Home - List All Discussions

WHERE are ALL the proaborts.......

AND WHY ARE THEY AFRAID TO COMMENT???

by: yoda

Suppose you and a non-swimming friend were out on a lake in YOUR boat, when a sudden storm came up and swamped YOUR boat, causing it to sink. Now you and your friend are both wearing YOUR lifejackets, so both of you are able to stay afloat without the boat.
After some time has passed, you decide that you'd like to have both life jackets, since they both belong to YOU and having both of them would give you more security and comfort by holding you higher in the water.
Naturally, your friend objects, saying that YOUR lifejacket is his/her "sole means of survival", especially since he/she can't swim. But you insist, and proceed to remove YOUR life jacket and use it yourself. The other person (you can no longer call them a "friend") promptly drowns.
Was your action morally justified, or not?

reply from: AshMarie88

Not at all.
(I'd like to hear Sigma's thought on this, tho.)

reply from: yoda

Oh, I'm sure siggy will avoid this like the plague..... he's allergic to anything realistic or to the point.....
But it strikes me that this analogy holds up pretty well, since the owner of the life jacket has "property rights", just as the pregnant woman has "bodily integrity rights", even though in both cases those rights are in conflict with the right of the other party to have the use of their sole means of survival temporarily.
And that's exactly what abortion does, it removes the sole means of survival for the baby, even if the abortionist doesn't intentionally kill it first.

reply from: galen

good one Yoda!
here siggy siggy siggy....
Mary

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Whoa, great analogy, Yoda! It kinda disappoints me that Sigma will probably ignore this thread, though.

reply from: yoda

Thanks, Mary and Laurissa. When you think about it, it just wouldn't serve Siggy's purposes to respond to this thread, because he can't divert, distract, or confuse us with this example. And that seems to be his whole goal in life, to make us angry with his evasions and obsfucations. Personally, I will not engage in his little games, and provide him with more entertainment.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Maybe if we keep this thread constantly at the top of the threads, someone will dare to answer...
But perhaps not, seeing as pro-choicers are a bunch of cowards...
Oh well, we've got an E for effort.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Extremely good analogy by the way, I'll to use it sometime, that'll stop those baby killers right in their tracks.

reply from: NathanG

^O^, Yodavater!
As we have been trying to say to them, all good moral standards prohibit a lessor right or privaledge in deference to a greater right or privaledge. Property rights don't justify removing someone's sole means of survival.
Excellent illustration.
I praise God for it.
God bless you in the Lord Jesus, Yodavater,
Sincerely,
Nathan Galeotti

reply from: dizzywahm

All of you have put it soooo well. I will definitely use this too!

reply from: xnavy

very good yoda, but your debating skills rate a 10

reply from: yoda

Thanks, everyone!
This one has the proaborts scurrying like roaches when the kitchen light is turned on.

reply from: faithman

By the by. Get Yoda to send you the e-mail with him holding the I am a person poster. He is almost as cute as the poster.

reply from: AshMarie88

Where'd Sigma go again?
Eh, I guess we'll see him back on in 5 months.

reply from: yoda

I think we made it too hot for him/her........

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Yeah, he/she'd melt his/her cold exterior....and maybe warm up the interior a bit...

reply from: yoda

http://www.parrottimes.com/forums/images/smilies/bump.gif alt="Bump"

reply from: yoda

img src="http://members.lycos.co.uk/utsc/bump.gif alt="Bump 3"

reply from: yoda

anybody seen a proabort today?

reply from: faithman

Yah. He is pretending to be a nice guy intelectual. But is really a lieing criminal that promotes the evolution myth that is the foundation of abortion on demand in the first place.

reply from: yoda

Still no proaborts? Have we run them all off? Are they extinct now?

