Planned Parenthood Offering Free Abortions After Attack

[thebabydoc]

Au contraire, mon frere.

1.) If one feels very strongly that Abortion is more than just wrong - that it is a crime against humanity, then one has a duty to make that point to others. To stand back and allow what one considers to be murder to occur at a rate of millions per year, is hypocrisy of the highest order.
2.) It could be argued that your posts in this thread are seeking to "impose" your beliefs on others, babydoc. Why else debate if not to expose others to your reasoning and feelings? (Unless I am misunderstanding your usage of the word "impose.")

Would you agee that it is wrong for Gun Control advocates to attempt to 'impose' their beliefs on others by lobbying for Gun Control legislation?

Not a flame, honest curiousity.

Hmmmmmm where to start???

1) But to murder those responsible is hypocrisy on an order of magnitude higher. Go and try to change the laws then, do not resort to the same tools as terrorists (please don't ask me to expound on this). When the majority agrees with you, it will be the law. And abortions will still go on... I'll be in my new Lamborghini, many poor women will die at the hands of street abortionists, even more will die during childbirth, and there will be thousands upon thousands of genetically malformed, unwanted children to be cared for by society. What a sweeeet victory that would be!!

1a) So if I feel very strongly that something should be a crime, say breastfeeding in public, (Lewd and indecent conduct), I have a duty to squash it by any means necessary? Maybe go out and throw red paint on women breastfeeding in public or show them the latest centerfolds from Hustler and Cue?!! The justification you are using is that you feel strongly that it should be a crime?

2) Actually, it could not be argued, although I'm sure you'd give it a good run. That's just plain twisting of words and trickery. How could I hope to "impose" (meaning to force another to do what I want) my belief that one should be free to do what they want so long as it is within the realm of the law? I can't force you to believe something; I can only educate you with the facts and also let you see where and how you've been deceived and blinded.

3 [not numbered]) Again, trying to introduce a non-sequitor, but I will bite. They lobby for gun control legislation, they do not picket, intimidate, and scare people who are merely exercising their rights under the law. Also, if you want to get technical, gun control advocates might have a teeny weeny point in that the lack of gun control may pose an immediate physical danger to them.

next "question"?

 

[spentagn]

Spentagn: If that is the case, then you are playing by the rules and my comments do not apply to your posts. the only comment made which pertained to you is that, even though you might have been at the clinic and made the decision to keep your little girl, that does not put you in the shoes of a single, unmarried 16 year-old girl.

No, I definitely was not in those shoes. But the mother was 18, in highschool, and unmarried. Not the best of circumstances, and definitely a likely case for abortion.

 

[Warik]

I just love "pro-lifers" who bitch about the killing of a fetus but are pro capital punishment. They're the best kind of hypocrites.

Really? I thought "pro-choicers" who bitch about the execution of CONVICTED, DANGEROUS CRIMINALS, but a pro-kill-innocent-child were the best kind of hypocrites.

I guess we learn something new every day.

-Warik

 

[thebabydoc]

Warik, here we go again with the words "kill", "innocent", and "child", none of which apply to abortion. If you want to play that way, try "remove non-viable fetus".

also,

We much prefer the term "pro-what's-legal-under-the-law(yers)"

 

[thebabydoc]

Can we hear from some women?

Smallmovesal, Star, Azia, Spatt....

I know the numbers, step up to the plate and speak from the heart.

 

[Warik]

We much prefer the term "pro-what's-legal-under-the-law(yers)"

Incorrect.

Try: "What has been unconstitutionally ruled legal by the Federal Government despite the fact that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that issues not explicitly accounted for in the Constitution are left up to the states."

I'm not going to argue the issue of abortion any longer. Anyone who could possibly be in agreement with the termination of innocent life clearly lacks the mental capacity for an intelligent conversation. If it's so OK to perform abortions, why isn't it OK to systematically terminate all of the parasitic life that infests our country today, i.e. teenage single moms and drunk ex-boyfriends?

-Warik

 

[huntmaster]

1)
What would it then be called when one kills another living, breathing, self-sustaining
human being, e.g. a gynecologist?

2) What is your response to those who:
a) did not chose to have sex (incest, rape) or
b) chose to use effective contraception (IUD's, injection, surgery) yet failed?

"tough luck, you have no choice?"

You have the right to be anti-abortion and not have one.
But no one has the right to force their views on anyone else, no matter how strongly
they may feel about them. That is what makes this country what it is.
To try to justify and rationalize forcing one's beliefs on others by attaching a legal term like "murder" to them in an attempt to define the act as illegal is not one
bit more valid than to call premarital sex "lewd conduct" in an attempt to outlaw it.

Yeah thats what I did didn't I? I tried to force my beliefs on you!

