Home - List All Discussions

Rape issue in abortion

by: AshMarie88

Got this from a pro-life group I'm on. It's brilliant.
For those of you who think abortion is okay in the case of rape, what about the following situations:
A man and a woman have a child together. The baby has daddy's eyes, his smile, his laugh. Years pass and the dad begins to change. He starts beating on the mom. In one of his rages he rapes her and tries to kill her. Should she be allowed to have her child killed? After all looking at him is a daily reminder of her abuser.
A husband and wife have unprotected sex. Around the same time the woman gets raped. She later found out she is pregnant. Should she be allowed to have an abortion because it MAY be her attackers child? Even if her husband is against it?

reply from: Tam

Great post. I've made the same point about what if a woman is raped by a man with whom she already has a child. After all, the same "logic" applies. The only difference is that one killing is illegal, the other is legal.

reply from: NewPoster1

I've already stated that once a fetus is capable of living outside of and unattached to it's mother that she should no longer have dominion over it. Why would this be any different for a several year old child?
She most certainly should, no one has the right to expect or force her to continue a rape-induced pregnancy against her will. While in this scenario the posibility exists that the pregnancy wasn't caused by the rape, the woman has the sole right to decide whether or not she's willing to risk it.

reply from: AshMarie88

We already know you're for killing babies, NewPoster. Don't further your explanation...
And as I have said before, viability doesn't matter. Hell, put me on the moon with no food or water and expect me to survive. Would that be alright? No. The same logic applies to the unborn. Take them out of their home full of nutrients and warmth and they can't survive.
That may be a dumb example but, it makes sense.

reply from: NewPoster1

You seem to overlook the fact that "their home full of nutrients and warmth" is an unwilling, rape victim's body.

reply from: AshMarie88

You seem to overlook the fact that "their home full of nutrients and warmth" is an unwilling, rape victim's body.
And you seem to overlook the fact that the rapist was responsible for the rape and hurt of the woman, NOT the child. Why not kill/punish the person who actually committed the crime?

reply from: NewPoster1

You seem to overlook the fact that "their home full of nutrients and warmth" is an unwilling, rape victim's body.
And you seem to overlook the fact that the rapist was responsible for the rape and hurt of the woman, NOT the child. Why not kill/punish the person who actually committed the crime?
And you seem to overlook the fact that the forced duration of a rape-induced pregnancy could result in further violation and hurt of the woman.
In any case, I have absolutely nothing against severely punishing the person responsible for the rape. In my opinion, all convicted rapists should be dealth with by, at the very least, mandatory castration, life in prison, or execution.

reply from: AshMarie88

You seem to overlook the fact that "their home full of nutrients and warmth" is an unwilling, rape victim's body.
And you seem to overlook the fact that the rapist was responsible for the rape and hurt of the woman, NOT the child. Why not kill/punish the person who actually committed the crime?
And you seem to overlook the fact that the forced duration of a rape-induced pregnancy could result in further violation and hurt of the woman.
In any case, I have absolutely nothing against severely punishing the person responsible for the rape. In my opinion, all convicted rapists should be dealth with by, at the very least, mandatory castration, life in prison, or execution.
Killing a child because of another crime won't do anything to stop the woman's current hurt.
Until I hear a logical argument that defends the "choice" of killing from rape, I won't be changing my mind anytime soon.

reply from: Tam

The FACT? Either provide some proof of this alleged "fact" or admit it is nothing but your biased opinion.
P.S. By "proof" I mean statistical evidence compiled from actual women who were actually impregnated by rape and wanted to abort but were "forced" to refrain from killing their unborn children, and the specific "further violation and hurt of" them that ensued. And by "hurt" you'd better not be saying it upset them. There are many upsetting things in life--that does not constitute hurt or violation. Actual evidence, please. You keep repeating this stuff as though it had some basis in fact. Well, let's see it.

reply from: NewPoster1

The FACT? Either provide some proof of this alleged "fact" or admit it is nothing but your biased opinion.
P.S. By "proof" I mean statistical evidence compiled from actual women who were actually impregnated by rape and wanted to abort but were "forced" to refrain from killing their unborn children, and the specific "further violation and hurt of" them that ensued. And by "hurt" you'd better not be saying it upset them. There are many upsetting things in life--that does not constitute hurt or violation. Actual evidence, please. You keep repeating this stuff as though it had some basis in fact. Well, let's see it.
You seem to have not seen the word could in my statement.
It all depends on the woman, I believe that some rape victims may find it beneficial to carry their rape-induced pregnancy to term, while at the same time others may "blow their brains out" if they're forced to do so.

reply from: Tam

You seem to have not seen the word could in my statement.
No, I saw your carefully-worded, insurance policy phrasing, NewPoster1. I'd like to see some proof that it is a fact that "forced duration of a rape-induced pregnancy could result in further violation and hurt of the woman". You stated this as a FACT, NewPoster1. What makes you think it's a FACT? Surely you have some reason to believe it is a FACT. Otherwise, it is your OPINION. There is a difference. Walking down the flipping street could result in violation or hurt. I'd like to see any evidence of the "fact" you think we are "overlooking."
Oh, "I believe," eh? So this is your OPINION, and not based in FACT? You seem to have "overlooked" the difference between fact and opinion. Or was it a deliberate attempt to make your opinion seem true, by calling it a fact? If you have any facts at your disposal, pony up.

reply from: yoda

And just for good measure, kill the baby too, right?
I mean, the baby is guilty by association with it's father, right?
Or do you just want to kill everyone related to the father?

reply from: galen

NP,
I have counseled thousands of rape victims in my life and i have YET to hear a woman who was pregnant from the rape, state that she felt better after the fact. it always seems to come back to haunt them. maybe not in those first months or years, sometimes in 10 or 20 years. i have even counseled a 68 yo grandmother who was forced to have a " back alley" abortion by her parents. She never got over the Ab OR the rape.
The violation that occures with rape is continued with either the Ab or the pregnancy that follows. The cure for the woman is counseling, not another medical procedure. Even if she can not face the child, knowing that she did not violate someone else as a direct result of her own assault often helps the woman heal.
Mary

reply from: Shiprahagain

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you -- she never felt better after the pregnancy or the abortion?

reply from: stopabortionnow

I've already stated that once a fetus is capable of living outside of and unattached to it's mother that she should no longer have dominion over it. Why would this be any different for a several year old child?
She most certainly should, no one has the right to expect or force her to continue a rape-induced pregnancy against her will. While in this scenario the posibility exists that the pregnancy wasn't caused by the rape, the woman has the sole right to decide whether or not she's willing to risk it.
1.The baby is unable to live outside of the mother is a lame agurement -because if you let the baby go thru all 9 months of preganany then it can live outside the mother.Look a human is human-their is no sunch thing as a kinda human.So why should abortion be ok if all humans are equal?
2.If a father rapes a child the child should be punished for the sins of the father???? the unborn baby gets the death penality & not the dad ?.......explain that?
You either 1000% for life or not at all.

reply from: NewPoster1

This would be true, if it were not for the fact that this necessitates a violation of the woman's bodily autonomy. Not to mention, for me to consider a fetus a person, it must be capable of existing physically outside of and physically unattached to it's mother.
To quote an earlier post of mine...
"In any case, I have absolutely nothing against severely punishing the person responsible for the rape. In my opinion, all convicted rapists should be dealth with by, at the very least, mandatory castration, life in prison, or execution."
Such rubbish, I find it ironic when people who claim to be "1000% for life" support arbitrarily invading countries and causing the deaths of 100,000s of civilians.
Just today, I read that a platoon of American soldiers gang-raped a young Iraqi woman, before murdering her, her parents, and her child sibling. They subsequently set her body on fire to destroy the evidence of what they had done.

reply from: AshMarie88

"This would be true, if it were not for the fact that this necessitates a violation of the woman's bodily autonomy."
Pregnancy is part of a woman's bodily autonomy.
If pregnancy was a violation, it wouldn't be natural.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Why do you assume prolifers support that war in Iraq? Why do you assume it wasn't prochoicers who hurt this woman?
Remember, Nike and Disney are pro-choice companies that support planned parenthood -- they're the ones enslaving little kids for pennies.

reply from: yoda

He doesn't know anything about what anyone else supports. What he does know is that his arguments are so lame and so repulsive that he is desperate to change the subject to anything else but abortion.
Take this little gastric expulsion for example: "Not to mention, for me to consider a fetus a person,"
As if NP was some kind of a semantic god...... decreeing word meanings, granting or taking lives based on his whims, generally taking the role of an insane dictator who played with people's lives as if they were his private toys......... how disgusting is that?

reply from: endofthemovie

Regarding the first one: That doesn't make sense (at least not in abortion cases). The child is already born. When a woman is pregnant, the child is not born and is a parasite to the mother. When born, the child is given rights. It isn't a part of the mother's body anymore, and therefore the situations are completely different.

reply from: Shiprahagain

A FETUS IS NOT A PARASITE
by Dr. Thomas L. Johnson

1.a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an
organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its
nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng,
T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
2.a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
3.a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.
b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually
cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not
maintained by the mother.
4.a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).
b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the
mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own
amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
5.a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
6.a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming
antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body
of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the
parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
7.a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
8.a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother,
remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.
[This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary
Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.

reply from: endofthemovie

What is your point?
We can't give everything to everyone simply because all humans are equal. Why deny gun ownership to an 8-year-old? After all, all humans are equal. Same should be with the right to vote, drink, smoke, etc.
The fetus may have human DNA, but it isn't it's own being. It can't survive on it's own.

reply from: Shiprahagain

My point is you said babies are parasites which they arent. Just because everyone is equal doesn't mean they are equal in ability, just human rights. For example, age can be a fair determinant for whether we have the right to own a gun. Age shouldn't be a qualification for whether or not we should be protected for rape. Your contention that the fetus isn't its own being is your opinion against science.

reply from: AshMarie88

What is your point?
We can't give everything to everyone simply because all humans are equal. Why deny gun ownership to an 8-year-old? After all, all humans are equal. Same should be with the right to vote, drink, smoke, etc.
The fetus may have human DNA, but it isn't it's own being. It can't survive on it's own.
Of course it can't survive on its own. Neither can a newborn, a 2 year old, or even a young adult who has no experience in life.
What is your point?

reply from: AshMarie88

Actually, let me take back what I just said about young adults not being able to survive. They are able to, but not as well as full adults who have been alive for many years and already in life, experiencing the difficulties and everything else life has to offer.

