Would this Change your Position on Abortion?

[Kori]

The pro-murder(if you insist on rejecting accepted nomenclature, so be it) side, assuming a roughly 50% split has supported the killing of roughly 29 million females in America. The pro-life side has fought for their freedom to live. Clearly, pro-life is pro-women and pro-murder just wants to keep killing our defenseless girls.

You trying to use my Extremist Pro-Woman stance against me will not work. Even though I do feel it is a life it is not a life that can survive on it's own and that alters things. Let me ask you this you are pro-life but what about all those that want to kill...well anyone in the name of Religion yours including? Who do they want to kill? Gays mostly but do you think it will end there? No. Want proof? Look at history. When you oppress one group of people it becomes easy to do it to another. The Religious Extremists quote the Bible. That's what they do...except they forget parts of it too. And do not give me that: Oh that's the old testament non-sense. Didn't Jesus say to love god and do what god saidith all that jazz? There is not other god he could be talking about than the one from the old testament.

 

[FTNZ]

The pro-murder(if you insist on rejecting accepted nomenclature, so be it) side, assuming a roughly 50% split has supported the killing of roughly 29 million females in America. The pro-life side has fought for their freedom to live. Clearly, pro-life is pro-women and pro-murder just wants to keep killing our defenseless girls.

You appear not to be making a distinction between a fetus and a legal person. Yes, abortion ends the life of a fetus. It is not murder, because the fetus is not a legal person. If the fetus was to be made a legal person, then the legal personhood of the girl or woman would be fatally infringed. That cannot be allowed to happen, IMO, in a civilised, democratic society that values the rule of law.

 

[FTNZ]

I don't need to google anything. The point is, it is a logical fallacy to assume that believing women shouldn't be allowed to kill defenseless babies means you are not pro-woman. The argument simply doesn't even begin to make sense.

That's why I said you might want to google, not that you need to. You might want to, you might not. Your choice.

If you are pro-woman (or pro-girl) then you support her right to control her own body. Simple.

 

[FTNZ]

You trying to use my Extremist Pro-Woman stance against me will not work. Even though I do feel it is a life it is not a life that can survive on it's own and that alters things. Let me ask you this you are pro-life but what about all those that want to kill...well anyone in the name of Religion yours including? Who do they want to kill? Gays mostly but do you think it will end there? No. Want proof? Look at history. When you oppress one group of people it becomes easy to do it to another. The Religious Extremists quote the Bible. That's what they do...except they forget parts of it too. And do not give me that: Oh that's the old testament non-sense. Didn't Jesus say to love god and do what god saidith all that jazz? There is not other god he could be talking about than the one from the old testament.

There's even a good argument to be made that the bible allows abortion, according to an article I read on a progressive Christian website once. It was based on the part of the text where the penalty for ending the life of a woman is greater than the penalty for ending the life of a fetus. This suggests that the author intended the life of a fetus to have less legal value than the life of the girl or woman hosting it.

 

[Thanda]

That's why I said you might want to google, not that you need to. You might want to, you might not. Your choice.

If you are pro-woman (or pro-girl) then you support her right to control her own body. Simple.

Her right to control her body ends where it begins to infringe on the unborn baby's right to life.

 

[Kori]

There's even a good argument to be made that the bible allows abortion, according to an article I read on a progressive Christian website once. It was based on the part of the text where the penalty for ending the life of a woman is greater than the penalty for ending the life of a fetus. This suggests that the author intended the life of a fetus to have less legal value than the life of the girl or woman hosting it.

Her right to control her body ends where it begins to infringe on the unborn baby's right to life.

Let us not forget that baby killing is ok with god

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/biblical_god_praised_for_having_babies_killed


1 Samuel 15:2,3

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a]everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "



Hosea 13:16

16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open."



It also seems that He is praised and glorified for doing so...



Psalms 135:1-8

1 Praise the LORD. [a]
Praise the name of the LORD;
praise him, you servants of the LORD,

2 you who minister in the house of the LORD,
in the courts of the house of our God.

3 Praise the LORD, for the LORD is good;
sing praise to his name, for that is pleasant.

4 For the LORD has chosen Jacob to be his own,
Israel to be his treasured possession.

5 I know that the LORD is great,
that our Lord is greater than all gods.

6 The LORD does whatever pleases him,
in the heavens and on the earth,
in the seas and all their depths.

7 He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth;
he sends lightning with the rain
and brings out the wind from his storehouses.

8 He struck down the firstborn of Egypt,
the firstborn of men and animals.



Psalms 136:10

1 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good.
His love endures forever.

2 Give thanks to the God of gods.
His love endures forever.

3 Give thanks to the Lord of lords:
His love endures forever.

4 to him who alone does great wonders,
His love endures forever.

5 who by his understanding made the heavens,
His love endures forever.

6 who spread out the earth upon the waters,
His love endures forever.

