Priceless: Pro-aborts to protest Joe Scheidler tribute
UPDATE 3/30, 6:15a: I received a note from pro-life’s Great One, Joe Scheidler. He tried to post a note on the Facebook page touting the protest planned against him, but it was promptly removed. Here’s what he told me he wrote:
Jill, I posted a nice, polite message to the pro-aborts who plan to picket the Banquet Saturday. I told them that their little picket would make my day. But I reminded them that there would be just over 400 of us, and wondered if they could match that. And yes, I will go out and try to convert some of them them, for a little while, until I have to attend the big event. I’m honored to know that they think so much of me that they’ll go to all that trouble and expense.
Lol, I so love Joe… :)
3/29, 6:06a: This is priceless. The other side has no idea how much their protest will make Joe’s night, the bow on his gift of tributes…
One protester gloated on the “Pro-Choice Counterprotest at the Joe Scheidler Tribute!” Facebook page:
On the contrary, Joe will be thrilled. So will the vast group of pro-lifers paying homage to this hero.
In fact, a little heads up to pro-abort organizers: Since most pro-lifers attending the Scheidler tribute will be experienced activists, protesters should anticipate that our side will likely want to mingle and dialogue on the topic of abortion, perhaps even with some graphic signs of abortion in tow.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were ultimately more pro-lifers than pro-aborts participating in the protest, perhaps even Joe. Hm, would that mean he picketed at his own tribute? Now that would be a hoot.
[HT: Pro-Life Wisconsin on Twitter]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Raven Geary is the national leader of the Walk For Choice and heads up the Chicago walk. She recently stated on twitter that she walked for choice “because child-sex workers need immediate, unfettered access to reproductive health care, & abortion is part of that.” Nice.
https://www.facebook.com/prolifetexas#!/photo.php?fbid=203537153004491&set=a.194677520557121.46807.137884592903081&theater
Numerous commenters on this site have posted the pro-choice crowd doesn’t do this type of thing because it is tacky. Must be a mistake.
The ONLY correct choice to a proabort is abortion. Having ONE choice is no choice at all.
Can’t wait to hear about the “dialogue” the proaborts will no doubt be engaging in about abortion.
Yes pro-“choice”rs…. bring your families along to the protest… that is if you haven’t left them in the medical waste bin of your local abortion clinic.
UGH. So so so deceived!
I won’t be surprised if Mr. Scheidler will take time to go out and say hello. A pro-abort presence at his tribute will be awesome.
I think it is funny, and absurd, that they call thyemselves “Pro-choice” yet they protest the “choice” of allowing baby to live, to not be chopped to pieces, ripped apart, her bones broken, her limbs pulled apart from her torso, he head crushed, her body sliced up, her skull penetrated and contents extracted, her body burned with chemicals, etc. I also think it is absurd that they call “pro-lifers” “Anti-choicers,” as if those who oppose the butchering of new human beings by abortionists and their staff are against “choice.”
Of course pro-lifes are “pro-choice.” They choose life, liberty, and respect for other human beings.
So-called “pro-choicers” must finish what they begin to say, but quite too soon, when they say “pro-choice.”
Here is what they would say if they honestly finish that incomplete statement they are trying to start, but don’t seem to have the ability to complete:
“We who support elective abortion are for the choice to medically rape women, abuse them, and treat them like crap. We who spport elective abortions are for the harassment, beating, and murder of women who refuse abortion. We who support abortion are for the violent, aggressive assault of tiny new human beings who are discriminated against solely on their age, stage of development, place of residence (inside mother), and whether a woman wants her put to death.”
“We who support elective abortion are for the choice to use sharp, or even dull, cutting devices and poking-stabbing devices, to puncture, slice, chop, and butcher new human beings. We who support elective abortion are for the choice to take gripping tools and pull, rip, and tear the bodies of living human beings to pieces and toss them in the garbage, flush their fluids down a drain, and so forth. We who support abortion are for the choice to induce birth in a woman and, while baby is exiting the birth canal, fully alive, puncture the back of her skull, insert a suction device, and suction the contents of baby’s skull, causing it to collapse in upon itself, killing a person who committed no crime, injured no one, and never even had a fair trial before being executed for no good reason.”
We who support abortion choice are for the continued exploitation, abuse, and oppression of kidnapped, exploited young girls and women who are used as sex toys, receptacles for men’s penises who use the girls as part of sex trafficing, prostitution, and other forms of coerced subservience, abuse, and denial of liberty, freedom, and security, and in abuse of the law.”
Those are just a few things that “pro-choice” people should add to their incomplete statement We are for choice.”
I am against abortion, but I certainly am for choice. Examples of choice: Which ice cream flavor do you want? Where do you wish to go on vacation? Which university do you wish to attend and which course do you wish to take? Are you going to sign up for baseball, softball, basketball, track and field, cross country, football, martial arts, swimming, or mathematics?”
Those are just a few examples of “choice” as a functional, legitimate idea.
Using the term “choice” to obfuscate the act of slaughtering living human beings as a butcher chops meat, or worse, is not only dishonest and disingenuous, but it is also vile, malicious, and vindictive. It betrays a cruel motivation to commit violence and abuse that should be outlawed, not awarded, applauded, and celebrated.
William,
+1
I hope Joe has a great night. Make sure cameras are rolling if the hate crowd shows up.
How awesome!!!
This will be a special night set aside to give honor to this Champion of Life for his relentless warring spirit, his courage in the defense of Innocent Life and his faithful perseverence over many years. That the pro-death mob would take time out of their desperate and confused lives to protest Joe Scheidler’s life’s work is a compelling affirmation and testimony of just how effective Joe has been in his relentless assault against the forces of evil and death.
God bless you Joe Scheidler!
May all of us take heart from your example and with renewed vigor and zeal let us run to the battle and cut Goliath’s head off!
We have the momentum! God is on our side! Let us fight and battle and war until the mother’s womb in America once again becomes a place of nurturing and love for innocent children…
and not a chamber of death.
Let’s face it, the protest will attract maybe 20-25 people tops (my prediction- only 11), who quickly get discouraged and leave because, well, it’s Saturday, and they had some plans, see, and besides, I mean, this lunatic Joe would only like the attention, and it’s too cold/warm/wet/dry/dark/sunny to stay out for very long. Besides, it’s a bit of a walk to go all the way to the Holiday Inn, and after all, we made our point. In addition, the TV crew did a close up to make it look like we were a big number of people and caught one or two of the 75 pro-lifers waiting to cross the street away from the rest of that group, making them look like isolated weirdos.
I mean, pro-choicers can barely get 50 people for their “big” rally on multiple weeks’ notice. How the heck are they going to get more than a discouraged handful to protest a gathering that they know will be happy, joyous, and more committed than they are? Someone take a picture of the “protest” quickly, because if you blink twice, they’ll be gone.
On the other hand, someone better guard Joe if he does go out to greet his unadmirers. He has been physically assaulted before by pro-choicers (UIC, around 2007-2008?), and it could certainly happen again.
We’ll see how big a crowd they draw. Pro-aborts typically don’t show up to events that require them to keep their clothes on for any length of time.
I went to their FB page and it does look like it will be a low turnout. They’ve killed their own numbers.
I’m giving up on the human race. Too much hate.
“We’ll see how big a crowd they draw.
The “Stand for Planned Parenthood” rally, in my beautiful enlightened, pro-choice state of RI, drew 200. The anti’s got about 50.
And William. Is this your creed?
We who oppose abortion want women to bear as many children as they can without regard to their age, health, and welfare and the health of the fetus. We demand that women happily bear the child of their rapist. We have no problem with women dying or being maimed in illegal abortions. We seek to deny childless couples access to in-vitro fertilization because in-vitro labs commit “murder.” We seek to deny women the right to their own body while we elevate and worship the fetus. We seek to shame any woman who does not consent to forced breeding. And so forth…
Abortion fans think only adult women should have choices (and their abusive husbands, boyfriends, pimps, etc.). Baby women have the choice between trash bin and incinerator.
Will you be paying (to kill your child) with cash or credit card today, dear?
It’s your choice.
So because there are a few STUPID people, we should have abortion? Brilliant! You are a thinker.
Like a broken record here I go again: Bernard Nathanson admitted in writing and verbally that statistics of how many women were killed in illegal abortions were MADE UP. Besides, no one likes to say this but: if you do something to yourself to kill your child, that’s what we call excercising your free will. If your boyfriend, husband, boss, or parents are going to kill YOU if you don’t self-abort, then YOU need to call the police!
Abortion fans have no problem with domestic abuse, as long as it trickles down to the pre-born.
Abortion rights people get really mad when pro-lifers protest clinics because it is uncomfortable to have people tell you the truth that you are murdering people, not because they are interrupting a “private event” as the person on Facebook stated. Why should pro-lifers get mad if pro-aborts protest them? Who cares? If I was one of the pro-lifers attending the event, I would just yawn when I saw the pro-aborts.
“Would you like your executed baby’s body placed in a paper or plastic red hazardous waste bag?”
At the risk of providing too much information, those who attend the proabort protest will look like they’re part of an ugly convention. Nose rings, angry & furrowed brows, pink & purple hair, grazing the courtyard for grass. Just sayin’………..those are the descriptors of those I typically see at proabort herdings.
My admiration for Joe Scheidler knows no bounds. He stood fearless and unbowed when NOW persecuted him, risking everything buy never faltering.
Wish I could be there to salute him. He is a hero.
And he won’t care about these nuts. Though knowing Joe he will try to convert them. The man has a huge heart.
I’m not anti-choice, I’m pro-life. I’m not against all choices. You want paper or plastic? Your choice! You want a blanket or a sheet or both on your bed–take your pick–you get to choose! You want chocolate or vanilla…doesn’t bother me which you choose. You want to go to community college or a university–whatever you want! Choose your career. Choose to have a big or small family. Choose to dye your hair/cut/shave/whatever to your hair. Choose to have a big house or a small one. To play the stock market or not. Even God lets you choose if you want to follow Him or not and I don’t mess with that Free Will.
What I’m against is the intentional death/slaughter of pre-born human beings (which is what abortion is). THAT is what I’m against.
Get it right. I’m not anti-choice, I’m anti-abortion. I’m pro-life.
Jill pointed out that Joe Scheidler essentially invented the tactics that pro-lifers use like picketing abortion mills and adopting abortionists for gentle, but long-term, conversations and interactions. So I have to think that abortion supporters picketing like this would be one of the greatest things ever. It kind of proves all your points at once when your strategies are deemed so universally successful that even your opponents start agreeing to use them.
Well, I’m embarrassed. When I scanned the first announcement of this tribute to Mr. Scheidler I assumed he’d passed away! I went back and saw that that was not the case. :)
And here I was thinking it would have been quite a scene if he did go out to the protesters! :)
Yep. I always put the shoe on the other foot. Would I mind if pro-choicers came to a crisis pregnancy center and prayed for the women entering there? Nope! Appreciate the prayers! Thanks! If they want to hold up signs detailing what goes on in there – great! Thanks for the free advertising! We have nothing to be ashamed of – adoption referrals, parenting classes, help with medical care.
I never do anything in front of an abortion mill that I would mind someone doing in front of a CPC.
“The ONLY correct choice to a proabort is abortion. Having ONE choice is no choice at all.”
“I think it is funny, and absurd, that they call thyemselves “Pro-choice” yet they protest the “choice” of allowing baby to live, to not be chopped to pieces, ripped apart, her bones broken, her limbs pulled apart from her torso, he head crushed, her body sliced up, her skull penetrated and contents extracted, her body burned with chemicals, etc.” – and all of your ‘pro-choice statements’ William.
“Pro-aborts typically don’t show up to events that require them to keep their clothes on for any length of time.”
“Will you be paying (to kill your child) with cash or credit card today, dear?”
“Abortion fans have no problem with domestic abuse, as long as it trickles down to the pre-born.”
“grazing the courtyard for grass” says the sheep.
Brilliant! Love it. Love it all.
Please go out and shout these slogans as often as you can and as loudly as you can. Show the world your true thinking and attitude and I’ll stand back and watch you devalue your own arguments and convince people that you are best avoided.
William didn’t use slogans…..he was stating facts. All the pro-aborts have are slogans and excuses.