reply from: endofthemovie

par·a·site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.
That definition is from www.dictionary.com, a modern source. If you wish to know where they got their definition from, it's listed below the definition at their website. The author's source for the definition is from a book from 1973. That's hardly what you would call modern.
As you can see from the biological definition, a fetus fits the definition of a parasite very well.
And, looking over the rest of the article/essay, this would explanation should cover for the rest of it. If you were to use the definition the author cited, then yes, he is correct in saying a fetus isn't a parasite. But if you were to use a more modern definition, such as the one I've provided, then you understand why it is not.

reply from: Shiprahagain

The dictionary is casual, the doctor is science. Seriously, you're trying to say the dictionary knows more than a doctor?

reply from: AshMarie88

I love how they completely ignore the medical article that shows why the unborn aren't parasites.
Shows they only believe what they want to.

reply from: endofthemovie

par·a·site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.
From www.dictionary.com. By this definition, yes, they are a parasite.
In my opinion, if that was your point, then you did not explain it very well. I didn't get anything out of that at all.
Is it not a human right to control our own bodies?
I am very confused about what you mean by this:
Also:
Perhaps I used the wrong word, or didn't explain myself well enough. A fetus isn't it's own body, in my opinion, while it is attached to the woman by the umbilical cord.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yea, YOUR OWN. Not someone else's.

reply from: endofthemovie

A newborn, 2-year-old, and a young adult do not need another's body to survive. No, they cannot survive in the "real world" on it's own, but they're body can continue to function on it's own. A fetus could not do that (until it's reached about the 3rd trimester, midway through if I remember correctly, when it stands a chance of being able to do that).

reply from: endofthemovie

Where do you think the dictionary gets it's biological definition?
That doctor's definition is an ancient one. You can't use an ancient definition just because it's from a doctor, unless it were a commonly accepted one, but in which case, why isn't it in the dictionary?

reply from: endofthemovie

The fetus is incapable of making decisions about it's body, hence the abortion argument on whether or not the woman should make the decision about what is growing in HER uterus, that is sucking nutrients and energy from HER body, what SHE will give birth to (assuming she goes through with the pregnancy).
The fetus is connected to the woman by an umbilical cord. The bodies are not seperate.

reply from: AshMarie88

Okay, by your argument of a fetus being connected to the cord in the mom, I guess that means a preemie in an incubator, attached to many tubes to stay alive, is part of the machine that's keeping it alive?
And by definition of "sucking nutrients", we are all parasites, because we suck nutrients from mother nature.

reply from: endofthemovie

A machine isn't human. It's not even alive. It's not connected in natural ways, either, the way a mother is to the fetus.
In my opinion, those who work to protect the enviorment and care about plants and animals and whatnot, are not parasites, because I feel they give back.

reply from: endofthemovie

If you were referring to me, I believe I made a post explaining my thoughts on the article and why it was innaccurate.

reply from: AshMarie88

A machine isn't human. It's not even alive. It's not connected in natural ways, either, the way a mother is to the fetus.
In my opinion, those who work to protect the enviorment and care about plants and animals and whatnot, are not parasites, because I feel they give back.
Oh, it's very important to protect the environment and animals, but it's alright to forget about all the baby humans being aborted every single way? Shouldn't they be protected?
You remind me of one of Margaret Sanger's quotes...

reply from: AshMarie88

If you were referring to me, I believe I made a post explaining my thoughts on the article and why it was innaccurate.
It's not inaccurate. If you would have actually read it, you would understand it.
A fetus isn't a parasite. One slight definition pertaining to blood or tissue sucking worms or leeches doesn't pertain to unborn humans.

reply from: endofthemovie

What has this to do with anything? The discussion led from one thing to another, but I believe the most recent thing we were talking about is whether or not the fetus and the mother are two seperate bodies.
On your last note, I feel that children who are suffering throughout the world are a greater priority than a fetus that cannot feel a thing.
Really? And which one was that?

reply from: endofthemovie

I did read it. Numerous times, actually, it's been presented to me quite a few times. Did you read my explanation on why I thought it to be innaccurate?
Again, did you read my explanation?

reply from: AshMarie88

I did read it. Numerous times, actually, it's been presented to me quite a few times. Did you read my explanation on why I thought it to be innaccurate?
Again, did you read my explanation?
Yea, and your explanation was crap.

reply from: AshMarie88

What has this to do with anything? The discussion led from one thing to another, but I believe the most recent thing we were talking about is whether or not the fetus and the mother are two seperate bodies.
On your last note, I feel that children who are suffering throughout the world are a greater priority than a fetus that cannot feel a thing.
Really? And which one was that?
A fetus can feel pain by 17 weeks. (Also, see a video on another thread I posted earlier)
And the quote it reminds me of is:
"We are failing to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying . . . a dead weight of human waste . . .an ever-increasing spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."
Almost like animals and the environment are much more important than humans. I know many pro-aborts think that way.

reply from: endofthemovie

I did read it. Numerous times, actually, it's been presented to me quite a few times. Did you read my explanation on why I thought it to be innaccurate?
Again, did you read my explanation?
Yea, and your explanation was crap.
Why was it crap? I would love for you to tell me why mine was wrong.

reply from: endofthemovie

May I please see a source for that?
Also, would you mind telling me which thread you posted the video on? It'd be easier for me to find it that way.
Oh, and I am also curious as to how this explains how your previous remark had to do with our conversation. This, too, has nothing to do with whether or not the mother and the fetus are seperate.
I think that's quite funny, actually. What about myself reminded you of that, may I ask?
I haven't met enough pro-abortionists and discussed the enviorment with them to be able to agree with you. I, personally, find animals and the enviorment to be more important than a mere fetus, but certainly not more than a suffering child.

reply from: AshMarie88

I did read it. Numerous times, actually, it's been presented to me quite a few times. Did you read my explanation on why I thought it to be innaccurate?
Again, did you read my explanation?
Yea, and your explanation was crap.
Why was it crap? I would love for you to tell me why mine was wrong.
Just like every other opinion of a pro-abort's is crap (such as their opinion it's not alive or is just a blob of tissue).
Your one little definition of a leech is way off from describing the unborn humans.

reply from: endofthemovie

I asked for an explanation on why my explanation was crap, not a comparison to a pro-abortionists opinion, and your opinion of that. Also, what do pro-abortionists have to do with anything?
When people claim a fetus isn't alive, it's not their opinion, it's ignorance.

reply from: AshMarie88

I asked for an explanation on why my explanation was crap, not a comparison to a pro-abortionists opinion, and your opinion of that. Also, what do pro-abortionists have to do with anything?
When people claim a fetus isn't alive, it's not their opinion, it's ignorance.
Man, do I really have to keep repeating myself? It's not accurate!
Your explanation made no sense, and it was your opinion.

reply from: endofthemovie

I asked for an explanation on why my explanation was crap, not a comparison to a pro-abortionists opinion, and your opinion of that. Also, what do pro-abortionists have to do with anything?
When people claim a fetus isn't alive, it's not their opinion, it's ignorance.
Man, do I really have to keep repeating myself? It's not accurate!
Your explanation made no sense, and it was your opinion.
And do I have to keep repeating myself? I asked for an explanation of how it is innaccurate. You have only told me it's innaccurate.
I copy/pasted a modern definition and explained that the other definition is outdated, and that we should follow a modern definition. I suppose the bit about using a modern definition was my opinion, but it was a logical conclusion.

reply from: AshMarie88

The other definitions aren't outdated. Present biological facts and definitions aren't outdated.

reply from: endofthemovie

The definition came from a book published in 1973. Yes, that is outdated. The modern definition does not agree with it.
EDIT: I wasn't saying the facts were outdated, I was saying the definition was. The facts make sense if the definition was acccurate. For 1973, yes, that was right. For 2006, no, it's not.

reply from: AshMarie88

I think it's just you and every other pro-abort that doesn't agree with it.
The fetus still isn't a parasite. It's a biological fact.

reply from: Shiprahagain

If you think it's outdated get another doctor's critique. Not the dictionary's. Honestly, what proof do you have that the definition of a parasite has changed other than you disagree with it?

reply from: endofthemovie

I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice.
I don't agree with it because it's outdated. Outdated information isn't good evidence in a debate.
Prove that fact, then.

reply from: endofthemovie

Tell me where a dictionary's definition comes from. Do they just pull it out of their ass?
The change of definitions over the years is evidence enough, and that is extremely obvious. Come on, now, you know that if there was a definition in 1973, and then a different one now, that it means they changed. Did you really have to ask?

reply from: Shiprahagain

What, over time, has changed the definition of a parasite?

reply from: endofthemovie

I really couldn't say, I haven't looked into it.
My guess would be, though, that more people came to use a different definition than the one that was 33 years ago. As more and more people used the newer one, the older one kind of "faded away", and the new one kind of came into play.
But I really know nothing of what makes doctors/scientists decide on what they do for definitions that they will, for the most part, accept and use.

reply from: yoda

No human being can ever be a "part of" another human being. Your inference is dishonest and idiotic.

reply from: yoda

You can keep your bloody hands off "everyone" who is innocent, simply because all humans are equal.
ALL human beings are "their own" beings, unless they are slaves. Are you a proponent of slavery too?

reply from: yoda

No, what we can see is that you are either quite ignorant or a determined liar. Consult scientific sources for scientific definitions.
And "modern" has nothing to do with anything. Vernacular sources (such as the one you cited) list common usages for words that have scientific definitions, and even when they list "scientific" definitions they are usually not as complete or accurate as those from a scientific source.
Your insincerity is showing.

reply from: yoda

Then how can a fetus be a parasite if the bodies are not separate? How can "one organism" be two entities, both a host and a parasite at the same time.
Your insincerity is showing.

reply from: yoda

And when you make these "rankings of importance", is it always with the understanding that the entities on the top of your rankings have the right to kill the ones lower down on your list?
Is your list always to be taken as permission to kill "less important" entities?

reply from: yoda

Those two terms have precisely the same definition, and you're obviously both.
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813
pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a·bor·tion PRONUNCIATION: Pr-bôrshn ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting legalized abortion. http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html
">http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html
Main Entry: pro·abor·tion Pronunciation: (')prO-&-'bor-sh&n Function: adjective : favoring the legalization of abortion -pro·abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)n&st/ noun http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion

reply from: endofthemovie

And when you make these "rankings of importance", is it always with the understanding that the entities on the top of your rankings have the right to kill the ones lower down on your list?
Is your list always to be taken as permission to kill "less important" entities?
I make my "list" of what's more important to me based on what other beings suffer, animals, and what is going to bite us in the ass in the long run, the enviorment.
I don't think that the higher up you are on my "list", then you can kill those beneath you. That's very silly.

