Legitimate Rape and Abortion- Republicans back-pedal

[Juan_Bottom]

It's not Abortion by race, it's Abortion by income.

[BigBallinStalin]

if one believes that abortion is murder, then millions of abortions per year qualifies as mass homicide if not genocide

Do you even understand what the word genocide means? You seem to throw it around as if it's something along the lines of killing a lot of people.

i'm not going to play your idiotic game. you scour posts that you disagree with for one word that you feel isn't being used to your exact definition, and then make the entire debate about the meaning of that one word, because you know you aren't able to defend your initial argument (hence why i said mass homicide if not genocide, because you are predictable as f*ck).

https://www.google.com/search?q=define% ... =firefox-a

The deliberate killing of a large group of people

pro-lifers believe that abortion is killing and that fetuses are people. millions of induced abortions occur per year. therefore pro-lifers can reasonably believe that the abortion movement counts as genocide. now address my actual argument or shut the hell up. you are not "clever", you are irritating.

Haha, Sym got schooled. After reading the past 2 pages, john's prediction was correct too. Sym's still arguing about the use of the word "genocide" while failing to address john's other points. It's a great diversionary tactic, but it's pretty pointless.

Let's call it "mass murder" because murder is "unjust killing" (from the pro-life perspective), it's "mass murder" because murder is being committed in very large numbers.


On John's point: I'd take it further. If abortion is murder, and millions of humans/fetuses are dying per year, then why don't they take direct action? Why don't they start bombing abortion clinics, coerce doctors into not performing abortions, etc.? Savings millions of lives should offset the costs...

[rdsrds2120]

Haha, Sym got schooled.


On John's point: I'd take it further. If abortion is murder, and millions of humans/fetuses are dying per year, then why don't they take direct action? Why don't they start bombing abortion clinics, coerce doctors into not performing abortions, etc.? Savings millions of lives should offset the costs...

Some do...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abort ... erty_crime

Unless you were being sarcastic. I can't tell.

-rd

[Symmetry]

if one believes that abortion is murder, then millions of abortions per year qualifies as mass homicide if not genocide

Do you even understand what the word genocide means? You seem to throw it around as if it's something along the lines of killing a lot of people.

i'm not going to play your idiotic game. you scour posts that you disagree with for one word that you feel isn't being used to your exact definition, and then make the entire debate about the meaning of that one word, because you know you aren't able to defend your initial argument (hence why i said mass homicide if not genocide, because you are predictable as f*ck).

https://www.google.com/search?q=define% ... =firefox-a

The deliberate killing of a large group of people

pro-lifers believe that abortion is killing and that fetuses are people. millions of induced abortions occur per year. therefore pro-lifers can reasonably believe that the abortion movement counts as genocide. now address my actual argument or shut the hell up. you are not "clever", you are irritating.

Haha, Sym got schooled.


On John's point: I'd take it further. If abortion is murder, and millions of humans/fetuses are dying per year, then why don't they take direct action? Why don't they start bombing abortion clinics, coerce doctors into not performing abortions, etc.? Savings millions of lives should offset the costs...

Still not genocide, schooling or not,

Thanks for coming through BBS. it was a nice try.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, Sym got schooled.


On John's point: I'd take it further. If abortion is murder, and millions of humans/fetuses are dying per year, then why don't they take direct action? Why don't they start bombing abortion clinics, coerce doctors into not performing abortions, etc.? Savings millions of lives should offset the costs...

Some do...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abort ... erty_crime

Unless you were being sarcastic. I can't tell.

-rd

All I'm asking is "why don't they put their money where their mouth is?"

Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?

I'm thinking they don't really view fetuses as human, or they're pacifists.

But this would be interesting to see: If they're pacifists, how many pro-lifers favor interventionists wars by the US to spread democracy/maximize security? The general public was overwhelmingly in favor of invading Afghanistan and Iraq, and no one really cared that we bombed thousands in Libya. There might be a contradiction at play here: voting in favor of wars that kill people while voting on policies that prevent killing people (anti-abortion policies).

