Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

To all the pro-lifers with the signsFollow

#127 Jun 27 2005 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
bhodisattva Defender of Justice wrote:

PS-DSD quit feeding the trolls. I dont care how you justify it a troll is a troll and you know in the end you arent going to get a real argument so just knock it off.

Damn it, Bhodi, Iran is just too complicated!!! Smiley: mad
#128 Jun 27 2005 at 3:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Code Monkey
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
what's so complicated about seagulls?
____________________________
Do what now?
#129 Jun 27 2005 at 3:05 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,019 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Thundra wrote:
[quote=The Glorious Atomicflea]I may even go, get pregnant and abort just to spite you.

As it stands, it would be a joy to abort a fetus of yours.


Well damn, that was easy.

When shall we meet?

#130 Jun 27 2005 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
"Nothing like a poll of 1000 women who have had abortions to get a representative curve of the 1.5 million that have them annually. Anywho doesnt matter if a woman chooses to not have a baby its her choice call her a baby all you want, Im sure thats the christian thing to do."

So, read your own words. I didn't say that the poll was a 100% factual representation of why every abortion takes places. But are you going to truly tell me that 1.5 Million abortions a year is not a hell of a lot bigger number than the number of women that are raped to pregnancy or their lives are in danger for being pregnant.



-68,000 Defenseless Humans were slaughtered during the making of this post.

Edited, Mon Jun 27 18:00:35 2005 by jehti
#131 Jun 27 2005 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
"Well this has been an entertaining read! Women, I hope you understand that this sock would have you believe you are an evil evil person, if there was ever a time in your life where you get raped and become pregnant. Because obviously, its your fault for spreading your legs in the first place. It doesnt matter that it was under duress!!! It's all your fault and you should live with it and raise that child with no complaints!!!


This is the most common liberal argument of why to support abortion. Because of the possible chance that you might get raped and come with child. There are exceptions to every rule. Just because maybe 1 out of 100,000 people in this country might get raped and become pregnant, does not validate a law been enacted to support abortion for the other 99,999 people that did not get raped but did become pregnant through their own conscious actions. There are exceptions to every rule. You do not condemn everyone in the future because of a few isolated incidents. The fact is that the amount of girls getting raped and become pregnant is basically non-existant, but you want to use it as a major basis for your argument supporting abortion.

When you say that pro-life people support the death penalty, the answer is obvious. People that have been given the death penalty, are rapists, killers, or child molesters that have killed people like David Westerfield. You cannot compare an innocent fetus that has not come into the world and is un-tainted, to a person in one of these catagories that I mentioned. Comparing the two is illogical, as they have nothing in common. Supporting the death penalty for extremely dangerous criminals and people that have committed horrible crimes does not equate to a paradox when the same people want to save innocent to-be babies.

You know what is a paradox to me? The liberals that want to save criminals, save rapists, save murderers from the death penalty and give them parole in 20 years yet support the killing innocent fetus's by the masses. You want to save the guilty but support the mass killing of the innocent. THAT, is a paradox. The pro-life people want to save the innocent, and want justice for the guilty, yeah that sounds odd to me.

Perhaps I should describe in detail the operations performed to abort a baby, the mutilating discusting processes, kind of like the one where a scalpel is taken and the baby is diced up while still inside the womb while it is still alive. How about the one where the fetus's skull is crushed so that it can be sucked out through a powerful vacuum type hose along with the limbs that have been severed? But, you would probably be more interested in shouting from the rooftops the "inhuman" treatment of known terrorists in Guantanamo, or how some known terrorists didn't have air conditioning in their cell.

My aunt was a nurse for 20 years and she lost her job because of abortion. She had to open the promiscuous mother open with a C-section and when it was time to destroy the fetus it reached up and grabbed her finger with its own small hand. My aunt could not go through with it and was fired for not doing the job that she was required to do. And you want to praise the destruction of unborn children like this. Now she works for a different hospital in a different state. People like this are a paradox, and they make me sick.
#132 Jun 27 2005 at 3:08 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
bhodisattva Defender of Justice wrote:

PS-DSD quit feeding the trolls. I dont care how you justify it a troll is a troll and you know in the end you arent going to get a real argument so just knock it off.

