More Anti-Abortion "Logic"

[pocketfullofshells]

This subject will never be resolved. There will always be people who have no problem saying that guy is less of a person than me or this child is less of a person than me. We won’t change that. But we should speak up if we don’t agree. Both sides really should speak up.

I guess each person has to decide for themselves when they feel the person living inside them is person enough to live. I cant make anyone see it my way anymore than they can make me see it their way, but if they insist on killing their children they should at least admit they feel they are more of a person than the person they are deciding to kill. and they should at least be able to ask themselves why was this baby unworthy for life 2 weeks ago and fit to live 2 weeks from now, what has really changed in that period of time.

you know some would say you just said you are pro choice now.

 

[BigRob]

I use those as examples of things I would for sure be pro choice on, but my views on standard abortions are open to lenght of time. I am against 3rd term unless life is at risk...I am 100% pro day after pill...anything in the middle I am open to debate.

I can possibly buy into life at risk or rape/incest. However, in all other cases it should be banned. Pro-abortion advocates will never agree to only life at risk or rape/incest because they realize this will end almost all abortions. That is why it gets turned into a "reproductive rights" issue, which I think is complete garbage.

 

[Pandora]

you know some would say you just said you are pro choice now.

Some people can say that if they want, its more about reality.

Reality says you can kill your child on demand for any reason, hell obama says we can clone and create life just to destroy it because he holds no value in it.

I say people who do things like that are no better than Hitler, if knowing people are going to do it because its legal means I am pro choice then ok what ever. but it doesnt change the fact they think like Hitler, they see others as less of a person as themselves.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I can possibly buy into life at risk or rape/incest. However, in all other cases it should be banned. Pro-abortion advocates will never agree to only life at risk or rape/incest because they realize this will end almost all abortions. That is why it gets turned into a "reproductive rights" issue, which I think is complete garbage.

what about day after pill? your not even pregnant yet at that point.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Some people can say that if they want, its more about reality.

Reality says you can kill your child on demand for any reason, hell obama says we can clone and create life just to destroy it because he holds no value in it.

I say people who do things like that are no better than Hitler, if knowing people are going to do it because its legal means I am pro choice then ok what ever. but it doesnt change the fact they think like Hitler, they see others as less of a person as themselves.

Nancy Reagan is Hitler?

 

[Pandora]

Nancy Reagan is Hitler?

Does Nancy Reagan believe some humans are less of a person than her? Enough less of a person that their lives can be destroyed for her personal gain or satisfaction?

If she does then she shares some thinking with people like Adolph Hitler, Slave traders exc.

This is simple basic logic; I am not sure why we even have to go over it.

I am not saying that Nancy Reagan or you or anyone who is pro abortion is Hitler or a slave owner, only that they share a train of thought and a rationalization that they are above some others and they have the power and the right to decide who is and who is not a person, and who is and who is not worthy of life.

Science would say if they are alive, the off spring (Fetus) of two human beings, if they have their own DNA, their own heart exc. they are a human being at what ever stage of development, but when you decide that its your right to decide if someone is "person" enough to live or only worthy of being created so you can destroy them in research.....
Then your thinking on this matter is more like Adolph Hitler than maybe you are willing to admit.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Does Nancy Reagan believe some humans are less of a person than her? Enough less of a person that their lives can be destroyed for her personal gain or satisfaction?

If she does then she shares some thinking with people like Adolph Hitler, Slave traders exc.

This is simple basic logic; I am not sure why we even have to go over it.

I am not saying that Nancy Reagan or you or anyone who is pro abortion is Hitler or a slave owner, only that they share a train of thought and a rationalization that they are above some others and they have the power and the right to decide who is and who is not a person, and who is and who is not worthy of life.

Science would say if they are alive, the off spring (Fetus) of two human beings, if they have their own DNA, their own heart exc. they are a human being at what ever stage of development, but when you decide that its your right to decide if someone is "person" enough to live or only worthy of being created so you can destroy them in research.....
Then your thinking on this matter is more like Adolph Hitler than maybe you are willing to admit.

one could say that anyone who supported the war in Iraq did not value human life and is just like Hitler as well. or Death penatly. And She belives in stem cell Resurch

 

[Chip]

Attention folks: the right to life of newly conceived people has been discussed and concluded with respect to science in the affirmative here: A Conception's Right To Life.

What religions do and don't do is, as always, irrelevant with respect to the foundtional inalienable right to life of newly conceived people.