7 who made the great lights?
His love endures forever.

8 the sun to govern the day,
His love endures forever.

9 the moon and stars to govern the night;
His love endures forever.

10 to him who struck down the firstborn of Egypt
His love endures forever.



Psalms 137:8-9

8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-

9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
--------------------------

I'm sure someone will make some kind of excuse as to why in the Bible it's ok but not for whatever anti-woman reasons are given to life today.

 

[Mister Emu]

When anyone assumes they have the right to make decisions about another (mentally competent adult) person's healthcare choices, that indicates disregard for the other person's rights. Further, any objective assessment of the views of most people who vocally express anti-choice views will show they also hold anti-women views. How can it be otherwise, when they are literally trying to control the bodies of people who happen to have a uterus.

So, still nothing other than the nonsense suits your fancy. Not that I expected anything more.

You trying to use my Extremist Pro-Woman stance against me will not work

Hahaha.

Let me ask you this you are pro-life but what about all those that want to kill...well anyone in the name of Religion yours including? Who do they want to kill? Gays mostly

Bwahahaha. Oh geez. Thanks.

I generally fume at the intellectual cowardice that is supposing dark ulterior motives for your philosophical opponents, but this. This is wonderful. Who are 'all those' that want to kill homosexuals in the name of my religion? And all of this from a person with the statue of a mass-murderer in their signature.

 

[Kori]

And all of this from a person with the statue of a mass-murderer in their signature.

I'm only addressing this because most of the key things before this is just immature. Great counter by the way.

Yeah Lenin did do things that were wrong. But so has Washington, and well lots of other Super Freedom Friends. The difference between you and me is that I am willing to admit wrong in my feelings and beliefs, Political or Religious. You seem to want to deflect with immaturity and Commies are evil.

 

[FTNZ]

So, still nothing other than the nonsense suits your fancy. Not that I expected anything more.


Hahaha.


Bwahahaha. Oh geez. Thanks.

I generally fume at the intellectual cowardice that is supposing dark ulterior motives for your philosophical opponents, but this. This is wonderful. Who are 'all those' that want to kill homosexuals in the name of my religion? And all of this from a person with the statue of a mass-murderer in their signature.

This is all you've got? I'm amused.

 

[FTNZ]

Her right to control her body ends where it begins to infringe on the unborn baby's right to life.

The same thing that would give a fetus a right to life also gives the girl or woman a right to live her life according to her wishes. It's logically impossible to have it both ways. A right to life is worth nothing if there is no right to liberty.

 

[Thanda]

The same thing that would give a fetus a right to life also gives the girl or woman a right to live her life according to her wishes. It's logically impossible to have it both ways. A right to life is worth nothing if there is no right to liberty.

No one, No One, NO ONE, is allowed to live their life "according to [their] wishes". This is a basic fact. That is why we have laws. The laws are there to make sure you don't just do things according to your wishes. This is because we, as a human race, have learnt by long and sad experiences that some wishes of human beings are extremely destructive and harmful.

To insist, therefore, that women should have the right to kill simply because not giving it to them would amount to not allowing them "to live their lives according their wishes" is not a very persuasive argument.

 

[Kori]

No one, No One, NO ONE, is allowed to live their life "according to [their] wishes". This is a basic fact. That is why we have laws. The laws are there to make sure you don't just do things according to your wishes. This is because we, as a human race, have learnt by long and sad experiences that some wishes of human beings are extremely destructive and harmful.

To insist, therefore, that women should have the right to kill simply because not giving it to them would amount to not allowing them "to live their lives according their wishes" is not a very persuasive argument.

I do things according to my wishes. Why? Because those things are justified by my Gods and Goddesses. And do not forget the mass murderer Lenin.

Anyway this thread in it's entirety does not change the meme of things.

 

[Mister Emu]

You appear not to be making a distinction between a fetus and a legal person.

I only deal in inconcrete quasi-magical metaphysical propositions when I am forced to. I find no reason to differentiate between the stages of human life in regards to whether they are human and under the umbrella of the right to live.

I'm only addressing this because most of the key things before this is just immature. Great counter by the way.

As opposed to the vulgar display of maturity that is proposing dastardly motives for your philosophical opponents. Spare me. I'll respond with substance where and when it is forthcoming.

Yeah Lenin did do things that were wrong. But so has Washington, and well lots of other Super Freedom Friends. The difference between you and me is that I am willing to admit wrong in my feelings and beliefs, Political or Religious. You seem to want to deflect with immaturity and Commies are evil.

This is what I mean, you have absolutely zero idea what I am willing to do or not. All because I pointed out the irony of calling on the history of death while supporting/having an icon of the most murderous, regressive, and oppressive philosophy ever dreamt by man.

And this, this discussion on history or whether my philosophy has people who want to kill? A deflection from your inability to substantiate your claim that people are pro-life because they are misogynists.