Maybe you can update more Wikipedia entries with your vast and inscrutable knowledge.
*EYE ROLL*
If you sincerely believe that Williams rants were in the slightest bit factual then I feel sorry for you.
But as I said, please support him in shouting it loudly to as many people as possible.
The responses from people in the street would be vastly more amusing than any simple eyeroll.
“It kind of proves all your points at once when your strategies are deemed so universally successful that even your opponents start agreeing to use them.”
This guy invented picketing? That’s incredible!
@Reality, here is the reality of a 23-week abortion: http://catalog.nucleusinc.com/generateexhibit.php?ID=9663&ExhibitKeywordsRaw=&TL=&A=2
Abortion instruments: http://www.abortioninstruments.com/new_index.html#instruments
Gianna Jessen survived a saline abortion; however, you can easily look up some pretty ugly photos of what saline abortions would do to a baby’s body:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ
Partial-birth abortion:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/116/articles/pbirth.htm
Any questions?
I have nothing but contempt for Joe Scheidler.This despicable monster is an arrogant and intolerant fanatic who is so fanatic that he thinks he has the right to demand that no one be allowed to use contraceptives, because he believes that no one has the right to have sex for anything but procreation.
What an arrogant jerk ! Who does he think he is? What right does he have to demand to interfere in the sex lives of other people? How can he be so stupid to be both opposed to abortion and contraceptives , which have PREVENTED countless abortions? He is nothing but a criminal. He is NOT “Pro-Life”. He is anti-choice. He wants his own way, and if he and his loathsome cohorts get their way and are able to wheedle the U.S. government into making abortion and contraceptives illegal, it will be catastrophic for America. This scum must be stopped at all costs ! He claims tio be a Christian and a Catholic, be he is nothing but a self-righteous and power-hungry megalomaniac. who makes oa mockery of everything that Jesus Christ stood for.
Robert, I’m starting to think you are really a pro-lifer in disguise, because NO ONE could really be this stupid.
Wow! Berger walk away from the computer screen slowly, go get some help, see a mental health professional, seriously you need to stay away from this blog if you become so deranged and delusional. Jill I would report the “this scum must be stopped al all costs!” post to the appropriate authorities. I am praying for Joe, Jill and all prolifers protection. I will pray for Berger as well but I think his post sounds like a threat.
And Robert Berger is a paragon upholding everything that Jesus stood, lived, died and rose again for??? ROFLMAO! No doubt Scheidler, like all fallen human beings, has his flaws; but artificial birth control is flawed much more dangerously (to women and children; not that any proabort male I’ve ever encountered online or elsewhere cares about them as real persons) and should be stopped just on medical grounds, if not religious ones. And is Berger not a megalomania who would like his own dangerous and discredited agenda forced on everyone, to the point of silencing all opposition to it? Something about pots and kettles comes to mind on that point but I think it’s more just typical proabort projection. Narcissists do a lot of that, and proabort men tend to be extremely narcissistic.
Sorry if I offended any one here, but this post was not a threat,just an accurate description of Joe Scheidler. I would not personally want to do violence to him in any way,nor would I condone violence against him. But he IS a terrible person. I am in no way mentally ill, just appalled by anti-choice fanatics.
this scum must be stopped al all costs!
Definitely a threat.
I am glad you apologized for your post Robert, as angry and frustrated as I might be with pro-abortion proponents like yourself I would not make a statement saying you “must be stopped at all costs”. I have heard Joe and his wife Ann speak, and Joe is not a threat to anyone except to the abortion industry and it’s mission to mutilate, dismember and saline-solution poison unborn babies, (for a price, Cha-ching). The day PP and all the other abortionist don’t get paid to abort is the day we will see abortion numbers drop drastically because they will decide their mission for “reproductive choice” is not so important anymore because it will not be their “billion dollar baby”. May God help you Robert.
Oh, the pro-aborts took Joe’s comment down? What a surprise. I’m shocked. This is my shocked face. Look at how shocked I am.
Actually I found Joe’s comment under a post by Carol B. Hillman on Sunday at 9:30pm. No one seemed to even notice it.
And as of Wed 2:15 EST, they have 34 people scheduled to attend. Should be pretty funny. Especially if it rains.
Scheidler may seem like a very nice man to those who agree with his poision agenda, but what he advocates would cause nothing but catastrophe for America. An America where desperately por women routinely risked their lives and health with back-alley abortionists, where there was no help for poor pregnant women, and where more and more poor pregnant women would die or nearly die, and more and more poor children they had already given birth to would be left without mothers, and where more and more poor children would be the victims of neglect and physical and sexual abuse, and America would become an anti-abortion police state where abortion was still rampant.
Abortion would not be “safe, legal and rare,” but unsafe, illegal and common. That is why Scheidler and his cohorts must be opposed by all right-minded Americans.
An America where desperately por women routinely risked their lives and health with back-alley abortionists, where there was no help for poor pregnant women, and where more and more poor pregnant women would die or nearly die, and more and more poor children they had already given birth to would be left without mothers, and where more and more poor children would be the victims of neglect and physical and sexual abuse, and America would become an anti-abortion police state where abortion was still rampant.
Abortion would not be “safe, legal and rare,” but unsafe, illegal and common. That is why Scheidler and his cohorts must be opposed by all right-minded Americans.
I’ve got news for ya, Robert: abortion IS common. It is in no way “rare.” And the same abortionists who worked in the back alley just set up shop legally to do abortions. You’re aware that the stats about abortion deaths before Roe were greatly exaggerated, right? The source recanted. That source was Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of NARAL. If you won’t believe the guy who founded NARAL and did countless abortions, well… I don’t really know what to say to you.
Are you upset by the fact that women die from legal abortion today? Are you aware that better maternity care (not abortion) is truly the way to decrease the maternal mortality rate?
Robert, I highly doubt that you’ve ever even met an impoverished single mother. The real “poison” is the taking of innocent lives under the guise of “helping the poor.”
Now what would the day be like without a Berger Rant? I’ll have mine with fries.
As for Scheidler — I disagree with his anti-contraceptive stance and I find his tactics a bit heavy-handed at times, but I wouldn’t describe him as a “monster.”
I am all for choice, but choice happens before action, not after it. So called ‘reproductive choice’ is the only act where the ‘choice’ comes after the act. Your real ‘reproductive choice’ is where, when, and how to have sex, which is the formative act of reproduction. There are many ways one can engage in sexual acts while lowering (by varying rates) your likelihood of becoming pregnant, you can also choose to abstain, that choice is up to each individual man and woman and there are many choices availible in the US (and pretty much anywhere) Once you are pregnant YOU HAVE REPRODUCED you have produced an offspring. And don’t wave the rape flag like it’s actually relavent to the abortion debate (it’s relavent in many things and is utterly deplorable, but has nothing to do with abortion), less than 3% of abortions have to do with rape or incest and raped women keep unintended pregnancies at a slightly higher rate than other women. Once you have reproduced you have a bunch of PARENTING CHOICES, which, unfortunately, currently includes the choice to kill your offspring for the first 9 months of it’s existance. As shown by their dislike of CPC pro-aborts show they aren’t for parenting choices, if you find yourself in a parenting situation that is less than ideal (in their mind’s eye) the only choice they are interested in is abortion. While pro-lifes want to give women lots of choices, including raising the child with or without help, adoption (open or closed), and even learning different parenting styles! (Since a lot of cpc seem to have parenting classes). Boy, sure seems like the pro-life people are the ones who really support choices!
“Boy, sure seems like the pro-life people are the ones who really support choices!” – logic fail! Pro-choicers support all the choices that you do, plus one more.
Your whole approach to sex is antiquated and myopic, possibly generated by some sort of base fanatisism. Do you live without electricity or running water?
Humans have sought to prevent or terminate pregnancies from the moment they realised what caused pregnancy. That’s what separates us from the rest of the animals.
Yes I have questions Dyanne Roper. Got any links to other surgical procedures such as a heart-lung transplant? How about of a 6week abortion? Perhaps you have some of other surgical equipment? Those used in amputating a limb for instance? The point is that many surgical procedures are not fun to watch. The rest is choice. I’d still be happy for William to yell it all in the street so I can watch people cross the road to avoid him.
‘Reality’, apparently you believe there is something “antiquated” about linking pregnancy with sex. I guess I was just wrong when I thought it was how the human function of sex worked and that this function is no different than how it worked even thousands of years ago. My bad. I guess I must now go back to my steam powered laptop and go down to collect some water at the river with my bucket so I can boil a pot for my cup of tea over a log fire…
And the point about other surgeries is a red herring. Generally, other surgeries are performed to correct medical problems, not destroy a human life 100%. And sure, some may not like to view surgeries, but the reaction will not be the same because deep down the knowledge that this really is a human life that has been ended in the most disgusting of ways. You won’t get the ‘hatred of the messenger’ reaction if you show someone a heart operation, they’ll just look away. The comparison is invalid in at least 2 ways. So, “logic-fail” right back at you.
And you actually rate the ability to kill your children in-utero as something good about the human race? Wow. Such disconnect from… well, reality, ironically.
Pro-lifers actually do support choices – valid choices. Abortion is not a valid choice any more than murder, rape, fraud or robbery should be.
@ Reality:
As I noted, the pro-abortion loby has repeatedly and vigorously proven that they DON’T support those other choices, they ONLY support abortion. If they did support other choices they wouldn’t be trying to muzzel every voice that offers another choice. People who actually supported those other choices would support Crisis Pregnancy Centers, adoption referals, couseling, and informed consent laws. You (plural generic ‘you’) can not simultaneously say you are for those choices and do everything possible to make sure those choices aren’t availible. Pro-abort advocates do their level best to make sure abortion is the only thing a woman hears about when she’s concerned over a pregnancy, that’s not choice, that’s at best brow beating and at worst manipulation. And how in the world does saying everyone has a choice as to how, where, and when to engage in sexual intercourse an ‘antiquated and myopic’ statement? I have no problem with preventing pregnancy, I have a problem with ‘terminating’ an offspring once it has been conceived. And no, the want and/or ability to avoid/destroy offspring DOESN’T separate us from animals, there are any number of animals who intentially do not get pregnant if the situation isn’t right, they do this by not breeding, there are a few animals that are even capable of putting a pregnancy ‘on hold’, even for years, until the time is optimal for birth. And there are plenty of animals who kill their newborn and even a few who kill what would medically be termed a fetus, if the situation is less than ideal. But animals also have a tendency to kill deformed or disabled offspring, and new potential ‘fathers’ tend to kill existing offspring. humans are different from animals because we can tell right from wrong and can therefore make the moral decision that killing a member of our species because the timing isn’t perfect or because they aren’t an ideal member is wrong. On a personal note, obviously since I’m posting this online I don’t live without electricity, nor do I live without running water. I could live rather pleasantly without the first, having grown up in the country where winter power outages were common, but I strongly prefer running water, again, because I grew up in the country where summer water outages were also common!
Nice try at inverted sarcasm Mark. Where did I say there wasn’t a link between pregnancy and sex? Indeed I described how as soon as mankind discovered the link ways of prevention and termination were sought.
My reference to antiquated was made in response to the attitude which seeks to deny people access to contraception and abortion by dictating that all sexual activity must be open to and accepting of conception.
You might get ‘hatred of the messenger’ if you waved huge photos of bloody surgical procedures and shouted about how evil surgical intervention is and that it’s against god’s word. How about holding a prayer vigil outside McDonalds on a sunday, I mean you must know what the bible says.
“Such disconnect from… well, reality, ironically.” – maybe its time you faced reality, people gave, do and will have abortions.
“Pro-lifers actually do support choices – valid choices.” – no, they support their choices.
“Abortion is not a valid choice any more than murder, rape, fraud or robbery should be.” – booooring! Abortion is not a crime, the others are. Abortion is valid.
“Pro-abort advocates do their level best to make sure abortion is the only thing a woman hears about when she’s concerned over a pregnancy” – rubbish, thats just your propaganda dream.
“And how in the world does saying everyone has a choice as to how, where, and when to engage in sexual intercourse an ‘antiquated and myopic’ statement?” – I was referring to your obvious attitude as to what choice people should make.
Reality, I know you are really pro life and anti choice – which is a good thing. You just don’t know it yet.