[BigBallinStalin]

if one believes that abortion is murder, then millions of abortions per year qualifies as mass homicide if not genocide

Do you even understand what the word genocide means? You seem to throw it around as if it's something along the lines of killing a lot of people.

i'm not going to play your idiotic game. you scour posts that you disagree with for one word that you feel isn't being used to your exact definition, and then make the entire debate about the meaning of that one word, because you know you aren't able to defend your initial argument (hence why i said mass homicide if not genocide, because you are predictable as f*ck).

https://www.google.com/search?q=define% ... =firefox-a

The deliberate killing of a large group of people

pro-lifers believe that abortion is killing and that fetuses are people. millions of induced abortions occur per year. therefore pro-lifers can reasonably believe that the abortion movement counts as genocide. now address my actual argument or shut the hell up. you are not "clever", you are irritating.

Haha, Sym got schooled.


On John's point: I'd take it further. If abortion is murder, and millions of humans/fetuses are dying per year, then why don't they take direct action? Why don't they start bombing abortion clinics, coerce doctors into not performing abortions, etc.? Savings millions of lives should offset the costs...

Still not genocide, schooling or not,

Thanks for coming through BBS. it was a nice try.

Again, I know it's hard for you to extract yourself from your anus, but we've moved past the genocide issue.

[Juan_Bottom]

Yeah,

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

Nearly everyone knows that.

Symm schooled everybody else.

And by "schooled" I mean that I hope you've learned something new today.

[SirSebstar]

I keep finding it funny that a country that does not believe in schooling their childeren about (safe) sex, has the highest teen pregnancies in the western world, that believes in pro-life and capital punishment and where the cost for the war on drugs is the highest (in dollars, not lives) really takes a moral stance on abortions.
I guess as long as you have the power to dictate how other people should live their lives, the republicans are all to happy to bring the imaginary fairy tale book to the front.

A child cannot get born without the active consent and aid of a (potential) mother. Therefor if awoman at any time should chose to withdraw that consent while the baby is not born, then that is enough. As an excample, a womanr could simply go into a hunger stike, and the child will die. A doctor should not withdraw medical aid, just because he feels he can take a moral stance. This does not include the father, since after hs "donation, his imput is no longer required, consent is therefor implied.
A woman can be presuered into and out of an abortion, but the right to chose should be hers.

any other reasoning is just based on fault logic, wrong assumption, or based on the aforementioned fairy tales.

sadly, intelligence does not mean doing the right thing. And even more sad is that doing the right thing to most people means doing it as I say you should, even though the people dictating how you should live your life do not take the responsibility if things do not turn out as planned(as inevitable they wont)

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah,

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

Nearly everyone knows that.

Symm schooled everybody else.

And by "schooled" I mean that I hope you've learned something new today.

Right, but that's not my argument, so your post was a waste of time.

[Lootifer]

God i hate being a liberal sometimes.

[Juan_Bottom]

I keep finding it funny that a country that does not believe in schooling their childeren about (safe) sex, has the highest teen pregnancies in the western world, that believes in pro-life and capital punishment and where the cost for the war on drugs is the highest (in dollars, not lives) really takes a moral stance on abortions.
I guess as long as you have the power to dictate how other people should live their lives, the republicans are all to happy to bring the imaginary fairy tale book to the front.

Nice point.
I usually draw attention to the fact that it's Republicans who are overwhelmingly against abortion, yet they are also against welfare and free healthcare for poor children. But yours was much more encompassing of the overall situation. They only care about the cells until birth, then they don't give a rat's ass about the baby.

And while I'm against aborting my hypothetical children, I'm also aware that I'm a man and my opinion doesn't carry the weight of a pregnant woman's. Nor does my opinion change the fact that Abortions will happen no matter what the law says, so we may as well make them as safe as possible for everyone.

[Symmetry]

Again, I know it's hard for you to extract yourself from your anus, but we've moved past the genocide issue.

My anus is lovely, and worthy of deep deep regard. I'm only slightly surprised that you took so long to post your fascination with it.

Anyway, genocide is kind of a major accusation. J9B didn't employ it lightly.

[Night Strike]

And while I'm against aborting my hypothetical children, I'm also aware that I'm a man and my opinion doesn't carry the weight of a pregnant woman's. Nor does my opinion change the fact that Abortions will happen no matter what the law says, so we may as well make them as safe as possible for everyone.

I don't have any children yet, but I know child abuse is wrong. A man's opinion on abortion carries just as much weight as a woman's opinion on abortion because abortion is about whether or not it's right to kill an unborn child.

Also, murders will happen no matter what the law says, so we may as well make them as safe as possible for everyone. At least, that's the logic liberals use to justify killing unborn children. Furthermore, every single abortion kills an unborn child, so it's not like it's truly safe for everyone.