You trying to use my Extremist Pro-Woman stance against me will not work.

I laughed at this because it completely misses the point. I was using absurdist reasoning to ridicule your previous statement that "most"(nice weasel word usage) pro-life people are actually anti-women.

Want proof?

What I want to know is what someone wanting to kill in the name of religion has to do with our discussion on abortion. Unless you believe that someone involved here wants to kill homosexuals. Then I will demand that proof.

This is all you've got? I'm amused.

Then we can both smile.

I'll go back to a statement you made, and allow you the opportunity to support it:

Further, any objective assessment of the views of most people who vocally express anti-choice views will show they also hold anti-women views.

Show me the objective assessment. Go!

 

[FTNZ]

No one, No One, NO ONE, is allowed to live their life "according to [their] wishes". This is a basic fact. That is why we have laws. The laws are there to make sure you don't just do things according to your wishes. This is because we, as a human race, have learnt by long and sad experiences that some wishes of human beings are extremely destructive and harmful.

To insist, therefore, that women should have the right to kill simply because not giving it to them would amount to not allowing them "to live their lives according their wishes" is not a very persuasive argument.

I have zero interest in whether you find my argument persuasive, and I'm sure the reverse is true, since this thread is not about changing anyone's minds but rather stating our views for those willing and interested enough to listen.

Yes there are laws, and abortion is legal in the US. Your point?

 

[FTNZ]

I'll go back to a statement you made, and allow you the opportunity to support it:


Show me the objective assessment. Go!

Clearly, there is no need for me to support the statement. Got anything else?

 

[Kori]

@Mister Emu you seem to be missing a lot. Also I see you have ignored post #306. Or maybe you just somehow missed it. Anyway when you feel the need to address the issues at hand let me know. You seem to like to deflect and possibly ignore.

 

[FTNZ]

I only deal in inconcrete quasi-magical metaphysical propositions when I am forced to. I find no reason to differentiate between the stages of human life in regards to whether they are human and under the umbrella of the right to live.

In 1973, the SCOTUS was forced to deal with a certain legal question, as it is everyday that it sits. Courts and legislatures the world over have been forced to consider this issue. Where abortion is legal, those learned minds have recognised that while a human fetal life is indeed a living human, it does not have the ultimate right to impose itself on the legal person hosting it. There can be no middle ground on this issue. The hosting by another human is what necessarily differentiates between the stages of human life, under the law. Either a woman is a full legal person just like others, or she is not. If you advocate for the rights of the fetus to impose itself on her, absolutely it infringes her rights. On the basis of her gender. Which is contrary to her human rights as a legal person. Not sure how you could argue otherwise. But keep trying if you wish.

 

[Mister Emu]

@Kori

To address my calling most a weasel word. What I meant by that is that most, obviously, means a majority. But none of the set of numbers from 50.0...1 to 100% can be supported. It also allows you to say that most are such in an attempt to impugn the philosophy itself while you can speak to each individual and say "oh you aren't part of that most, it's the rest".

I realize, given my combative nature since your, what I will call your spurious accusations, that it could be taken as an attack. I did not mean it in as an attack against you but against the phrasing.

 

[Kori]

@Kori

To address my calling most a weasel word. What I meant by that is that most, obviously, means a majority. But none of the set of numbers from 50.0...1 to 100% can be supported. It also allows you to say that most are such in an attempt to impugn the philosophy itself while you can speak to each individual and say "oh you aren't part of that most, it's the rest".

I realize, given my combative nature since your, what I will call your spurious accusations, that it could be taken as an attack. I did not mean it in as an attack against you but against the phrasing.

The only reason I say most is because I realize there are exceptions. Also I was talking about Extremists while also keeping in mind non-extremists may also have these views.

 

[FTNZ]

@Kori

To address my calling most a weasel word. What I meant by that is that most, obviously, means a majority. But none of the set of numbers from 50.0...1 to 100% can be supported. It also allows you to say that most are such in an attempt to impugn the philosophy itself while you can speak to each individual and say "oh you aren't part of that most, it's the rest".

I realize, given my combative nature since your, what I will call your spurious accusations, that it could be taken as an attack. I did not mean it in as an attack against you but against the phrasing.

I use the word "most" to denote what I believe is a majority view among those who oppose legal abortion. If I used the word "all", people would immediately deny they oppose women's human rights, despite wanting a fetus to be able to impose itself on her unwillingly. If I took a survey of 100 anti-choicers, I'd be willing to bet that all would deny their opposition to women's human rights. So, to ask them would be meaningless. The claim that most who are opposed to X are also opposed to Y is not an empirical one, it is a logical one. Because to want to infringe a woman's right to bodily autonomy in this matter is equivalent to wanting to infringe her rights in general. If you would like to withhold one of my (rather major) rights then you must, logically, respect all my rights less than I do.