@ Reality: you have no direct knowledge of what choices I think people should/shouldn’t make when it comes to where, when, and how to have sex, so I suppose I’ll give you some. I am a Biblical Christian, which means I won’t choose to have sex outside of marriage. I’m also disabled and on medication that is contra-indicated for pregnancy, so my husband and I choose to engage in ‘low risk’ for conception sex. I am also a libertarian leaning conservative, which means I fully support your legal right to have any form of sex you want as long as the other party is willing. But because I am a libertarian leaning conservative I believe you should be held accountable for the act you choose to participate in. For instance, if an unmarried woman has sex during her fertile period without protection for 1 year she has a 85% chance of pregnancy, if she uses a spermacide with an other-than-condom barrier method she has about a 6-20% (depending upon usage and whose data you believe), if she uses spermacide and a condom she has a 2-20% chance of getting pregnant, if she has sex during a non-fertile period (which would require some form of fertility awareness method, or sex only during her period) she has a 0-2% chance of getting pregnant (assuming of course that she is within her non fertile zone)…now, feel free to use any/all/other choice there, but all forms of vaginal intercourse carry some risk of conception. You’re notion that it’s antiquated to equate sex with a risk of conception is biologically foolish, even the abortion industry uses the term ‘product on conception’! Sex=chance of conception. If you don’t know that, then I expect you are willingly ignorant of the fact. I suppose, to be fair I could have clarified ‘sex’ as ‘vaginal/penile’ sex, but I figured since we were talking about abortion that was understood. There are, of course, some sexual acts that carry absolutely no risk of pregnancy, and you are legally free to practice them as well. What I don’t feel you should legally be free to do is skirt the consequences of your choice by destroying your own offspring.
What are you on mar? Is it legal? Was it good?
“you have no direct knowledge of what choices I think people should/shouldn’t make” – but I was right.
“feel free to use any/all/other choice there, but all forms of vaginal intercourse carry some risk of conception.” – thus we have contraception and abortion.
“You’re notion that it’s antiquated to equate sex with a risk of conception is biologically foolish” – I didn’t say that. I was talking about yours and Mark R’s attitude to sex.
“What I don’t feel you should legally be free to do is skirt the consequences of your choice by destroying your own offspring.” – there are less consequences than continuing with an unwanted pregnancy.
“My reference to antiquated was made in response to the attitude which seeks to deny people access to contraception and abortion by dictating that all sexual activity must be open to and accepting of conception”
And my answer is that it isn’t antiquated, it’s just accepting biological fact of how the human body is wired. This isn’t about my attitude, it’s about facts. I’m sorry you have a problem with them.
The rest of your post is just twisted nonsense. Was slavery wrong when it was legal? My argument on the wrongness of murder, rape, fraud and robbery is based on morality, not on legality. Sorry if that invalidates your point. Otherwise you would logically be placed in the position of holding that abortion was wrong the day before Roe v Wade, and right the day after. Or that rape could be right if there were laws allowing it. Do you ever think for 5 seconds about what the absurdity is that you are saying? The whole point of the pro-life cause is that abortion should be illegal. Whether it still happens is irrelevant (it will happen a whole lot less though) – otherwise just one case of murder, rape, fraud or robbery should require you to argue to make it legal since people:
will still murder
will still rape
will still commit fraud
will still commit robbery
logic: fail.
Yep. Reality, you are in denial. You are evolving, that’s why you are here, you think you are here to argue and rebut, but you just don’t know it as of yet. You will, maybe not today, or the next, but one day you will.
“accepting biological fact of how the human body is wired.” – well its also hard-wired for all sorts of genetic and non-viral ailments and failures. Thus our constant striving for more and better medical interventions. You know, like preventative medications, curative medications and surgical remedies. That would include contraception and abortion. Unless you’re a believer in non-interventionist medicine?
Was denying women the vote wrong when it was legal? Not getting equal pay?
“My argument on the wrongness of murder, rape, fraud and robbery is based on morality, not on legality. Sorry if that invalidates your point.” – hardly, it’s just that abortion isn’t immoral so your comparison is fraudulent.
“Otherwise you would logically be placed in the position of holding that abortion was wrong the day before Roe v Wade, and right the day after.” – how do you figure that? Abortion wasn’t ‘wrong’ in the sense that you mean just because it wasn’t legal. That’s why it was made legal. Just like the prohibition laws were repealed.
“The whole point of the pro-life cause is that abortion should be illegal.” – yes, I know and that’s ‘misguided’.
“Whether it still happens is irrelevant (it will happen a whole lot less though)” – it’ll happen a little less. It will be forced underground. More women will die. Those who can afford it will cross borders. Crime will increase. Welfare needs will increase. Child abuse will increase. Society will be worse off.
“otherwise just one case of murder, rape, fraud or robbery should require you to argue to make it legal since people:
will still murder
will still rape
will still commit fraud
will still commit robbery” – not at all, I’ve already told you, you’re comparing apples with spacedust. Inapplicable comparison.
Careful you don’t oversdose on whatever it is you’re on mar.
Sorry, reality, but when you can’t see the obvious logically fallacies in your arguments, (and go off on wild tangents, not to mention circular reasoning eg. abortion isn’t immoral because it is legal because it wasn’t immoral, and engage in absurd fearmongering about what will happen to women) it’s time to call it a day. This is how it goes:
Act is immoral
Government therefore makes it illegal.
Act still happens.
So why should rape be illegal and abortion be legal?
You can’t even see that you follow a different chain of thinking with abortion compared to the others. The problem with logic is yours. Cheers.
Abortion is moral.
Government therefore makes it legal.
Act still happens.
Because rape is immoral and abortion isn’t.
What’s so logically fallacious about that?
Here’s your ‘wild tangents, not to mention circular reasoning’ – “abortion is immoral because I say so, and it should be illegal beause I say so, because it’s immoral because I say so”
Meanwhile, what I have said is that it is legal because it is moral. Now that is logical.
“engage in absurd fearmongering about what will happen to women’ – far from absurd I assure you.
“You can’t even see that you follow a different chain of thinking with abortion compared to the others” – what does that even mean?
“The problem with logic is yours.” – yet you’re the one apparently struggling with it. Your assumptions and opinions do not dictate logic. Ciao.
Abortion is so wonderful, it has turned the world into a paradise. It solves any and all problems, including but not limited to: poverty, domestic abuse, acne, baldness, and the heartbreak of psoriasis. Buy one now, before it’s too late!
Ah, you’re displaying your usual exaggeration, extrapolation, misappropriation and downright misrepresentation that substitutes for argument I see ninek.
Abortion makes a contribution to reducing poverty, domestic abuse and other social issues. I really don’t think it cures acne. Whereas you seem to think that removing abortion would make the world a paradise!
If you really think abortion can assist with acne, balness and psoriasis why aren’t you promoting it?
No, abortion is immoral because it kills a human life – something which doesn’t change regardless of bad laws, but you originally wrote:
“Abortion is not a crime, the others are.”
Therefore you are claiming it is valid moral choice unlike rape or robbery because it is not illegal.
Then you write:
“Abortion wasn’t ‘wrong’ in the sense that you mean just because it wasn’t legal. That’s why it was made legal.”
Which is you claiming it was made legal because it was a valid moral choice.
That’s classic circular reasoning. You want it both ways. Fail. Understand now?
But my basis for opposing abortion is based on biological fact. You avoid discussing the real issue, which is the basis for the morality. Murder is wrong, not because it is illegal, but because it takes a human life unjustly. The law just reflects the morality, even though people still commit murder. Same as rape is wrong, not because it is illegal, but because it violates a woman sexually. And so on. But you think I ought to be impressed by the legal status of abortion. Either that, or just making the assertion ‘abortion is moral’, ignoring everything that is known in the 21st century about the development of the fetus.
The reason abortion is legal is because evil and/or misguided people in positions of authority made very bad decisions that ignore biological facts about human life. That needs to be reversed as the damage of abortion to society – 50 million dead in the US alone since Roe v Wade – is on such a scale I find your claims of increased crime, welfare needs and child abuse ludicrous. 50 million dead = 50 million acts of evil which the law should prosecute the perpetrators of, 50 million potential wealth earners not living and 50 million ultimate examples of child abuse. Let alone the damage to women. Society is worse off now due to abortion. You have it completely backwards.
Let me help you Mark R. Let’s look a the whole piece that I wrote.
<“Abortion is not a valid choice any more than murder, rape, fraud or robbery should be.” – booooring! Abortion is not a crime, the others are. Abortion is valid.> (as in a valid choice)
So no, I am not claiming abortion “is valid moral choice unlike rape or robbery because it is not illegal.” I’m saying it is legal because it is moral.
“Abortion wasn’t ‘wrong’ in the sense that you mean just because it wasn’t legal. That’s why it was made legal.”
“Which is you claiming it was made legal because it was a valid moral choice.” – absolutely.
It’s not ‘both ways’, nor is it ‘circular’. Can you see that now?
“But you think I ought to be impressed by the legal status of abortion.” – no more than I’m ‘impressed’ by the legal status of churches and their tax liabilities. If you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one.
Since when is ‘moral’ a black and white definitive. Morals change over time and throughout cultures.
Yeah yeah, then the usual barrage of misleading propaganda.
Sorry, ‘Reality’, but your attempt to backtrack only undermines your original answer to me.
My argument was that valid choices are supported by pro-lifers. Abortion is as invalid as murder or rape, etc.
You answered by claiming that my comparison to murder, rape, etc. was invalid due to abortion being legal, and the others were not.
The problem is that your argument would be undermined if murder or rape was made legal – do you see? At that point – according to the logic you answered me with – all that needs to happen is that the laws change on rape and I could no longer claim rape was an invalid choice because the law say it is a valid choice. Therefore you were no longer arguing that morality precedes laws, but the reverse. To use that argument, one is saying, it’s legal, it’s OK. If you were actually claiming that abortion was moral and murder was immoral (as you now are trying to say), and laws derive from that morality, you would never have brought up their legal status. You would’ve pointed to their fundamental ‘morality’ first. (See my justifications against murder and rape above. Note my phrase – ‘not because it is illegal’.)
The pro-life position, on the other hand, operates on a consistent platform of biological facts – which incidentally, is not really the main reason I share that view – but I only use this position in this exchange since I have a fair idea you would be antagonistic to God – and laws have no bearing one way or another. It’s not exactly a new concept to have bad laws is it? Now if abortion was illegal, and was threatened with being changed, I would never point to its current legal status as sufficient justification, but that the law reflected a higher authority – morality - which I would point to first based on those facts. The fact you wrote what you did speaks volumes. You were effectively saying ‘I think abortion shouldn’t be illegal because it is legal.’ Well, duh – that’s very clever, isn’t it? (I don’t think you even know what you’re saying, but if it lets you kill the unborn as a price to be paid for ‘no-consequence’ sex, you’re all for it.)
Do try and keep up. I know that’s hard to do when your brain is addled with the pretzel ‘logic’ of the pro-abort crowd, but make an effort at least.
As for “misleading propaganda”, all that fearmongering stuff about women dying and the rest was started in this thread by you. Bernard Nathanson, RIP, lifted the lid on that exaggeration decades ago. Are you claiming you would know the truth better than he did? I kinda doubt that.
“Sorry, ‘Reality’, but your attempt to backtrack only undermines your original answer to me.” – nice try but it doesn’t cover your failure to comprehend what was written. Abortion was made legal because it is moral. It is moral but isn’t deemed so by the fact that it’s legal. That’s what I said.
“My argument was that valid choices are supported by pro-lifers. Abortion is as invalid as murder or rape, etc.” – no, you think valid choices are made by anti-choicers. Abortion is as valid as the female vote and equal pay. You keep confusing abortion with immoral crimes.
“You answered by claiming that my comparison to murder, rape, etc. was invalid due to abortion being legal, and the others were not.” – yes, as well as it being moral, remember.
“The problem is that your argument…I could no longer claim rape was an invalid choice because the law say it is a valid choice…To use that argument, one is saying, it’s legal, it’s OK…my justifications against murder and rape above. Note my phrase – ‘not because it is illegal’.)” – you’ve got this all wrong. I have repeatedly said that comparisons with rape, murder etc are invalid because abortion is both moral and legal.
Then you serve up yet another barrage of misleading propaganda!!!