reply from: endofthemovie

Then how can a fetus be a parasite if the bodies are not separate? How can "one organism" be two entities, both a host and a parasite at the same time.
Your insincerity is showing.
The fetus is a seperate organism, just not with it's own body.

reply from: endofthemovie

Having human DNA isn't enough to make a fetus equal to a born person who suffers. What is the significance of it?
You seem to misunderstand what I was saying. I meant that the fetus' body could not continue to function without the mother.

reply from: yoda

Then why does it make ANY DIFFERENCE whether you consider an unborn baby or it's mother MORE IMPORTANT????
Aren't you here to justify, support, and defend the killing of unborn babies?
Isn't that your purpose here?

reply from: yoda

That HAS TO BE the stupidest thing anyone has ever said here.
WHOSE BODY does it have, if not IT'S OWN??????

reply from: endofthemovie

You seem to overlook the fact that "their home full of nutrients and warmth" is an unwilling, rape victim's body.
And you seem to overlook the fact that the rapist was responsible for the rape and hurt of the woman, NOT the child. Why not kill/punish the person who actually committed the crime?
Why punish the woman?

reply from: yoda

So you're some kind of "born supremacist"? You want us to declare born people "superior" to unborn ones, so we can kill the "inferior people" without worrying about it?
SO WHAT????

reply from: AshMarie88

Then how can a fetus be a parasite if the bodies are not separate? How can "one organism" be two entities, both a host and a parasite at the same time.
Your insincerity is showing.
The fetus is a seperate organism, just not with it's own body.
So the woman's body is another body (fetus's) with a different DNA? Interesting... I didn't know a woman or other person could have two sets of everything.

reply from: AshMarie88

You seem to overlook the fact that "their home full of nutrients and warmth" is an unwilling, rape victim's body.
And you seem to overlook the fact that the rapist was responsible for the rape and hurt of the woman, NOT the child. Why not kill/punish the person who actually committed the crime?
Why punish the woman?
Why are you so against pregnancy and life?

reply from: endofthemovie

Then why does it make ANY DIFFERENCE whether you consider an unborn baby or it's mother MORE IMPORTANT????
Aren't you here to justify, support, and defend the killing of unborn babies?
Isn't that your purpose here?
No, I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I'm here to defend the mother's right to choose (and to get a feel for what it's like to debate when your outnumbered).
I'm not sure what you are implying, or looking for, in your first statement.

reply from: AshMarie88

Having human DNA isn't enough to make a fetus equal to a born person who suffers. What is the significance of it?
Folks, I think we're back in the oppression days again (which everyone knows). First blacks were slaves and were thought of as less than human, women weren't able to vote because they were thought of as less than men, now the unborn are counted as less than human.
Aren't you proud, End, to be part of this new oppression?
EDIT: p.s., everyone is CREATED equal, not BORN equal.

reply from: endofthemovie

It's attached to the mother's. I'm not sure why you find that stupid.

reply from: endofthemovie

Then how can a fetus be a parasite if the bodies are not separate? How can "one organism" be two entities, both a host and a parasite at the same time.
Your insincerity is showing.
The fetus is a seperate organism, just not with it's own body.
So the woman's body is another body (fetus's) with a different DNA? Interesting... I didn't know a woman or other person could have two sets of everything.
No, the fetus' body, which isn't quite yet it's body because it's attached. It's it's own organism, hence the different DNA, but not quite with it's own body yet.
The woman doesn't have two sets of DNA, because the fetus is a different organism.

reply from: yoda

There is NO difference in those two terms! Zilch, nada, zip, zero
Unless, of course, you are one of those "alternate reality" people who do not accept definitons from the dictionary.
Is that your deal?

reply from: yoda

It's "attached"?
So WHAT??????
A tapeworm can be attached. A mosquitto can be attached. A tick can be attached.
SO WHAT????????

reply from: yoda

Does a tick OWN your body, or do you OWN the tick when it's ATTACHED to you?
Your "logic" is bizzare!!

reply from: endofthemovie

So you're some kind of "born supremacist"? You want us to declare born people "superior" to unborn ones, so we can kill the "inferior people" without worrying about it?
They're not people, actually.
How is a fetus not inferior to a woman? It cannot think, feel. It can't contribute to society. I find it insulting to the human race to say that a fetus and a woman are the same in matters of importance.
SO WHAT????
The other chick told me that a newborn, 2-year-old and a young adult (which she later retracted) can not survive on it's own. I stated the above, and that a newborn and 2-year-old can do that.

reply from: AshMarie88

Then how can a fetus be a parasite if the bodies are not separate? How can "one organism" be two entities, both a host and a parasite at the same time.
Your insincerity is showing.
The fetus is a seperate organism, just not with it's own body.
So the woman's body is another body (fetus's) with a different DNA? Interesting... I didn't know a woman or other person could have two sets of everything.
No, the fetus' body, which isn't quite yet it's body because it's attached. It's it's own organism, hence the different DNA, but not quite with it's own body yet.
The woman doesn't have two sets of DNA, because the fetus is a different organism.
A human fetus has ITS OWN body. But you obviously don't believe that because you probably have seen no ultrasound photos or taken any biology.

reply from: AshMarie88

SO WHAT????
The other chick told me that a newborn, 2-year-old and a young adult (which she later retracted) can not survive on it's own. I stated the above, and that a newborn and 2-year-old can do that.
Read it again, I said they cannot survive ON THEIR OWN. Meaning WITHOUT ANYONE for them to depend on.
"On their own", not "with someone".

reply from: endofthemovie

There is NO difference in those two terms! Zilch, nada, zip, zero
Unless, of course, you are one of those "alternate reality" people who do not accept definitons from the dictionary.
Is that your deal?
I find it amusing that you think "choice" and "abortion" mean the same thing. Here, the dictionary will tell you otherwise:
choice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chois)
n.
The act of choosing; selection.
The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
One that is chosen.
A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
The best or most preferable part.
Care in choosing.
An alternative.
a·bor·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-bôrshn)
n.
Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.
The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.
Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
An aborted organism.
Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.
As you can see, they are two very different things.

reply from: AshMarie88

It can think by 5 months. It can feel by 17 weeks most likely.
It may not be able to contribute to society yet, but so what? Neither can a newborn or a child. Should we have the right to kill them to, or only the ones you think shouldn't have a right to live?
Do you think a newborn is as important as a woman, or less important?

reply from: AshMarie88

There is NO difference in those two terms! Zilch, nada, zip, zero
Unless, of course, you are one of those "alternate reality" people who do not accept definitons from the dictionary.
Is that your deal?
I find it amusing that you think "choice" and "abortion" mean the same thing. Here, the dictionary will tell you otherwise:
choice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chois)
n.
The act of choosing; selection.
The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
One that is chosen.
A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
The best or most preferable part.
Care in choosing.
An alternative.
a·bor·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-bôrshn)
n.
Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.
The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.
Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
An aborted organism.
Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.
As you can see, they are two very different things.
So? Murder and rape are in the same category as choice, as well.

reply from: AshMarie88

WHICH exactly proves my point, if choice and abortion are so different, what do you call yourself when you're standing up for abortion? That's right, pro-abortion. You can't be "pro-choice" if abortion doesn't even relate to choice!

reply from: endofthemovie

It's "attached"?
So WHAT??????
A tapeworm can be attached. A mosquitto can be attached. A tick can be attached.
SO WHAT????????
They are not of the same species, for one thing. For another, it's of that organism's choice. It isn't growing and developing like a fetus is. They are also attached in different ways.

reply from: AshMarie88

It's "attached"?
So WHAT??????
A tapeworm can be attached. A mosquitto can be attached. A tick can be attached.
SO WHAT????????
They are not of the same species, for one thing. For another, it's of that organism's choice. It isn't growing and developing like a fetus is. They are also attached in different ways.
Awwww, are you now saying a fetus isn't a parasite? THANKS!

reply from: yoda

Now you're being intentionally dishonest, aren't you?
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html ..
I find your entire usage of the term "inferior" to be disgusting and profane. You sound like a racist. You sound like someone in the KKK or a Nazi.
People are not "superior" or "inferior" because of their physical abilities.

reply from: yoda

Now you're pretending to be ignorant, aren't you? You're trying to pretend that you don't know what we're debating, aren't you?
Well, just for others who are trying to be honest here, I'll post the REAL definitions of the disputed terms ONCE AGAIN;
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813

pro-choice adjective advocating access to legal abortion: advocating open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pro-choice.html

reply from: yoda

And species has WHAT to do with YOUR CLAIM that a human fetus DOES NOT have "it's own body"?
Can't you keep up with your own idiotic arguements?

reply from: marykayb4life

Actually one of the best reasons not to abort after a rape is because research has shown that the woman is more traumatized and has more nightmares and flashbacks about the abortion than they do the rape. As a nurse knowing first hand what the abortion procedure is like I can tell you that the abortion is like being raped all over again by surgical instruments, in most cases by a man!

reply from: AshMarie88

I've never looked at it like that before, the surgical instrument way... It makes perfect sense. But pro-choicers still think women are more harmed by letting the child live than killing it. Uh.
Welcome to the forum!

reply from: endofthemovie

When I say I'm pro-choice, I'm speaking directly of abortion, just as you are when you say your pro-life. It's impossible to live life without killing anything. At the very least for it to apply literally, you would be a anti-war, anti-death penalty vegan. Which you may or may not be, I wouldn't know.

reply from: endofthemovie

Now you're pretending to be ignorant, aren't you? You're trying to pretend that you don't know what we're debating, aren't you?
Well, just for others who are trying to be honest here, I'll post the REAL definitions of the disputed terms ONCE AGAIN;
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813

pro-choice adjective advocating access to legal abortion: advocating open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pro-choice.html
I'm not pretending to be ignorant.
I haven't seen your definition before. It depends on which definition you go by. If we go by yours, then yes, I am pro-abortion, you are right. If we go by mine, then no, I am not pro-abortion.
So, then you can continue to believe that I am pro-abortion, and I will not dispute that, because you have evidence to back yourself up. However, I will continue to believe that I am not pro-abortion, and I'm hoping you will not dispute that, because I have evidence to back myself up as well. It's a clash of definitions, and I don't see any reason to hold one above another. Unless you can point one out to me.