[BigBallinStalin]

God i hate being a liberal sometimes.

I think it's one of the most emotionally satisfying ideologies because it's so susceptible to well-intended beliefs. The problem is that the costs of information-gathering and critical thinking are too high for most people, so they fail to see the unintended consequences of well-intended policies, which they support.

For example, progressive polices (medicare, medicaid, minimum wage, etc.,) are easy to correlate with generally good trends, so it's easy to make the assumption that such policies are the cause of the good, thus should be expanded. However, since one's net income significantly drops after pushing past the bottom bracket, then many on welfare entitlements are rationally choosing to stay on welfare and/or avoid pushing beyond that "poverty" line.


Democratic politics seems to have a lot of perverse outcomes when implemented at the national level. For one, it causes a lot of mind pollution in the fora.

[rdsrds2120]

And while I'm against aborting my hypothetical children, I'm also aware that I'm a man and my opinion doesn't carry the weight of a pregnant woman's. Nor does my opinion change the fact that Abortions will happen no matter what the law says, so we may as well make them as safe as possible for everyone.

I don't have any children yet, but I know child abuse is wrong. A man's opinion on abortion carries just as much weight as a woman's opinion on abortion because abortion is about whether or not it's right to kill an unborn child.

Also, murders will happen no matter what the law says, so we may as well make them as safe as possible for everyone. At least, that's the logic liberals use to justify killing unborn children. Furthermore, every single abortion kills an unborn child, so it's not like it's truly safe for everyone.

This explains a lot of the confusion I used to have reading your posts, as that's not what I view abortion to be about at all.

-rd

[BigBallinStalin]

Again, I know it's hard for you to extract yourself from your anus, but we've moved past the genocide issue.

My anus is lovely, and worthy of deep deep regard. I'm only slightly surprised that you took so long to post your fascination with it.

Anyway, genocide is kind of a major accusation. J9B didn't employ it lightly.

That really doesn't address his main points, but nice try?

He even stated:

" you scour posts that you disagree with for one word that you feel isn't being used to your exact definition, and then make the entire debate about the meaning of that one word, because you know you aren't able to defend your initial argument (hence why i said mass homicide if not genocide, because you are predictable as f*ck).

Which was a great prediction. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough because you're not really interested in debate. You're here to troll, Sym. It's that simple.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't have any children yet, but I know child abuse is wrong. A man's opinion on abortion carries just as much weight as a woman's opinion on abortion because abortion is about whether or not it's right to kill an unborn child.

Not exactly.
Is Sperm Human?
When does a cluster of empty cells become a person? When can it theoretically even feel pain?
Is aborting a chimpanzee baby murder because their infant's biology is nearly identical to ours?
Is killing a Chimpanzee Murder?
Will outlawing Abortion do anything to curb abortion?


Is killing a cell cluster with a mutation Murder?

[Symmetry]

J9B:

more people die from induced abortions than african genocides. i have no trouble comparing them.

Link

[Woodruff]

if one believes that abortion is murder, then millions of abortions per year qualifies as mass homicide if not genocide

Do you even understand what the word genocide means? You seem to throw it around as if it's something along the lines of killing a lot of people.

And that's what happens when one class of people are redefined as no longer being human.

No, that's what happens when people use words like "genocide" incorrectly instead of saying what they actually mean, which is "killing a lot of people". But see, people want to use words like "genocide" because they carry highly-charged, emotionally meaning, and those people want the emotionally reaction to that word, even if they are using it dishonestly.

There's no difference between claiming an unborn child is not a human and stating that people who have certain skin colors or religions are not actual humans.

Actually, there CAN BE a significant difference. It really depends on "when". When you consider, for instance, the morning-after pill, you're going to have a really difficult time convincing me that a child is being killed, or certainly that the particular pill is causing any real damage. Later in the gestation period, certainly that becomes more of an honest equation.

[Woodruff]

if one believes that abortion is murder, then millions of abortions per year qualifies as mass homicide if not genocide

Do you even understand what the word genocide means? You seem to throw it around as if it's something along the lines of killing a lot of people.

i'm not going to play your idiotic game. you scour posts that you disagree with for one word that you feel isn't being used to your exact definition

No...words have meaning. If you're using a word in a way that's close to it's meaning, it's easy to overlook. When you're using a word in a way that has nothing at all to do with it's meaning, then you should be corrected.

pro-lifers believe that abortion is killing and that fetuses are people. millions of induced abortions occur per year. therefore pro-lifers can reasonably believe that the abortion movement counts as genocide.