Try to keep focussed will you. Take your blinkers off. Remove that delusion induced fog from your eyes. You keep trying to link abortion to immoral acts when it isn’t an immoral act. Those acts have been made illegal because they are immoral while abortion has been made legal because it’s not immoral. It’s really that simple.
Since when was Bernard Nathanson a sociologist, demographer or anthropologist? Besides which, he didn’t ‘lift the lid’ on the points I raised.
Reality: “The point is that many surgical procedures are not fun to watch. The rest is choice.”
Why is it, “Reality,” that heart surgeons generally don’t protest when someone shows an image of a heart surgery? No one would call it a “dirty trick” if someone held up a sign with a photo of a stent being put in. Yet some pro-choice people complain when a person displays a picture of an abortion. Hmmm.
Every pro-life argument can be traced back to the biological fact that a human fetus is a human being. Morality sets in when one believes, then, that it is wrong to destroy a human being willingly. No “propaganda” is required for that; our conversation can proceed from there.
Reading on… “Mad? Feel like we have no right to intrude upon a private event? Bet the women you harass at clinics feel the same…”
Where to even start. Abortion is a savage act of violence which intrudes, fatally, upon a private, sacred event: the creation of new life. Unfortunately, this heinous wrong was deemed a “right” by a group of seven very powerful MEN in black robes in 1973. Men who had had plenty of evidence presented to them of the wrongfulness of it, scientifically, morally, socially…yet still chose to impose this lethal violence upon millions of innocent unborn human beings, and it’s indescrible, needless trauma, danger, and pain upon millions of women in crisis.
Is it any wonder that anyone buying into this so-called “right” would have the slightest qualm about crashing any other private event? Of course not; and if one dared to challenge that on grounds of common decency, all one would get is the rage of offended narcissistic entitlement.
As to the feelings of abortion-bound women (read, “quarry”, as in cha-ching) addressed outside of deathchambers/chopshops/hellholes by prolifers, many of them feel desperate, frightened; and many of them feel relieved to have someone out there offering help, and a way out of an unnatural, violent, degrading assault on her womanhood and her child. One might also well ask how a woman feels during the procedure; why so many of them scream, why so many mills turn music up in their waiting rooms so those screams won’t be heard, how it feels to have an abortionist tell you, before killing your child but just after you have told him/her that you don’t want to go through with this, that it’s too late when it isn’t (laminaria can be safely removed by a competent physician and the pregnancy can safely proceed to the legitimate form of pregnancy termination: the birth of the child)…and how it feels to have the abortionist dangle the bloody pieces of your child in your face after the child has been torn or sucked limb from limb. How does it feel to have the so-called “doctor” exploiting you sexually – verbally, physically, or both - and mocking your vulnerability? All these things have happened, many times, to many women, during “safe, legal” child-killings. At the “best clinics” – National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood, all of them have played host to such noble events and will continue to do so as long as they think they can get away with it.
And then, how does it feel when the ordeal is over? Your womb is shredded, your natural maternal instincts violated, and your little boy or little girl is also shredded, dead, and flushed down a garbage disposal, or placed unceremoniously in a medical waste bag or bucket. Depending on the circumstances, there is usually an initial feeling of relief that the “problem” has been “taken care of”; but this dissipates over time and then you have the existential guilt and grief of having killed your own innocent baby to deal with…or, worse, avoid dealing with. How does it feel to die in a hospital or at home hours, days, after the abortion, from septicemia, hemorrhage, infection, or any other of a number of medically recognized physical complications of induced child-murder in utero? How does it feel to require a catheter, colostomy bag, wheelchair, etc. for the rest of your life because your bowel or bladder got damaged, or something went wrong with the anesthesia (if you’re lucky enough to get an effective dose of that…most don’t, since the most anesthetized things inside an abortion mill are the consciences of the staff), etc.
How do you suppose women feel about “reproductive choice” who have had to have emergency hysterectomies to save their lives from abortion complications, or who discover down the road that due to damages to their reproductive systems from the murder of a previous child, they can no longer bear WANTED children? (This is especially rough on those who sustained such damages killing the first child they conceived). Or, you rejoice that you do get pregnant later on, but it turns out to be ectopic due to scar tissue or other damage blocking the normal route, so – if you are lucky enough to catch it in time – you have to have that baby killed in order to save your own life. (Not intentionally, mind you; it’s just that it’s impossible to save the life of your offspring while he/she is still too small to rupture your tube).
But I digress; how does it feel, on top of all these other possibilities (and all of these horrors have happened to real women, in “safe, legal” “reproductive health/family planning clinics” due to “safe, legal abortion” since 1973, in America, and will continue to as long as children are killed in utero; it doesn’t matter whether it’s done legally or illegally; the main difference there is simply that if it’s done illegally, it won’t be done nearly as much as it is legally) to be dropped off at the killing site by the father of your child, who has told you you can have the baby or a continued relationship with him, but not both…never to see or hear from him again?
Then there are those other feelings…so little time and space…the feelings you get seeing your friends celebrate their baby bumps, their baby showers, and, of course, the arrival of their children… or even seeing complete strangers pushing prams on the sidewalks or in the mall. Then there are the anniveraries. The abortion was two, five, ten, twelve, sixteen, twenty…years ago; who did you abort? Did (s)he look like me? Did (s)he have blue, brown, hazel, green, or grey eyes? Black, brown, blonde, or red hair? Vivacious, gregarious, quiet, studious, reserved, athletic, bright, artistic, musical…the list goes on and on; who knows? WHO CARES?
Lots of people, including real men…like Joe Scheidler.
Fantasy, Way to not recognize sarcasm when you see it! Lol!! You are so bereft, you spend endless hours posting on a pro-life website. Are you a retired abortionist in disguise?
“Abortion makes a contribution to reducing poverty, domestic abuse and other social issues.”
Prove it.
The numbers of women who died from illegal abortions were NOT exaggerated at all. In fact,it was just the opposite. Far more women died this way before Roe v Wade than is commonly realized. The numbers were kept hushed up ! We don’t know exactly how many women died before Roe v Wade, but it was much,much higher than anti-choicers are willing to admit.
And I guarantee you, if the U.S. government ever makes abortion illegal again, the number of women who die from illegal abortions will skyrocket. Only a tiny handful of women have died from legal abortions since 1973 compared to all those who underwent this tragic but unavoidable procedure.
If the U.S. government did the right thing and offered a lot more help to poor pregnant women ,I guarantee you there would be far fewer abortions in America.But it doesn’t and hasn’t. Pro-choicers don[‘t want abortions to happen, they are just resigned to the fact that abortion is inevitable. You cannot stop it by making it illegal. This does not work.It never has,and never will. And don’t compare this to murder or rape,etc,because abortion is not done for the same reasons as these criminal acts. It’s not murder,it’s a tragedy. But it is often a far worse tragedy for children to be born than to be aborted.
Ironically, if a right-winger such as Huckabee, Palin, DeMint or Bachmann is elected President next year, he or she will cause an INCREASE in the number of abortions because of elimination of funds to help poor women,and the poor in general. You anti-choicers don’t realize how counterproductive this will be. These people pay lip service to the anti-choice cause, but if elected they will only increase abortion. unwittingly. How pathetic !
The numbers of women who died from illegal abortions were NOT exaggerated at all. In fact,it was just the opposite. Far more women died this way before Roe v Wade than is commonly realized. The numbers were kept hushed up ! We don’t know exactly how many women died before Roe v Wade, but it was much,much higher than anti-choicers are willing to admit.
Robert, sorry, but the person who invented those statistics recanted. Save your propaganda for people who don’t know any better, like yourself.
And I guarantee you, if the U.S. government ever makes abortion illegal again, the number of women who die from illegal abortions will skyrocket.
Nope. This has been shown to be false the world over, statistically.
this tragic but unavoidable procedure.
What’s so tragic about it, Robert? Please, do explain.
“Unavoidable?” As in, “Oops, I tripped on a rock and I couldn’t avoid falling into the stirrups where I had an abortion”? It isn’t “unavoidable.” Clearly you don’t think before you write. If a woman does not choose abortion, she will have a normal pregnancy. Abortion is QUITE unavoidable. I avoided 3 myself.
If the U.S. government did the right thing and offered a lot more help to poor pregnant women, I guarantee you there would be far fewer abortions in America.But it doesn’t and hasn’t.
But Robert, I thought your solution to poverty WAS abortion. Now you’re saying it’s not?? How interesting.
Pro-choicers don[‘t want abortions to happen, they are just resigned to the fact that abortion is inevitable. You cannot stop it by making it illegal. This does not work.It never has,and never will. And don’t compare this to murder or rape,etc,because abortion is not done for the same reasons as these criminal acts.
Why not, Robert? Can you give me concrete, solid reasoning as to why abortion is different? If a woman knows her unborn child is alive and chooses to abort it anyway, is that not the same as premeditated murder? If not, please explain why not.
It’s not murder,it’s a tragedy. But it is often a far worse tragedy for children to be born than to be aborted.
So, killing kids is a tragedy (though you don’t explain why). But letting some kids be born is a greater tragedy (because God forbid, they might have to grow up poor). You know, you should really write some Communist propaganda or something. You’d be good at it. Your statements are totally unprovable and yet when we call you on them, you just keep repeating and repeating and repeating them, like a broken record, even when you’ve been shown to be wrong and riddled with eugenic, Nazi-esque views.
Ironically, if a right-winger such as Huckabee, Palin, DeMint or Bachmann is elected President next year, he or she will cause an INCREASE in the number of abortions because of elimination of funds to help poor women,and the poor in general. You anti-choicers don’t realize how counterproductive this will be. These people pay lip service to the anti-choice cause, but if elected they will only increase abortion. unwittingly. How pathetic !
Why do you care, Robert? If abortion is unavoidable anyway, what does it matter? You believe that by killing the poor, we help the poor. Therefore, you should vote for policies like you think those you mentioned would enact, right?
Tell me, Robert: do you support crisis pregnancy centers? Maternity homes? Homeless shelters? Or do you refuse to help “pro-life” organizations founded by religious organizations because you don’t like that they’re “pro-life” and “religious?”
“Unavoidable?” As in, “Oops, I tripped on a rock and I couldn’t avoid falling into the stirrups where I had an abortion”?
Ohmystars!! Still laughing.
“Why is it, “Reality,” that heart surgeons generally don’t protest when someone shows an image of a heart surgery?” – because bmmg39, any photos shown of heart surgery aren’t generally ‘doctored’.
Nice dose of histrionics there jtm!
But it is often a far worse tragedy for children to be born than to be aborted.
What children exactly have a life that is not worth living? Be specific please.
Fantasy Burgers:
Bernard Nathanson wrote two excellent books on the subject: Aborting America and The Hand of God. He was an abortionist himself that saw a lucrative business in performing abortions. Since he was one of NARAL’s founding members and an early leader in the abortion industry, you can hardly call him biased. Though he became pro-life later, he did not white-wash his involvement in the abortion industry. He admitted often that the statistics of how many women died from illegal abortion were an outright made up lie.
Your point being ninek?
Abortion makes a contribution to reducing poverty, domestic abuse and other social issues.
So we “solve” our social problems by killing? We eradicate poverty by killing the poor?
This statement really sends a chill down my spine.
phillymiss,
That is a typo in that sentence I am sure. The author accidently added the word “reducing”. It should be deleted.
bmmg39: “Why is it, ‘Reality,’ that heart surgeons generally don’t protest when someone shows an image of a heart surgery?”
“Reality”: “– because bmmg39, any photos shown of heart surgery aren’t generally ‘doctored’.”
And neither are the photos of victims of abortion. So let’s go for Round Two…
…and Actual Reality called; it would like its —— name back.
Some abortion placards are ‘created’ bmmg39. There’s also the fact that there isn’t a group of anti-medical intervention people out there running a propaganda campaign.
Actual Reality? Is that the one which recognizes that women always have, do and will terminate if circumstances dictate it to be the best course of action? No matter what the anti-choicers bleat.
In your your twisted world, ‘reality’, killing = “best course of action”. That’s sick and evil, simple as that. How would you like that if that ethos was applied to you? But you wouldn’t would you? And that is what marks the pro-aborts – they love to bring death to others, even when they would squeal if the belief system was applied to them. No logic, exemplified by your arguments above:
you claimed
– abortion is moral because it was legal
then
– abortion is legal because it was moral
which is circular reasoning
so then,
Tah Dah!