reply from: AshMarie88

Now you're pretending to be ignorant, aren't you? You're trying to pretend that you don't know what we're debating, aren't you?
Well, just for others who are trying to be honest here, I'll post the REAL definitions of the disputed terms ONCE AGAIN;
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813

pro-choice adjective advocating access to legal abortion: advocating open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pro-choice.html
I'm not pretending to be ignorant.
I haven't seen your definition before. It depends on which definition you go by. If we go by yours, then yes, I am pro-abortion, you are right. If we go by mine, then no, I am not pro-abortion.
So, then you can continue to believe that I am pro-abortion, and I will not dispute that, because you have evidence to back yourself up. However, I will continue to believe that I am not pro-abortion, and I'm hoping you will not dispute that, because I have evidence to back myself up as well. It's a clash of definitions, and I don't see any reason to hold one above another. Unless you can point one out to me.
Believe in the choice of women keeping their children? You're pro-parenting.
Believe in the choice of women placing their kids up for adoption? You're pro-adoption.
Believe in the choice of women aborting their kids? You're pro-abortion.
Just as I am pro-adoption and pro-parenting, but the opposite of abortion. I'm anti-abortion because I don't believe in women aborting. You're the opposite, however, which makes you PRO-abortion.
If you believe in the choice of something, you're pro-that something. Don't sugar coat a word and make it seem more innocent.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, Marykay!

reply from: endofthemovie

It's "attached"?
So WHAT??????
A tapeworm can be attached. A mosquitto can be attached. A tick can be attached.
SO WHAT????????
They are not of the same species, for one thing. For another, it's of that organism's choice. It isn't growing and developing like a fetus is. They are also attached in different ways.
Awwww, are you now saying a fetus isn't a parasite? THANKS!
No, I'm not. I'm saying that the attachment of a tick/tape worm/mosqitto is different than the attachment of a fetus to a woman, and that in the former, they are two different bodies. How did you get that I was saying a fetus isn't a parasite out of that?

reply from: yoda

That's a copout, and you know it.
It most certainly isn't impossible to live without intentionally killing an innocent human being, isn't it?

reply from: endofthemovie

Now you're pretending to be ignorant, aren't you? You're trying to pretend that you don't know what we're debating, aren't you?
Well, just for others who are trying to be honest here, I'll post the REAL definitions of the disputed terms ONCE AGAIN;
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813

pro-choice adjective advocating access to legal abortion: advocating open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pro-choice.html
I'm not pretending to be ignorant.
I haven't seen your definition before. It depends on which definition you go by. If we go by yours, then yes, I am pro-abortion, you are right. If we go by mine, then no, I am not pro-abortion.
So, then you can continue to believe that I am pro-abortion, and I will not dispute that, because you have evidence to back yourself up. However, I will continue to believe that I am not pro-abortion, and I'm hoping you will not dispute that, because I have evidence to back myself up as well. It's a clash of definitions, and I don't see any reason to hold one above another. Unless you can point one out to me.
Believe in the choice of women keeping their children? You're pro-parenting.
Believe in the choice of women placing their kids up for adoption? You're pro-adoption.
Believe in the choice of women aborting their kids? You're pro-abortion.
Just as I am pro-adoption and pro-parenting, but the opposite of abortion. I'm anti-abortion because I don't believe in women aborting. You're the opposite, however, which makes you PRO-abortion.
If you believe in the choice of something, you're pro-that something. Don't sugar coat a word and make it seem more innocent.
Then by your logic, are you not sugar coating your beliefs when you say pro-life instead of anti-choice?
I support the choice to abort, keep the child, or give it up for adoption. I support the woman's right to make a choice. I do not support abortion. I don't go around promoting it or anything. If I support choice and not abortion, why would I call myself pro-abortion?

reply from: yoda

Okay, I've changed my mind. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that you are ignorant about semantics.
Words have meanings, and multiple word terms have meanings. You don't define a multiple word term by tearing it apart into it's separate parts and defining each part individually. You define such terms as a whole.
That's why I posted the definiton of the terms "proabortion" and "prochoice", instead of posting definitions of individual parts of those terms.
As an example, "hot shot" is a term, and you cannot define it by defining the words "hot" and "shot"..... you define the term as a whole. The same is true of "prochoice" and "proabortion"...... they must be defined as a whole term.
I hope that clears it up for you.

reply from: AshMarie88

Now you're pretending to be ignorant, aren't you? You're trying to pretend that you don't know what we're debating, aren't you?
Well, just for others who are trying to be honest here, I'll post the REAL definitions of the disputed terms ONCE AGAIN;
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813

pro-choice adjective advocating access to legal abortion: advocating open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pro-choice.html
I'm not pretending to be ignorant.
I haven't seen your definition before. It depends on which definition you go by. If we go by yours, then yes, I am pro-abortion, you are right. If we go by mine, then no, I am not pro-abortion.
So, then you can continue to believe that I am pro-abortion, and I will not dispute that, because you have evidence to back yourself up. However, I will continue to believe that I am not pro-abortion, and I'm hoping you will not dispute that, because I have evidence to back myself up as well. It's a clash of definitions, and I don't see any reason to hold one above another. Unless you can point one out to me.
Believe in the choice of women keeping their children? You're pro-parenting.
Believe in the choice of women placing their kids up for adoption? You're pro-adoption.
Believe in the choice of women aborting their kids? You're pro-abortion.
Just as I am pro-adoption and pro-parenting, but the opposite of abortion. I'm anti-abortion because I don't believe in women aborting. You're the opposite, however, which makes you PRO-abortion.
If you believe in the choice of something, you're pro-that something. Don't sugar coat a word and make it seem more innocent.
Then by your logic, are you not sugar coating your beliefs when you say pro-life instead of anti-choice?
I support the choice to abort, keep the child, or give it up for adoption. I support the woman's right to make a choice. I do not support abortion. I don't go around promoting it or anything. If I support choice and not abortion, why would I call myself pro-abortion?
Right, you don't support abortion, but support a woman's right to choose abortion.
Just like in the same way I don't support capital punishment, but support an authority's right to execute a criminal, right?
They're the SAME THING! You support abortion and you know it. If you didn't, you wouldn't think a woman has the right to do that!

reply from: yoda

The manner of attachment has absolutely no significance.
The significance is in the fact that there are TWO SEPARATE bodies attached to each other in BOTH cases.
There cannot be an "attachment" unless there are TWO SEPARATE THINGS to be "attached".
I hope that clears that up for you.

reply from: yoda

Maybe because the dictionary defines that term as one who "supports the legal choice of abortion"?
Could that be the reason???????

reply from: AshMarie88

sup·port Audio pronunciation of "support" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-pôrt, -prt)
tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports
n
1. The act of supporting.
2. The state of being supported.
2. One that supports.
for Audio pronunciation of "for" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôr; fr when unstressed)
prep.
# Used to indicate the recipient or beneficiary of an action: "prepared lunch for us."
# On behalf of: "spoke for all the members."
# In favor of: "Were they for or against the proposal?"

reply from: yoda

Isn't it odd that proaborts find the word "proabort" so offensive? How can one support something they find so offensive, anyway?

reply from: AshMarie88

Great question... I have no idea.
Maybe they're embarrassed. Maybe they know what they support is wrong but don't want to change?

reply from: yoda

Yeah, it's like a Ku Kluxer wanting to support racial discrimination without being identified, so they want to wear a hood over their head. Hiding behind the term "prochoice" is like wearing a hood over your head, so people won't know what you're actually supporting.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yep. Too many people wil mistake "pro-choice" for something else but if you tell them it's about supporting abortion, I bet many of them would be like "Well I'm against that", which is what happened when I asked a friend of mine one day.
They should call themselves what they truely are, and not use a fake term to describe themselves. I agree, Yoda.

reply from: holopaw

What is your point?
We can't give everything to everyone simply because all humans are equal. Why deny gun ownership to an 8-year-old? After all, all humans are equal. Same should be with the right to vote, drink, smoke, etc.
The fetus may have human DNA, but it isn't it's own being. It can't survive on it's own.
All humans have an equal right to life. Even the President can't kill a homeless person.

reply from: holopaw

A machine isn't human. It's not even alive. It's not connected in natural ways, either, the way a mother is to the fetus.
In my opinion, those who work to protect the enviorment and care about plants and animals and whatnot, are not parasites, because I feel they give back.
So the fact that mankind has caused the instinction of many animals is a case of our giving back. How about the rain forests that we are chopping down? Why are bears roaming in neighborhoods? Because we have cut down the trees and destroyed their habitats and they have nowhere to go. Mankind is the biggest parasite around! What exactly have we given to the environment that's positive? Look at all the litter!

reply from: Shiprahagain

The mom and the baby have a symbiotic relationship. She gets hormones from the baby's existence too, like extra estrogen -- so you could call either one the parasite, although neither is since both share with each other.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Thanks, Concerned. I meant that if you were going to compare it to two beings of a diff species, symbiosis would be a better model than parasites, but mutualism is definitely a better word.

reply from: endofthemovie

No, what we can see is that you are either quite ignorant or a determined liar. Consult scientific sources for scientific definitions.
And "modern" has nothing to do with anything. Vernacular sources (such as the one you cited) list common usages for words that have scientific definitions, and even when they list "scientific" definitions they are usually not as complete or accurate as those from a scientific source.
Your insincerity is showing.
Please tell me what I am lying about and/or what makes me ignorant. I would also like you to correct me, with evidence and sources.
Then give me a definition from a modern source (and yes, modern is relevant. We are living in 1006, not 1973. Definitions, or the commonly accepted definitions, of words change, and we must accept this and live with it) of what a parasite is that is different than mine.

reply from: endofthemovie

You seem to overlook the fact that "their home full of nutrients and warmth" is an unwilling, rape victim's body.
And you seem to overlook the fact that the rapist was responsible for the rape and hurt of the woman, NOT the child. Why not kill/punish the person who actually committed the crime?
Why punish the woman?
Why are you so against pregnancy and life?
I can't remember if I've replied to this already, so if I have, I apologize for the repetition.
I'm not against pregnancy or life. If a woman wants to be pregnnat, then that's ok. That's her decision. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, then that's ok, too. Pregnancy isn't right for everyone, and it can't always happen (that might sound confusing, or not what I mean it to. I mean that at some points in a life, pregnancy isn't the best thing at that time. Or raising a child).
I'm not against life, either. I'm not anti-fetus and on some sort of crusade to have them all exterminated. I simply hold the woman's life above the fetus'. I don't really think of the fetus as a person, because it hasn't really lived, if you know what I mean. It hasn't experienced anything. It isn't recognized by the law, and I see no reason to. Once it's viable, then yes, I don't think abortion should be allowed in any circumstances other than the mother's life being in danger or the fetus would have some sort of disease and live in excruciating pain.
If the fetus felt pain or could think and recognize what was happening, it'd probably be different.

