with XX chromosomes as opposed to a man who us an adult male with XY chromosomes. Right?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Do you acknowledge the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion?

Do you know the difference?

Yes: the words are different. The meaning is the same. It is just the words that are different.

"Pro-choice" is just a euphemism for support for abortion.

Who isn't for choice? You think pro-lifers aren't for choice? It is abortion we are against, not choice. Choice isn't the issue and never has been. Abortion supporters just like things like "choice" because it is useful Red Herring. It is a way they can distract, it is a way they can change the subject. It is a way they can frame the debate so that one never actually gets around to talking about abortion.

Let's use this ridiculous logic on other important issues--such as racism, and climate change.

"I am not a racist, but I am pro-choice. I do not believe I can tell someone else how to feel or behave towards another race. I do not support racism myself, but I have nothing to say about someone else's choices. If someone else is a racist, that is between them and the minority they hate. I have nothing to do with that."

"I am all for protecting the planet and reducing carbon footprints, but I am pro-choice. I will do what I can for the planet, but I cannot tell someone else what to do. If someone else chooses not to reduce their carbon footprint, I have nothing to do with that. That is between them and their conscience."

See---any intelligent person would see through the ridiculous and absurd logic of "pro-choice" when you apply it to any other important issue. Yet, for whatever reason, when the logic is applied to abortion, all of a sudden, the logic is no longer ridiculous.

 

[Eightcrackers]

"Pro-choice" is just a euphemism for support for abortion.

I've already explained the difference between being in favour of the right to do a thing, and being in favour of doing that thing.

Is there any activity that you don't do, but don't want to see made illegal? If so, you are pro-choice with regard to that activity, but not pro- the activity itself.

(And if you would have every activity you don't do, made illegal, please, never vote.)

Who isn't for choice? You think pro-lifers aren't for choice?

Yes - you don't want a pregnant woman to be able to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
Pro-choicers do.

"I am not a racist, but I am pro-choice. I do not believe I can tell someone else how to feel or behave towards another race. I do not support racism myself, but I have nothing to say about someone else's choices. If someone else is a racist, that is between them and the minority they hate. I have nothing to do with that."

Well, racism is a mentality, not an act, so this doesn't really apply.

If you mean to say, people should be allowed to exhibit racism, I would tend to agree, as long as it doesn't overlap into more general crimes (for example, assaulting or killing those of the "target" race/s is still assault and killing, and still wrong, IMO.)

"I am all for protecting the planet and reducing carbon footprints, but I am pro-choice. I will do what I can for the planet, but I cannot tell someone else what to do."

This one fails because their behaviour does not impact concretely only them, but other people.

If a woman's having an abortion somehow concretely impacted other people, that might change my perspective.

See---any intelligent person would see through the ridiculous and absurd logic of "pro-choice" when you apply it to any other important issue.

Neither of your examples invalidates the distinction between being pro-choice and pro-action.

Tolerating exhibitions of racism is not an endorsement or encouragement, for example.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

If a woman's having an abortion somehow concretely impacted other people, that might change my perspective.

Sigh...

It DOES impact other people. HELLO! What about the unborn child? You mean abortion does NOT impact the unborn child? NOTHING happens to the unborn child during the procedure? The doctor does not attempt to burn the child with saline, then remove the body of the child? The doctor does not go in with forceps, puncture the brain of the child, then cut up the body parts and suck them out? That isn't what happens during an abortion?

What do you THINK happens during an abortion? Do you think the doctor waves a magic fairy wand, while fairy dust falls from the sky and a unicorn magically emerges from the womb and prances about the room while the fairy dust turns into rainbows and butterflies?

Do you know how many people have been "legally" murdered since the SCOTUS created the the right to abortion in 1973?

Dude! "If a woman's right to having an abortion somehow concretely impacted other people?!" SERIOUSLY? How can you make that statement with a straight face?

As I have told you: if abortion impacted ONLY the woman, no one would care about it. The reason pro-lifers are against abortion is because of the impact abortion has on another human being, namely, the woman's child.

 

[Yakuda]

I've already explained the difference between being in favour of the right to do a thing, and being in favour of doing that thing.

Is there any activity that you don't do, but don't want to see made illegal? If so, you are pro-choice with regard to that activity, but not pro- the activity itself.

(And if you would have every activity you don't do, made illegal, please, never vote.)

Yes - you don't want a pregnant woman to be able to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
Pro-choicers do.

Well, racism is a mentality, not an act, so this doesn't really apply.

If you mean to say, people should be allowed to exhibit racism, I would tend to agree, as long as it doesn't overlap into more general crimes (for example, assaulting or killing those of the "target" race/s is still assault and killing, and still wrong, IMO.)

This one fails because their behaviour does not impact concretely only them, but other people.

If a woman's having an abortion somehow concretely impacted other people, that might change my perspective.

Neither of your examples invalidates the distinction between being pro-choice and pro-action.

Tolerating exhibitions of racism is not an endorsement or encouragement, for example.

Deleted

 

[Eightcrackers]

It DOES impact other people. HELLO! What about the unborn child? You mean abortion does NOT impact the unborn child? NOTHING happens to the unborn child during the procedure? The doctor does not attempt to burn the child with saline, then remove the body of the child? The doctor does not go in with forceps, puncture the brain of the child, then cut up the body parts and suck them out? That isn't what happens during an abortion?

The impact to the unborn is, IMO, jutified.
The impact of trashing the planet, is not.

