1 Child vs 1,000 Embryos

Started by Surtur25 pages

Rob, take the loss.

anyone care to pause with the fright-barking and answer the question? 🙂

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
anyone care to pause with the fright-barking and answer the question? 🙂

Bash, help your pal take the loss. I'd assume he would be used to it but I guess not. Guide him, teach him. He's Wolverine and you're Professor X. Help the guy out.

I know I know..you'll respond with what you feel is a clever quip. It's okay, it's valid. I am validating you.

Originally posted by Surtur
Interesting. It reminds me how one way to truly test someone who is pro abortion is to ask if someone who physically assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarriage should be charged with murder. Their answer usually tells you all you need to know about them.
Not really, 'murder' is a term used to describe an unlawful killing. If abortion is legal, then it isn't murder; on the reverse side, the person assaulting the pregnant woman (if they kill the unborn child) is committing an unlawful killing, therefore it is murder. It's pretty simple, really.

Originally posted by Scribble
Not really, 'murder' is a term used to describe an unlawful killing. If abortion is legal, then it isn't murder; on the reverse side, the person assaulting the pregnant woman (if they kill the unborn child) is committing an unlawful killing, therefore it is murder. It's pretty simple, really.

Actually no, it's not. It's only murder if it's a life. Not hard to get. If it's a life, it's not lawful to kill it unless it's a threat to you. It's no threat if you were irresponsible and didn't use protection.

Anything else? Coffee? Tea?

Originally posted by Surtur
Actually no, it's not. It's only murder if it's a life. Not hard to get. If it's a life, it's not lawful to kill it unless it's a threat to you. It's no threat if you were irresponsible and didn't use protection.

Anything else? Coffee? Tea?

No, murder is an unlawful killing. I can forward you some links if you like; every dictionary agrees with me.

Originally posted by Scribble
Not really, 'murder' is a term used to describe an unlawful killing. If abortion is legal, then it isn't murder; on the reverse side, the person assaulting the pregnant woman (if they kill the unborn child) is committing an unlawful killing, therefore it is murder. It's pretty simple, really.

^ Using logic and legal reasoning instead of emotions 👆

Originally posted by Scribble
No, murder is an unlawful killing. I can forward you some links if you like; every dictionary agrees with me.

So why is it lawful for some irresponsible chick to get rid of a kid cuz she is too dumb to use protection?

I see nothing lawful about killing something just cuz you're an irresponsible douchebag. If it's a health threat? Sure. If not, explain it, have it make sense, spare me the links.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Using logic and legal reasoning instead of emotions 👆
That's something I don't understand: most of the right love to harp on about how the left allows emotion to taint their views on matters, and yet most of the right fall into that same hole when discussing abortion.

Raisen is a good example of someone on the right sticking to their principals: his stance on abortion is in line with the whole idea of not letting emotion cloud rationality.

Originally posted by Surtur
So why is it lawful for some irresponsible chick to get rid of a kid cuz she is too dumb to use protection?

I see nothing lawful about killing something just cuz you're an irresponsible douchebag. If it's a health threat? Sure. If not, explain it, have it make sense, spare me the links.

It doesn't matter what you think should be right, at the moment abortion is legal and is thus not murder.

The reason why abortion is across the board legal is because of cases such as rape or medical issues. It's either all okay, or none of it's okay. Forcing a woman to prove she was raped so she can have a baby is pretty bad, and not always possible. We have to take the right with the wrong; I disagree with people getting abortions willy nilly, but it's necessary in a civilised society.

So that is your defense? I expected more. I'm kinda disappointed lol.

if there happens to be a pro-lifer with any self-respect and personal integrity, please answer the question. surely you must exist.

Originally posted by Surtur
So that is your defense? I expected more. I'm kinda disappointed lol.
Posted more bro

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if there happens to be a pro-lifer with any self-respect and personal integrity, please answer the question. surely you must exist.

Since you're someone without either, who are you to ask? Serious question.

Originally posted by Scribble
Posted more bro

But it's just...ugh lol. It's dumb, for you. It's dumb for you to say this, I'd expect it from others. You should know medical issues and rape do not make up most of abortions bro.

zero-substance and personal attacks. the cry of the defeated.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
zero-substance and personal attacks. the cry of the defeated.

So you aren't self aware, okay.

Originally posted by Surtur
But it's just...ugh lol. It's dumb, for you. It's dumb for you to say this, I'd expect it from others. You should know medical issues and rape do not make up most of abortions bro.
I know they don't, but my point stands. Abortion disgusts me as a concept, I've said this before. But with overpopulation getting increasingly worse, and poor people less able to access contraception, it's a necessary evil to keep society stable. Banning abortion wouldn't stop abortion, it never has, it only makes it more dangerous for those who are forced to undertake it.

Originally posted by Scribble
I know they don't, but my point stands. Abortion disgusts me as a concept, I've said this before. But with overpopulation getting increasingly worse, and poor people less able to access contraception, it's a necessary evil to keep society stable. Banning abortion wouldn't stop abortion, it never has, it only makes it more dangerous for those who are forced to undertake it.

I get all that, but if momma can snuff out it out with zero consequences even if it's no threat to her, do you agree it makes ZERO sense to charge someone with murder if they punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries?

It was not a threat to either of them. Why's momma get killing privileges?

This is more about the rationale of pro choicers. Either it's a life or it is not.

Well I'm heading out for the night, but I will say this one more time: this is about rationale. I'm pro choice. This is why I know the pro choicers argue it's not murder because it's not a life. The argument is not "it's lawful". That is the problem. The argument from a majority of them is that it is not a life and thus not murder.

If it is not a life it cannot be murder no matter who destroys it. That is my thing. These are inescapable truths. This is why the only way to justify this all is if you acknowledge it's a life, but that you're lawfully taking it. If that's what they want to argue okay, but we all know the pro choicers do not argue that,they argue it is NOT a life. When they begin to agree that it is a life and they are taking it anyway, we can talk. Have a nice night.

Surtur's weird punching pregnant woman in the stomach fetish resurfaces yet again...