Pro-choice

[BMS]

Once again, you fail to read my post in context. I was talking about the point at which a foetus can survive when you jump in with "14 weeks". My judgement of people's sanity is based on their ability to cope with what is actually being said to them rather than making up a fantasy version to fit their prepared arguments. You do this so consistently that it has become ingrained. You dream up something you want to say, and just say it in response to any post, whether or not it has any relevance. I suppose that I shouldn't expect any analytic ability or consistency, as if you had that you wouldn't hold the views you do.

In my post that you quoted I was referring to the different subjective criteria used as a pretext. The 14 week limit isnt based on survivability.

 

[Temujin]

not in the post you have responded to. Killing the unborn human being is still killing the unborn human whether you class them as person or not.
Unless you are now saying a person isnt a human? Are you?

No. I'm saying a human is not necessarily a person. A person who is not human is theoretically possible. Wouldn't you consider Yoda a person? Or perhaps Doctor Who?

 

[BMS]

No. My personality was not present in the womb. Any more than it will be in the coffin. The atoms which make up my body have existed for billions of years, and will last until the end of time. Not me though. I exist as a person from birth until death. That's it.

Yes, it was YOU as YOU have just admitted by saying it was YOUR personality. It was YOU even without YOUR personality and YOUR cognitive reasoning and YOUR adult teeth etc.

 

[Temujin]

In my post that you quoted I was referring to the different subjective criteria used as a pretext. The 14 week limit isnt based on survivability.

No it isnt, which is why I don't support it. It I'd better than no access to legal abortion at all. If you want to know what criteria it is based on, ask someone who proposed it.

 

[BMS]

No. I'm saying a human is not necessarily a person. A person who is not human is theoretically possible. Wouldn't you consider Yoda a person? Or perhaps Doctor Who?

But a human being gets killed in pro-choice abortion whether you consider them a person or a Jew or a child.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Not redefining it, but educating Americans on the value of the preborn to accept what is self-evident: Preborn humans in the womb are human and therefore need to be given human rights as legal persons. The legal system in the past was used to deny slaves or others full rights based on their status as full persons or something less. Slaves could be abused or even murdered but the legal system didn't consider it abuse or murder.

Entirely re-defining it. No civilization has ever given fetus rights as legal persons, for good reason. what the legal system was used for in the past is completely irrelevant.

I understand that the law can legalize moral evil, and legal language can deny the technical use of words like "murder". But killing babies in the womb is evil even if your moral compass is broken and you choose to parse legal language in order to deny others basic human rights.

Whether abortion is evil is entirely subjective. You think it is; the majority think it should remain legal.

This is why so many pro-life Americans are fighting our abortion laws. The laws are morally evil and the preborn must be given their full legal rights as human beings made in the image of God.

That is why the majority consistently come out in favour of legalised abortion.

That you think the fetus is "in the image of God" is completeley irrelevant - this is not a theocracy.

To deny their rights is arbitrary and absurd. A preborn baby a day before he/she is born is the same person the day after he/she is born. To give human rights to an individual based on whether he/she is inside the womb or 3 inches outside the womb is an absurd and arbitrary measure of ones humanity.

This is just a strawman. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, when the fetus is not remotely "the same person the day after he/she is born".

That abortion is murder is the reason why pro-life people want to make abortion illegal in the first place.

Abortion isn't murder. The reason 'pro-life' people want to make abortion illegal is because they want to legislate women's sex lives and reproductive lives.

This is the motivator and it is completely consistent with being pro-life. "Pro-life" is an accurate and consistent name for our movement.

Sadly, that is not true. Conservatives are notorious for not caring about the baby after it is born. They are against all the welfare programs that would help babies born under circumstances that would most likely lead to abortion. Not to mention conservatives' embrace of the death penalty.

"Pro-choice" is a clever slogan that attempts to refocus the argument, but is inaccurate and inconsistent because it denies choice to the preborn baby, sometimes to the father, and often the young mother is pressured against her moral judgment by "pro-choice" family and friends.

Pro-choice is accurate; the person involved has the choice of whether or not to abort. Since the fetus is wholly within and dependent upon her, the choice is and should be entirely hers.

Often abortion initiates an emotional pain that will last a lifetime.

Bull.

Of course, if you labeled yourself as "pro-death", while accurate and consistent with your position, it would force you and others to face your own evil heart and truth is not what this is about.

Of course, if you labeled yourself as "anti-choice", while accurate and consistent with your position, it would force you and others to face your own evil heart and truth is not what this is about.

I'll ask you the standard question to find out your actual position:

Since increased usage, availability of, and education about, contraceptives is the only thing that has been found to significantly lower the rate of abortions, are you in favour of mandatory sex education for teens and increased availability to them of all forms of contraception, free of charge?

 

[Temujin]

Yes, it was YOU as YOU have just admitted by saying it was YOUR personality. It was YOU even without YOUR personality and YOUR cognitive reasoning and YOUR adult teeth etc.