reply from: endofthemovie

Having human DNA isn't enough to make a fetus equal to a born person who suffers. What is the significance of it?
Folks, I think we're back in the oppression days again (which everyone knows). First blacks were slaves and were thought of as less than human, women weren't able to vote because they were thought of as less than men, now the unborn are counted as less than human.
Aren't you proud, End, to be part of this new oppression?
EDIT: p.s., everyone is CREATED equal, not BORN equal.
You degrade slavery and sexism when you compare it to a fetus' death. Blacks can feel, blacks can suffer. They recognize their oppression. Same with women. A fetus cannot.
So, you're at least a vegetarian, anti-death penalty, and anti-war?

reply from: endofthemovie

Does a tick OWN your body, or do you OWN the tick when it's ATTACHED to you?
Your "logic" is bizzare!!
What are you trying to suggest?

reply from: endofthemovie

Then how can a fetus be a parasite if the bodies are not separate? How can "one organism" be two entities, both a host and a parasite at the same time.
Your insincerity is showing.
The fetus is a seperate organism, just not with it's own body.
So the woman's body is another body (fetus's) with a different DNA? Interesting... I didn't know a woman or other person could have two sets of everything.
No, the fetus' body, which isn't quite yet it's body because it's attached. It's it's own organism, hence the different DNA, but not quite with it's own body yet.
The woman doesn't have two sets of DNA, because the fetus is a different organism.
A human fetus has ITS OWN body. But you obviously don't believe that because you probably have seen no ultrasound photos or taken any biology.
Ugh, I'm sorry, I'm absolutely terrible with words. Let me try to explain...
The fetus has it's own body, but it's body is not yet seperated from the woman's, because of the umbilical cord. It's not really the woman's body (which was terrible on my part, I apologize), it's just not seperate. Does that make sense?

reply from: endofthemovie

SO WHAT????
The other chick told me that a newborn, 2-year-old and a young adult (which she later retracted) can not survive on it's own. I stated the above, and that a newborn and 2-year-old can do that.
Read it again, I said they cannot survive ON THEIR OWN. Meaning WITHOUT ANYONE for them to depend on.
"On their own", not "with someone".
I'm not sure what your point is.
I'm not talking about the "outside world", like getting food, that kind of thing. But a newborn/2-year-old is not connected to someone else's body. They're body would continue to pump blood, run it's organs. That kind of thing. A fetus cannot do that (until later in the pregnancy, it stands a chance).

reply from: endofthemovie

It can think by 5 months. It can feel by 17 weeks most likely.
It may not be able to contribute to society yet, but so what? Neither can a newborn or a child. Should we have the right to kill them to, or only the ones you think shouldn't have a right to live?
Do you think a newborn is as important as a woman, or less important?
May I see a source, please?
Actually, a child can. Maybe not in the greatest ways, and certainly not all do, but they can clean up parks, etc. That kind of thing.
A newborn and a child are not in someone else's body. They are recognized as people by the law.
I've never thought about that, actually (about whether or not a newborn is equal to a woman). I guess it depends on the aspect in which you're comparing them. Do you know what I mean? I'm not sure how to explain.

reply from: endofthemovie

How does that prove your point? If a woman chose to use adoption, I would support her CHOICE. If a woman chose to keep the child, I would support her CHOICE. It's her CHOICE I support, even if that is abortion. I call myself pro-choice because I don't encourage or promote abortion, but if a woman CHOOSES to have one, then I support her DECISION.
But, fine. I'm not pro-choice, and you're not pro-life.

reply from: endofthemovie

Now you're being intentionally dishonest, aren't you?
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html ..
I find your entire usage of the term "inferior" to be disgusting and profane. You sound like a racist. You sound like someone in the KKK or a Nazi.
People are not "superior" or "inferior" because of their physical abilities.
In the eyes of the law, a fetus is not a person:
per·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrsn)
n.
A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
Physique and general appearance.
Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
Christianity. Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
Grammar.
Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" (Shakespeare).
www.dictionary.com
That's fine, that's your opinion. However, racism is without reason. A racist hates someone of whatever race because they are that race. I don't hate, fetuses, first of all, and my believing them to not being equals to a woman is not simply because they are fetus', I have reasons.
Please do not lessen the intensity of what a Nazi is. I think it is an insult to those who experienced the terror of the Nazi regime.

reply from: endofthemovie

And species has WHAT to do with YOUR CLAIM that a human fetus DOES NOT have "it's own body"?
Can't you keep up with your own idiotic arguements?
I'm too tired to explain myself again. I explained myself in another post, I think to AshMarie, so if you wouldn't mind reading that there, hopefully that will help you understand.

reply from: endofthemovie

That sounds very interesting. Do you have a website or something with more about the research?

reply from: endofthemovie

That's a copout, and you know it.
It most certainly isn't impossible to live without intentionally killing an innocent human being, isn't it?
It's true. How can you be pro-life if you live life everyday killing things? Even excluding bacteria, what about animals?
"Pro-life" does not specify human beings.
However, and this goes to AshMarie (and if I was arguing this with someone else, this goes to you, too), I think this argument is a bit pathetic. We're arguing about words! How about we just let it drop? I'm not going to nag you about how you're not pro-life, and how about you don't nag me about how I'm pro-abortion and not pro-choice?

reply from: endofthemovie

Okay, I've changed my mind. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that you are ignorant about semantics.
Words have meanings, and multiple word terms have meanings. You don't define a multiple word term by tearing it apart into it's separate parts and defining each part individually. You define such terms as a whole.
That's why I posted the definiton of the terms "proabortion" and "prochoice", instead of posting definitions of individual parts of those terms.
As an example, "hot shot" is a term, and you cannot define it by defining the words "hot" and "shot"..... you define the term as a whole. The same is true of "prochoice" and "proabortion"...... they must be defined as a whole term.
I hope that clears it up for you.
Ok, I will admit, you make a very good point, and I never thought about that before.
I am inclined to agree with you, but I still kind of feel like you should define them seperately, because of the hyphen. Pro means support, and then we know abortion/choice and their definitions, so I still feel like they're not the same.
I'm kind of stuck, I guess. I mean, I agree, but I don't, at the same time. I guess I'll have to think about this some more. I'll probably still call myself pro-choice, but I won't argue when someone says they are the same thing.
I sometimes debate on another website, where it's primarily pro-choicers, and I was wondering if you would mind if I brought this up there? I will credit you, of course, but nobody has made that point before (it's mainly teenagers and most of the pro-lifers we get there are idiots) and I would like to see what others have to say and I think they should hear this. So, if you don't want me to, I won't, but would you mind?

reply from: endofthemovie

Now you're pretending to be ignorant, aren't you? You're trying to pretend that you don't know what we're debating, aren't you?
Well, just for others who are trying to be honest here, I'll post the REAL definitions of the disputed terms ONCE AGAIN;
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813

pro-choice adjective advocating access to legal abortion: advocating open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pro-choice.html
I'm not pretending to be ignorant.
I haven't seen your definition before. It depends on which definition you go by. If we go by yours, then yes, I am pro-abortion, you are right. If we go by mine, then no, I am not pro-abortion.
So, then you can continue to believe that I am pro-abortion, and I will not dispute that, because you have evidence to back yourself up. However, I will continue to believe that I am not pro-abortion, and I'm hoping you will not dispute that, because I have evidence to back myself up as well. It's a clash of definitions, and I don't see any reason to hold one above another. Unless you can point one out to me.
Believe in the choice of women keeping their children? You're pro-parenting.
Believe in the choice of women placing their kids up for adoption? You're pro-adoption.
Believe in the choice of women aborting their kids? You're pro-abortion.
Just as I am pro-adoption and pro-parenting, but the opposite of abortion. I'm anti-abortion because I don't believe in women aborting. You're the opposite, however, which makes you PRO-abortion.
If you believe in the choice of something, you're pro-that something. Don't sugar coat a word and make it seem more innocent.
Then by your logic, are you not sugar coating your beliefs when you say pro-life instead of anti-choice?
I support the choice to abort, keep the child, or give it up for adoption. I support the woman's right to make a choice. I do not support abortion. I don't go around promoting it or anything. If I support choice and not abortion, why would I call myself pro-abortion?
Right, you don't support abortion, but support a woman's right to choose abortion.
Just like in the same way I don't support capital punishment, but support an authority's right to execute a criminal, right?
They're the SAME THING! You support abortion and you know it. If you didn't, you wouldn't think a woman has the right to do that!
Do you not believe that criminals should be executed?

reply from: endofthemovie

What is your point?
We can't give everything to everyone simply because all humans are equal. Why deny gun ownership to an 8-year-old? After all, all humans are equal. Same should be with the right to vote, drink, smoke, etc.
The fetus may have human DNA, but it isn't it's own being. It can't survive on it's own.
All humans have an equal right to life. Even the President can't kill a homeless person.
And yet the President can kill a criminal.

reply from: endofthemovie

A machine isn't human. It's not even alive. It's not connected in natural ways, either, the way a mother is to the fetus.
In my opinion, those who work to protect the enviorment and care about plants and animals and whatnot, are not parasites, because I feel they give back.
So the fact that mankind has caused the instinction of many animals is a case of our giving back. How about the rain forests that we are chopping down? Why are bears roaming in neighborhoods? Because we have cut down the trees and destroyed their habitats and they have nowhere to go. Mankind is the biggest parasite around! What exactly have we given to the environment that's positive? Look at all the litter!
Please reread my last line.

reply from: yoda

People (like "endofthemovie") who are too lazy to copy and paste what they are responding to, and just repost an entire long post just to make an insipid, time-wasting utterance tend to trash up a forum like this.

reply from: yoda

I get really sick of you probabykilling advocates blindly repeating your mantras here.
Try reading a dictionary once in a while!
pro-life adjective against open access to abortion: in favor of bringing the human fetus to full term, especially by campaigning against open access to abortion and against experimentation on embryos http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736610

reply from: yoda

Choose between being an intellectually honest debater and a mindless robot for the proabortion crowd. It's YOUR choice.
Knock yourself out. If you get stuck, go to http://www.onelook.com and put those terms in the search box. You won't win any friends among your crowd, but you will have the satisfaction of holding your head up again.