I wish I had a nickle for every time I have seen that here and on other boards. Its a copout. instead why dont you just say that you dont agree and state your opinion.

Every one should be welcome to express their thoughts here. Whether they agree with you or not.

And oh yeah, if someone kills a doctor--that is murder too. Dont group me in with those people that bomb clinics. Thats no different than grouping all Middle Eastern people together.


I am against abortion in all cases.

 

[thebabydoc]

Yeah thats what I did didn't I? I tried to force my beliefs on you!
I wish I had a nickle for every time I have seen that here and on other boards. Its a copout. instead why dont you just say that you dont agree and state your opinion.
Every one should be welcome to express their thoughts here. Whether they agree with you or not.
And oh yeah, if someone kills a doctor--that is murder too. Dont group me in with those people that bomb clinics. Thats no different than grouping all Middle Eastern people together.
I am against abortion in all cases.

Since you clearly haven't bothered to read along Huntmoron, I'll repeat this for you once again...

Don't take my comments out of the context in which they were made. Those comments obviously and clearly refer to so-called "pro-lifers" who harass women trying to get abortions, post phony or exaggerated pictures, and yes, even resort to violence to get the world to abide by their beliefs. Your stating your beliefs is not forcing your beliefs on anyone and no one would claim that. Just as I noted before to Weapon X, it's a losing argument. It's simple to try to grab on to this "copout" to deflect from the real question, the anti-abortion ACTIVISTS.
So once again, if your only statement is that you are against abortion in all cases, well, more power to you for your beliefs and I hope you stick to them if the opportunity arises.
I will, however tell you that there's a 50% chance that you won't.

 

[thebabydoc]

Incorrect.

Try: "What has been unconstitutionally ruled legal by the Federal Government despite the fact that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that issues not explicitly accounted for in the Constitution are left up to the states."

I'm not going to argue the issue of abortion any longer. Anyone who could possibly be in agreement with the termination of innocent life clearly lacks the mental capacity for an intelligent conversation. If it's so OK to perform abortions, why isn't it OK to systematically terminate all of the parasitic life that infests our country today, i.e. teenage single moms and drunk ex-boyfriends?

1) "Unconstitutionally ruled?" according to whom, you? Congratulations on your appointment to the bench. And it's not the federal government, it was the Supreme Court. The court has been given the power to rule on the constitution and its application and it has done so. On multiple occasions. I don't even want to get into all the end runs at the law the anti-abortionists have tried- consents for women under the age of x, 24 hour waiting periods, etc...yet they have all failed because the law is clear.

2) Once again, you continue to incorrectlyand deliberately make the jump from living, breathing beings to a fetus. "teenage single moms and drunk ex-boyfriends" are still living humans, just as any already born "unwanted" child is. An 8 week fetus is not. Should we kill these people? Well for one, that is illegal, it's called murder. The law is clear on that, too. So I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to give you no credit on that one yet again. You cannot equate a fetus with a living, breathing human being. No matter how many times you rephrase it or come back with this argument IT WILL NEVER BE VALID because a fetus is not a viable human being until 24 weeks. The law has determined that and that's just how it is. Whether you agree or not, that is the criteria the law uses and therefore you cannot refer to it as "murder" or "innocent life". Innocent tissue, maybe, life, no.

3) And there it is again, the ultimate defense for those who have no facts, only emotion to back them up...." Anyone who could possibly be in agreement with the termination of innocent life clearly lacks the mental capacity for an intelligent conversation" I guess if you say so that, too must be a fact. We don't agree with you so clearly we lack the mental capacity for an intelligent conversation. It actually seems to me that your suggestion that it be ok to kill "teenage single moms and drunk ex-boyfriends" advocates the taking of innocent life. By the way, is "innocent life" any better than "sinful life?" Good point.

 

[Weapon X]

babydoc, I'm not going to argue the issue any longer, but I must take exception to your lumping me in with those who shoot abortion doctors.

1.) Never have I advocated the killing of abortion doctors.
2.) Never have I advocated using unlawful means to educate people about Pro-Life issues.
3.) There is a tremendous difference between Jeffrey Dahmer and a pre-born human.
By committing murder as defined within US Law, Jeffrey Dahmer gave up his right to life.
He was an adult and made decisions that he knew could result in his forfeit of some basic human rights.
A pre-born human does not deserve to be killed.

All I am arguing is that you stop lumping me in with extremists and terrorists. Our views differ, and mine are as rational and valuable as yours. I was Pro-Life before I became a Bible Believer, so I don't know why you keep making this a religious issue.

I believe that a pre-born human is exactly that: a human being. You do not.
You have not convinced me otherwise; nor do I expect to convince you. Your M.D. does not make you any more qualified to make ethical decisions than any of the rest of us.