Irrelevant. As I said. My constituent parts have been in existence for much longer than I have.

 

[Temujin]

But a human being gets killed in pro-choice abortion whether you consider them a person or a Jew or a child.

A human who is not a person gets killed. So what? My concern is with the person who is the pregnant woman.

 

[BMS]

No it isnt, which is why I don't support it. It I'd better than no access to legal abortion at all. If you want to know what criteria it is based on, ask someone who proposed it.

But whether you support it or not is just your prejudice, we are discussing pro-choice abortion as an issue, not Temujin's view only.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

But a human being gets killed in pro-choice abortion whether you consider them a person or a Jew or a child.

It is (still) not in evidence that the fetus is a human being.

 

[BMS]

Irrelevant. As I said. My constituent parts have been in existence for much longer than I have.

Sorry whose constituent parts did you say, YOURS or someone else's?

Transwomen and married bachelors

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Sorry whose constituent parts did you say, YOURS or someone else's?

Transwomen and married bachelors

I'm curious - what relevance do you imagine "transwomen and married bachelors" have to this discussion?

 

[Temujin]

But whether you support it or not is just your prejudice, we are discussing pro-choice abortion as an issue, not Temujin's view only.

How can it be my prejudice if I don't support it? Should I blame you for paedophilia amongst French Catholic priests on the grounds that you are all equally Christian?

 

[Temujin]

Sorry whose constituent parts did you say, YOURS or someone else's?

Mine and a great many other people as well. I share atoms with Genghis Khan, Shakespeare and Socrates. Does that mean that they are still persons as well? You are talking nonsense.

Transwomen and married bachelors

Monomaniacal nonsense.

 

[BMS]

Mine and a great many other people as well. I share atoms with Genghis Khan, Shakespeare and Socrates. Does that mean that they are still persons as well? You are talking nonsense.
Monomaniacal nonsense.

YOU in YOUR mother's womb was also Shakespere . Wow

 

[Temujin]

YOU in YOUR mother's womb was also Shakespere . Wow

Nonsense, isn't it. Stop speaking it then.

 

[BMS]

Nonsense, isn't it. Stop speaking it then.

It was YOU. Are you, You now?

 

[BMS]

Well folks there you have it, woke, they arent who they are.

Not possible to communicate

 

[Andreas]

Entirely re-defining it. No civilization has ever given fetus rights as legal persons, for good reason. what the legal system was used for in the past is completely irrelevant.

Whether abortion is evil is entirely subjective. You think it is; the majority think it should remain legal.

That is why the majority consistently come out in favour of legalised abortion.

That you think the fetus is "in the image of God" is completeley irrelevant - this is not a theocracy.

This is just a strawman. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, when the fetus is not remotely "the same person the day after he/she is born".

Abortion isn't murder. The reason 'pro-life' people want to make abortion illegal is because they want to legislate women's sex lives and reproductive lives.

Sadly, that is not true. Conservatives are notorious for not caring about the baby after it is born. They are against all the welfare programs that would help babies born under circumstances that would most likely lead to abortion. Not to mention conservatives' embrace of the death penalty.

Pro-choice is accurate; the person involved has the choice of whether or not to abort. Since the fetus is wholly within and dependent upon her, the choice is and should be entirely hers.

Bull.

Of course, if you labeled yourself as "anti-choice", while accurate and consistent with your position, it would force you and others to face your own evil heart and truth is not what this is about.

I'll ask you the standard question to find out your actual position:

Since increased usage, availability of, and education about, contraceptives is the only thing that has been found to significantly lower the rate of abortions, are you in favour of mandatory sex education for teens and increased availability to them of all forms of contraception, free of charge?

I've heard it all before and its old and tired. It's just your way of rationalizing mass murder.

You said, "Sadly, that is not true. Conservatives are notorious for not caring about the baby after it is born. " That is not true. There are many "conservative" organizations that aid pregnant women and I support them personally.


Your hate for children is toxic and disgusting.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I've heard it all before and its old and tired. It's just your way of rationalizing mass murder.

And I've heard everything you're saying before and it's old and tired. It's just your way of rationalising taking away women's rights.

And, of course, it's always funny to see people shown wrong by the dictionary figuratively close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and repeat "isnotisnotisnot" to themselves.

You said, "Sadly, that is not true. Conservatives are notorious for not caring about the baby after it is born. " That is not true. There are many "conservative" organizations that aid pregnant women and I support them personally.

Of course it's true. Conservatives consistently oppose all social welfare programs that would help them.

Your hate for children is toxic and disgusting.

My "hate for children" is completely imaginary, solely on your part. You resorting to such nonsense is, however, an amusing reminder that pro-lifers are incapable of actually debating the issue rationally or reasonably, but instead must resort to falsehoods and emotion.