Abortion

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again- Pro-Life is the belief that a foetus has a right to life.

...and that terminating it is wrong in any way, as a result of believing that it has a right to life. So then if you are pro-any case of abortion, you're not pro-life.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nearly everyone believes that, they just differ about at which point. You don't seem to, but that's because you have a rather monstrous view that no civilised country has laws agreeing with.

Got any facts and stats to back up that "nearly"? I'll assume that no, you do not, and move on.

As for laws in countries...E...England? The one you know, we both live in?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Lie. Learn something about Pro-Life. Heck, just look it up on wiki if you want. Pro-Life is nowhere near that simple. The Consistent Life Ethic might belief life srarts at conception, but LOTS of people who are Pro-Life do not.

You: Pro-life is believing a foetus has the right to life.

Which would mean you would have to be against the termination of said life at any cost. Not for it in some cases then against it in others. That's anti-frivolity not pro-life.

-AC

Originally posted by Syren
clapping Woohaa... I love it when someone lays down the smack.

Originally posted by Syren
Double whammy! Well, saves me a job 🥷

No sweety, there is no smack.

Unless if you think arguing for the deaths of innocent children so that people can be selfish and screw whoever they want, when they want is "the smack down."

Then pity to you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Pretty much. Glad you're getting it.

-AC

Just as I have the right to decide that they are to be cared about, so that cancels you out.

Originally posted by Wesker

Ridiculous. Abortion is not genocide.

gen·o·cide ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-sd)
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Way to know your definitions.

The lesser of two evils is not forcing a woman to carry a child because you're an unsympathetic male prick.

Hmm...

abortion is the planned systematic execution of babies, no strike that, a whole class of human beings, that is allowed and accepted, which is based on nothing more than their age and place of residence.

So it's mass murder then, not genocide?

Does that suit you better?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
you have all assumed that all Pro-Lifers believe a foetus has the right to live from the moment of conception.

Seeing as pro-life means considering a foetus to have the right to life, yes that's what I did.

If you are pro-killing of the foetus in anyway, you are quite clearly in complete contradiction of pro-life as a concept.

Ergo, you are not pro-life.

-AC

"and that terminating it is wrong in any way, as a result of believing that it has a right to life. So then if you are pro-any case of abortion, you're not pro-life."

No, and so terminating it after the point it becomes a human life is wrong.

Once more, the religious pro-lifers may believe this is at conception, but not all pro-lifers.

-

"Got any facts and stats to back up that "nearly"? I'll assume that no, you do not, and move on.

As for laws in countries...E...England? The one you know, we both live in?"

Yes, that's right- the one that totally restricts a woman's choice after 24 weeks, unlike you, who supports them having choice all the way.

How is that for a fact, genius?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Just as I have the right to decide that they [B]are to be cared about, so that cancels you out. [/b]

Yeah, but your reasoning is based on logic thinner than Calista Flockheart.

Kinda cancels you out.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So it's mass murder then, not genocide?

Does that suit you better?

No, because it's not murder. Let's not go there again.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Seeing as pro-life means considering a foetus to have the right to life, yes that's what I did.

If you are pro-killing of the foetus in anyway, you are quite clearly in complete contradiction of pro-life as a concept.

Ergo, you are not pro-life.

-AC

More lies, once again based in your inaccurate description of pro-life automatically belieiving that life begins at conception.

You can keep repeating this same lie, AC, but it will still be a lie.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
No sweety, there is no smack.

Unless if you think arguing for the deaths of innocent children so that people can be selfish and screw whoever they want, when they want is "the smack down."

Then pity to you.

Where, exactly, did I say that 'arguing for the deaths of innocent children so that people can be selfish and screw whoever they want, when they want' was the smackdown? I was simply stating that you and your statements, for want of a better word, got owned. Twice. Please don't patronise me.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Once more, the rleigious pro-lifers may believe this is at conception, but not all of them

Illogical. Prevention of life happens either way, at any stage, hence the point of abortion. So if you are for any abortion, you're clearly not PRO-LIFE are you? Seeing as you are giving the ok to killing it.

Regardless of whether you believe life begins at conception or not, the cells are there ALIVE, so it's still terminating something ALIVE, regardless of if they believe it's a LIFE or not. So it's not adhering to the right to life theory. Right to life meaning it has the right to life at any stage, considering life is an eventuality.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yes, that's right- the one that totally restricts a woman's choice after 24 weeks, unlike you, who supports them having choice all the way.

How is that for a fact, genius?

It's not a fact that nearly everyone (as you said) believes said abortion is wrong.

Big claim, let's see you prove it.

-AC

But putting limitations on the term "pro-choice" is self-defeating. In the same sense, I am unable to choose to go up to a random person and bash them on the head. WOMGZ I HAVE NO RITES!1!!!ONE!

What most people regard as pro-choice is that women are allowed to choose whether or not they can have an abortion while the pro-life stance is that abortions should never be allowed. (At least that's the sense I get from this thread).