– It’s both at the same time!
So your position is not only illogical, it can be easily summed up like this – ‘Abortion is always right, because I said so. Nyah!’
But abortion is most accurately described the unjust killing of an individual human being early in its life, no matter how much you try to obfuscate, no matter how much you can’t face up to obvious facts.
to “Reality” No, just a dose of actual reality. Didn’t think you’d find it palatable..but it wasn’t directed particularly for you, but of course you will put in your oar. Apparently you didn’t find it refutable, either, so you fell back on the old tactic of the haughty, snarky, disingenous personal attack…can’t deal with message, attack message. default proabort mode. Hardly a surprise there…and no reality.
And, it’s not as though your posts are so remarkable for their want of drama that you’ve much room to jibe at anyone else’s, real or imagined by you. slainte.
P.S. reality, et al; For the record, photos of aborted babies aren’t doctored, either…at least, not the ones used by prolifers. Yet another cheap, baseless shot at messengers whose messages conflict with the lies promoted by “Reality” and ilk. Get a life that at least faces reality instead of denying, belittling, and mocking it. Or change your moniker.
Been taking lessons from ninek have we Mark?
I claimed abortion is legal because it is moral. You are the one who keeps trying to turn what I said back on itself.
“So your position is not only illogical, it can be easily summed up like this – ‘Abortion is always right, because I said so. Nyah!’ ” – what’s not logical about ‘it’s legal because it’s moral?
The obvious fact that you can’t face up to is that women have always had abortions and always will. Because it’s not immoral. And abortion was made legal because it is not immoral. Just like non-marital sex.
“it wasn’t directed particularly for you” – really?
<And neither are the photos of victims of abortion. So let’s go for Round Two…
…and Actual Reality called; it would like its —— name back.>
“so you fell back on the old tactic of the haughty, snarky, disingenous personal attack…can’t deal with message, attack message.” – what, like “…and Actual Reality called; it would like its —— name back.” compared to “Actual Reality? Is that the one which recognizes that women always have, do and will terminate if circumstances dictate it to be the best course of action? No matter what the anti-choicers bleat.” which was a dose of reality, not snark? Schluck and schnitter.
All I did, ‘reality’ is shine a light on your dark reasoning. I have now pointed to you saying 3 different things regarding your justification for abortion to show you how bad your thinking is. Don’t think you can get out of it by claiming I have done that unfairly – I haven’t. It’s just that you literally can’t think straight about abortion and you’re trying to squirm out of the corner you’ve backed yourself into. Let me demonstrate again using a slight rewording of your own words when applied to other acts.
The obvious fact that you can’t face up to is that people will always murder and always will. Because it’s not immoral.
The obvious fact that you can’t face up to is that people will always rape and always will. Because it’s not immoral.
The obvious fact that you can’t face up to is that people will always commit fraud and always will. Because it’s not immoral.
The obvious fact that you can’t face up to is that people will always rob others and always will. Because it’s not immoral.
etc., etc.
Why is it that you write such worthless tripe and think it impressive? Whether or not people do certain things (which clearly I do acknowledge but you lie and write that I don’t) does not automatically mean it is moral. When are you going to wake up?
You still ignore that most obvious issue that abortion ends an individual human life early in development. The fact you skirt around this really is evidence enough.
“Re” writes: “Actual Reality? Is that the one which recognizes that women always have, do and will terminate if circumstances dictate it to be the best course of action?”
It’s already been pointed out to you here how the “it’ll happen anyway” argument fails, and your non-response didn’t help much.
The REALITY of the situation is that a human being’s life ends with every abortion. Oddly enough, I don’t need to pick up a religious text to glean that.
“Let me demonstrate again using a slight rewording of your own words when applied to other acts.
The obvious fact that you can’t face up to is that people will always murder and always will. Because it’s not immoral.
The obvious fact that you can’t face up to is that people will always rape and always will. Because it’s not immoral.
The obvious fact that you can’t face up to is that people will always commit fraud and always will. Because it’s not immoral.
The obvious fact that you can’t face up to is that people will always rob others and always will. Because it’s not immoral.”
Do you seriously believe that ‘rewording’ my words builds you a case ?!?
Abortion is not immoral, the other factors you cite are. It’s that simple. Your constant attempts to align abortion with rape, murder etc is weak, trying to ‘reword’ me into saying so is pathetic. Talk about worthless tripe!
“You still ignore that most obvious issue that abortion ends an individual human life early in development. The fact you skirt around this really is evidence enough” – and untrue. I have said more than once that the fetus is scientifically a human, with it’s own DNA. Still doesn’t make it wrong or immoral in the eyes or particularly, the actions, of so many.
I have said more than once that the fetus is scientifically a human, with it’s own DNA. Still doesn’t make it wrong or immoral in the eyes or particularly, the actions, of so many.
If one day abortion goes the way of slavery in this country, your stance on abortion would not be likely to change, so “popular opinion” isn’t really a good defense, would you say? Would you have been in support of slavery 150 years ago, since it was very common and not “wrong or immoral in the eyes or particularly, the actions, of so many?”
“If one day abortion goes the way of slavery in this country” – it already has. Slavery was changed into freedom, on both topics.
Would you have been in support of women not being permitted to vote or partake in politics 100 years ago?
Would you have been in support of women not receiving the same pay for the same work 30 years ago?
Would you have been in support of anti-miscegenation 50 years ago?
Why are you in support of denying women the right to control their own fertility?
‘Reality’, this is getting tedious, does it not bother you that you seem incapable of following an argument? My point is that you think I do not acknowledge that ‘abortion happens anyway’. But clearly I do acknowledge it. But you think it relevant to the morality of the act the fact that some people will commit it – all I have done is applied your logic to other acts and one can see you are wrong. You are arguing that murder would still happen even if you made it illegal. Well, duh.
As for skirting around the humanity of the unborn, it’s very clear that on this thread you did avoid the issue. And now that you do discuss the issue, your statement can easily be reworded thus: ”I don’t care that the unborn are human, I still want to kill them if I think I need to. I will play semantics to get to that goal.”
Do you never think about how you would react if someone more powerful than you applied such elastic morality to you? Sorry, my friend, abortion is wrong and your pretzel logic is pathetic. You’re just digging a hole for yourself.
As for your crazy answer to Kel, there is no freedom for the unborn, just death. Abortion is worse than slavery. Why do you deny the right of unborn women to control their own fertility?
“But you think it relevant to the morality of the act the fact that some people will commit it” – not “some’, many. You’re part of the team bleating about the astronomical numbers of abortions taking place. And it was made legal. These factors take it out of your attempt to align it with murder, rape etc. and into the realm of the ending of slavery, the granting of the female vote and equal pay.
“abortion is wrong” – well obviously it isn’t – “and your pretzel logic is pathetic.’ – says he who misaligns things.
“Why do you deny the right of unborn women to control their own fertility?” – ah, and there we have it. ‘The fetus rules, women are mere vessels!’
Why are you in support of denying women the right to control their own fertility?
Freedom for whom, Reality? Certainly not for the human who loses his/her life. Certainly not for the “property” of the “owner.”
“Denying women the right to control their own fertility?”
Well, that’s a nice, tidy little code phrase for “denying women the ability to kill their own children.”
Look, personally, I think if a woman wants to take the Pill until she’s past her reproductive years, that’s up to her. It can’t possibly be healthy, but that’s her choice.
But “controlling one’s own fertility” needs to take place BEFORE a new human life is conceived.
Birth control and abortion provide the illusion of control. But just how “in control” are you if you have to snuff out human life to achieve your ends?
Voting is not killing. Equal pay is not killing. Interracial marriage is not killing. If you had to kill someone every time you wanted to vote, get equal pay, or marry someone of a different race, I’d be against those as well. But you don’t.
The difference is that killing humans doesn’t make you “in control” of anything. It just makes you a killer.
“ah, and there we have it. ‘The fetus rules, women are mere vessels!’”
What rubbish! The woman is not threatened with extinction. The unborn are. That tired pro-abort caricature has been refuted long ago.
As for the numbers of abortions, so if more murders and rapes were taking place they should be legal? LOL!
btw, I fail to see how equal pay and voting rights has anything to do with this. But if you wanted to pursue that tangental line, you’re the one denying people those rights by supporting killing the unborn. Dead people don’t vote or get paid.
“But “controlling one’s own fertility” needs to take place BEFORE a new human life is conceived.” – no it doesn’t. Most people try to do so because it’s easier, but if it fails and push comes to shove….how many abortions each year did you say?
“Birth control and abortion provide the illusion of control.” – goodness me and here I was thinking that when I applied the brakes in my car I was in control.
No, pandering to the whims of patriarchal groups and sects gives women the ‘illusion of control’.
“As for the numbers of abortions, so if more murders and rapes were taking place they should be legal? LOL!” – and there’s an example of your ‘pretzel logic’.
1. many have abortions, not ‘some’.
2. it was made legal because it is in the same realm as the ending of slavery, the granting of the female vote and equal pay. They are all moral.
It was made legal because of both these factors. Murder and rape don’t meet these criteria.
“I fail to see how equal pay and voting rights has anything to do with this” – it has more to do with them than with murder and rape.
“you’re the one denying people those rights by killing the unborn.” – and you’re the one placing the rights of the fetus ahead of the rights of women.
“Dead people don’t vote or get paid” – because they aren’t people.
hahahahahaha!! On you go, Reality, just keep dishing out the absurdity.
“no it doesn’t.”
Biology fail. Fertility is by definition the potential for conception. Control of fertility is then by definition no longer applicable once conception has taken place. Yes, it has to take place beforehand.
“pandering to the whims of patriarchal groups”
Ironically abortion places power in the hands of unscrupulous men who can then use women as sex objects with no consequences. But you can go on deceiving yourself that it is empowering. The smart women in my life – not exactly wimpish types either – would scoff at your suggestion that denying their own body’s hard-wiring is sensible. They know abortion demeans the very unique thing that makes them women.
“Murder and rape don’t meet these criteria.”
You’re still arguing that the numbers matter. They don’t – either an act is moral or it isn’t. You are claiming that the more the act is done, the more moral it gets. Absurd. Abortion is just another form of murder. How is it any different? One person kills another.
btw, you still didn’t deal with your circular logic above. You know, that pretzel ‘abortion is moral because it is legal because it is moral all at the same time’ idea.
“and you’re the one placing the rights of the fetus ahead of the rights of women.”
No, the right of life of one person trumps the right to kill of another, regardless of who they are. Keep on plugging that caricature of pro-life principles though…
“because they aren’t people.”
No, because they are dead. The point is that discussing pay and votes before securing the right to life is getting the argument backwards. First, make sure that people can live in freedom, then you can fight for other things.
I’m looking at your posts, ‘reality’, and getting a good view of what insanity looks like.
“But “controlling one’s own fertility” needs to take place BEFORE a new human life is conceived.” – no it doesn’t.
If you want to refrain from killing humans, then yes. Yes, it does. Pregnancy = two human lives involved (more, in the case of twins). You are obviously not in control of anything if you’ve already conceived. A pregnancy will continue uninterrupted until birth unless terminated by abortion or miscarriage. When you’re pregnant, you’re not controlling your own fertility – your egg has already BEEN fertilized. You’re not suppressing/controlling fertility with abortion. You’ve moved beyond suppression and control to the termination of a new human life.
“Birth control and abortion provide the illusion of control.” – goodness me and here I was thinking that when I applied the brakes in my car I was in control.
No, pandering to the whims of patriarchal groups and sects gives women the ‘illusion of control’.
Interestingly enough, the brakes of a car were designed to stop a car. That’s part of the built-in machinery of a car – what a car is supposed to do, according to its function.
Birth control is designed to suppress the natural function of female reproductive capabilities. Therefore, it is meant to alter the “built-in” biological “machinery” of a woman’s body. See the difference? Plus, to be quite frank – we aren’t cars (despite the fact that so many insist on “test driving” someone else sexually before they “buy the car” so to speak). ;) What’s with “the patriarchy” stuff? What are you talking about?