reply from: Tam

I guess the actual proaborts are making themselves scarce. Seems the only thing left here are prolifers, although I noticed at least one of us is being falsely accused of being a proabort--by another prolifer. Sigh . . .
It's like this whole "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality--but in order to be "with us" you can't JUST agree that abortion is wrong--you have to agree on EVERYTHING with EVERY other prolifer, or risk being called a liar. You support gay marriage? You're not a "real" pro-lifer because gay marriage undermines the fabric of our society and contributes to the anti-family mentality fueling the abortion movement. Agnostic or atheist? You're not a real pro-lifer because the reason abortion is wrong is that God says so, and no other reason has any validity or import. You had sex out of wedlock? You're not a real prolifer because you're contributing to the casual sex mentality that is the root of the abortion movement. You're a Canadian? You can't be prolife because Canada allows abortion. You're a baboon? You can't be prolife because you have a brightly colored rear end designed to attract to you baboons of the opposite sex to whom you are not married. You're a pink cadillac? You aren't prolife because pink is the Planned Parenthood logo color! You're eating a box of Raisinets? You can't be prolife because those raisins should be eaten only as full grapes, and by purchasing the shriveled remains of what were formerly succulent fruits, you are supporting the anti-life culture from which abortion was spawned. . . . etc, etc, etc!
How about this! How about everyone who opposes legal abortion is pro-life, and everyone who supports legal abortion is not. How would that be?

reply from: yoda

Well, that would put us in complete agreement with the dictionary......... and as we all know, we can't go around doing that!

reply from: faithman

SSSSSOOOOOO we can't expose a lying phony who promotes the very cornerstone of abortion? There is no sanctity of life when evolution is taught. You need to pull your head out of the sand girl. CP is no friend to pre-born life.

reply from: yoda

Still no comment by any proabort on the analogy, eh?
No surprise there.......

reply from: laurissamarcotte

People also thought that if the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, it was degrading to humans.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yea, he's no friend of preborn life, which is why his son is alive today...
Can I roll my eyes now?

reply from: AshMarie88

Also, evolution has NOTHING to do with abortion. At all.

reply from: Tam

I don't want to discuss it any further. You've reached a conclusion, and I've reached a different one--we will simply have to disagree.

reply from: bradensmommy

Now y'all know I and some others have been much happier when we had faithman on iggy and ya keep quotin him!! GRRRRR
Just playin...
I think sometimes he pushes me further and further from organized religion. I'm thinking he may be a follower of good 'ol Fred Phelps?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Why should you let one person push you away from organized religions? If i meet a pagan I don't like should I let that color my perspective of you and the whole faith?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Actually it can -- Sanger, for example, used a pro-abortion evolution. Study orthogenesis.

reply from: bradensmommy

Why should you let one person push you away from organized religions? If i meet a pagan I don't like should I let that color my perspective of you and the whole faith?
True, but I have encountered a few others like him. I don't hate any Christian whatsoever, I just dislike a few.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Believe me -- I could tell some stories about Pagans I've met -- but I don't keep score and say, oh well, I've met x number of ppl I don't like of y religion so now my view of that way of life is tainted.

reply from: yoda

Still no proabort responses?
Goodness, have they lost their voices entirely? (hope, hope.......)

reply from: yoda

The PROABORTS all have lockjaw!!

reply from: faithman

May be they haven't evolved a tounge yet? Or maybe we are to close to the original model to be considered developed enough to engage in meaningful conversation? Or maybe "all" pro-lifers are realated to the phelps family? Or may be they got all BOO HOO, took their marbles and left "for a while". Or maybe we were just too mean to expose them for the monsters they are, and they just could be reminded of the fact they are not good people, and are evil to the core?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I think He was testing the desciples, as he often did. He is God.

reply from: faithman

I think He was testing the desciples, as he often did. He is God.
You don't mean God almighty in human flesh do ya? I demand seperation of church and forum!!! How dare you post the gospel Truth of the divinity of CHRIST !!!!!!!!!! [by the by, good work]

reply from: ThunderKitten

Who knows? Maybe they went to the prochoice forums. Maybe they're holding a fetal barbeque and this website isn't so exciting to them right now.
Or maybe... It's the internet, and people are under no obligation to frequent sites or respond to arguments, and hence only do so if they feel like it and have time???
I would look at this as an opertunity to thouroughly discuss various ways to reduce abortion and basically make life better in general, without being interrupted by having to explain over and over again why killing people is wrong.