Damn it, Bhodi, Iran is just too complicated!!! Smiley: mad


Kang: Abortions for ALL!!!

American Crowd:BOOOOO!!!

Kodos: Abortions for NONE!!!

American Crowd:BOOOO!!!

Kang: Abortions for some and miniature american flags for others

American Crowd: YEAHHHAA!!!!!!

Smiley: banghead
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#133 Jun 27 2005 at 3:13 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
bhodisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
bhodisattva Defender of Justice wrote:

PS-DSD quit feeding the trolls. I dont care how you justify it a troll is a troll and you know in the end you arent going to get a real argument so just knock it off.

Damn it, Bhodi, Iran is just too complicated!!! Smiley: mad


Kang: Abortions for ALL!!!

American Crowd:BOOOOO!!!

Kodos: Abortions for NONE!!!

American Crowd:BOOOO!!!

Kang: Abortions for some and miniature american flags for others

American Crowd: YEAHHHAA!!!!!!

Smiley: banghead

Now you get it.
#134 Jun 27 2005 at 3:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
Perhaps I should describe in detail the operations performed to abort a baby, the mutilating discusting processes


If we were forced to watch films of medical procedures being done, no one would ever have surgery again. They're ALL pretty disgusting, frankly.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#135 Jun 27 2005 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
bhodisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
Nothing like a poll of 1000 women who have had abortions to get a representative curve of the 1.5 million that have them annually. Anywho doesnt matter if a woman chooses to not have a baby its her choice call her a baby killer all you want, Im sure thats the christian thing to do.

PS-DSD quit feeding the trolls. I dont care how you justify it a troll is a troll and you know in the end you arent going to get a real argument so just knock it off.

Edited, Mon Jun 27 16:06:02 2005 by bhodisattva


Yeah yeah, its just been slow today and I enjoyed the entertainment of his antics.
#136 Jun 27 2005 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
It's people like that that give Pro-Lifers a bad name. I'm Pro-Life. But I also realize that it's none of my fuc[b][/b]king business what a woman does with her own body.

I also realize that it's not my place to stick my nose in other people's business or presume to tell them what's right for them.

Those hypocrites who stand in front of clinics aren't the Christian majority.
#137 Jun 27 2005 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Duchess SamiraX wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps I should describe in detail the operations performed to abort a baby, the mutilating discusting processes


If we were forced to watch films of medical procedures being done, no one would ever have surgery again. They're ALL pretty disgusting, frankly.


Bah! And my roomate insists on watching the discovery health channel, especially the ones where they show surgery proceedures, right when I'm trying to eat my dinner...

Getting kinda used to it. Look at TV. See a spleen. Chomp down on burrito... It works.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#138 Jun 27 2005 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
bhodisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
jehti wrote:
Ok, you are all right and me and every other Pro-lifer is wrong.


Pro-life isnt necessarily wrong. If you are christian and it is against your faith that is that. The same with homosexuality, if you are christian and you dont approve so be it.

However when you start shooting doctors or griefing girls going into get an abortion or beating homosexuals you have just crossed a line and become a hypocrite and are committing a sin just as deadly in the Lords eyes.


Just wanted to comment on this bit. While I don't disagree with your general postion Bhodi, I do have a problem with this as it pertains to many statements made in this thread.

The problem is that when arguing against a pro-life position, virtually every pro-choice person will in fact drag out examples of pro-lifers bombing abortion clinics and argue that therefor the pro-life position is inhererntly hypocritical. I just find it interesting that you recgonize that the people who do that are an extremely small minority and do not represent the body of those who advoate a "pro-life" position, but it doesn't seem to stop you or anyone else from arguing against the pro-life position by just attacking that small minority and their actions.