“I fail to see how equal pay and voting rights has anything to do with this” – it has more to do with them than with murder and rape.
So, you don’t see that murder and rape are violations of another’s humanity? Violence against other humans, whom perpetrators view as “expendable?”
Biology fail. Fertility is by definition the potential for conception. Control of fertility is then by definition no longer applicable once conception has taken place. Yes, it has to take place beforehand.
Agreed, Mark.
“Fertility is by definition the potential for conception. Control of fertility is then by definition no longer applicable once conception has taken place.” – not quite. Fertility is the ability to conceive and have children. An abortion removes the ability to deliver a child in a particular instance. The same as using contraception. One prevents conception, one reverses it. Fertility continues.
“Ironically abortion places power in the hands of unscrupulous men who can then use women as sex objects with no consequences.” – so again, women have no power? You do realise that women do choose to have sex? And don’t wish for consequences? It is in patriarchal societies and groups that men ‘use’ women.
“either an act is moral or it isn’t” – correct. Abortion is moral.
“You are claiming that the more the act is done, the more moral it gets” – rubbish! I have said that an act is done more because it is moral.
‘abortion is moral because it is legal because it is moral all at the same time’ idea. – and you keep ignoring what I’ve said several times now.
1. Abortion is moral. In and of itself.
2. Abortion is legal.
3. Abortion is legal because it is moral.
“First, make sure that people can live in freedom, then you can fight for other things.” – agreed. Like freedom from slavery, freedom from no political representation and freedom from enforced gestation.
I’m looking at your posts, and getting a good view of what an unsupportable and unwinnable case looks like.
The same as using contraception. One prevents conception, one reverses it. Fertility continues.
Fertility can continue after abortion, but abortion does not “reverse” conception. There is no such thing as reversing conception. I think you need to change your moniker, Reality. Wow.
1. Abortion is moral. In and of itself.
This is utterly unprovable.
BTW, Reality, I don’t recall if you’ve ever shared how many abortions you’ve had here. If you have, please refresh my memory.
“An abortion removes the ability to deliver a child in a particular instance.”
No it actually kills a child. It is immoral.
“You do realise that women do choose to have sex?”
Don’t be obtuse.
“And don’t wish for consequences?”
I guess the same as walking blindfold across the road would not change the fact that a truck could be bearing down. The primary function of sex is for procreation, just like the primary function of eating is for nutrition. The enjoyment is secondary. Certain actions lead to certain consequences, what’s the problem with telling the truth about that? But as I made clear, abortion enables men who treat women poorly. It is a lie that women are empowered by abortion, they are not. They are exploited for sex and money. And it kills their child. It is immoral.
“and you keep ignoring what I’ve said several times now.
1. Abortion is moral. In and of itself.2. Abortion is legal.3. Abortion is legal because it is moral.”
Then explain to me why you were telling me that it is moral because it is legal. The point is you want it both ways and you still can’t figure out your own clumsy ‘logic’ is flawed. When one builds a house, you have a foundation first, then the rest goes up. Abortion is the unjust killing of a human being. It is murder. It is immoral. If you are for abortion, you are for murder, they are the same. A person gets killed. How is it you ignore this?
“Like freedom from slavery, freedom from no political representation and freedom from enforced gestation.”
“enforced gestation”?!! What is that? Apart from rape, who forces women to have sex and then get pregnant? You really live in another universe. Choosing not to have sex is perfectly viable. Anyway, I notice you don’t include freedom to live without getting killed in the womb.. Do you think that might be more fundamental to your little list?
You know what I keep hearing from Reality here? That she thinks, in order to be equal to a man she needs an outside force to ‘fix’ her body. ‘Fix’ it so it doesn’t conceive children, ‘fix’ it so it doesn’t give birth to living children, ‘fix” it so she can ignore the consequences of her natural biology. Why, if women are equal to men does she feel we need all this? Is she saying women are defective? Men don’t need to take pills or submit to surgery to be ‘equal’ with women, nor do they need them to be happy in life unless there is something wrong with them. The reality of the situation, apart from the questionable morality of killing the newly conceived human, is that women just don’t need these things unless you think they are inherantly inferior to men. I’m sorry, my body, my being is created equal with any mans, and I don’t need pills and I don’t need surgery to make myself equal with them. I was born equal and have everything at my disposable, brains, knowledge, willpower, to remain equal with them as I grow, age, and yes, even procreate. I feel so sorry for women who buy into the feminist garbage that they need to chemically or surgically alter the natural state of their bodies just so they can achieve equality. They must really hate themselves for being so inferior, which I guess is why so many of them are so vicious and mean and meanspirited, especially to women who embrace our natural equality with men and live our lives as a full women as opposed to denying our biology in hopes of becoming equals.
Yes Jespren,
That really is the irony that those women who buy into abortion are buying into the lie that they are inferior as they are, rather than celebrating who they are. I can’t imagine it is healthy to hate your own body so much you require laws and chemicals to exist that are combative against nature.
Reality: 1. Abortion is moral. In and of itself.
Kel: This is utterly unprovable.
True, because “moral” or not will always be in the opinion of some entity, i.e. some individual or group consciousness, and not referring to such in the question renders it unanswerable and unprovable.
Mark Rabich: That really is the irony that those women who buy into abortion are buying into the lie that they are inferior as they are, rather than celebrating who they are. I can’t imagine it is healthy to hate your own body so much you require laws and chemicals to exist that are combative against nature.
It’s not “buying into abortion.” Abortion as a surgical procedure exists, and if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, that is one way to remedy the situation. Yes, there is not zero risk, and yes, some people who have abortions later regret it, as is common with all manner of decisions.
In no way is it “hating your own body” to not want to have kids, or not want to have a kid at a given time.
Jespren: You know what I keep hearing from Reality here? That she thinks, in order to be equal to a man she needs an outside force to ‘fix’ her body. ‘Fix’ it so it doesn’t conceive children, ‘fix’ it so it doesn’t give birth to living children, ‘fix” it so she can ignore the consequences of her natural biology. Why, if women are equal to men does she feel we need all this? Is she saying women are defective? Men don’t need to take pills or submit to surgery to be ‘equal’ with women, nor do they need them to be happy in life unless there is something wrong with them.
First of all, there is no “being equal,” really, here, since men cannot get pregnant. However, men as well as women have surgery and take pills, all the time, to remedy unwanted situations, and a pregnancy may be one of them. Does an individual woman have to accept her “natural biology”? I say no – not anymore than I do, and that extends to the decisions I’ve made.
There are any number of “this could happen” deals, and for men their decisions pursuant to them are not really at issue, as far as their own bodies. With abortion and women it’s different – I’m not pronouncing on the right/wrong/good/bad of abortion, here, but (obviously) it really is at issue.
“Abortion as a surgical procedure exists, and if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, that is one way to remedy the situation. Yes, there is not zero risk…”
What about the human life being destroyed? Why are you overlooking that? Why is it a “remedy” to kill an innocent life?
“In no way is it “hating your own body” to not want to have kids, or not want to have a kid at a given time.”
I agree, except that abortion is not just about not wanting to have kids. It is about destroying an already-existing life. You have connected two different things.
Since abortion subverts the female body’s hard-wiring to take conception to term, it is certainly not mentally healthy to think that there is something intrinsically wrong with the female body, as Jespren argued above, that needs to be ‘fixed’.
“It is immoral” – so you think.
“Don’t be obtuse.” – then don’t make all-encompassing statements like “men who can then use women as sex objects”.
“The primary function of sex is for procreation, just like the primary function of eating is for nutrition. The enjoyment is secondary” – maybe back in the primordial slime days. Physiology says otherwise. Psychology says otherwise. Women still have ‘desire’ when pregnant. Men and women still have desire even when infertile. What we have here is a summation of your mindset and self-appointed right to tell others how they should conduct their lives.
“Certain actions lead to certain consequences, what’s the problem with telling the truth about that?” – absolutely nothing. And there are various ways consequences can be dealt with.
The rest of your little soliloquy just takes you deeper into the forest of pious fanatisism.
“…have everything at my disposable, brains, knowledge, willpower, to remain equal with them” – yes, including contraception and abortion.
“women who buy into abortion are buying into the lie that they are inferior as they are” – er no, they acknowledge that their reproductive rights are not at the bidding of men so it is their choice as to what actions they take. Taking away their choice makes them inferior.
“chemicals to exist that are combative against nature” – what, like chemotherapy?
“so you think.”
Yes I do – it’s murder of an innocent. My morality is consistent with a straightforward definition of murder, yours isn’t.
“then don’t make all-encompassing statements like “men who can then use women as sex objects”.”
Why not? It’s certainly true that men benefit more from abortion than women.
“The primary function of sex is for procreation, just like the primary function of eating is for nutrition. The enjoyment is secondary” – maybe back in the primordial slime days. Physiology says otherwise. Psychology says otherwise. Women still have ‘desire’ when pregnant. Men and women still have desire even when infertile. What we have here is a summation of your mindset and self-appointed right to tell others how they should conduct their lives.”
No, just making a very straightforward observation about the human body. Your reply says more about your ignorance and willingness to be impressed by current ideas than anything else. None of your points were relevant – the human female body testifies against you. Going back to my analogy, you can also eat even when you don’t need to – does that mean eating is therefore not primarily about nutrition? From a purely physical perspective, sex is primarily about procreation – desire and infertility notwithstanding. The points you made were very weak.
“And there are various ways consequences can be dealt with.”
And you think killing is moral.
“The rest of your little soliloquy just takes you deeper into the forest of pious fanatisism.”
And you continue to just close your eyes and ears to truth. Thanks for starting the name-calling though. It means you’re losing.
“…have everything at my disposable, brains, knowledge, willpower, to remain equal with them” – yes, including contraception and abortion.
So you need a surgical procedure to be equal to men? LOL! Jespren was right about you!
“er no, they acknowledge that their reproductive rights are not at the bidding of men so it is their choice as to what actions they take. Taking away their choice makes them inferior.”
As you take away the choice of unborn women, which makes you a hypocrite, as well as supporting murder.
“what, like chemotherapy?”
Chemotherapy has a goal of preserving life. For healing. The same cannot be said of the vast majority of abortions. Your comparison is invalid.
—–
Reality, you’re running out of steam here. Do you not see that every one of your arguments has an answer? Being pro-life is rational, truthful, loving, pro-woman, and pro-humanity. That’s why you cannot win. The truth will out, pictures will continue to be shown and hearts will change. I pray you wake up too and see the light, just as others have.
Mark Rabich: What about the human life being destroyed? Why are you overlooking that? Why is it a “remedy” to kill an innocent life?
I’m not overlooking it. That is what is unwanted. Not saying the unborn are “guilty,” either. But “unwanted” can certainly apply.
___
“In no way is it “hating your own body” to not want to have kids, or not want to have a kid at a given time.”
I agree, except that abortion is not just about not wanting to have kids. It is about destroying an already-existing life. You have connected two different things.
No, as above, that is what is unwanted. Yes, the woman is pregnant, and, given that, she still may not want to have kids, or not have kids at that time, and in that situation, an abortion may be her choice. I realize you don’t think this is a good choice. It’s your opinion against hers, and as she is the one pregnant, I’m saying it’s better that her opinion be given more weight, over yours.
____
Since abortion subverts the female body’s hard-wiring to take conception to term, it is certainly not mentally healthy to think that there is something intrinsically wrong with the female body, as Jespren argued above, that needs to be ‘fixed’.
There are any number of things where we choose to change what would happen “by nature.” I don’t think women who have abortions are saying it’s somehow “intrinsically wrong” that they can get pregnant. But they are saying they don’t want to have a kid or kids right at that time, anyway.
“My morality is consistent with a straightforward definition of murder, yours isn’t.” – punch ‘murder’ into a search engine. Spend five minutes having a look. There is no straightforward definition of murder in a moral context. The taking of a life, even a human life, does not always equate to ‘murder’ per se. Like in abortion.
“It’s certainly true that men benefit more from abortion than women” – I disagree. Maybe in your world, not in many other peoples’ worlds.
“And you think killing is moral.” – your bible says so.
And you continue to just close your eyes and ears to reality.
