Abortion Smoothie

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Does that hold true for soldiers as well? I'll promise to never agree to an abortion again if soldiers promise to never murder again.. Hows that?

 

There's a difference. American Soldiers kill in defense of our country. To protect our way of life.

 

You murdered for your own comfort, so you wouldn't be inconvenienced by being forced to raise and care for the child that you, apparently irresponsibly, helped create.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

What are you talking about? .

 

This is what I was addressing :

 

Originally Posted by ImWithStupid

a fetus must not be a life or it would be illegal to abort it,

 

I will not be endorsing abortion because a bunch of politicians say it is legal.

[wez]

There's a difference. American Soldiers kill in defense of our country. To protect our way of life.

 

You murdered for your own comfort, so you wouldn't be inconvenienced by being forced to raise and care for the child that you, apparently irresponsibly, helped create.

 

The difference is hypocrisy..

[wez]

This is what I was addressing :

 

Originally Posted by ImWithStupid

a fetus must not be a life or it would be illegal to abort it,

 

I will not be endorsing abortion because a bunch of politicians say it is legal.

 

Just as I will not endorse war cause a bunch of politicians say it's ok..

 

So, life = fertilized egg? Why are the parts not considered life?

[RegisteredAndEducated]

The difference is hypocrisy..

 

so, you're admitting to being a hypocrite. good. so long as you realize it.

[wez]

so, you're admitting to being a hypocrite. good. so long as you realize it.

 

No, you are.. I don't consider a fertilized egg, life, you do, but I do know that people that die in wars are life.. You're the hypocrite, not me. Why not = concern for what you consider "life"?

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

So, a fertilized egg = life? Why stop there. If those two parts make a life, then those two parts must be life themselves as we know that life only comes from life. Sperm = life. You're a murderer everytime you masturbate ...

 

a single sperm, like a single ovum is not viable, either alone could not become a baby. However a fertilised ovum is viable

[RegisteredAndEducated]

You're not understanding the difference morally between killing and murder.

[wez]

a single sperm, like a single ovum is not viable, either alone could not become a baby. However a fertilised ovum is viable

 

 

Obviously, not viable cannot become viable.. A single ovum and a single sperm must have the viability for life, or else they could not produce a viable life when joined together.

[wez]

You're not understanding the difference morally between killing and murder.

 

What is the difference?

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

Just as I will not endorse war cause a bunch of politicians say it's ok..?

 

Thats fine by me Wez, there are many wars that I would disaprove of, and some I would approve of, the defining thing for me, is why a war is being fought.

 

So, life = fertilized egg? Why are the parts not considered life?

 

A sperm like an ovum is not viable. Alone they can only die. They cannot become a baby alone ever.

 

A fertilized ovum if nurtured and cared for will become a little person.

 

I dont think its helpful that you and TJ have been called murderers. We are here to debate. I hope the namecalling stops now.

[timesjoke]

Then why'd you go to prison?

 

Where in the hell did you ever get that idea?

 

Sometimes I wonder at the way your mind just vomits up garbage for you to post here.

 

I did have a hearing (almost all officer involved deaths have these) and during that hearing, some people attempted to make me sound like the bad guy, but I was never in "trouble" and I finished out ten years before going in a new direction with my life.

 

 

 

 

No, you are.. I don't consider a fertilized egg, life, you do, but I do know that people that die in wars are life.. You're the hypocrite, not me. Why not = concern for what you consider "life"?

 

Your only saying that to avoid admitting your more messed up than everyone you attack.

 

You kill an innocent life for selfish reasons but your too cowardly to own up to your actions, so typical of you liberals.

 

But guess what, you cannot hide behind semantics on judgement day my friend.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

Obviously, not viable cannot become viable..,

 

Yes it can, it happens at ferilization.

 

A single ovum and a single sperm must have the viability for life,

 

No, a single sperm cannot become a baby, nor a single ovum

[eddo]

He's condemning me to try to make himself feel better.. That's what I'm trying to show him.. I don't condemn him for murdering a man and sending 4 people to the hospital, it's the opposite.

 

And I haven't "continually" brought sh t up.. I asked him once, he ignored. I didn't say another word till he started up the condemnation..

 

So you are showing him his errors in condemnation by condemning him? That is completely bogus. Honestly, how TimesJoke does or does not behave has nothing to do with how you respond to him. Plain and simple, you are doing it just to be back on the attack, instead of just furthering healthy and decent discussion.

 

and for the record- You are doing the same thing TJ and Brotherman. Name-calling has no place in debate, and neither does taking attacks to a personal level.

 

 

I dont think its helpful that you and TJ have been called murderers. We are here to debate. I hope the namecalling stops now.

I completely agree with this.

 

 

 

Having said all that:

 

Wez, I get your point about people killing in wars vs. abortions. Both involve the ending of human life (in abortion that is always an innocent life, and in war many casualties are innocents as well.) I often struggle with this idea myself.

 

But- in war there is a purpose- especially from the standpoint of America. Defense and protection come to mind.

The main purpose for aborting a little baby is to shirk responsibility that often times could have been prevented before hand.

