New Abortion law, about ultra-sounds...

Originally posted by FeceMan
Only if you discount the will and form a wonderful little straw man.

The hell? That basically totally makes no sense. You are evil authoritarian ****ers. That's basically all there is to say about pro-life people. So, why don't you think about making the lives of actual living people better for a change, instead of fighting for not self conscious, parasitical lump of cells?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The hell? That basically totally makes no sense. You are evil authoritarian ****ers. That's basically all there is to say about pro-life people. So, why don't you think about making the lives of actual living people better for a change, instead of fighting for not self conscious, parasitical lump of cells?

LOL... first it was "blackmailers", then it was "fascist" now it's "authoritarians"...

Originally posted by Robtard
LOL... first it was "blackmailers", then it was "fascist" now it's "authoritarians"...

But I thought I'd keep it simple.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, fascist is a good word to insult people while meaning authoritarian...

Yes, yes it is. 😖hifty:

🙂

-FO!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, fascist is a good word to insult people while meaning authoritarian...

But I thought I'd keep it simple.

Neither fit here... and there are better ways to debate against the topic at hand then throwing out reactionary words and phrases.

Originally posted by Robtard
Neither fit here... and there are better ways to argue against the topic at hand then throwing out reactionary words and phrases.

Actually, using laws to force people to do something fits the word authoritarian incredibly well.

Not when a law "forces" someone to see and consider a life that they (erroneously) have been given a "choice" to end.

HUMANITARIAN, well now that's a word that might fit a little better.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Not when a law "forces" someone to see and consider a life that they (erroneously) have been given a "choice" to end.

HUMANITARIAN, well now that's a word that might fit a little better.

No, no. Humans are the ones you dislike. The parasite cells, that are your friends.

^^^^

The irony here is criminal.

You would paint me as somebody who dislikes humans because I want to save the lives of babies.

Perhaps it is you who dislikes humans, because you would trade them to save the sex lives of others. 😬

Perhaps you simply have no concept of morality?

Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps you simply have no concept of morality?

dead babies= good

Sex for all equals=good

Protection of life=bad

Waiting for marriage=bad

Got it.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
^^^^

The irony here is criminal.

You would paint me as somebody who dislikes humans because I want to save the lives of babies.

Perhaps it is you who dislikes humans, because you would trade them to save the sex lives of others. 😬

Actually, it was just your high moral arguments turned around.

Well, my morality favours individual humans over...whatever fetuses are, certainly not individual humans. A fetus should not have the same rights as a human being. It is a parasite and it is not conscious of itself or its actions...a cow has to be seen as superior and we slaughter those by the millions.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, it was just your high moral arguments turned around.

Well, my morality favours individual humans over...whatever fetuses are, certainly not individual humans. A fetus should not have the same rights as a human being. It is a parasite and it is not conscious of itself or its actions...a cow has to be seen as superior and we slaughter those by the millions.

I think the potential for life and a conscious are what is meant to be important. A cow being more of a "person" (in a philosophical sense) is irrelevant here since it's not about what ranks as more of a person or what has more rights, at least in this conversation.

Originally posted by chithappens
I think the potential for life and a conscious are what is meant to be important. A cow being more of a "person" (in a philosophical sense) is irrelevant here since it's not about what ranks as more of a person or what has more rights, at least in this conversation.

I would say all aspects are important, if you want to limit it to the few aspects that speak against abortion that doesn't seem like a conversation anymore at all. More like one sided propaganda.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Those of us who are pro-life would assert that it is an attempt to save lives.

Whilst clearly discarding the idea that saving a life that's already in progress would be more pro-life than allowing another one to exist and possibly ruin both.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Whilst clearly discarding the idea that saving a life that's already in progress would be more pro-life than allowing another one to exist and possibly ruin both.

-AC

Why do you automatically assume that a child being born will ruin lives?

Though not impossible, why is it at the forefront?

Originally posted by Robtard
Why do you automatically assume that a child being born will ruin lives?

Though not impossible, why is it at the forefront?

An unwanted child might very well do.

Originally posted by Bardock42
An unwanted child might very well do.

Yes, mathematically it is possible, I was asking why people assume this is the more likely scenario.

Also, if the child factually would ruin the life of the mother, adoption is another "no questions" asked option. Not sure about Germany, but a mother can drop off her newborn baby at hospitals, police stations, firehouses and simply say "I can't support him/her" and an adoption agency will take the child.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, mathematically it is possible, I was asking why people assume this is the more likely scenario.

Also, if the child factually would ruin the life of the mother, adoption is another "no questions" asked option. Not sure about Germany, but a mother can drop off her newborn baby at hospitals, police stations, firehouses and simply say "I can't support him/her" and an adoption agency will take the child.

Yes. But why should she have to go through 9 months of discomfort feeding a parasite?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes. But why should she have to go through 9 months of discomfort feeding a parasite?

I am not debating "she" has to have the child as this topic is not about abortions being legal/illegal.

I just don't see why people assume childbirth and being a parent is such a horrible thing and it will ruin lives... as you put it "feeding a parasite". That was my point/question a few post above