reply from: Tam

This would be true, if it were not for the fact that this necessitates a violation of the woman's bodily autonomy.
Again with the misuse of the word FACT. This is not a fact! It is your own biased opinion.
That's a tragedy. So is abortion. And many people love to use abortion to destroy the evidence of what they've done. To see more about how Planned Parenthood is helping child molesters escape justice, visit http://www.childpredators.com/.

reply from: Tam

There is a big difference between something that is a basic human right possessed by all humans, everywhere, by virtue of their being humans--and a privilege granted by a government based on some qualifications (passing a driving test, reaching a certain age of maturity, etc.).
Abortion is a human rights violation.
Actually, a human being is an individual human entity--independence is not one of the qualifications for human beings. In order to qualify as a human being, you only need two qualities: humanity (which is to say, having human DNA) and individualism (uniqueness as a single individual). Identical twins are not one human being--they are two human beings. Although their DNA is identical, they are unique individuals; each is a human being. Even conjoined twins are individuals--the fact that they depend upon one another to survive notwithstanding.

reply from: Tam

That's an interesting *opinion*. Does it still hold after birth, before the cord is cut? Some people believe (no, I'm not kidding) that moms should be permitted to kill their born babies before the cord is cut. You one of those?
Anyway, your opinion doesn't hold with the facts, unfortunately. As you can easily determine for yourself, there is no "body part" of the woman that is an embryo, fetus, baby, etc. The woman doesn't have four eyes, four legs, and twenty fingers while she is pregnant. The baby can have his/her own blood type. S/he can be asleep while the mom is awake, or awake while the mom is asleep. S/he can be ill while the mom is healthy, or healthy while the mom is ill. That would be completely impossible for one person--one part of your body can't be asleep while the rest of you is awake (the whole "my foot's asleep!" thing isn't really "sleep" as you must realize).

reply from: Tam

That's better. The body of the child is the child's body, not part of the mom's.
No, they're not separate bodies. They are connected via the umbilical cord. That's how we all started life. But the child is not "part of the mother's body." S/he is contained within the mother's body, connected to the mother's body, but not part of the mother's body. Is that too complicated for you or something?
Heck, even think of a parasite as an analogy! A child is not a parasite, but--a parasite is contained within your body, connected to your body, but not part of your body. So you must understand that it is possible for something to be IN your body, connected TO your body, but not part OF your body. There are two types of organisms that can fulfill those criteria: a parasite (another species of creature that is described well in the above article) and a child (the offspring of the parent).
It doesn't take a genius or a biologist to realize that there is a huge difference between an alien creature in your body and your own offspring! When a hen has an egg inside her body, and that egg contains a chick--does anyone in his/her right mind consider the chick to be a parasite?? What if the hen doesn't WANT to lay the egg? Does that change the nature of the chick whatsoever? No. It has NO effect on the nature of the chick.
Likewise, there is no real difference between an "unwanted" child and any other child. A child is not part of the mother, but does live inside her at first, for a short time.

reply from: Tam

Well, thanks for the props, but please be aware that calling a baby--born or unborn--a "parasite" is both offensive and inaccurate.

reply from: Tam

First of all, how much we know that a fetus feels is:
1) continually being updated in light of the latest scientific discoveries;
2) absolutely determined to be more than "not a thing";
3) increasing (the more we know about the unborn child, the more amazed we are--it is always being discovered that these developments take place even earlier than we suspected);
4) something that, if we're going to err about, we should err on the side of caution precisely because of points 1 and 3.
Second of all--if born children are a greater priority FOR YOU than unborn children, does that mean you feel all unborn children should be killed in order to provide greater resources for born children? If you feel that Americans are a greater priority than Bolivians, do you think we should nuke Bolivia? If you think productive members of society are a greater priority than the homeless, do you advocate exterminating the homeless?
The point is--you can set your own priorities until the cows come home. But that doesn't mean you have the right to kill those who are not your priorities.

reply from: Tam

The biggest problem I have with that, aside from the fact that they are trying to justify homicide, is that it causes a knee-jerk reaction from pro-lifers, who often dismiss environmental and animal rights concerns entirely. Perhaps it is the case that some prolifers simply do not care about anything or anyone in the world other than humans, or even unborn humans. But I think that mostly, it's thinking that the proaborts have that stuff covered.
However, if I didn't lift a finger to help animals, plants, etc., what sort of person would I be? Supporting the destruction of the world and of the other species herein is horribly irresponsible and unethical.
We don't have infinite time in this life--so we must pick our battles. I oppose capital punishment, but other than saying so, I don't do anything to fight it. On the other hand, I spend several hours a week fighting abortion. Why? Because saving the life of an innocent child is more important to me than saving the life of a convicted serial killer--even though I oppose both of those deaths on principle with equal conviction.
In short: pick your battles, but don't reject a good cause just because some people who support it don't also support your favorite good cause. If I had done that, I'd still be a pro-choice vegetarian environmentalist. They will all come around eventually, I believe that--about abortion, about meat, about pollution, etc. Pick your favorite causes--but don't take the wrong side on the others, just to be in opposition to the ones who are on the wrong side of your greatest priority.

reply from: Tam

A fetus being killed by abortion IS A SUFFERING CHILD. Wake up. There is nothing "mere" about a child, even the very small ones.

reply from: Tam

Do you consider it "punishment" if someone wanted to kill YOU and was legally forbidden from doing so? Here's a scenario: say the person has been raped by a person of your race, which is not her race. She wants to kill someone of your race to atone for the crime against her. She feels this will balance the scales.
1) She is wrong--it won't balance the scales. Nothing can erase the rape, and adding murder to it won't solve a thing.
2) You are innocent--you had nothing to do with her rape, you just happen to have something in common with the rapist.
It would not punish the woman to prevent her from killing you. Why not? Because she has NO RIGHT to kill you.

reply from: Tam

This gets more and more amusing! Isn't quite yet his/her own body??
ROFL!!!

reply from: Tam

Your (wrong) opinion.
That is both inaccurate and offensive.

reply from: Tam

There is NO difference in those two terms! Zilch, nada, zip, zero
Unless, of course, you are one of those "alternate reality" people who do not accept definitons from the dictionary.
Is that your deal?
I find it amusing that you think "choice" and "abortion" mean the same thing. Here, the dictionary will tell you otherwise:
choice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chois)
n.
The act of choosing; selection.
The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
One that is chosen.
A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
The best or most preferable part.
Care in choosing.
An alternative.
a·bor·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-bôrshn)
n.
Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.
The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.
Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
An aborted organism.
Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.
As you can see, they are two very different things.
Are you actually unaware that "choice" is just what the pro-abortion folks were encouraged to "sell" to the population as more palatable than "abortion"? It's a SLOGAN. "Pro-choice" is the marketing slogan for the abortion movement. Do you really not realize this??

reply from: Tam

Welcome to the forum, mary kay!!

reply from: Tam

You know, I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I wish pro-life meant more than just anti-abortion, because I am pretty much what you're describing above. However, the fact is, that's not what pro-life means--it just means against abortion--just as pro-choice doesn't mean favoring all choices (including rape, etc.) but simply pro-abortion.
I dealt with it, now it's your turn.
If you don't like the terms being used, make up a new one yourself.
I came up with "anti-babykilling" to more accurately describe my position on abortion and any other form of babykilling.

reply from: Tam

Yoda--ROFL!!!!!!!
endofmovie--sorry, inside joke from another forum.

reply from: yoda

Wow, how did I miss that one?

reply from: Tam

As a whole, humanity has been quite cruel to the Earth and all other species. As individuals, many humans are kind, gentle persons who neither advocate nor perpetrate such abuses.

reply from: Tam

Ok, I just want to interject a tiny little thing about the word "specie"--I kept thinking it wasn't right, that "species" is the plural and the singular, like fish. So I finally looked just now, and oed.com says of "specie" in this case:
This definition indicates that "specie" was another word for "species" but is now obsolete except as the erroneous singluar of "species."
I mention this not to nitpick (if I were going to nitpick, I'd pick on "seperate" in someone else's post!) but only because I found it interesting and I figured others might also.
Well said!!!!

reply from: Tam

LOL Speak for yourself, of course!

reply from: Tam

I'm not against marriage. If a woman wants to be married, that's ok. That's her decision. If a woman doesn't want to be married, then that's ok, too.
But if a married woman kills her husband because she doesn't want to be married, that's not ok.
Get it? Some choices are not ok, even if the preference that motivated the choice is ok. I may not like sour cream--that doesn't give me permission to shoot a dairy farmer. Just because a choice was involved doesn't mean the action should be legally sanctioned. Every rapist makes the choice to rape.
No one thinks you are. Only a sociopath would feel this way, and it is essentially a strawman. You think to yourself, "Well, these people obviously think I have something against unborn children. I really have nothing against them at all!" No kidding, Sherlock. We know that. But you also think it's perfectly ok for them to be brutally killed. It's like saying you have nothing against black people, but you're ok with the "choice" to lynch them. Not that you're a racist or anything--after all, you're not saying all blacks should be lynched! Only the ones whose white neighbors "choose" to lynch them, eh?
That's your prerogative. But it's not your right to kill someone just because you consider someone else more important. The only time the hierarchy of values should even apply is when the LIVES of both are on the line.
In reality, you don't "simply hold the woman's life above the fetus'"--you also hold the woman's ANYTHING above the child's LIFE. You don't just think the woman's LIFE is more valuable than the life of her child--you think even her slightest WHIM or INCONVENIENCE is more important than the LIFE of her child.
In other words, what you "simply hold ... above" the life of an innocent child is . . . ANYTHING!!
Oh, we know what you mean, all right. I don't really think of the Moon as a satellite, because it hasn't experienced free rotation on its axis--it is stuck in synchronous rotation around the Earth.
... blah, blah, blah. I don't think of grass as green, because it hasn't really been munched by cows. I don't think of the Pacific ocean as a body of water, because tides mean it really has no definite boundaries. I don't really think of my butt as fat, because I choose to think of it as the butt of Jennifer Lopez.
In other words--GET REAL.
Hm, why the distinction at viability?
Well, wake up and smell the "probably be different," because a fetus can feel and think and is aware of his/her surroundings. It is debatable whether zygotes and embryos can do these things--but fetuses can. Hello!

reply from: Tam

That is REALLY offensive.
I know the question wasn't asked of me, but YES, I am those things, so if you want to quiz ME about something, here I am. I am probably the only one on the forum of which these things are true (hey, if I'm not alone, speak up now! -- I mean prolifers, of course).