reply from: faithman

Who knows? Maybe they went to the prochoice forums. Maybe they're holding a fetal barbeque and this website isn't so exciting to them right now.
Or maybe... It's the internet, and people are under no obligation to frequent sites or respond to arguments, and hence only do so if they feel like it and have time???
I would look at this as an opertunity to thouroughly discuss various ways to reduce abortion and basically make life better in general, without being interrupted by having to explain over and over again why killing people is wrong.
It is hard to kill someone when you look them in the eye. It is much easier to do so when you don't recognize them as human. Despite the evolutionary mind set of pagan pro-aborts that say womb children have not evolved into persons yet, show most women considering abortion the 4d ultra sound, or fiber optic photos of the womb child, and they decide not to kill their young. Politically, we must do everything we can to establish personhood to our posterity. Educationally, we must get the beautiful pictures of life in the womb in front of as many eyes as we can. And in our own house, we must sweep it clean of self appointed "leaders" who use the issue for a pay check, and their positions of power to feed their egos.

reply from: yoda

Nah, they have time to drop in here and try to sew discord between those who oppose abortion. They have time to whine about the personalities of some who post here. They have time for lots of things that have nothing to do with abortion.
But they have no time at all to discuss an analogy that relates directly to abortion, and why it is morally wrong. That would be just too much of a strain on them, because morally they are all cowards.

reply from: yoda

Isn't it amazing how terrified the proaborts are of that simple little analogy?
I've never seen them run so scared!

reply from: yoda

Bump for the "brave" proaborts!

reply from: Shiprahagain

Exactly, the original meaning of that term is lost (as happens with words and time) so saying fetus and expecting it to carry the same effect of meaning "little one" as it did (centuries ago!) is like supposing that the word promiscuous carries its original meaning, for example.

reply from: bradensmommy

Thats why there is a nifty word called "lurking" which is exactly what they are doing...
Or probably copying and pasting everything y'all are saying for their own amusement...who knows....

reply from: yoda

I think the word "hiding" is more appropriate......

reply from: cali1981

Terrific thread, Yoda! :-)

reply from: yoda

Thanks, cali. Aren't the proaborts noticable by their absence on this thread?

reply from: yoda

Ah, my goodness! Looks like we're just too imposing and threatening to the proaborts, folks!

reply from: xLoki

Both of which your original post are not in context to abortion.
It is not the same thing because the owner of the lifejackets is not using his/her body to help save their friend.
Yes and since it was in her BODY, she gets final say on whether to remove it from it's sole means of survival (which is HER) or not.

reply from: faithman

It all boils down to whether the American dream is the freedom to do evil, or the liberty from evil, and the right to do what is right.

reply from: yoda

Wow! A proabort finally shows up, lame arguments and all! Wow!
NO TWO EXAMPLES are ever exactly "the same thing" dufus, if they were then they'd be only one thing, wouldn't they? And NO analogy is ever between two IDENTICAL things, is it?
Only someone who was desperate to avoid discussing the actual point of the analogy would make such as silly, innane objection.
Analogies exist to show the COMMONALITY between two DIFFERENT things, dufus....... do you need to go back to school to figure out what an analogy is?
The commonality between the lifejacket and the womb is that BOTH of them are (in the examples given) the SOLE MEANS OF SURVIVAL for the innocent victims..... but of course you aren't interested in discussing the commonality in this analogy, are you? You're more interested in copping out by throwing up some transparent objection, aren't you?
So NOW you actually want to debate? NOW you're going to put aside your assinine objections and try to make a point? WOW!
Well let me be the first to agree with you! She DOES get "final say", because of Roe & Doe!
AND, if Roe & Doe applied to my lifejacket analogy, she'd have the legal right to take the other life jacket away from her friend, because it belonged to HER!
See how an anology works, dufus???