Most pro-lifers just believe that abortion is killing the child. Period. They believe that life begins at conception, and that we should therefore protect that life as much as possible. There are obviously going to be variation in what constutes sufficient grounds for abortion. It's not hypocritical unless you insist that every pro-lifer must believe exactly the same thing for the same reasons. That's an unreasonable expectation. There's going to be a range of accpeptance. Most pro-lifers will accept that an abortion can be performed in the cases of rape, incest, or when there's a medical condition that causes the pregnancy to be significantly risky to the mother, child, or both. Most pro-lifers will not accept the legitimacy of an abortion just because the woman decides she doesn't want to have a child. The idea being that a "choice" to kill on that grounds isn't valid, in exactly the way we allow people to kill in self defense (they don't have a choice), but allowing them to do it just because they feel like it is wrong.


I happen to be pro-choice, but that does not mean that I don't understand the pro-life position. I do think that it's incredibly misleading and unfair to argue against the pro-life position by simply blasting the actions of a small number of fringe groups. You need to address the reasons why such a large percentage of people are pro-life, or you're going to miss the issue. Arguing about abortion clinic bombings isn't going to persuade anyone because if someone thinks abortion is wrong, but would *never* kill someone over the issue, then you obviously aren't talking about them, right? And when your argument fails to address the majority of pro-lifers, then it ends up only seeming "right" to other pro-choice folks (and not even most of them). You're just never going to persuade anyone using that approach IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#139 Jun 27 2005 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Perhaps Flea would be so kind as to hook the protesters up with this woman?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#140 Jun 27 2005 at 5:13 PM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
I'm guessing Onion?
#141 Jun 27 2005 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Perhaps Flea would be so kind as to hook the protesters up with this woman?
What do you think of the wig? A bit too "Incredible Hulk"? It was kind of the look I was going for. I figured it would garner sympathy points if it looked like she had become follically challenged as a result of her choice.
#142 Jun 27 2005 at 5:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What? I thought it was the Washington Post!

Of course it's the Onion, you goomba. Read the URL
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#143 Jun 27 2005 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
*****
14,454 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What? I thought it was the Washington Post!

Of course it's the Onion, you goomba. Read the URL



hehehe I didnt read the URL. I can just tell not only by the entetainment it has, but the writing style as well. I was being facetious. Smiley: grin
#144 Jun 27 2005 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,632 posts
Quote:
baby killing satanists


You just lost whatever miniscule shreds of credibility you still had left. Go give oral sex to a horse and choke on the killed horse babies.
#145 Jun 27 2005 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,632 posts
Or I could just read the thread. Doesn't matter either way, does it?

Smiley: wink2
#146 Jun 27 2005 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,372 posts
Quote:
Success rates for vasectomy reversals have improved markedly in recent years, and now range from about 70% to 97%.


Way to go out on a limb there. Thats me off to the vasectomy clinic with such a clear statistic.
#147 Jun 27 2005 at 6:36 PM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
To trot out a statistic I came across not too long ago in my Human Sexuality class:

When abortion was declared illegal in the United States in the 1860s, there were more abortions (numerically, not percentage-wise) being performed annually than there are now that abortion is legal (I don't remember the exact number.) So even though the overall population was a fraction of what it is now, the percentage of abortions performed was vastly higher.

Why? Mainly because of birth control.

And yet, MANY pro-lifers are the same people who support pharmacies being allowed to refuse to dispense birth control and oppose the distribution of condoms in high schools.

So, in essence, they oppose the very thing that helps prevent the thing they REALLY oppose. These people really don't stop to apply a lot of logic to their stance on issues.

edit cuz my guess at the numbers was way off

Edited, Mon Jun 27 20:00:10 2005 by Ambrya
#148 Jun 27 2005 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
A local Catholic church near where I live puts little white crosses in their front yard every christmas with a sign that says this "Dear Santa, I only want my life for christmas and hope I am not murdered before I am even born." I kid you not, there is a ******* elementary school right across the street from this. It's a woman's ******* choice **** catholic zealots your ******* priests touch little boys for ****'s sake.

*Retreating back to sandbox now*

Edited, Mon Jun 27 19:43:29 2005 by Buffyisagoddess
#149 Jun 27 2005 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,829 posts
Bhodi wrote:
Quote:
Not the liberal media, more the fact that human tests of the male "pill" have randomly caused the people to become permanently infertile and the companies developing it have done there best to keep it on the down low.