reply from: Tam

At long last--yes, it makes sense. Now, what is your point? That this attachment justifies homicide?

reply from: Tam

Dude! Are you saying that a child is worthy of protection from homicide if s/he can clean up a freaking park?? What about a newborn baby? Want to give him/her a broom and dustpan and tell him/her to get cracking? This is just silly.

reply from: Tam

How about you recognize that you're wrong on this. Pro-abortion and pro-choice are synonyms; pro-life and anti-abortion and anti-choice are synonyms. Anyone who opposes abortion is "pro-life" and anyone who doesn't is "pro-abortion." You want to put the argument to rest? Acknowledge the facts, and it will die a natural death.
** Edited to add: I'm catching up here, and I didn't see where you said this:
So there ya go. Believe me, I do understand--I WISH pro-life meant more than anti-abortion--but it doesn't, so I'll have to come up with a new term for those of us (by "us" I don't mean "you and me" but "others who feel as I do, and me") who are pro-life and vegetarian and anti-war and anti-death penalty and pro-environment. I think it's a growing population. I also think that pro-life is often the last thing on the list (it was for me) because people buy the lie that the life of an unborn child isn't as important as these other issues.
If it were YOUR life, it'd be the most important thing in the world to you--and if someone were trying to kill you, I'd stand up for you. Even if you were guilty as guilty can be. Even if you were disabled and dependent. Even if you were very young. I will stand up for your life. Won't you please consider taking the life of an unborn child as seriously as you take these other issues?
Do you honestly think there are NO DIFFERENCES among races? Racists have their "reasons" for being racist--many do not hate members of another race, but just don't consider them equals.
How does that prove your point? If a woman chose to use adoption, I would support her CHOICE. If a woman chose to keep the child, I would support her CHOICE. It's her CHOICE I support, even if that is abortion. I call myself pro-choice because I don't encourage or promote abortion, but if a woman CHOOSES to have one, then I support her DECISION.
So what you support isn't abortion, it's choice in general? Then you presumably support the woman's CHOICE to kill others? Her CHOICE to rape, steal, abuse?

reply from: Shiprahagain

That is REALLY offensive.
I know the question wasn't asked of me, but YES, I am those things, so if you want to quiz ME about something, here I am. I am probably the only one on the forum of which these things are true (hey, if I'm not alone, speak up now! -- I mean prolifers, of course--why would I care if a babykilling advocate shared my views on other life issues?).
Seriously. As a black person AND a woman, I was way more offended by endofthemovie's ignorant quote than any prolife view. Does she realize you can be both black and a fetus or female and a fetus? If you deny a black fetus rights because of eugenics, like Sanger, is it okay since the black person is unborn? If you practice sex-selective abortion and kill a girl, is that okay because the female is unborn?

reply from: Tam

I know! I was surprised, myself! Of course, we are talking about one line amidst many many many pages of posts in just a few day. So I think it's understandable.

reply from: Tam

That is REALLY offensive.
Seriously. As a black person AND a woman, I was way more offended by endofthemovie's ignorant quote than any prolife view. Does she realize you can be both black and a fetus or female and a fetus? If you deny a black fetus rights because of eugenics, like Sanger, is it okay since the black person is unborn? If you practice sex-selective abortion and kill a girl, is that okay because the female is unborn?
I guess it is like the question about a cat with a piece of buttered toast tied to its back--if it falls, will it always land on its feet, or will the bread always land butter side down?
My point is, will a black female fetus be aware of her oppression as she's being torn limb from limb? Does her blackness and femaleness make her aware of her oppression? What if she's being killed in the womb specifically because she's black and female? Is that oppression? Or just her mother's "choice"?
And if you don't think babies are killed for their race, catch a clue. I don't know how many women who have cheated on their men with guys of another race, and then found themselves in a who's-the-daddy scenario, choose to abort to protect their secret--but I guarantee it's a non-zero number.
What about a deaf-blind mentally disabled person? What if he doesn't know he's being oppressed--does that make it ok to oppress him?
If a tree falls in the woods with no one to hear it, it makes a sound. If a baby dies and no one admits it's a baby--it's still a dead baby.
P.S. Edited to add--obviously, these are mainly rhetorical questions, but in case there's any doubt--I'm directing them at endofmovie, not Shiprah.

reply from: Shiprahagain

In slavery it was quite common for women owners to force male slaves into sex and smother the resulting babies. It's sick that still goes on todoay.

reply from: Tam

To whom is this directed, kid?

reply from: holopaw

A machine isn't human. It's not even alive. It's not connected in natural ways, either, the way a mother is to the fetus.
In my opinion, those who work to protect the enviorment and care about plants and animals and whatnot, are not parasites, because I feel they give back.
So the fact that mankind has caused the instinction of many animals is a case of our giving back. How about the rain forests that we are chopping down? Why are bears roaming in neighborhoods? Because we have cut down the trees and destroyed their habitats and they have nowhere to go. Mankind is the biggest parasite around! What exactly have we given to the environment that's positive? Look at all the litter!
Please reread my last line.
Feel what you want. You're wrong. The tree huggers don't give nearly as much as they take. You're still parasites. You're just less of parasites. Driving your pollution producing autos, sitting in wood furniture, typing on a computer wih plastic components. So you care about animals. Big deal. You plant a tree here and there. A drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of trees chopped down to make room for the housing community you live in. Thanks for the laugh. Welcome to parasiticity.
Just like the mother who is never the same after a child is within her. The earth is a lot worse off sense man arrived.

reply from: holopaw

I can't remember if I've replied to this already, so if I have, I apologize for the repetition.
I'm not against pregnancy or life. If a woman wants to be pregnnat, then that's ok. That's her decision. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, then that's ok, too. Pregnancy isn't right for everyone, and it can't always happen (that might sound confusing, or not what I mean it to. I mean that at some points in a life, pregnancy isn't the best thing at that time. Or raising a child).
I'm not against life, either. I'm not anti-fetus and on some sort of crusade to have them all exterminated. I simply hold the woman's life above the fetus'. I don't really think of the fetus as a person, because it hasn't really lived, if you know what I mean. It hasn't experienced anything. It isn't recognized by the law, and I see no reason to. Once it's viable, then yes, I don't think abortion should be allowed in any circumstances other than the mother's life being in danger or the fetus would have some sort of disease and live in excruciating pain.
If the fetus felt pain or could think and recognize what was happening, it'd probably be different.
I doubt it. Pro-Abortionists always have a back up reason for wanting the unborn child dead. If you're concerned about pain, I'm sure you could inject morphine into the baby's system. Problem solved. Now you can kill your baby. Either the baby is a human being deserving of life or she isn't. If she feels pain or not is inconsequential. Don't pretend to have a conscience.

reply from: holopaw

EDIT: p.s., everyone is CREATED equal, not BORN equal.
You degrade slavery and sexism when you compare it to a fetus' death. Blacks can feel, blacks can suffer. They recognize their oppression. Same with women. A fetus cannot.
So, you're at least a vegetarian, anti-death penalty, and anti-war?
As an African American, I see the comparison between abortion and slavery to be quite apt. I thought you were discussing abortion, why are you bringing vegetables into the conversation.

reply from: holopaw

Now you're being intentionally dishonest, aren't you?
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html ..
I find your entire usage of the term "inferior" to be disgusting and profane. You sound like a racist. You sound like someone in the KKK or a Nazi.
People are not "superior" or "inferior" because of their physical abilities.
In the eyes of the law, a fetus is not a person:
per·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrsn)
n.
A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
Physique and general appearance.
Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
Christianity. Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
Grammar.
Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" (Shakespeare).
www.dictionary.com
That's fine, that's your opinion. However, racism is without reason. A racist hates someone of whatever race because they are that race. I don't hate, fetuses, first of all, and my believing them to not being equals to a woman is not simply because they are fetus', I have reasons.
Please do not lessen the intensity of what a Nazi is. I think it is an insult to those who experienced the terror of the Nazi regime.
Pro-Choicers sure do get offended easily, especially for groups they are not a part of. Enslaved Blacks, Exterminated Jews, Oppressed Women (to a lesser extent). Here's what offends me, you advocate women killing my fellow human beings who have done nothing deserving of death. The only thing these unborn children have done wrong is being conceived in a Pro-Abortion mother.

reply from: holopaw

The fetus may have human DNA, but it isn't it's own being. It can't survive on it's own.
All humans have an equal right to life. Even the President can't kill a homeless person.
And yet the President can kill a criminal.
You got me. Let me clarify. The President can not arbitrarily kill a homeless person. If it is proven in a court of law that a particular human being has committed a crime deserving of death, they can legally executed.
Unborn children can be legally executed also, the difference is they have done nothing deserving of being killed. Their being aborted is arbitrary and (bad) luck of the draw.

reply from: holopaw

That is REALLY offensive.
I know the question wasn't asked of me, but YES, I am those things, so if you want to quiz ME about something, here I am. I am probably the only one on the forum of which these things are true (hey, if I'm not alone, speak up now! -- I mean prolifers, of course).
I doubt any PLers are for war. Wars suck, people die. Just like abortion sucks, people die.

reply from: AshMarie88

There are some pro-lifers who are for war... I used to be for it one time, but my view changed.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I'm not for or against war in and of itself. I do feel that war should be our last resort, but sometimes war is the only thing that'll work -- like in ending the Holocaust or slavery.

reply from: terry

NOTE FROM MODERATOR : Please stay on topic. The issue of race relations past, present, and future are worthy of discussions and debate, however this forum is not the appropriate place for that to occur.
Thank you.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Just curious -- how many of the pro-choicers who support abortion in the case of rape have a)been impregnated by rape b)talked to someone who has or c) read about the subject from books containing conclusive widely researched polls and testimonies from impregnated rape victims?
If noe of these have been done, why do you support abortion in the case of rape in absence of the actual views of impregnanted rape victims. Do you realize that 75-85% of impregnated rape victims carry full term while 80% who do abort "deeply regret it." Source: Elliot Institute. When I say that abortion should be illegal even in case of rape, you see it as denying rape victims a choice -- I see it as denying unscrupulous abortionists the ability to prey upon the emotionally vulnerable.

reply from: 1003

WE DIDN'T NEED A WAR TO END SLAVERY.
the holocaust would have ended on its own.. eventually.....

reply from: 1003

... about what? you haven't said anything. and when i contradict you, you say my contradiction proves your point? what?