Do you know how many people have been "legally" murdered since the SCOTUS created the the right to abortion in 1973?

As the law defines murder, zero.
By definition, nobody has ever been "legally murdered".

As you define murder?
I see no reason to care.

As I have told you: if abortion impacted ONLY the woman, no one would care about it. The reason pro-lifers are against abortion is because of the impact abortion has on another human being, namely, the woman's child.

1. "Women should be able to have an abortion - the choice is good."
2. "Women should have abortions - abortions are good."

Do you acknowledge the difference between these?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The impact to the unborn is, IMO, justified. The impact of trashing the planet, is not.

Sir, if the slaughter of innocent, unborn human life is, as you say, justifiable, then I fail to see why I should care about the planet or human life on the planet. If we can trash unborn human life, if trashing unborn human life is justifiable, than ANYTHING is justifiable.

As the law defines murder, zero. By definition, nobody has ever been "legally murdered".

Here we go--the lawyers at Metzger, Metzger and Third Name hard at work again.

Sir, murder is murder. It does not matter what you call it. It does not matter what the law calls it. Murder is murder is murder is murder.

"For the purposes of law, we shall not define murder as murder, but as choice." Okay--all they did was use a different term for murder. It is still murder, sir.

As you define murder? I see no reason to care.

Good. As I said, if murder of the unborn is justifiable, ANYTHING is justifiable.

1. "Women should be able to have an abortion - the choice is good."
2. "Women should have abortions - abortions are good."

Do you acknowledge the difference between these?

But the choice isn't good. The choice is decidedly bad.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Sir, if the slaughter of innocent, unborn human life is, as you say, justifiable,

The only justification is when the pregnant woman desires it.
In no other circumstance would I allow for it.

then I fail to see why I should care about the planet or human life on the planet.

Just addressed.

If we can trash unborn human life,

I've never killed an unborn child - have you?

I can't; you can't. Only the pregnant woman can.

Here we go--the lawyers at Metzger, Metzger and Third Name hard at work again.

Sir, murder is murder. It does not matter what you call it. It does not matter what the law calls it. Murder is murder is murder is murder.

"For the purposes of law, we shall not define murder as murder, but as choice." Okay--all they did was use a different term for murder. It is still murder, sir.

You seem to think that it is the law, and not you, that has appropriated the definition of murder...

But the choice isn't good. The choice is decidedly bad.

In your opinion.

And what about when a woman chooses not to abort?
Isn't the choice "good" then?

 

[Yakuda]

Sir, if the slaughter of innocent, unborn human life is, as you say, justifiable, then I fail to see why I should care about the planet or human life on the planet. If we can trash unborn human life, if trashing unborn human life is justifiable, than ANYTHING is justifiable.

Here we go--the lawyers at Metzger, Metzger and Third Name hard at work again.

Sir, murder is murder. It does not matter what you call it. It does not matter what the law calls it. Murder is murder is murder is murder.

"For the purposes of law, we shall not define murder as murder, but as choice." Okay--all they did was use a different term for murder. It is still murder, sir.

Good. As I said, if murder of the unborn is justifiable, ANYTHING is justifiable.

But the choice isn't good. The choice is decidedly bad.

Anyone who thinks the planet should be treated better than innocent babies has not earned at title of respect.

It's like when I see those idiotic save the dogs commercials. Really???? I dream of a time when people might have seen that and said what about human babies but it's just dream. Moral relativism is a metastisized cancer in America.

 

[BMS]

The only justification is when the pregnant woman desires it.
In no other circumstance would I allow for it.

Just addressed.

I've never killed an unborn child - have you?

I can't; you can't. Only the pregnant woman can.

You seem to think that it is the law, and not you, that has appropriated the definition of murder...

In your opinion.

And what about when a woman chooses not to abort?
Isn't the choice "good" then?

What do you mean by 'woman' ? You didnt clarify it like I asked.

 

[BMS]

I've already explained the difference between being in favour of the right to do a thing, and being in favour of doing that thing.

Is there any activity that you don't do, but don't want to see made illegal? If so, you are pro-choice with regard to that activity, but not pro- the activity itself.

(And if you would have every activity you don't do, made illegal, please, never vote.)

Yes - you don't want a pregnant woman to be able to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
Pro-choicers do.

Well, racism is a mentality, not an act, so this doesn't really apply.

If you mean to say, people should be allowed to exhibit racism, I would tend to agree, as long as it doesn't overlap into more general crimes (for example, assaulting or killing those of the "target" race/s is still assault and killing, and still wrong, IMO.)

This one fails because their behaviour does not impact concretely only them, but other people.

If a woman's having an abortion somehow concretely impacted other people, that might change my perspective.

Neither of your examples invalidates the distinction between being pro-choice and pro-action.

Tolerating exhibitions of racism is not an endorsement or encouragement, for example.

Two questions
1. What do you mean by 'woman'? You didnt clarify it as I asked in post #47.
2. Same as question 1

 

[Temujin]

Can you tell us where else in life the nature of something changes based on people's personal beliefs.

Can you tell us why you think that morality comes from nature?

 

[BMS]

Can you tell us why you think that morality comes from nature?

You didnt understand the question.

 

[Yakuda]

Can you tell us why you think that morality comes from nature?

I never said it did. I said the nature of something doesn't change because you think it does. I'm not being a wise guy here I am sincerely asking if you see the difference. I would actually like to have a serious discussion with you but I don't think we can if I haven't made myself clear or clear up the confusion that exist on your part.