“Thanks for starting the name-calling though. It means you’re losing.” – oh I don’t know, I don’t think I’d call “The rest of your little soliloquy just takes you deeper into the forest of pious fanatisism.” ‘name-calling’ as such anymore than I would “you write such worthless tripe…your pretzel logic is pathetic…hahahahahaha!! On you go, Reality, just keep dishing out the absurdity…a good view of what insanity looks like” or “You really live in another universe”. ;-)
“So you need a surgical procedure to be equal to men? LOL!” – phht. Men would require surgery beyond imagination to get anywhere close to equal with women. Women can reproduce the species, men can’t. Women have the brains, knowledge and willpower to take ownership and control of their ability to reproduce so men can’t continue to attempt to control them.
“Your comparison is invalid.” – rubbish! The quote was “you require laws and chemicals to exist that are combative against nature”. Chemotherapy is allowed under law and is combative against nature.
“you’re running out of steam here” – not while you keep talking :-)
“Being pro-life is rational, truthful, loving, pro-woman, and pro-humanity.” – I disagree, expecially on the ‘rational’ part. That’s why you will not win.
I hope you wake up and stop being blinded the light so that you can face reality.
“punch ‘murder’ into a search engine. Spend five minutes having a look. There is no straightforward definition of murder in a moral context. The taking of a life, even a human life, does not always equate to ‘murder’ per se. Like in abortion.”
Smokescreen. All you are doing is obfuscation. If it serves keeping abortion, you’re all for it, regardless of it’s obvious immorality. But I went to Wikipedia (not exactly a conservative source) and it didn’t seem to have a very complex definition:
“The elements of common law murder are:
the killing
of a human being
by another human being
with malice aforethought.”
Abortion ticks all those boxes. Abortion is therefore murder.
I disagree. Maybe in your world, not in many other peoples’ worlds.
Reality check (pun intended!) A man can have sex and walk away regardless. A woman is left with the consequences. Sorry that your view does not have a basis in biology.
your bible says so.
No, it doesn’t. Show me where the bible has murder as a commandment. (note: specific situations are not applicable, anyone who knows how to read the Bible will know that)
oh I don’t know, I don’t think I’d call “The rest of your little soliloquy just takes you deeper into the forest of pious fanatisism.” ‘name-calling’ as such anymore than I would “you write such worthless tripe…your pretzel logic is pathetic…hahahahahaha!! On you go, Reality, just keep dishing out the absurdity…a good view of what insanity looks like” or “You really live in another universe”. ;-)
Apparently you can’t see the difference between calling out your pretzel logic as such and you talking about ‘pious fanatisism'(sic). One is commentary on your comments, yours is categorising me as a certain kind of person (ie, name-calling). If you think I crossed the line, I apologise.
Men would require surgery beyond imagination to get anywhere close to equal with women. Women can reproduce the species, men can’t. Women have the brains, knowledge and willpower to take ownership and control of their ability to reproduce so men can’t continue to attempt to control them.
Ah, so really we can see what motivates you – misandry. You have this skewed idea that all men are out to exploit or control you. Now, admittedly some actually are, reality, but I’m not one of them and many others aren’t either. But you ironically empower those men you hate most by supporting abortion. And fyi, it takes a man to get a woman pregnant. Basic biological knowledge dictates that both sexes are required. Your statement, “Women can reproduce the species, men can’t.” is factually incorrect. You make it seem like men weren’t required for reproduction. You mentioned google earlier – try ‘sperm’ and ‘egg’. If there were no men, reality, the human race would cease to exist in about 100 years. Heck, even school teachers would be out of a job in just 20. No amount of female “brains, knowledge and willpower” would change that. Face it, the human race needs men and women. (Duh!)
The quote was “you require laws and chemicals to exist that are combative against nature”. Chemotherapy is allowed under law and is combative against nature.
I should’ve been clearer, but it’s pretty obvious in the context that I meant combative against nature defined as the way organisms are normally meant to function. Pregnancy is a normal process that abortion destroys, cancer is not a normal process. So yes, your comparison is just a pedantic attempt to take advantage of a loophole that I suspect you know was not intended and easily clarified. So, now you know – your comparison is still invalid. Abortion is nothing like chemotherapy. Here is the big picture on the two – one is motivated to kill, the other to heal and/or extend life. Very very different.
Hello Mark, good day to you :-)
“If it serves keeping abortion, you’re all for it” – as you are for anything which you feel supports your case.
“regardless of it’s obvious immorality” – well no it’s not abvious actually. It’s subjective.
I shan’t belittle your citing of Wikipedia although I did intimate a wider reading of the results of ‘murder’ might be useful.
But to take your quote, there is a significant word contained within the definition you claim to support your case – ‘malice’. I don’t think the mindset of a woman seeking abortion usually includes “a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness”, “desire to harm others or to see others suffer”, “extreme ill will or spite” or “desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another”. You may claim that this is what is taking place but it’s certainly not how a woman who chooses abortion is thinking.
I still disagree that men benefit more than women do from abortion. You don’t seem to acknowledge the strength of the broad range of positives that most women feel they gain from abortion. It’s psychology not biology.
“Show me where the bible has murder as a commandment.” – maybe you need to take a bit more of a stroll through the ‘good book’. Try leviticus for a start. It may also depend which version you choose to read. But that’s the problem isn’t it, which god/s, which book, which version of which book.
No need to apologise, I was not offended. I just wanted to make you aware of ‘perception’. And then you call me a misandrist!
“Your statement, “Women can reproduce the species, men can’t.” is factually incorrect” – you’re the one who likes to use pure science to support your case, catch up! “If there were no men, reality, the human race would cease to exist in about 100 years.” – like I said, catch up.
“cancer is not a normal process.” – really? What about MS? What about senility? What about puberty?
“So, now you know – your comparison is still invalid” – apparently not.
“Very very different” – hm, except that they are both designed to rid the body of an unwanted presence.
um what? “catch up”? what exactly do you mean? that there are ways to continue the human species if every single man was obliterated? wow, do tell!!! =)
Yes there are Myn, go check some science journals.
Myn, since Reality is being obtuse…I know what she’s refering to. There is a new reproductive/cloning technic that takes an ovum from one woman and cores out the dna and implants it into the ovum of another woman, thus sparking reproduction as the egg now has a full set of chromosomes. Baby without male. It’s still experiemental, there is still a lot of difficulty getting it to work correctly, it has a much higher rate of error and failure than standard IVF, and it suffers from all the same issues as IVF as well given that multiple embroys must still be created, sifted, and then emplanted, but yes, it is now scientifically possible to create a unique and functioning DNA code from two females.
Hello Reality!
So according to your definition of malice, all it takes for any other act of open-and-shut murder not to be murder is the assertion that the murderer ‘felt’ no malice and was cold-hearted. I suspect most courts would not be convinced.
Whether the malice is in the woman, or more likely in those forcing her into abortion, you are confusing feeling hatred with the simple deliberate intent to kill. btw, abortion definitely fits your last definition, specifically “desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another” The key word being injury. So yes, abortion is murder, as I have stated all along.
“I still disagree that men benefit more than women do from abortion. You don’t seem to acknowledge the strength of the broad range of positives that most women feel they gain from abortion. It’s psychology not biology.”
The overwhelming stats I have read – including those from opposition sources – tell a different tale about women. Never mind the hatred and twistedness I have personally seen in those who have had and continue to support abortion. I see your few “positives” and I’ll raise you a bucket-load of negatives. But unlike me, you will deny contrary evidence.
“Try leviticus for a start.”
I’ve actually studied Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, and I’m 5 years into a lengthy formal study of the whole Bible. Let alone my own personal reading. You’ll have to be more specific. I’m quite sure of what I’m saying. Keep in mind one of the things looked at was how shallow accusations such as yours fade away when one takes a closer look. It may help you to realize that if murder is the unjust taking of human life (in other words, taking what is not yours), what happens to the accusation of murder when it is directed at the One who actually invented life and thus owns it? Two words – null and void.
“like I said, catch up.”
???? To what? Men and women are required for reproduction. End of story. Anything else is politically-motivated garbage. Doesn’t it bother you that your belief is at odds with facts? (btw, I write that knowing about the new methods – they prove nothing since you would be arguing that the human race requires this technology to stay alive. That’s quite silly, since the human race has survived for quite a while without it in the past. You are just obfuscating. What would happen to your argument if it was found that this new technology had very severe side-effects for those humans created this way? Good luck with that.)
My position is one that squares with very straightforward observations – both men and women are required, and your ridiculous elevation of women above men – when they are equal but different – is quite clearly motivated in misandry. No-one who loves humans first would say such a thing. You would never hear me say such a thing about women. Never. I have sisters and nieces and friends and colleagues. I also had a mum I miss every day and I am extremely grateful for as I was unplanned.
“What about MS? What about senility? What about puberty?”
No, no, yes. Don’t be obtuse. Your comparison is still invalid. Abortion is not like chemotherapy.
“unwanted presence.”
How quaint. Just like something a murderer could say, and be interpreted as malice.
btw, notice how when your comments get put into the spotlight (ie. ‘conception reversed’), you take a pounding? Could it be because you are wrong about abortion and your arguments absurd? Give up this madness, you really cannot win – and why would you want to promote death anyway?
“any other act of open-and-shut murder not to be murder is the assertion that the murderer ‘felt’ no malice” – not all ‘murders’ are open-and-shut cases Mark. What about when a woman sedates and then shoots her partner dead following years of abuse and torture? How would you pronounce on that? Was it malice she felt or fear?
“or more likely in those forcing her into abortion” – extravagant supposition.
“So yes, abortion is murder, as I have stated all along.” – no its not. I see you chose to ignore all the other descriptors of malice and alighted on the single one which you felt suited you.
“I’ll raise you a bucket-load of negatives” – put simply, c**p. Many more women have positive outcomes from abortion than negative.
Remembering what I said: “And you think killing is moral.” – your bible says so.
From the books you cited:
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)
A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)
“what happens to the accusation of murder when it is directed at the One who actually invented life and thus owns it? Two words – null and void.” – well, being atheist I believe that ‘the one who invented life and owns it’ is each woman, therefore your claim that abortion is murder is null and void.
“???? To what? Men and women are required for reproduction. End of story.” – like I said, catch up.
“Anything else is politically-motivated garbage.” – no, it’s scientific fact.
Your response smacks of desperation that men remain an absolute necessity. Better control that fertility of women then hadn’t we.
“Abortion is not like chemotherapy.” – factually it is.
A cancerous growth or tumor is an unwanted presence. An unwanted fetus is an unwanted presence. It is in there, it is present. “be interpreted as malice’ – that’s a bit of a stretch!
“btw, notice how when your comments get put into the spotlight (ie. ‘conception reversed’), you take a pounding?” – well if you want to think so. It certainly didn’t seem that way.
“Could it be because you are wrong about abortion and your arguments absurd?” – no, and no.
“Give up this madness, you really cannot win” – I already have. Abortion is legal, it is moral and it is widely chosen.
“– and why would you want to promote death anyway?” – I actually promote choice. I’ll leave the promotion of death to certain cults.
“What about when a woman sedates and then shoots her partner dead following years of abuse and torture? How would you pronounce on that? Was it malice she felt or fear?”
Irrelevant. I don’t think the unborn subject women to “years of abuse and torture” somehow. Why can’t you stick to the topic?
“I see you chose to ignore all the other descriptors of malice and alighted on the single one which you felt suited you.”
Yes I did. It’s perfectly legitimate to do that. You offered the criteria, I used it. Where does it say to be defined as murder, an act has to tick all of those definitions of malice? One is all I needed. Notice the word “or” in your criteria, not ‘and’. But “desire to harm others” might also suffice.
“extravagant supposition.”
“put simply, c**p. Many more women have positive outcomes from abortion than negative.”
Consider this bucket of negatives:
> 64% of American women felt pressured by others
> More than half felt rushed or uncertain, yet 67% received no counseling
> 79% were not told about available alternatives
> 84% said they were not fully informed
> 65% suffer symptoms of trauma
> Coercion can escalate to violence, putting women & children at risk
> Coerced abortion is an internationally recognized human rights abuse
> Homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women> After abortion, maternal death rates are 4 times higher
> Post-abortion suicide rates are 6 times higher within the first year
http://www.theunchoice.com/intro.htm
Of course, I know in advance you will reject the above, not because it isn’t true, but because you don’t like it. You will of course, mask that truth by saying the source is unreliable. Yeah, like they stand to gain somehow from lying…
“your bible says so.