reply from: cali1981

LOL This reminds me of something that a know-it-all proabort said one time on a forum that I visited occasionally. I actually copied/pasted/saved it at the time because I thought it was so rich...but now I can't find it.
At any rate, it was something like: "Pregnancy is a unique situation that is not found anywhere else in nature. No situation is exactly the same as a pregnancy; therefore, any analogies used to talk about pregnancy are fallacious and to be disregarded."
I didn't quite capture the arrogance in her tone, but it was something like that.
I just wanted to say, "Ummm...do analogies EVER compare two things that are EXACTLY the same?? If they were exactly the same, you wouldn't need an analogy to talk about them!"

reply from: xLoki

You are a charming one, huh. You've never heard "you catch more flies with honey", I'm guessing. Consequently, you have about the same way of speaking to other's as my bratty 8-year-old cousin. Perhaps if you changed your tone, more "pro-aborts" would be willing to debate with you.
Moving on...
The purpose of analogies are to make reasonable comparisons between two or more situations. What you don't seem to understand is that the analogy you have attempted to make in reference to abortion, doesn't make an appropriate comparison.
You say:
"The commonality between the lifejacket and the womb is that BOTH of them are (in the examples given) the SOLE MEANS OF SURVIVAL for the innocent victims..... "
Your analogy does not form an appropriate comparison, for one simple reason. The lifejackets are not part of one's body. It doesn't matter if it is a fetus's sole form of survival that it stay in it's mother's womb if she doesn't want it there because it is in her body. That is the very point of the abortion debate. Comparing a living, thinking woman to an inanimate lifejacket just does not work out.
What in the world are you going on about? You seem more eager to write all dramatic-like than to actually make a valid point.
As it should be...
Not in the same way one's body belongs to them.
Not in your case.

reply from: Shiprahagain

If you have conjoined twin adult women and one is dependent upon the other for organs, can the independent one choose to separate ending the other twin's life.

reply from: cali1981

Actually, in terms of what yoda was comparing, it works out quite nicely. This analogy is meant to show that justifications for abortion prioritize one person's comfort over another's life.
Whether it's a mother's body or a life jacket, we're talking about comfort versus life. A person who would feel justified in taking a life jacket away from his friend for the sole purpose of feeling more comfortable himself is prioritizing his comfort over his friend's life. In a similar vein, a woman who feels justified in taking her own child's life so that she can be more comfortable in her own body for a few months shows a prioritization of her own comfort over another's very life.
The exact same concept is operating in both situations...I can take away something from someone else if it results in greater comfort for me, even if it also results in that person's death.
A highly analogous comparison with regard to the ways in which people justify selfish and cruel behavior, I'd say. Well done, yoda.

reply from: yoda

Why, because YOU say so?
Why logical/moral objection do you have to comparing ownership of one's body to ownership of a lifejacket that is saving the life of another? Do you not understand the concept of "SOLE MEANS OF SURVIVAL"??? Is that concept too complicated for you????
Have you eyes completely closed to the ENTIRE POINT of the analogy? Are you so rabidly probabykilling that you cannot see what I made clear, over and over?

reply from: yoda

Thanks, cali. Isn't it fascinating how differently two people see the same thing when one is trying to understand it, and the other is trying NOT to understand it?
As you said in your other post, one probabykilling advocate says we can't make any analogies with pregnancy because it's unique, and this probabykilling advocate says this analogy isn't any good because the life jacket isn't a part of her body.
And so the parade continues, probabykilling advocates walk by with their noses high in the air and their head squarely up their.... well, you know..........

reply from: AshMarie88

I finally agree with you...

reply from: yoda

Just waiting on Loki to return.........

reply from: faithman

I finally agree with you...
We agree more than you think we do. You just don't know it yet.