[wez]

Thats fine by me Wez, there are many wars that I would disaprove of, and some I would approve of, the defining thing for me, is why a war is being fought.

 

 

 

A sperm like an ovum is not viable. Alone they can only die. They cannot become a baby alone ever.

 

A fertilized ovum if nurtured and cared for will become a little person.

 

I dont think its helpful that you and TJ have been called murderers. We are here to debate. I hope the namecalling stops now.

 

 

I don't have a problem with that, I thought it was ok for me to return the favor after being called a murderer..

 

So one cell is not a life and another is because it has a different pattern of growth and eventual death? Seems together, they can only die as well..

[wez]

Where in the hell did you ever get that idea?

 

You said you "cut your losses to 10 years", I assumed.. Must have been your 10 years as a cop you were referring to. I didn't realize you killed that man as a cop.

 

Sometimes I wonder at the way your mind just vomits up garbage for you to post here.

 

I just told you, sorry, you didn't answer when I asked you about what you said weeks ago.

 

did have a hearing (almost all officer involved deaths have these) and during that hearing' date=' some people attempted to make me sound like the bad guy, but I was never in "trouble" and I finished out ten years before going in a new direction with my life.[/quote']

 

You do seem to have anger issues..

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your only saying that to avoid admitting your more messed up than everyone you attack.

 

You kill an innocent life for selfish reasons but your too cowardly to own up to your actions, so typical of you liberals.

 

But guess what, you cannot hide behind semantics on judgement day my friend.

 

Talkin about yourself again there bud..

[wez]

So you are showing him his errors in condemnation by condemning him? That is completely bogus. Honestly, how TimesJoke does or does not behave has nothing to do with how you respond to him. Plain and simple, you are doing it just to be back on the attack, instead of just furthering healthy and decent discussion.

 

He condemned himself, that's what I was showing him.

 

 

and for the record- You are doing the same thing TJ and Brotherman. Name-calling has no place in debate, and neither does taking attacks to a personal level.

 

Yes, you're correct. I assume they want the same treatment they give, just like I've done with you. When it stops, I stop as well.

 

 

 

I completely agree with this.

 

Me too.. Stop it at the source, not the recipient.

 

 

 

Having said all that:

 

Wez, I get your point about people killing in wars vs. abortions. Both involve the ending of human life (in abortion that is always an innocent life, and in war many casualties are innocents as well.) I often struggle with this idea myself.

 

But- in war there is a purpose- especially from the standpoint of America. Defense and protection come to mind.

The main purpose for aborting a little baby is to shirk responsibility that often times could have been prevented before hand.

 

 

Couldn't I then argue that I was defending my "freedom", and "protecting" my rights as an individual to "shirk" my responsibilities of doing everything in my power to force another person to carry a pregnancy to term?

[eddo]

He condemned himself, that's what I was showing him.

Yes, you're correct. I assume they want the same treatment they give, just like I've done with you. When it stops, I stop as well.

 

Way to not be the bigger man about it...

 

Me too.. Stop it at the source, not the recipient.

 

That's just it, You are part of the source. By your own thought process: Why should they quit when you dish it out as well?

 

Do you not see that this circular "he started it, so I have to continue it" baloney leads nowhere???

 

 

 

 

 

Couldn't I then argue that I was defending my "freedom", and "protecting" my rights as an individual to "shirk" my responsibilities of doing everything in my power to force another person to carry a pregnancy to term?

 

Defending and protection of life vs. irresponsible taking of a life? I don't think I agree with you. Your rights as an individual should not allow you to take an innocent life, just for the sake of inconvenience (but for now they do, even though I don't think they should.) And that isn't what happens in a war.

 

Another thing I thought of:

I don't know of a time when the U.S. has attacked someone without some sort of provocation. Ignoring warnings, ignoring U.N. resolutions, mistreatment of people, threatening (or attack) of our allies, attack of us, etc.

 

What kind of warning does an unborn baby have? What has it done to harm anyone else?

[wez]

Way to not be the bigger man about it...

 

Don't worry about me unless it concerns you.

 

 

 

That's just it, You are part of the source. By your own thought process: Why should they quit when you dish it out as well?

 

They can do whatever they want.. so can I. And I know what I'm doing. You've seemed to mellow out as of late.. Some stop after the first time, others take years, but eventually, they stop.

 

Do you not see that this circular "he started it, so I have to continue it" baloney leads nowhere???

 

Don't worry about me, I eat what I choose to eat, some I like to spit in the cooks face. You handle individuals as you see fit, I'll do the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defending and protection of life vs. irresponsible taking of a life? I don't think I agree with you. Your rights as an individual should not allow you to take an innocent life, just for the sake of inconvenience (but for now they do, even though I don't think they should.) And that isn't what happens in a war.

 

Not as convenient to compromise and cooperate without murder as an option I presume..

 

Another thing I thought of:

I don't know of a time when the U.S. has attacked someone without some sort of provocation. Ignoring warnings, ignoring U.N. resolutions, mistreatment of people, threatening (or attack) of our allies, attack of us, etc.