Feel frer to go check the surveys! The largest group always believes in more strict abortion laws, and only a tiny minority ever believes therte should be no anti-abortion laws at all.

It is all out there- go find it. You will find the amount of people in the UK reflecting your beliefs is close to nil

-

"Regardless of whether you believe life begins at conception or not, the cells are there ALIVE, so it's still terminating something ALIVE, regardless of if they believe it's a LIFE or not. So it's not adhering to the right to life theory."

You've clearly missed the point of the argument.

It's not about being alive like a flower is. It is about being alive like a HUMAN is. The concept of Personhood, the process of Personification. There is a point at which a bundle of cells in a woman becomes a proper human life. it is only AFTER that point that the Pro-Life belief says that it should not be terminated, because, of course, it is a human life.

Once more- religious types believe that this point is at conception. Other pro-life types do not.

You have every right to call the belief illogical, but that is still how it is. Pro-Life does NOT automatically equal thinking that a proper human life starts at conception.

Originally posted by Syren
Where, exactly, did I say that 'arguing for the deaths of innocent children so that people can be selfish and screw whoever they want, when they want' was the smackdown? I was simply stating that you and your statements, for want of a better word, got owned. Twice. Please don't patronise me.

Nobody got owned.

That is merely your own point of view.

I find it rather sad that I say people should take more responsibility for their actions and not kill innocent children, and then I'm called an insensitve male prick.

And apparently, I'm "owned".

Your view of the world disgusts me.

Nothing you say can take away the fact that you would thank whatever god you believe in that your mother didn't have an abortion, yet you will trivialize the life of another human, by pretending that your's or any other womans life is worth more than his/hers.

I bet you wouldn't be so flippant about your own life. (which it seems, is worth more than any others).

All life is the same. It is all valuable. The woman is just as valued as the baby.

It is her choice to have sex, and possibly get pregnant, but not to deal with the results?

To kill an innocent life?

Maybe she's an insensitive c*nt.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Feel frer to go check the surveys! The largest group always believes in more strict aboriton laws, and only a tiny minority ever believes therte should be no anti-abortion laws at all.

It is all out there- go find it.

You brought it up, show me how nearly every person on this planet believes that the stage of abortion you highlighted, is wrong. I'll be waiting for it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
it;s not about being alive like a flowerr is. It is about being alive like a HUMAN is. The concept of Persongood, the process of Personification. There is a point at which a bundle of cells in a woman becomes a proper human life. it is only AFTER that point that the Pro-Life belief says that it should not be terminated, becausem, of course, it is a human life.

Ok, that's fine. Going by that logic, anyone who claims to be pro-life but is still for abortion and the choice to have an abortion at that point, would no longer be considered pro-life, would they? Because even then they are continuing to not adhere to the concept.

Let's say we can point at a place where it becomes a human and a woman who claims to be pro-life says that she is not totally against all those, they should be allowed in emergencies. She's not pro-life then, because she's contradicting herself.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Once more- religious types believe that this point is at conception. Other pro-life types do not.

You have every right to call the belief illogical, but that is still how it is. Pro-Life does NOT automatically equal thinking that a proper human life starts at conception.

You've missed my original point.

Point being that you cannot label yourself pro-life if you are for abortion in any way once it becomes a "human" as Makedde has previously been proven.

Doctor: The foetus in her is now a human. She wants to abort it.

Random human: I am pro-life, so I disagree, but it's up to her.

That's not pro-life.

-AC

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Your view of the world disgusts me.

Hahahaha, coming from Mr. Women shouldn't have sex whenever they want, if they are they're insensitive c*nts.

Mr. If you don't want a baby, never have sex.

Mr. South Dakota made a good call.

-AC

"You brought it up, show me how nearly every person on this planet believes that the stage of abortion you highlighted, is wrong. I'll be waiting for it."

You seriously think many people believe that abortion should be illegal right up until the moment of birth, AC?

Let's look at the opinion poll in the UK taken on this last year.

-

30% of Britons would back a measure to reduce the legal limit for abortion to 20 weeks, 19% support a limit of 12 weeks, 9% support a limit of less than 12 weeks, and 25% support maintaining the current limit of 24 weeks. 6% responded that abortion should never be allowed while 2% said it should be permitted throughout the entirety of pregnancy

-

2%, AC. There are your buddies.

I have never met anyone in my life- before you- that actually thought aboriton should be legal right up until the moment of birth. Just about everyone I have ever talked with ever, believes there is a point after which it should be illega.

-

"Ok, that's fine. Going by that logic, anyone who claims to be pro-life but is still for abortion and the choice to have an abortion at that point, would no longer be considered pro-life, would they? Because even then they are continuing to not adhere to the concept."

Huh? Are you so put off by having made such basic logical mistakes here that you can now do nothing other than post nonsense?

The point is that BEFORE the point of personification, there is no human life at all, so there is no problem with the abortion.

AFTER that point it has the right to life- that is the philosophy of Pro-Life.