From the books you cited:
(Exodus 21:15)
(Leviticus 21:9)
(Deuteronomy 17:12)”
As for your quotes, as I stated, take a closer look and they evaporate. The nation of Israel was set apart by God – to save all of mankind. So, they needed to survive, in addition to giving humanity a whole host of lessons about our level of corruption and setting up a number of opportunities for us to return to God. We failed. Ultimately, God sends His own Son to do the job.
All of the laws you cite are not moral commands (eg. the Ten Commandments), but specific civil actions in response to specific acts that would’ve put the nation of Israel and His plan of salvation at risk. Nowhere does God command the murder of others as a rule. Quoting a few verses does not make you an expert, it makes you dull of mind about the Bible and arrogant enough to think you have a ‘gotcha’. I am suitably unimpressed.
“well, being atheist I believe that ‘the one who invented life and owns it’ is each woman, therefore your claim that abortion is murder is null and void.”
So you invented your own life, did you? C’mon! You invented nothing about it. It’s absurd to claim ownership from a purely naturalistic position anyway.
“Your response smacks of desperation that men remain an absolute necessity. Better control that fertility of women then hadn’t we.”
‘Control that fertility’? What does that mean? LOL! As if anything I do or say has any bearing on that! Nice projection there! Protect the vulnerable, is what I am about. Children and women. But I notice you did not concede that your attempt to base your argument on recent technology is weak. What happens if the technology fails? My argument is on much more solid ground (ie. all of human history) Humanity needs men and women, always has, always will.
“factually it is.”
No, I showed it wasn’t.
“A cancerous growth or tumor is an unwanted presence. An unwanted fetus is an unwanted presence. It is in there, it is present. “be interpreted as malice’ – that’s a bit of a stretch!”
No it isn’t since you think the intrinsic humanity of a human being is changed by what somebody else thinks of them. All the unwanting in the world changes nothing about the facts. You do realize that to follow your logic would mean that someone could kidnap you and do the same to you. (eg. ”I declare you unwanted, Reality.”) Do you ever think about that? A court would understand that malice was not ‘a bit of a stretch’ in that case, so why do you think it would be? If you wouldn’t like to be the victim, why are you prepared to be the perpetrator? (or at least, the accomplice)
“well if you want to think so. It certainly didn’t seem that way.”
Lots of the others did say you were delusional. That original comment of yours certainly was absurd.
“I already have. Abortion is legal, it is moral and it is widely chosen.”
It is legal but not moral. Because if it was, that would explain why the pro-life side is gaining in numbers, wouldn’t it? Including amongst women who don’t think they are out to being ‘controlled’.
“I actually promote choice. “
…choice for death. FIFY. There’s no choice for those who do the dying. I was unplanned and it’s people such as myself that you would cheer about being dead. I think I have rather a bigger stake in this than your mythical ‘control of fertility’.
“Why can’t you stick to the topic?” – I am, you cited ‘malice’ as a requirement for ‘murder’ and I dispute the presence of ‘malice’ amongst women having abortions. I was simply giving an example of the fact that it isn’t always open-and-shut.
“One is all I needed” – ok, so that will apply for me also?
I’ve seen that ‘bucket of negatives’ before. Shall I list the reasons why it needs to be taken with a very large grain of salt? And don’t even get me started on your source!
I don’t like it because it isn’t true.
“Yeah, like they stand to gain somehow from lying…” – you’re kidding right?
Now who’s obfuscating? I could have listed many more examples of where the bible calls for people to be murdered. Surely “one is all I needed”.
Remember my original words – “And you think killing is moral.” – your bible says so.
You’re waffly little attempt to alter the meaning or the cause does not discount that this sort of language is present in the bible. It tells people to murder people.
“Quoting a few verses does not make you an expert, it makes you dull of mind about the Bible and arrogant enough to think you have a ‘gotcha’. I am suitably unimpressed.” – that’s not a ‘get out of jail free’ card Mark. The simple fact is that the bible tells people to murder people. Reading every single word doesn’t alter some of the words.
“So you invented your own life, did you” – no, my mother did. Read this again:
“well, being atheist I believe that ‘the one who invented life and owns it’ is each woman, therefore your claim that abortion is murder is null and void.”
only a pregnant woman ‘invents and owns’.
“‘Control that fertility’? What does that mean? LOL! As if anything I do or say has any bearing on that!” – says he who tells women they must not abort. Are you against contraception too?
“But I notice you did not concede that your attempt to base your argument on recent technology is weak.’ – of course not, because its not.
“What happens if the technology fails?’ – the same as with any other method of conception.
“My argument is on much more solid ground (ie. all of human history)’ – I’m talking about what’s happening now and in the future via emerging technology, it’s not ‘historic’ so there’s no comparison.
“Humanity needs men and women, always has, always will.” – it already doesn’t.
“No, I showed it wasn’t.” – no, you didn’t.
The vast majority of women choosing abortion do not do so with ‘malice’. Removing a tumor is not immoral, having an abortion is not immoral, kidnapping someone is generally immoral.
“Lots of the others did say you were delusional.” – that doesn’t mean a whole lot.
“That original comment of yours certainly was absurd.” – not at all, you just can’t face the reality of it.
“It is legal but not moral. Because if it was, that would explain why the pro-life side is gaining in numbers, wouldn’t it?” – are you trying to say ‘if it was moral that would explain why the pro-life side is gaining in numbers’?
Choice to undertake parenthood, adopt the baby out once it arrives or to terminate the fetus. I was unplanned too actually, and that’s the truth. And if my mother had chosen to abort me rather than continue with the pregnancy, what would it mean to me? Nothing, zip, zero. Hey, I’m glad she did want to have me because I’m here and enjoy my life. But if she hadn’t wanted me…..nothing. It would be a bit hard for me to be angry with her if she’d chosen abortion now wouldn’t it.
“you’re kidding right?”
No, Planned Parenthood, abortion providers and those who want to justify their past (like you) all have obvious motivations to distort information. Money and an unwillingness to face up to personal responsibility for starters. There is no such motivation here. Your astonishment notwithstanding. The truth is you just don’t like the information.
“The simple fact is that the bible tells people to murder people.”
No, your reading is just simplistic and wrong. I’ve studied major parts of it, I suspect you haven’t studied any of it. Why is it then I cannot commit murder as a Christian if you say (effectively) I am able to murder as a rule?
“Reading every single word doesn’t alter some of the words.”
Excuse me? What you’re saying there is that you’d be justified in quoting out of context. Any good student of the Bible knows one must take the whole counsel of Scripture, not just pick and choose. I actually think God did it this way to trap shallow accusations such as yours as telling us more about you than about Him.
“no, my mother did.”
No, she did not. The function of reproduction, indeed the eggs in her body, was present – even if immature – before she was born. This was created and thought of (pre-programmed) before she even learned to gurgle as a baby. What you’re claiming is actually impossible.
“only a pregnant woman ‘invents and owns’.”
Read my answer above. You created nothing about it. No woman did. Neither did any man create the ability to produce sperm, I might add.
“says he who tells women they must not abort. “
As has been explained to you, once conception takes place, certain things have changed, the time for choosing is over and you are officially a mother whether you like it or not. Your wishes do not change facts any more than jumping off a building believing in the suspension of gravity would be sensible. Abortion is murder and should not be performed. It is bad for women and deadly for the child.
“Are you against contraception too?”
Irrelevant. But I think abstinence should be promoted as well as sex only within marriage. How much better society would be if that were followed.
“of course not, because its not.”
Silly! If the technology changes your argument would be gone!
“the same as with any other method of conception.”
You’ve changed the subject, so let me remind you – this is about whether we need men as well as women. Stick to the topic.
“I’m talking about what’s happening now and in the future via emerging technology, it’s not ‘historic’ so there’s no comparison.”
“it already doesn’t.”
Alright, despite the fact you are oblivious to the inherent flaw in your argument, let’s go the other way – let’s say this technology emerges as easy to implement, no side-effects and very cheap (extremely doubtful). Do you really think that all women will give up having men in the world? Will you hate them for loving men and wanting to keep them? I really don’t think you are thinking this through! Sorry, but I think you’re stuck with us!
“no, you didn’t.”
Yes I did. Abortion is nothing like chemotherapy. One kills, the other is meant for healing. Totally different. Your comparison is invalid.
“The vast majority of women choosing abortion do not do so with ‘malice’. Removing a tumor is not immoral, having an abortion is not immoral, kidnapping someone is generally immoral.”
The point is, dear ‘Reality’, that you must have a consistent form of logic buttressing your morality applicable to all situations of life. You can bleat about abortion being moral and kidnapping not being so all you like – what is apparent is that you engage in situational ethics, where you just make up the rules as you go along. But you fail to acknowledge that such a system would be horrible to you if you were not the one in power! Someone kidnapping you could legitimately say they are operating according to your standards in terms of how you treat other humans! They could just claim kidnapping is moral, ad infinitum – just as you are doing with abortion. How could you stop them? You would be powerless! But you would not like it.
“not at all, you just can’t face the reality of it.”
Refer to the other thread – I think you have been soundly rebuffed as being absurd on that assertion. ’Conception reversal’ is as impossible as unbreaking a glass.
“are you trying to say ‘if it was moral that would explain why the pro-life side is gaining in numbers’?”
I’m merely pointing to the fact that this change does not make sense if abortion was so clearly moral as you claim.
“And if my mother had chosen to abort me rather than continue with the pregnancy, what would it mean to me? Nothing, zip, zero.”
Yes, I’ve heard that kind of answer before. The problem with it should be obvious to you – it makes it OK to kill people as long as they are unconscious. Your consistent failure is your inability to follow your logic through. You think your pat answers work, but they don’t. The fact is I would be dead – murdered. Whether I know about it does not change the inherent immorality of the act. Another thing, one could also argue with your logic that once you’re dead you don’t know about it either, even if you were murdered tortuously in broad daylight with a thousand people watching. Your point is really pathetic. Bottom line : being unwanted is no reason for killing people.
“There is no such motivation here” – what, an anti-choice propaganda site which asks for volunteer help and donations so it can fight against abortion?
“No, your reading is just simplistic and wrong.” – hardly. It’s in black and white, over and over again. Do I really need to spend heaps of time listing all the verses advocating killing people?There are simply too many clearly explicit examples to be able to cry ‘context’.
“I’ve studied major parts of it, I suspect you haven’t studied any of it.” – you might be surprised. And which version/interpretation/translation?
“Why is it then I cannot commit murder as a Christian if you say (effectively) I am able to murder as a rule?” – because what the bible may say doesn’t carry as much weight in society as some might wish.
“Any good student of the Bible knows one must take the whole counsel of Scripture, not just pick and choose” – show me where it negates any of the examples I cited.
“I actually think God did it this way to trap shallow accusations such as yours as telling us more about you than about Him.” – how convenient.
“the time for choosing is over” – evidently not.
“and you are officially a mother whether you like it or not” – ‘officially a mother’? I don’t think so.
“Your wishes do not change facts” – ditto.
“Abortion is murder and should not be performed.” – wrong.
“it is bad for women” – still safer than childbirth.
“I think abstinence should be promoted as well as sex only within marriage.”- something else which has about as much chance of becoming the ‘norm’ as abortions not taking place.
“How much better society would be if that were followed.” – if you keep looking backwards as you move forwards you’ll trip over.
“Do you really think that all women will give up having men in the world?” – not at all, most will still procreate with men. My point was that men are not a necessity for continuance of the species.
“Will you hate them for loving men and wanting to keep them?” – no, I encourage it.
“I really don’t think you are thinking this through! Sorry, but I think you’re stuck with us!” – men may well be around for some time yet. But they aren’t required for continuance of the species.
“what is apparent is that you engage in situational ethics” – pot, kettle.
“I think you have been soundly rebuffed as being absurd on that assertion.” – I found some absurdities attempting to rebuff me.
Your earlier statement was “I was unplanned and it’s people such as myself that you would cheer about being dead.” – who’s death would I know to cheer for? How? No-one would be aware of any particular ‘person’ being dead.
thanks Jesprem! I did not know about that! And this has actually worked? As in someone is alive and well after being conceived in this way?