This reminds me a bit of the whole IUD issue. People are afraid of IUDs because there is a miniscule chance of them causing infertility (or in extremely rare cases, death) if they somehow puncture the uterine wall.

These same people who are so horrified over this concept overlook the fact that there is a much greater chance of being rendered infertile (or dead) in childbirth than there is fromc complications arising with IUDs.

Everything has its risk. But because the male contraceptive pill is targetting a protein found ONLY in the flagella of the sperm and nowhere else in the human body, the chance of life-threatening systemic side-effects (heart disease for smokers, cancer, etc) for men is relatively non-existant compared to the risks run by women on hormonal contraceptives.

So why is this research regarded with such fear and skepticism?

Because it threatens the Sacred Wigglies and therefore isn't being widely supported in the male-dominated institutions of pharmaceutical research and the FDA. It's okay for women to run risks with their lives to prevent getting pregnant, but god forbid a man might have a teeny-tiny chance of losing his badge of virility.

#150 Jun 27 2005 at 8:14 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Ambrya wrote:
And yet, MANY pro-lifers are the same people who support pharmacies being allowed to refuse to dispense birth control and oppose the distribution of condoms in high schools.

So, in essence, they oppose the very thing that helps prevent the thing they REALLY oppose. These people really don't stop to apply a lot of logic to their stance on issues.


But that's not a rational counterargument at all. There's nothing inconsistent about being opposed to *both* contraceptives *and* abortion. Pretty straightforward position if your objective is to try to encourage people to marry before having sex, right? Contraceptives make it "safer" to have sex outside of marriage since the big downside is pregnancy (and STDs, but then if no one had sex before marriage, that wouldn't be a problem either). Abortions just provide a second layer of defense.

Again. Nothing inconsistent about the position. You and I may disagree with it, but I think it's unfair to say that someone can't even *have* a position different then ours...


And as an example of this:

Buffyisagoddess wrote:
A local Catholic church near where I live puts little white crosses in their front yard every christmas with a sign that says this "Dear Santa, I only want my life for christmas and hope I am not murdered before I am even born." I kid you not, there is a fu[/b]cking elementary school right across the street from this. It's a woman's fu[/b]cking choice fu[/b]ck catholic zealots your fu[/b]cking priests touch little boys for fu[/b]ck's sake.


First off. Learn how to break the swear filter, or don't bother swearing here. Just a suggestion.

Secondly. It's amusing how you make a big deal of the fact that it's a woman's choice. Um... Isn't it that churches choice what they put on their front lawn? Or are you advocating a law that says that no one can write any political/ethical message in public that you don't happen to agree with? Gee. I thought you were *for* freedom and rights and all of that stuff.

It's their property. It's their right and their choice to put up any display they want. So you're basically upset because someone excersized their freedom of speech and said something you don't like? Wow! Talk about hypocrisy...


Um. Finally, stop with the strawman. Do you have any idea how many priests there are in the world? Even in the US? Know how many have molested boys? So you're going to make a broad statement about every church because something like .001 percent of all priests in the last 100 years have molested boys? Didn't I just make a big deal about not including arguments against the smallest portion of a group when trying to argue against the group as a whole? Yes. Some incredibly small number of catholic priests have molested boys. That does not mean you get to condemn the other 30 million people who share the same religion.

And it's certainly not even close to relevant to this particular topic.


Oh. And Ambrya? Now you've got me singing the "every sperm is sacred song" in my head... Darn you!!!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#151 Jun 27 2005 at 9:06 PM Rating: Decent
**
609 posts
I always wonder why is it always about women when it comes to getting pregnant. The men aren't gettin mentioned at all.

If a woman is going to be held reponsible for aborting a baby, why not the man who made her pregnant too? After all she could not have gotten pregnant without him.

There is one very important data that is missing in those statistics being bandied about. Did the man agree to the abortion? I'd be willing to bet that most of them did, or just did not care. I have heard too many cases where the man refuses to wear a condom 'because it gives him less pleasure', and them dumping his girlfriend once he found out that she's pregnant.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 269 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (269)