How much more simple do you want it?

"You've missed my original point.

Point being that you cannot label yourself pro-life if you are for abortion in any way once it becomes a "human" as Makedde has previously been proven.

Doctor: The foetus in her is now a human. She wants to abort it.

Random human: I am pro-life, so I disagree, but it's up to her.

That's not pro-life"

Again... what's wrong with you? That you cannot understand how simple this is?

AFTER the point of personification, you think no-one should be allowed to abort.

As the majority of people support either the law as it is or some variant of it, they are all following this basic philisophical process.

Once more, only a tiny minority believes as you do, AC.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You seriously think many people believe that aborition should be illegal right up until the moment of birth, AC?

Let's look at the opinion poll in the UK taken on this last year.

-

30% of Britons would back a measure to reduce the legal limit for abortion to 20 weeks, 19% support a limit of 12 weeks, 9% support a limit of less than 12 weeks, and 25% support maintaining the current limit of 24 weeks. 6% responded that abortion should never be allowed while 2% said it should be permitted throughout the entirety of pregnancy

-

2%, AC. There are your buddies.

I have never met anyone in my life- before you- that actually thought aboriton should be legal right up until the moment of birth. Just about everyone I have ever talked with ever, believes there is a point after which it should be illega.

This still doesn't equate to nearly everyone, ever, does it? No. It's a hyperbolic claim that serves no use or purpose. People with my opinion may very well be out-numbered, that doesn't mean we are wrong and that everyone in the world (nearly) agrees with you.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Huh? Are you so put off by having made such basic logical mistakes here that you can now do nothing other than post nonsense?

The point is that BEFORE the point of personification, there is no human life at all, so there is no problem with the abortion.

AFTER that point it has the right to life- that is the philosophy of Pro-Life.

Let's take a look back at my example, since you saw fit to skip it:

Doctor: The foetus in her is now a human. She wants to abort it.

Random human: I am pro-life, so I disagree, but it's up to her.

That's not pro-life. That's disliking the certain abortion, but being pro-choice.

Do you consider Random Human to be pro-life? They have labelled themselves as such, do you consider them to be?

It's not about who wants what abortion, it's distinguishing between pro-life, pro-choice and disliking certain abortions.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
How much more simple do you want it?

-AC

Your idiotic point has been answered.

And now I see you are at the point of denying evidence. I've backed my claims, AC. Back yours with something conflicting or you are simply in the realm of the crying child.

Try going out and asking people, maybe. See how many people you find that think it should be allowdd up to the moment of birth, compared to those who believe that there is a limit during pregnancy.

See how many people on this BOARD think that.

You will lose- I guarantee it. I'm sorry to break this to you- but the majority of the populace support legal limits on abortion, thereby denying choice. That's simply a fact.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again... what's wrong with you? That you cannot understand how simple this is?

AFTER the point of personification, you think no-one should be allowed to abort.

As the majority of people support either the law as it is or some variant of it, they are all following this basic philisophical process.

Once more, only a tiny minority believes as you do, AC.

You're not even talking about the same thing as I am, or answering my questions, so who are you to ask about understanding?

I give you an example, ask if you believe it to be pro-life, and you reply with telling me something unrelated?

-AC

I did answer your point. I seriously cannot understand what is wrong with you.

"Random human: I am pro-life, so I disagree, but it's up to her."

That is not the position of a Pro-Life person.

It is also not the position of the average pro-choicer, who does in fact- like the majority of people- back a legal limit on abortion. After that legal point, opinion and choice be damned.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Nobody got owned.

That is merely your own point of view.

I find it rather sad that I say people should take more responsibility for their actions and not kill innocent children, and then I'm called an insensitve male prick.

I think it was more the way you stated your opinions, perhaps a little insensitively? For the record, I didn't call you an insensitive male prick. I just appreciated the responses to your comments.

And apparently, I'm "owned".

Your view of the world disgusts me.

I make one statement and you decide it's my view of the world? Thank you. Although, perhaps 'owned' was the wrong choice of word, my mistake 🙄

Nothing you say can take away the fact that you would thank whatever god you believe in that your mother didn't have an abortion, yet you will trivialize the life of another human, by pretending that your's or any other womans life is worth more than his/hers.

I bet you wouldn't be so flippant about your own life. (which it seems, is worth more than any others).

All life is the same. It is all valuable. The woman is just as valued as the baby.

It is her choice to have sex, and possibly get pregnant, but not to deal with the results?

To kill an innocent life?

Maybe she's an insensitive c*nt.

But you're brushing aside all of the other elements here. This 'insensitive c*nt' may have been raped, she may die if she goes full term, she may not be able to mentally/emotionally/financially provide for the child. Ok, so she got pregnant, that's her fault (and her partner's), but how can you say that she should have no choice whatsoever in the matter once she finds out she's pregnant? How can you draw the line so easily? You'll never find yourself in that position, so your statements are based solely on your idealistic ideas. Merely your own point of view.