reply from: chrisjwright

Hi all, this is my first post here.
I think the answer to the life jacket analogy is certainly "no", there can be no justification for letting someone drown in order to let yourself be a little higher in the water.

reply from: chrisjwright

Just a thought, and I don't want to upset anyone on my first day - if you were a pro-abortionist, why would you come to an anti-abortion forum, unless it was just for an argument and to cause trouble?
If it was "the abortion discussion forum" instead of the "prolife America" forum, you might get both sides of the debate here, but it's such an emotive issue, and one that the two sides will never agree on, so it would be pointless for a pro-abortionist to come here and try to change our minds, just as it would be pointless for us to go onto an anti-abortion forum and try to change theirs.
Just my two cents!

reply from: cali1981

Actually, while the two "sides" might not agree, there have definitely been examples of individual PEOPLE changing their minds. I can think of several pro-aborts who used to post on here and suddenly disappeared when the questions got too difficult. While we cannot assume that they automatically became pro-life, I know that they are thinking things over. And I know that several of my friends and family have become pro-life after repeated discussions with me.
There are no wasted opportunities. Minds can be changed, and have been changed!
Welcome to the forum.

reply from: faithman

I finally agree with you...
We agree more than you think we do. You just don't know it yet.

reply from: BB

Nobody has chosen to answer because this question is off the topic off abortion. If you go swimming with a born person and they can not swim and are using one of your life jackets than no you should not take it from them. If you are swimming with a born person and have only one life jacket and neither of you know how to swim then yes you have the right to take it from them even if it means they will die because if you don't take it then you will die. Same goes with life of the mother if she is going to die then she has a right to abort the pregnancy. If someone is coming after you with a knife and you have to kill them or you will die then it is reasonable to say that you would kill them.

reply from: yoda

Not at all, it is simply another way of stating the moral case against abortion by using an analogy. Did you not figure that out?
NO ONE has challenged the right of a mother to ask a doctor to perform an early delivery if her life is endangered by her pregnancy, so you are both beating a dead horse and preaching to the choir at the same time.
Not only that, you avoided the main thrust of the analogy, which is that a woman's "ownership" of her own body does not justify removing the baby from it's sole means of survival (her womb).

reply from: chrisjwright

Interesting, and of course I haven't been around to see that happen so I can't speculate much about it.
IMHO, it's such a complex debate, with some questions that EITHER side would find very difficult to answer.
The reason I am here is because I honestly don't know which side I'm on. I can see situations where someone would feel that abortion was their only option, and I can see the arguments against it as well. My "official" viewpoint so far has been that it's an issue that should be taken on a case-by-case basis, although of course that doesn't help the unborn babies very much, so broadly speaking I'm against abortion, although again that doens't help people in extreme situations very much.
I'm here for some education - I can't guarantee that I'll end up as a pro-lifer, or that I'll end up as a pro-abortionist. I've just decided that I'd like some facts to give me a better grounding on the subject.

reply from: faithman

You are the quintasential mushy middle. As far as medical goes, every effort should be taken to save both. In the process one is lost, then it is a tragic event, but a doctor should not purposely destroy a human life. As most mushies, you probly have questions about the "hard cases". As I have said many times. The hard cases were never at issue. Abortion was already legal before RvW. RvW made abortion on demand legal. No more than 2% of abortion are hard case situations. Partial Birth abortion is never medically nessisary. A C section is many times safer for mom, and baby gets to keep his/her brains in his/her skull.
check out this site http://i81.photobucket.com/alb...yodavater/IMG_0580.jpg http://i81.photobucket.com/alb...yodavater/IMG_0580.jpg It is a picture of the I am a person poster. If you would like a sample, then private message me a mailing address. Check out the I AM A PERSON thred. It has testimonials of this image in action. It would be my privalige to serve you.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Glad you're here. Hope we can answer your questions. Basically, since the unborn are human beings, we believe they should NEVER be killed just like you would never kill an innocent born human being for the good of another. Even if you think you're helping ppl -- psychologically and physically, abortion hurts them too http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/complicationsgirls.cfm Here are some reasons we're prolife on a case by case basis http://www.prolifeamerica.com/prolife_answers/ just head to the case you're interested in. And welcome to the forum!