This thread is more about religion and associated inconsistencies.

Apparently all arguments for and against the foundational inalienable right to life of newly conceived people have been presented in A Conception's Right To Life ... though additional new arguments either way are always welcomed there.

 

[Pandora]

one could say that anyone who supported the war in Iraq did not value human life and is just like Hitler as well. or Death penatly. And She belives in stem cell Resurch

I know that she believes in stem cell research and most likely believes in abortion too.

What kind of experiments did Hitler do on Jews because he did not consider them a “person” therefore it was ok to do experiments on them.

What is the difference in targeting Jews as non persons so they can “for the sake of science” take away their life and dignity as a human beings and a person creating human beings to experiment on “for the sake of science” and then kill them or a person deciding the person living within them with their own DNA, their own heart, lungs, body exc. Is a “non person” therefore its ok to kill them because it makes your life better? Hitler thought killing the Jews would make the lives better for the Germans too.

If you can explain to me why they are different I am open to hearing it.


I know you can’t understand it but there is a difference in purposely taking an innocent life out of convenience and applying the death penalty to a murderer.

Now I personally am against the death penalty but if given the choice if killing an innocent baby who has done no one wrong and applying the death penalty to a man who raped and murdered a child. The guy is toast. But I would rather see that we put those people in jail or prison for their entire life without any chance of release but spare their life.

As for war, why do you pick the Iraq war? Why not the Afghanistan war? Why not WW1 or WW2? Do you agree with the WW’s and Afghanistan so when one kills another in combat that’s ok but you don’t agree with the Iraq war so its not ok when one kills another in combat? If a person attacks you on the street and tries to kill you are you a murderer if you fight back and kill them?

What is the difference between murder and killing?

Generally and legally speaking a murder is something that's planned and intended, Killing is when someone ends up dead more or less accidentally. Then of course soldiers at war don't murder, they kill.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_murder_and_killing

You plan to kill a baby in abortion, you make an appointment with a doctor, you pay the doctor and you let him kill the baby.

With Obama’s new stem cell research, you will create human life for the purpose of killing/destroying that human life for research

In war you try to protect what ever group you are siding with, you try to take prisoners from the other side, often time’s people die.

I heard of a case where our troops purposely killed either civilians or the enemy when they did not have to, no threat of their own life was present. I think they were charged for it and are now doing time. Of course that is wrong. You do your best to capture the enemy and give them a fair trial not shoot them unarmed.

If you really can not see the difference between these examples I am sorry

 

[BigRob]

one could say that anyone who supported the war in Iraq did not value human life and is just like Hitler as well. or Death penatly. And She belives in stem cell Resurch

You could say the same thing by saying those who opposed the war did not value the lives of the Iraqi's Saddam often killed.

Further, most people support stem cell research, with adult stem cells. These stem cells have to date shown the most promise, and are currently used in treatments. Embryonic stem cells are about to start their first trial in humans, however they focus on a spine problem in the early stages when it will really be unable to tell if the stem cells had any real effect.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You could say the same thing by saying those who opposed the war did not value the lives of the Iraqi's Saddam often killed.

Further, most people support stem cell research, with adult stem cells. These stem cells have to date shown the most promise, and are currently used in treatments. Embryonic stem cells are about to start their first trial in humans, however they focus on a spine problem in the early stages when it will really be unable to tell if the stem cells had any real effect.

you could say that yes, but they would also be idiots. Point was its a dumb argument, not that only one side can make it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You realize that this is something like 0.001% of all abortion cases.

....And, we know that, how??​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Thats the republican playbook...use extreme cases of abortion, often times illegal ones, to say ban it 100%

Our Talibanhttp://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/index.htm considers it "compassionate-conservatism".​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The only time i will probably agree with you pocket.

Abortion should be legal only up to the 2nd trimester (( with an obvious grace period of a few weeks. ))

The current status quo of infantcide should be however made illegal. As a New father... it breaks my heart that there is even doctors out there capable of planting a knife in the back of a full term babies head during delivery.

So do something about it.

Have you considered Adoption???

Hell.....there's (even) a growth-industry, for you, here! You could market designer-jars!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Uhm, it is not the republicans presenting examples of rape as an argument for legalizing abortion. That would be your side, which happens to be Shaman in this regard. So it appears your side is using extreme cases to try to allow it in most cases.

Ah, yes.....extreme cases; those situations that have not (yet) directly-affected good, moral Republicans.

​