No, that is not a reasonable statement. Not in any way, shape or form. Again, words have meaning. Homicide I'll buy...it's not remotely genocide.

[Lootifer]

God i hate being a liberal sometimes.

I think it's one of the most emotionally satisfying ideologies because it's so susceptible to well-intended beliefs. The problem is that the costs of information-gathering and critical thinking are too high for most people, so they fail to see the unintended consequences of well-intended policies, which they support.

For example, progressive polices (medicare, medicaid, minimum wage, etc.,) are easy to correlate with generally good trends, so it's easy to make the assumption that such policies are the cause of the good, thus should be expanded. However, since one's net income significantly drops after pushing past the bottom bracket, then many on welfare entitlements are rationally choosing to stay on welfare and/or avoid pushing beyond that "poverty" line.


Democratic politics seems to have a lot of perverse outcomes when implemented at the national level. For one, it causes a lot of mind pollution in the fora.

Oh im happy with the idealogies; its the, erm, riff raff

Citing my own transparent form of liberalism to satisfy the J9Bs of this world: the classification of what the removal of a fetus from a womans womb is has no real worth to me; you can call it murder if you like, but thats not how I view it. You can argue about classification all day long, it'll get you nowhere. Its a Phattist debate (no offense PS; afaik you have been reasonably level headed in this thread).

I view pre-13 week abortions are perfectly acceptable as I do not treat what is inside the woman as anything more than an organ with which she can choose to do what she likes. The womans welfare is paramount in this situation.

Past that, I dont think I can adequately make an argument; its a grey area and am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the conservatives on this one with exceptions for extreme cases and cases where the health of the mother is at risk.

The potential human argument for me doesnt stack up. Im an apathetic/pragmatic agnostic, lump of cells with potential < society.

[Woodruff]

Darn words...and their meanings! I think life would be simpler if we all communicated with noises.

Grrah. Grrrruuuuuuunnnnngggggghhh!!!

Arguments about abortion are hard because people go into the argument assuming that their terms are already defined by themselves, and never seem to make sure that everyone's on the same page from the get go. john, defining terms is important when making an argument. You have to say what you mean and mean what you say to get anywhere.

-rd

i meant what i said, and i backed it up. symmetry is just whining because he doesn't want millions of dead fetuses to look like millions of dead jews. he's trying to distance himself from uncomfortable words because of the effect they have on the way he thinks.

Stop being dishonest.

i never use words that i don't mean.

genocide isn't committed by just one person. many people who participate in a genocide don't even necessarily realize that what they are doing is extremely wrong. people can be convinced to do almost anything as long as they believe that they won't be personally held responsible. but genocide is genocide nonetheless. sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

Holding to this use of the term "genocide" is only making you look ignorant. There are plenty of accurate terms for you to use...you should use them.

[Woodruff]

On John's point: I'd take it further. If abortion is murder, and millions of humans/fetuses are dying per year, then why don't they take direct action? Why don't they start bombing abortion clinics, coerce doctors into not performing abortions, etc.? Savings millions of lives should offset the costs...

Some do, unfortunately.

[Woodruff]

Haha, Sym got schooled.


On John's point: I'd take it further. If abortion is murder, and millions of humans/fetuses are dying per year, then why don't they take direct action? Why don't they start bombing abortion clinics, coerce doctors into not performing abortions, etc.? Savings millions of lives should offset the costs...

Some do...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abort ... erty_crime

Unless you were being sarcastic. I can't tell.

-rd

All I'm asking is "why don't they put their money where their mouth is?"

Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?

Because it's not murder (a criminal action), and doing so would make them criminals. Most religious folks I know tend not to want to be criminal, regardless of their moral/ethical position on a subject.

[Woodruff]

And while I'm against aborting my hypothetical children, I'm also aware that I'm a man and my opinion doesn't carry the weight of a pregnant woman's. Nor does my opinion change the fact that Abortions will happen no matter what the law says, so we may as well make them as safe as possible for everyone.

I don't have any children yet, but I know child abuse is wrong. A man's opinion on abortion carries just as much weight as a woman's opinion on abortion because abortion is about whether or not it's right to kill an unborn child.

Also, murders will happen no matter what the law says

So not only is "genocide" a term you don't understand, you also don't understand the term "murder"?