reply from: yoda

At it's essence, it's "bottom line", the debate is pretty simple. It boils down to your personal values. Which do you value more, the life of an innocent baby, or the "right" of the mother to kill it for non-medical reasons?

reply from: chrisjwright

Is it really that simple? I can understand that most people here are going to be anti-abortionists because of the name of the site if nothing else, but if it were as simple as you put it, surely everyone would be anti-abortion, wouldn't they?
The way you pose the question is rhetorical IMHO, because you put "right" in quotation marks, and use the words "kill" and "innocent". Yes, it is a killing (the grey area seems to arise from whether it is an actual or merely "technical" killing), and yes, the baby is by definition innocent before it's been born. But it's impossible to answer that question in any way other than to agree with it.
To debate the issue you have to ask these questions in such a way that allows for either side to put their case (again IMHO).
If the question was "Is the right of the pregnant woman to abort more valid than the right of the feotus to live?" or something like that, there would be room for debate.
Sorry to be obstructive, I don't want to come across as the new guy who causes trouble, but as I said in an earlier post I want education. Rhetoric, although bound to be present in an issue as amotive as this, doesn't really help me to learn.
I have read some interesting pro-abortion stuff by a guy called Steven Levitt, who I will assume that you have heard of since you've been in this debate for a while. If not I will post links. What are the views here on his theory about abortion and the crime rate?
Many thanks for the welcomes, I hope that I can enjoy gaining knowledge and not upset anyone too much!

reply from: Shiprahagain

Is it really that simple? I can understand that most people here are going to be anti-abortionists because of the name of the site if nothing else, but if it were as simple as you put it, surely everyone would be anti-abortion, wouldn't they?
That's like saying, "Is it really that simple. I can understand that most people here are in favor of integration, but if it were as simple as being a matter of blacks having equal rights, everyone would be against segregation wouldn't they?" or "Is it really that siimple? I can understand that most people here are against the Holocaust, but if it's really just a matter of whether or not it's okay to kill Jews, wouldn't everyone be against the Nazis?" As you can see by looking at history, other human rights cases where people lost their personhood to others' oppression are quite simple cases, however, in those clouded areas, the humanity of black and Jewish human beings wasn't always apparent. The same with abortion. You're not being obstructive -- we welcome your questions. To learn about abortion issue by issues I suggest http://abort73.com/ The abortion/crime rate link has been disproven http://www.slate.com/id/33569/entry/33726/
">http://www.slate.com/id/33569/entry/33726/
By the way, did the site I recommended earlier help?

reply from: yoda

Yes, it IS that simple, and NO, that has not caused everyone to be anti-abortion. Probabykilling advocates run the gamut from those who deny that unborn babies exist to those who say yes they are babies but it's okay to kill them.
There is nothing "rhetorical" about stating the plain, simple truth in the most direct way possible. Only a desire to obfuscate and confuse would motivate one to try to make it more "complicated", IMO. For example, what is a "technical" killing of a human being? What distinction does the word "technical" make? Is that not a cop-out? And if it's "impossible" to answer that question in any other way than to agree with it, perhaps that's because it's true? Did that not occur to you?
I don't see how you have changed the substance of the question at all, except to use the word "abort" in place of "kill"....... so how is that a change in the meaning of the question?
Your definition of "rhetoric" puzzles me. Do you consider my words to be "rhetoric" simply because they are blunt and plain, or what?
No, I'm not familiar with the name, but I've heard the theories about abortion and the crime rate. Aside from the fact that I think it's rubish, my main objection to debating it is that I don't consider killing unborn babies to be a moral way to affect the crime rate in any event. If one thinks it is a moral preventative, then one must also endorse the killing of poor children of all ages.
It gets a lot rougher than this in here, just bring your thick skin and jump right in!


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