 

What kind of warning does an unborn baby have? What has it done to harm anyone else?

 

When did Vietnam attack? Panama? Grenada? Iraq? Afghanistan? Etc....

[eddo]

When did Vietnam attack? Panama? Grenada? Iraq? Afghanistan? Etc....

 

You got just that one word (attack) out of all this, huh?

 

Ignoring warnings, ignoring U.N. resolutions, mistreatment of people, threatening (or attack) of our allies, attack of us, etc.

[wez]

You got just that one word (attack) out of all this, huh?

 

Apparently..

[Anna Perenna]

Apparently they do. That's why this guy is up for murder.

But I get your jest. They had a part in the conception so it?s partly his fault too. The big problem in this picture is he has no say in the abortion.

 

Thanks for being so reasonable, Snafu, but I don't see what you mean. The guy in question never even tried to discuss this with his partner, so we don't actually know if he had no say.

 

So Anna do you believe by this guy slipping her this drug in her smoothie he commited murder?

 

All I know is that he extinguished a life without first consulting the mother, which hurts me to my core.

 

Now, I sense that some of you are assuming I am pro-abortion. Not once in this thread have I actually said that. I simply believe in respecting other people's choices about their own bodies. I don't feel that I have the right to tell another woman what to do with her own body, and I don't feel that I have the right to tell two possible parents that they have to keep the baby.

I don't like it that babies are being killed, but frankly, who the hell am I to assume that I know what's best for another family?

 

As for what may seem like a pro-abortion stance, please let me clarify my position.

 

I care that

 

a) doctor-performed abortions are legally available to people who do need them

 

b) If possible, that the abortion is discussed at length by both parents before a decision is made

 

c) If an agreement cannot be accomplished, then the woman gets the final decision. This is because, ultimately, it's her body. If she wants to keep the baby, she should be able to. If she doesn't want to keep the baby, she shouldn't have to.

Naturally, I think the fathers' feelings should be taken into serious consideration - but if the two have reached a stalemate and cannot agree, then someone needs to have the final say.

That is not to say that women currently do have the final say. Nobody in this thread has actually been able to prove that all abortions undertaken have been the result of a lone decision by a woman.

 

d) that all the blame is not put on the woman's shoulders - especially not in every single instance. As has been made abundantly clear by the news article in question in this thread, there are men out there who do not want to be fathers, and who are pro-abortion.

[snafu]

Thanks for being so reasonable, Snafu, but I don't see what you mean. The guy in question never even tried to discuss this with his partner, so we don't actually know if he had no say.

 

Well your right in this instance. I was kinda using this case as a reference to other fathers that might want to abort the child. I do think he endangered the mother and aborted the fetus making it a crime also.

 

 

As for what may seem like a pro-abortion stance, please let me clarify my position.

 

I care that

 

a) doctor-performed abortions are legally available to people who do need them

 

b) If possible, that the abortion is discussed at length by both parents before a decision is made

 

c) If an agreement cannot be accomplished, then the woman gets the final decision. This is because, ultimately, it's her body. If she wants to keep the baby, she should be able to. If she doesn't want to keep the baby, she shouldn't have to.

Naturally, I think the fathers' feelings should be taken into serious consideration - but if the two have reached a stalemate and cannot agree, then someone needs to have the final say.

That is not to say that women currently do have the final say. Nobody in this thread has actually been able to prove that all abortions undertaken have been the result of a lone decision by a woman.

 

d) that all the blame is not put on the woman's shoulders - especially not in every single instance. As has been made abundantly clear by the news article in question in this thread, there are men out there who do not want to be fathers, and who are pro-abortion.

 

I like this stance except in America a teenager or any women can go and get an abortion without her parents or partners acknowledgment or consent. So the man gets no say so. And I don't agree that the women should get the last say because it's the babies body not hers.

[ImWithStupid]

That is not to say that women currently do have the final say. Nobody in this thread has actually been able to prove that all abortions undertaken have been the result of a lone decision by a woman.

 

I don't think anyone ever said that all abortions are a lone decision by a woman. The problem is that women always do have that final say. She can go and abort it against the father's wishes, or even before telling him that she was ever pregnant. In the end, the woman, does have the final decision (with the exception of being slipped a smoothie).

 

d) that all the blame is not put on the woman's shoulders - especially not in every single instance. As has been made abundantly clear by the news article in question in this thread, there are men out there who do not want to be fathers, and who are pro-abortion.

 

I also don't think that anyone ever said that all of the blame is that of the woman, just that (again excluding a smoothie) in the end, all of the choice is.

 

The main issue here is why is it murder when the man decides to abort the baby against the wishes or knowledge of the woman, but perfectly legal for the woman to abort the same baby against the wishes or knowledge of the man? It's clearly a gender biased criminal charge.

[snafu]

..

The main issue here is why is it murder when the man decides to abort the baby against the wishes or knowledge of the woman, but perfectly legal for the woman to abort the same baby against the wishes or knowledge of the man? It's clearly a gender biased criminal charge.

 

And I really hope this case keeps coming to the for front from now on when abortion debates and laws come up. I think its a very valid point.