reply from: Shiprahagain

You would have just let the Holocaust play itself out and let innocent people die to avoid war. It seems like to me you avoid war to save life -- but if pacifism is the passive acceptance of the termination of innocent life and if your dedication to avoiding war means to let 15 million more people die and suffer according to Nazi whim - well, that just proves that pacifism isn't always the answer.
As a prolifer, I believe in not only honoring innocent life, but PROTECTING it.

reply from: holopaw

Please inform us on how slavery would have ended minus the war.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I guess as a pro-choicer it makes since that you'd avoid war at all costs, 1003. I mean, who are you to interferew when a woman kills her child? Who are armies to interfere when Nazis kill communists, Jews, gays, Roma, etc? You believe all those with power should be able to kill the powerless unimpeded.

reply from: 1003

makes no sense...so... ok....
when did i say that? a quote would be nice...

reply from: Shiprahagain

I prefaced the message with, "I guess." If you don't think we needed war for slavery and the holocaust, then when?

reply from: yoda

Every time you have defended abortion on demand......

reply from: 1003

hrm... we only need a war when we are oppressed. it is the responsibility of oppressed peoples to throw off their oppressors. but it is only their decision. if they ASK us for help, then we ought to. so... next telegram you get from the womb, you let me know, and i'll show up with a shotty and a deagle. maybe a coupla frags.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Yeah. You're right. Anne Frank should have gone out there with a 22 rifle and thrown off those oppressors on her own.

reply from: yoda

That's the typical proabort response....... "babykilling is okay because babies can't speak up for themselves, or defend themselves".
That's the most sickening thing about this abortion debate..... to see proaborts show their true colors.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Exactly. Their rhetoric excuses every type of evil. Ever heard, "The only thing need for evil to occur is for good men to do nothing?" It really applies to prochoicers. By that attitude, rape, pedophilia, domestic abuse, murder, don't need our interference because its up to the weak to protect themselves and if they can't, too bad for them.

reply from: 1003

not a 22. that's underpowered, and the ROF for those was too low in her day. i mean... if i was her, i'd have probably tried to coordinate a tank-battalion hijacking
only have to kill one or two guards, probably, then you have a tank batallion. what are they going to do? shoot their own eq? man. her strats were the suck. pure defense always loses. defense is good, but if you never strike back, you never stop defending. until... you know... you lose.

reply from: 1003

pedophilia
pedo - young
philo - love
aren't you guys the baby lovers?
and i didn't say it's up to the weak to defend themselves. it's up to the oppressed. the oppressed, if they are weak, can enlist the help of the strong. but it is the oppressed's responsibility to ask for that help. don't preempt it and insult their independence.

reply from: yoda

What a total pile of crap you spew. First you accuse us of being pedophiles because we oppose the slaughter of unborn babies, then you sarcastically claim that unborn babies must "ask for help".
Your views truly represent the degenerate side of our society, the sick, cold, unfeeling side.

reply from: Hereforareason

" WE DIDN'T NEED A WAR TO END SLAVERY.
the holocaust would have ended on its own.. eventually"
What if you were one of the victims 1003. What if you were the first that could have been saved, but were left instead to fight it out yourself?
"hrm... we only need a war when we are oppressed. it is the responsibility of oppressed peoples to throw off their oppressors. but it is only their decision. if they ASK us for help, then we ought to. so... next telegram you get from the womb, you let me know, and i'll show up with a shotty and a deagle. maybe a coupla frags."
But by no means should we show initiative and do what we see needs to be done. Nope, as long as I'm not being harmed, I'm gonna sit here in the sun and get a tan. That 1 year old isn't asking for help, maybe he wants to drown .............
1003, are you really seriouse? Are you that cold hearted? Are you actually a warm blooded creature or not? If I was being attacked in an ally and you walking down the street and saw it, would you continue walking because I didn't ask for help or would you do something? I'm seriouse, what would you do?
Amber

reply from: 1003

look... if i was walking, it would be a minor miracle. second, if i was walking down the street, and i saw you being attacked, and you WEREN'T crying for help.... i mean... heck.... maybe you're into that kind of thing. how should i know? maybe pebdsm is your bag. not mine... but... takes all kinds, right? right?
SERIOUSLY, THOUGH... i dunno... why am i walking down THAT street... at THAT time... wuold you seriously NOT be yelling for help? i mean... i might say "hey... everyone ok down there?" but... i dunno... if it looked sexual and consensual... i might keep walking.... that's just me. could i have more scenario details, though? i like to play pretend...

reply from: holopaw

Now you're being intentionally dishonest, aren't you?
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html ..
I find your entire usage of the term "inferior" to be disgusting and profane. You sound like a racist. You sound like someone in the KKK or a Nazi.
People are not "superior" or "inferior" because of their physical abilities.
In the eyes of the law, a fetus is not a person:
per·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrsn)
n.
A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
Physique and general appearance.
Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
Christianity. Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
Grammar.
Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" (Shakespeare).
www.dictionary.com
That's fine, that's your opinion. However, racism is without reason. A racist hates someone of whatever race because they are that race. I don't hate, fetuses, first of all, and my believing them to not being equals to a woman is not simply because they are fetus', I have reasons.
Please do not lessen the intensity of what a Nazi is. I think it is an insult to those who experienced the terror of the Nazi regime.
I'll make a deal with you. I won't lessen the intensity of what a Nazi is and you won't lessen what a pro-abortion baby killing advocate is.

reply from: Hereforareason

"look... if i was walking, it would be a minor miracle."
Alright, rolling down that street, looked out of a window or something.
" second, if i was walking down the street, and i saw you being attacked, and you WEREN'T crying for help.... i mean... heck.... maybe you're into that kind of thing. "
Umhm...and maybe I am gagged, being choked, have a gun to my head, knife to my throat...maybe I am can't speak, something is wrong with my vocal cords.
"SERIOUSLY, THOUGH... i dunno... why am i walking down THAT street... at THAT time..."
Dosn't matter. It happened.
" "hey... everyone ok down there?" "
Okay, so if you need everything literally, I'll respell it out.
"but... i dunno... if it looked sexual and consensual... i might keep walking.... "
Uh, just out of curiosity, would you even maybe, I don't know, notify the police that there is sexual conduct going on in an ally?
'
"that's just me. could i have more scenario details, though? i like to play pretend...:"
Alrighty, here you go 1003, let's play pretend. (do you have a name I could call you? )
You are out for a "stroll" in your wheel chair and while passing an ally, you happen to look down it and see a man holding a bloody knife in one hand and holding a woman on the ground with his other hand. In your quick glance, you also see that the woman has blood pouring from a gash in her head and several cuts on her arms.
Since she is not yelling for help, what do you do?
Here's the other side of the story. A woman was walking down the street to the grocery store and was suddenly grabbed from behind and found a knife at her throat. She was pulled into an ally and thrown to the ground where her head hit a brick. Feeling dizzy and lightheaded she grabs at her head and feels blood oozing from it. The man then attempts to take off her clothes. Not being able to call for help as she has been unable to speak since a child she fights desperatly. The man stabs at her and finally pins her to the ground with one hand and is free to stab her with the knife in the other hand.
You now pass the ally. What are you going to do?
Amber

reply from: 1003

first, 1003 IS my name, and, no, i'd not report the sexual conduct. consensual adults can do what they like as far as i'm concerned.
second.... as to the first example... i'd call down the alley and see if everything's ok. my next move would depend on the reaction.
as for the second example, assuming that i see her... and him... hrm... that's tough
i mean... can you draw me a picture of what i'd see? this is tough.

reply from: Hereforareason

"this is tough."
No 1003, this shouldn't be tough. You see blood. You see a knife. You see 2 people in an ally struggling.
Why is it so tough? How long would it take you to figure out your next move? It probably wouldn't matter because I would be dead by then
Amber

reply from: 1003

it's tough because i don't have a clear visualization. how do i know it's not a drug deal? how do i know who initiated it? how do i KNOW this isn't consesual, esPECIALLY if she's NOT yelling?

reply from: Hereforareason

"it's tough because i don't have a clear visualization. how do i know it's not a drug deal? how do i know who initiated it? how do i KNOW this isn't consesual, esPECIALLY if she's NOT yelling?"
Thank you for being so cautiouse 1003. Because by this time that woman is dead and the murderer is getting away.
A drug deal? don't know who initiated it? so what? man holding knife and holding woman. Woman bleeding and struggling. ???????????????
Amber

reply from: 1003

it's still not all that clear. and... ok. so someone died. people die. it happens. is it sad? yea. do we accept murder? no. should that guy be tried? yes. BUT am i responsible for her death? absolutely not.

reply from: AshMarie88

Use your imagination.

reply from: 1003

no. because if i answer it the way i see it, and you were visualizing it DIFFERENTLY, then my answer would not apply to your visualization. we need to sync our vid.

reply from: Hereforareason

"so someone died."
In this analogy, I lost my life. I won't get the chance to get married, have kids, live to an old age...And 1003, maybe I'm in hell now. And you could have stopped it.
Amber

reply from: 1003

if that's where you are, then that's where God meant for you to be.

reply from: Hereforareason

In other words, you don't want to inconvienienve yourself at all. Do you try to save anybody from a sure fate of death and eternity in hell? If you do not have any compassion or wish to save the lost, you are not saved.

reply from: 1003

that's between me and christ. and though he hasn't said anything to me about you, i think you are overstepping, and ought to ask for direction before you make a post like that.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Why doesn't that apply to pregnancy?

reply from: 1003

it does, as well as aborted fetuses.

reply from: yoda

Well, looking over this thread doesn't inspire me at all........ just the usual probabykilling idiocy and nonsense...... but without the courage to actually own up to their affection for killing babies......

reply from: Tam

Well, if 1003's position is never to lift a finger to help anyone who isn't screaming for help, and that everyone deserves what s/he gets, then we are in such different universes, morally, that it is probably futile to appeal to his sense of compassion or justice!!!

reply from: Hereforareason

"Well, if 1003's position is never to lift a finger to help anyone who isn't screaming for help, and that everyone deserves what s/he gets, then we are in such different universes, morally, that it is probably futile to appeal to his sense of compassion or justice!!!"
Exactly Tam. That is what I wanted to find out.
Amber

reply from: Fredi

From the innocent child's perspective:
http://hgpi.blogspot.com/2005/10/my-life-depends-on-you.html

reply from: yoda

This thread is an excellent example of the coldness, callousness, and indifference it takes to be a probabykilling advocate.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics