Home - List All Discussions

This is for Faramir, Moonlady, nsanford, spinwiddy, and ntvgrl4yeshua

Where are all the "A fetus is not a baby" posters?

by: yoda

We get those proabort revisionist claims that "a fetus is not a baby" all the time. Usually, I respond with a definition of "baby" that includes the word "fetus" as evidence that they are lying/wrong. And there's a reason why that's the easiest evidence to find: technical terms are not commonly defined with terms of the vernacular.
A good example is the word "appendage". The majority of online sources will say things like "a part of the body that projects beyond the trunk", or something to that effect, but only a very few of them will actually say something like "an arm or a leg", even though we all know that those ARE appendages. So it is also with the technical term "fetus", a majority of sources do not define it in vernacular terms. Also, "fetus" is a general term for the young of any animal that goes through the gestation process, not just we humans. And so a proabort will sometimes quote a definition of "fetus" that doesn't use the word "baby" as "proof" of their idiotic claim.
However, with a bit of looking, I have found some very impressive sources that do define "fetus" using the vernacular term "baby":
The Baby Center (UK):
fetus: The name given to a growing baby after eight weeks of development; before eight weeks, the developing baby is called an embryo. http://www.babycentre.co.uk/glossary/F.html
AllWords.com
fetus noun
1. (embryology) An unborn or unhatched vertebrate showing signs of the mature animal.
2. (embryology) An unborn baby after the 7th week of gestation.
http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=Fetus&goquery=Find+it%21&Language=ENG [/a]
And here's the BEST one yet:
from WordNet 3.0 Vocabulary Helper:
Hyponyms of noun fetus 1 sense of fetus
Sense 1
fetus, foetus -- (an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal)
* monster, teras -- ((medicine) a grossly malformed and usually nonviable fetus)
* abortus -- (a human fetus whose weight is less than 0.5 kilogram when removed or expelled from the mother's body)
* baby -- (an unborn child; a human fetus;

I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside'' )
http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?cmd=wn&word=fetus [/a]
Why do I say it's the "best"? Well, a look at the word "hyponym" will tell you why:
hy.po.nym Pronunciation: (h?'pu-nim), [key]
- n. Ling.
a term that denotes a subcategory of a more general class: "Chair" and "table" are hyponyms of "furniture." Cf. superordinate (def. 4).
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/hyponym [/a]
How clear is that?

reply from: yoda

~Fixed the broken links.~

reply from: yoda

(can't help myself, I just gotta ~bump~ this again!)

reply from: Beprolifewithme

Thank you yoda for posting this, I'am wondering what they think of this myself. What a shock, no pro-abort answered!

reply from: yoda

Yes, I'm totally shocked that no proaborts have responded to this thread.... NOT!
It's a bummer for them, to have their ever-so-obvious lies exposed to the light of academic integrity. It forces them to make up brand new lies, and they just hate to do that.............

reply from: faithman

yeah, its funny to watch them try and retread the old ones, and pass them along. You have to give them perserverance points though. If "pro-lifers" were just half as stedfast, abortion on demand would have ended decades ago.

reply from: yoda

You're right, we must "give the devil his due".
My own conclusion is that it's the fearful prospect of suffering the pains of an active, aroused conscience that keeps them actively pursing their path of denial. It's what makes them "De Queen of De Nial".

reply from: yoda

~BUMPITY=BUMP~ for all the new proabort trolls.......

reply from: yoda

~where oh where are you today, proaborts?~

reply from: xnavy

bump and yoda have a great day.

reply from: galen

gee Yoda... was that little devil for me?
Great thread yoda ... I wish i could stay and watch it with you, but i gotta go to work.
MAry

reply from: Banned Member

I know how you love to argue semantics, Yoda. I don't care that it is called a baby, doesn't elicit any more emotion out of me. I have one growing inside me now, but I don't think of it as a baby. I am sure I will once it starts to move about & such, right now I feel no life growing inside of me. Just knowing it's there doesn't make me all gushy & stupid. Call it a baby, call it a fetus, both terms are equally correct. Call it a bag of rainbows & puppy dog kisses of you like, but it doesn't really change the issue at hand.

reply from: yoda

Not nearly as much as you proaborts who loudly exclaim "A fetus is not a baby"..... and then try to chastise me for "arguing semantics", as if you didn't start it....... what gall, what brass you have on your face....
Yeah, I can believe that. I would've believed you if you'd said none of your born kids elicit any emotion out of you, too. But the point is, this thread wasn't directed to you if you don't parrot the proabort mantra "A fetus is not a baby". So go away.

reply from: yoda

~bumpy-poo~ for ~Skippy-poo~

reply from: yoda

~bumpy-poo~ for ~Skippy-poo~

reply from: Skippy

Well there ya go. You said it so well that I don't need to say anything at all.

reply from: yoda

Dang, Skippy...... you caved in awfully quick.... now I'll have to take your name off the topic title...... where are all those "It's not a baby" proaborts now?

reply from: yoda

~bump~
STILL looking for all those "It's not a Baby" proaborts......
WHERE ARE YOU ALL NOW????

reply from: Teresa18

Way to shoot down the pro-aborts, Yoda!

reply from: lukesmom

The thought of you saying this makes me shudder for this child or whatever you birth since to you he/she isn't a baby. When this child or whatever it is since it isn't a baby, is born and you hold "it" in your arms and speak to "it" and "it" turns to you because "it" knows your voice, think of your views on how "it" was just an invading clump of cells that had no rights until "it" was born.

reply from: sk1bianca

syrenity... you might find this shocking... but... IT IS A HUMAN BEING, no matter what you call it. it doesn't magically "become" a baby when you start to think about it that way. just as my nasty unconfortable chair here at work doesn't magically turn into a chiase longue if I decide to think about it in this way.

reply from: yoda

thanks!
And I didn't have to pull out my really heavy ammunition, either:
American Heritage Dictionary: http://www.bartleby.com/61/
Unborn: ADJECTIVE : 1. Not yet born: "an unborn child."
Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ Unborn:
Pronunciation: (un-bôrn') -adj. 2. not yet delivered; still existing in the mother's womb: an unborn baby.

reply from: yoda

~bump~
Where are those revisionist proaborts?????

reply from: faithman

CP hasn't made them up yet.

reply from: faithman

The thought of you saying this makes me shudder for this child or whatever you birth since to you he/she isn't a baby. When this child or whatever it is since it isn't a baby, is born and you hold "it" in your arms and speak to "it" and "it" turns to you because "it" knows your voice, think of your views on how "it" was just an invading clump of cells that had no rights until "it" was born.
Well you have to understand that pro-aborts also accept beastality. No telling what she has layed around with, so it is understandable that she thinks it could be a "puppy".

reply from: yoda

~bump~ for all the absent revisionists!

reply from: yoda

~bump~ for all the absent revisionists!

reply from: yoda

~bump~ for all the run and hide proaborts!

reply from: jujujellybean

Geez...I was hoping some would stick around but this place is totally deserted!

reply from: yoda

Strange, isn't it?
One minute we are covered up with screaming proaborts yelling "IT'S NOT A BABY".. and the next minute you can't find one with a Geiger counter!
Kinda like roaches when you turn on the kitchen light, they're all scurrying for cover.

reply from: yoda

Bumpy bumpy for the borties borties.......
Hey bortheads!!

reply from: faithman

Gosh!!! Where are all the word twisters? Maybe CP needs to have a siminar on how to half truth slander, and misdirect? He is the resident expert on such tactics.

reply from: yoda

I've never seen them so quiet before, have you?

reply from: faithman

I've never seen them so quiet before, have you?
Creatures of the night, can't live in the light. May hads you shouldn't have driven the stake of truth so deep into their scancy blood thirsty hearts?

reply from: yoda

Either that, or they're just sitting back and enjoying the show we prolifers are putting on fighting each other....???

reply from: jujujellybean

I've never seen them so quiet before, have you?
What's hilarious to me is that whenever you do one of these, Yoda, no one ever responds!!!!! LOL!!!!!! No pro aborts decide they want to step up and try to rationalize something that irrational!!!! It's really funny, because the same thing happened last time you did this!!!!! It is just so funny!!!!!

reply from: yoda

Yeah, does that make me a "wet blanket" on their little party?
Do you suppose I take some of the joy out of baby killing for them?
Gee gosh by golly I sure hope so!!

reply from: jujujellybean

probably. our media is so saturated with libs who agree with the child killing in our country that this is probably the only place they are faced with real facts that make them think twice. Everywhere else, people are as crazy as murderers!

reply from: Banned Member

The thought of you saying this makes me shudder for this child or whatever you birth since to you he/she isn't a baby. When this child or whatever it is since it isn't a baby, is born and you hold "it" in your arms and speak to "it" and "it" turns to you because "it" knows your voice, think of your views on how "it" was just an invading clump of cells that had no rights until "it" was born.
I think it's funny , you've posted like three posts now about how appalled you are that I am pregnant. One might think you'd rather me abort or something. You tend to lump all pro-choice people together. I never said it was a clump of cells, though, technically, it is...we all are, even you. You should really try reading what each individual person says, not be so stereotypical.

reply from: faithman

I've never seen them so quiet before, have you?
What's hilarious to me is that whenever you do one of these, Yoda, no one ever responds!!!!! LOL!!!!!! No pro aborts decide they want to step up and try to rationalize something that irrational!!!! It's really funny, because the same thing happened last time you did this!!!!! It is just so funny!!!!!
It would be really funny if their willing ignorance didn't slaughter womb children by the thousands every day.

reply from: yoda

Would you like to get back on topic? No? Why am I not surprised?

reply from: faithman

Would you like to get back on topic? No? Why am I not surprised?
And what a fetaded lump of stench your are!!

reply from: lukesmom

The thought of you saying this makes me shudder for this child or whatever you birth since to you he/she isn't a baby. When this child or whatever it is since it isn't a baby, is born and you hold "it" in your arms and speak to "it" and "it" turns to you because "it" knows your voice, think of your views on how "it" was just an invading clump of cells that had no rights until "it" was born.
I think it's funny , you've posted like three posts now about how appalled you are that I am pregnant. One might think you'd rather me abort or something. You tend to lump all pro-choice people together. I never said it was a clump of cells, though, technically, it is...we all are, even you. You should really try reading what each individual person says, not be so stereotypical.
Sorry, you ARE proabortion/prochoice (same thing) aren't you? Don't we continually hear the "clump of cells" rhetoric from your side of the issue? Honey, you are guilty by association. What is stereotypical? The fact that prochoicers/proaborts believe in killing the unborn? You do confuse me here. BTW, I am delighted you are not only pregnant and are also allowing him/her to live.

reply from: yoda

~bump~ for Kayluvschoice!

reply from: yoda

~bump~ for Kayluvzchoice!

reply from: jujujellybean

The issue at hand? Care to exaggerate? You mean the one Yoda just blatantly showed was a false argument? If that's the argument at hand, your response has been proved wrong countless times.

reply from: Teresa18

Why, Yoda, I'm afraid you've confused the pro-aborts with facts. Facts get in the way of their lies of course. What do you want to bet they will continue to ignore this thread, let it sink, and then begin to post in other threads that a fetus is not a baby? You ought to bump this everytime we get a new pro-abort as well.

reply from: jujujellybean

They just can't face the facts that they are killing people. Because obviously they are too kind for that! They wouldn't bear to kill someone with pain and feelings. But something that is just starting to develop is worth nothing. They think being outside the womb determines importance. So annoying, because innocent people are being killed for it.

reply from: yoda

That thought occurred to you too? What a coincidence!
Yes, that's already happened, kayluvzchoice has already done that. So let's all keep this thing on top!!

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Wow. I have never had a post dedicated to me before. I didn't know you cared...

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Yeah, I guess you are right. It is a baby. But it certainly does not compare with one that is born.

reply from: yoda

Wow..... you finally capitulated.
Just out of curiosity.... what do you mean "does not compare"? What is your basis for stating a "lack of comparison"?

reply from: ronin82

I still want to know why we shouldn't legalize infanticide as well, according to pro-choice logic. Take a look at the most common reasons for abortion (you can find a study here: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html)

All of these reasons can just as easily be applied to an infant, or any child for that matter. That is why we have "dumpster babies". Clearly the rationale is the same. So why not legalize it? I can bet you a million bucks that if leaving a baby in a dumpster was causing harm to the women who were doing it, hysterical feminists would be arguing like maniacs for the right to "safely and legally" throw babies in the trash.

reply from: yoda

Most radical proaborts don't campaign openly to legalize infanticide, but only because they know it would reveal how they truly feel about all children, born and unborn. And to show their true colors would be very embarrassing for them.

reply from: yoda

bump it one more time........

reply from: yoda

Here ya go, notagirl!!
Troll you way over here and respond to this thread!

reply from: yoda

~bumpity!~
Where are you, notagirl?

reply from: jujujellybean

wow....you have posted that SAME THING with the SAME WORDING lkike ten times now. Do you have it on copy and paste so you can just hit a button and get your answer? Try something original...I know it is hard you are all so set on it being something that should be able to be killed...

reply from: yoda

It's the Leninist principle of propaganda, Juju: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".

reply from: yoda

~bump~ again, so notagirl can see it.....

reply from: ProInformed

great job Yoda!
It is encouraging to see there are still some references that haven't been censored to try to hide the holocaust behind euphemisms.

reply from: jujujellybean

Wow...who knew that one day Leninist quotes would so perfectly describe what their lies are? How sickening. Everytime I think about how they kill babies, some for a living, it make me want to cry!
BTW, who is notagirl?

reply from: yoda

Thanks!
"notagirl", alias ntvgrl4yeshua, the bortie who throws out a load of crap and then runs away.....

reply from: yoda

~BUMP~ FOR NOTAGIRL.....

reply from: yoda

~BUMP~ FOR NOTAGIRL.....

reply from: jujujellybean

Right. I figured she was a runaway, but I didn't see her so o well. Where did she post?

reply from: yoda

She's posted on several threads, in a "hit and run" fashion. I think she's just another troll name of coco's. Coco used to pretend to be prolife, but always sided with the new proaborts.

reply from: jujujellybean

yah I remember her. She hasn't come here in a while.

reply from: yoda

I think she's probably here all right...... just using a different disguise (name).

reply from: yoda

Yooo hooo..... oh notagirl..... nottygirl.... where are you?

reply from: jujujellybean

do you know how many times I have seen that website? About a trillion. It is the only one that you can give from my experience with good stories. Every single choicer has given me that website, honest. Any others, please. I could give you a million the other way.

reply from: ronin82

Why do we have this obligation to extend unconditional support?
"Forced to give birth" simply means "forced not to kill".
One of the things that bothers me the most about this issue is the way cynical liberals react with either indignation or mockery to the suggestion that people either control their sexual urges or get their reproductive organs fixed so that they don't have to worry about this problem. It's as if all society will crumble and life will become meaningless if abortion isn't around as a solution to irresponsible sexual behavior.
You just need to understand that we value innocent life with great potential to be just as important as an adult's right to have unprotected sex whenever they want without thinking about the consequences.

reply from: yoda

"Barely"? Are you serious? Being a "Human being" is not an achievement, like a merit badge. It is nothing more than our species classification. So can can a baby be "barely" a human being?
Irrelevant, since no law has ever existed in this country that would disallow a woman from seeking a life-saving early delivery when a pregnancy threatens her life.
There is no such thing as a "necessary evil". Anything that is truly evil is not necessary. And whether murder remains illegal or not, people will kill other people...... so? All abortions put the babies in mortal danger, so what is your point, really?
The legality of abortion in no way imposes any duty on society to "support" the act. To infer such an obligation is to suggest that society must abandon all standards of morality, and I for one am not willing to do that to accommodate one human being who wishes to kill another.

reply from: 4given

You understand . Either you choose life, or you choose death. There are a few so-called whatever w/ exceptions. The bottom line is you support elective abortion, or you do not. Why do you support abortion?

reply from: yoda

Sure you do. Because all you've done since you came here is to dodge, evade, and ignore every question put to you.
I would call you an "artful dodger", except that so far you haven't shown any artistic tendencies.

reply from: whydeath

WOW! I have been gone a long time and still the same old same old haha! I am glad I missed this go round with the 'new' proabort clan....is boinky still around?

reply from: Skippy

If you're looking for positive abortion stories, you should check out iVillage's abortion support board, girlmom.com, or any of the childfree communities on the internet.
If you are offended by positive abortion stories, I'd stay away from those sites.
You also might want to check out aheartbreakingchoice.com. I know many here are devoid of sympathy for women that choose abortion after a poor pre-natal diagnosis, but those stories are about regret that the pregnancy went south, not regret for having an abortion.

reply from: yoda

Probably here under a different name. Pick any one, they're all clones.

reply from: yoda

Hello, notagirl???? Hello???

reply from: jujujellybean

she's gone. She probably left after she saw a thread addressed to her....because she knew it would bash everything she believed.

reply from: yoda

Oh how sad..... boo hoo!
But I'm almost positive, practically certain that there will soon be other proaborts here (or the same ones under different names) to carry on with her lying tradition......
So this will serve as a greeting to them. Step right up, lying proaborts!

reply from: jujujellybean

come one come all to enter Yoda's way of exposing your lies...

reply from: yoda

Why is it you can never find a proabort when the debate gets interesting?

reply from: RedTaintedRose

I'm still waiting on you to prove that a zef does not actually leech its nutrients and oxygen off the host/mother in a parasitical symboisis there yoda.. since you won't answer me on ehealth and are to craven to come to girl nation..

reply from: yoda

I already answered you on that 99% proabort forum, you just can't read.
Besides, why can't you comment on the definitions I posted here on the "parasite" thread?
Oh wait, I forgot..... you can't read, can you?

reply from: faithman

I already answered you on that 99% proabort forum, you just can't read.
Besides, why can't you comment on the definitions I posted here on the "parasite" thread?
Oh wait, I forgot..... you can't read, can you?
Then according to RTR defenition, it is a parasite too.

reply from: yoda

In the vernacular, I'd say RTRose is more of a parasite than a human fetus is.

reply from: faithman

Sure been trying to suck the life out of this forum that host it's crappy posts.

reply from: yoda

Amen, brother. She whines here about what happens in some other forum, then whines there about what's happening here. Maybe she needs some cheese with that whine?

reply from: faithman

May haps she is a colan parasite. In which case, I think we have spots for it to kiss.

reply from: yoda

Nothing but silence from the proaborts.......

reply from: jujujellybean

same old, same old, right Yoda? No replies....

reply from: yoda

The silence is deafening..........

reply from: jujujellybean

it's like that weird buzzing noise you hear when NOTHING is going on....very annoying yet satisfying from the lack of loud noise and usual hectic humdrum.

reply from: yoda

Yep.... that's the only sure-fire way to shut a proabort up.... ask them a tough question. You could hear a pin drop then.

reply from: jujujellybean

yah. Sometimes, they realize they can't win and run away so occasionally you can hear the patter of feet trying to slip away too....

reply from: AV2BH

You cant argue wth facts... Thanks you.

reply from: 4given

Until you've hung around here long enough.. You may be surprised at what the proaborts argue..

reply from: jujujellybean

Until you've hung around here long enough.. You may be surprised at what the proaborts argue..
Yah! They say it's not a human after that's been proved wrong a bajillion times!

reply from: faithman

Until you've hung around here long enough.. You may be surprised at what the proaborts argue..
Yah! They say it's not a human after that's been proved wrong a bajillion times!
.

reply from: jujujellybean

bump for the people that will kill other people...

reply from: jujujellybean

bump...not a soul here huh?

reply from: yoda

Wow, no response even from the loud mouthed proabort troll C2A... I guess the cat must have gotten her tongue......eh?

reply from: jujujellybean

no I doubt that there are any cats involved...but you might think so considering the silence, huh?

reply from: yoda

It is awfully quiet on this thread. But on another thread, nssanford informed me that dictionary quotes "don't matter"....... which is an interesting thought, actually.
That means we can throw away all our dictionaries, let everyone make up their own definitions, spell words any way they want to, and justify anything we want to do by claiming it's okay because "they said so".
What a concept! Not only do they want to kill babies, they want to kill all our integrity as well. Who needs assisted suicide when you have proaborts around ready to kill the fabric of our whole society?

reply from: 4given

Yoda, the statement that dictionaries do not matter seemed to be true in reference to proaborts. Many understand full well what abortion is and does, they just don't care. As long as they have their death chant to sing, what they advocate matters less and less. For example: like a frog in water- You can gradually increase the temperature to the point of boiling. A frog will burn to death because the change slowly consumes them. Speak evil enough and it also becomes a reality. They spout out words w/out thought. They non-chalantly discuss all the great reasons a woman has to murder her own child. Like a frog in water, so is wickedness and sin.

reply from: nsanford

These definitions don't reflect the will of the American public.
They aren't going to change anyone's mind.
There has been no majority consensus on whether a fetus should be considered a baby, at least not in the medical community.
So they don't matter. Which is why no is wasting their time responding to you.

reply from: yoda

Or, as Vladimir Lenin is quoted as saying, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".......

reply from: yoda

Ah good, the #1 dictionary hater replies......
The "will of the public"? You think that dictionaries are supposed to be swayed by the political climate? You think they are only supposed to report usages of words that "please the public"? What kind of fantasy world do you live in, ns..... that you think the purpose of a dictionary is to report what political cause is most popular, and what they "want" words to mean? Have you no idea what the true purpose of a dictionary is? None at all?
Really? If you believe that, then why do YOU and so many other proaborts CONSTANTLY tell such outrageous lies about common terms? What keeps you guys telling the same crappy lies like "a fetus is not a baby", or "a fetus is not a child", or "a fetus is not alive", or "a fetus is not a human"? What drives you to tell such lies, ns, if "they aren't going to change anyone's mind"?
"Consensus"?????? That's your most IDIOTIC statement to date!! Do you really think there is ONLY ONE VALID definition per word in our language????
And do you really think that definitions are pitted against each other, like some kind of popularity contest???? How idiotic are you going to get, ns?
They are ALL valid IF they are in the dictionary, ns. ALL OF THEM!!
Oh, and btw... the "medical community" is not in the VERNACULAR DICTIONARY BUSINESS! You did know that "baby" is NOT a medical term, right? I mean, you weren't suffering under the misconception that "baby" had a purely medical meaning different from it's vernacular usage, did you?
Are you really that confused, ns, or are you just pretending? The bottom line, ns, is that we can believe the word of known liars like you, or we can believe reputable published dictionaries. Which one do you think we will pick?

reply from: jujujellybean

And Yoda scores a three pointer!!!!
Seriously NS, I don't get how you can get on here and talk if the dictionary is irrelevant. Heck, you could be pro life or whatever because you just like changing words meanings because you hate the dictionary. It's so stupid. If you hate one definition and think it's dumb, what makes all the other definitions in their any more reliable? The fact that you agree with them? Give me a break, dude. This is beginning to get really stupid. If you can't trust the dictionary, what can you trust? My mom keeps saying this, and now I know it's true. They can't change facts, but they will try by just changing the dictionary. Or like NS, saying it doesn't matter. What the heck is this world coming to? I am embarrassed that this is actually happening in my country. I am also disgusted. What next? Will they do a massive dictionary recall because it doesn't agree with them?

reply from: Called2Action

Well, uhm...nice definitions? That's fantastic that you know where to find your wealth of knowledge, but why did you call me to this thread? To prove something? I already knew that a fetus was a baby early on.
Sorry you didn't get a reply for a while, I was at work and went grocery shopping. I didn't even think to check up on this site until later.
I really don't like fighting, yoda. It's not in my nature. Please don't make what should be an exchange of ideas into a full-on battle. I don't enjoy making enemies.

reply from: yoda

Either that, or a great big dictionary burning bonfire, like they did in Germany in the 30's and 40's.

reply from: yoda

Ah, I see.... so it must have been just a big misunderstanding, right? No problem, I'll just remind you of this later on if you forget again.
I don't place any value in "winning" online disputes, but I do place great value in defending the unborn against any and all comers. As long as you don't repeat the long list of proabort slogans and mantras that you've already posted, we'll get along fine.

reply from: yoda

just gotta ~bump~ this one........

reply from: nsanford

I am not saying that. I'm just saying that this debate is unimportant. Are you trying to teach us a English lesson, or make abortion illegal. No one cares, and it influences very few opinions.
Never said any of these. Prove it if you think I did.
Point, but there is a general consensus on the basic meaning. Not so here.
There are many sources that disagree with you. So stop acting as if you've solved the problem.

reply from: yoda

Is that why you keep coming back to this thread, ns? Is that why you keep trying to belittle something you claim doesn't matter?
Never said you did, did I?
There is? What's a "basic meaning", ns? Care to give us your totally made up, deceitfully fabricated definition for that?

There are many sources that disagree with you. .
WHAT "sources", ns? Your lying teeth?
So, to sum up, you really don't have an opinion on the topic of this thread, nor do you really care, you're just posting here to try to tell me how ineffective I am. Well, whenever a proabort baby killer like you says that to me, I'm more confident that ever that I'm getting to them...... so RANT ON!
Oh, and btw, thanks for bumping this thread for me!

reply from: sander

My son and his wife are expecting their first baby (YEAH, I'm going to be a grandma again!!! Oh happy day!), but I digress!
She's 8 weeks along and NOT once have either of them called this child anything but "baby", not once have they ever said "fetus"!
They understand they are expecting a baby and to say anything different is beyond laughable, it's down right stupid.
But, the proaborts have to continue in their own deception to live with themselves....it's just sickening!
Did I say I'm going to be a grandma again??!!

reply from: yoda

Congratulations, granny! I'm a grandad twice now, and one of them is a US Marine.

reply from: sander

Thanks, Yodavater! And congrats to you too, is there anything more wonderful than grandchildren??? This BABY will be number three for us!
You must be so proud of your grandson! I so admire the U.S. military! One of my favorite sayings is: "if you can read thank a teacher, if you can read in english, thank a soldier (MARINE)!
I've been known to chase down men and women in uniform just to thank them for their service, so please thank your grandson on behalf of this "granny"! Tell him I KNOW who is protecting my freedoms and my admiration for their willingness to place themselves between my family and any enemy is off the charts!

reply from: xnavy

congrats to the grandma on her new grandbaby. my mother loved her grandbabies she said she could spoil them and then hand them
back to their parents.

reply from: sander

Thank you, XNavy! And thank you for your service too! God bless you!
Ah, yes...I'm looking forward to the spoiling part and getting to hand this baby back to mommy and daddy!

reply from: yoda

Thanks, I'll do that. He's really a good kid (yes, I'm prejudiced). He got off to a rocky start due to some things that were not really his fault, but lately he's become a real credit to his family. And anyone that can compile a positive record and even excel as a Marine has a pretty good backbone, IMO.

reply from: sander

Thanks, I'll do that. He's really a good kid (yes, I'm prejudiced). He got off to a rocky start due to some things that were not really his fault, but lately he's become a real credit to his family. And anyone that can compile a positive record and even excel as a Marine has a pretty good backbone, IMO.
I concure with you opinion...backbone indeed! I can't even imagine what foritude it takes to be a Marine and knowingly understand they are the first line of defense! Awesome and due our respect.

reply from: yoda

Oh my, the "It's not a baby" proaborts are in hiding, I guess?

reply from: sander

They know it's a lost cause...they can't explain it away if we gave them a million years to try. They know if they look too hard they might have to deal with whatever is left of their consience.

reply from: yoda

I just can't let this one slip away...... the minute it goes off the second page, the baby killers will all be shouting "IT'S NOT A BABY" just like the old days.

reply from: sander

Waiting and waiting for the replies...hmmm, where are all the answers to this quesiton.
Btw, son and daughter-in-law have invited me to the unltra sound appt. in a few weeks to see, you guess it...THE BABY! Can't wait!

reply from: yoda

See if they'll let you have a copy, and post it online.

reply from: sander

Another thought, next pay check I'm hitting "Babies r Us"...guess that store chain didn't get the memo either, odd they don't call it, "Fetus r Us"!!

reply from: sander

What? No pro-abort takers?

reply from: yoda

I've often wondered if the proaborts have an organization called "Euphemisms R Us", since they shy away from using plain, simple language.
Here's a sample of a few of their most creative euphemisms:
Effecting fetal demise -- abortion
Planned cessation of gestation -- abortion
Interrupted pregnancy -- abortion
Selective reduction -- abortion
Choice -- abortion

reply from: sander

I don't know why I hadn't seen this til today Yoda...I will ask...oh goodness, can't wait.
Guess what? She had her first ultra sound last week and today at church she brought the first photos...awww, my son calls her/him "peanut"! So cute.

reply from: lukesmom

Don't forget a favorite: "termination". I wonder if they call the abortionist, the "terminator" or "reducer" or "interrupter"?

reply from: yoda

Yeah, makes you wonder if Ahhnowld is an abortionist......?

reply from: jujujellybean

Yah seriously where is everyone? I bet it isn't just spring break that's keeping them away, either...

reply from: yoda

Good question........ maybe they're waiting for the full moon?

reply from: sander

LOL!
I still say it's the mother ship....

reply from: yoda

I guess we need to lure some of them back, so we can argue with them instead of each other, maybe?

reply from: jujujellybean

funny how no matter how long this thread goes on, the pro choicers never will be brave enough to post?

reply from: yoda

I guess the subject is just too complicated for them, maybe?

reply from: sander

Complicated wasn't the thought I had in mind.

reply from: yoda

How about commenting on this thread, Faramir?

reply from: jujujellybean

I want to extend the invitation to Moonlady, who has made an appearence and then seemed to have gone to the moon. Or, perhaps, somewhere very far away...

reply from: Faramir

I'm trying to figure out why my name is in the title of this thread.

reply from: yoda

Because of a post on this subject you posted on PCT. I replied to it there, but haven't seen any response to my post there, so I thought I'd try to get you to address the issue here.
Have you changed your mind, or do you still think that prolifers should not use the word "baby" to refer to unborn human beings?

reply from: Faramir

Do you still beat your wife.

reply from: faithman

Do you still beat your wife.
Do you still intend to defend those who do this http:// http://www.abortionno.com/ to a womb child????!!!!!!!

reply from: yoda

Here you go, this is the post I was referring to, which you refuse to discuss:
vernon
Entertainment Coordinator
Entertainment Coordinator
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 12381
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: Reply with quote Report Post
We're equivocating and begging the question if we insist upon using "baby" instead of "fetus" in a debate setting.
When my wife was pregnant we always referred to the "baby" in there, and I think most people do.
But since we are here to debate whether a baby and a fetus are morally equivalent--which I think they are, then we have to structure the debate and accept terms we might not like.
If we (prolifers) define "baby" as beginning at conception, then when we argue about a "baby" with someone who defines it as beggining at birth, it makes for a very messy discussion, expecially since here in a debate setting we are trying to prove the moral equivalency, and forcing the term "baby" is forcing the postion the adversary disputes.
But if we should all agree that the term baby applies at conception, then we still have the problem of coming up with a term for what to call the baby in its various stages before it is born.
However...once a prochoicer entertains any hypolthetical which would imply the personhood of the fetus, then it is perfectly fair to resort to using the word baby or child.
****************************************************************************
Now then, do you still maintain that we are "equivocating and begging the question" when we use the word "baby"?

reply from: Faramir

In a "DEBATE SETTING" like on PCT, yes, I think we are begging the question to force "baby" into the argument, instead of using predefined terms. We are trying to PROVE that it's a baby to them.
In a nondebate setting, as I CLEARLY STATED, I would use the word "baby," and I think most people do.
On a one-sided prolife board like this, which is not a debate setting, I would use baby, and do not oppose to using the word baby.
That was my opinion about "debate settings."
You misrepresented me by implying I oppose use of the word "baby" to refer to the fetus in general, which I DO NOT.
If this is not good enough to meet your standards of prolife political correctness, then does that make me a "bort head"?

reply from: yoda

Say what? This is "not a debate setting"? What do you call it, a "war setting"? We don't debate abortion here? Are you serious????
But more importantly....... what the hell do you mean "force baby into the argument"? How can anyone force anything into an online debate?
Is my use of the term "baby" here and on other forums some sort of "force" that you oppose?

reply from: Faramir

This forum here is not a debate setting. If it were, you could not call opponents "sk*nks," since that is not an argument, but an attack of a person.
By "debate" I mean something fairly structured and with some rules and guidelines.
This board is a free-for-all, and that's not necessarily a criticism. It is what it is.
I already said I use the word "baby" outside of a debate setting, and that I see no reason not to use it here, either, so you are once again begging the question, and misrepresenting me.
My comments from PCT which you misreperestned had to do with a discussion with an opponent, and using terms that both sides could work with.
That was my opinon about a "debate setting" and that still is my opinion about it, and there's not much more I can add.

reply from: yoda

Ridiculous! This is a wide open debate, a free for all..... but it most damn certainly IS a debate!! Talk about equivocating.... for you to say this isn't a debate forum is so far out and idiotic I'm almost at a loss for words... but to say that in defense of your objections to the word "baby" is even worse.
But that isn't what the word means, is it? Here's the first entry in Mirriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1 de·bate Function: noun
: a contention by words or arguments:
Now, do we NOT HAVE "CONTENTION" HERE?????
What? WHEN have the proaborts EVER agreed to "terms that both sides could work with? Is that some kind of science fiction story you are writing?
And so you want us to wait until the proaborts agree to OUR USE of the term "baby" before we use it? IS THAT you suggestion?

reply from: Faramir

I suggest that you totally ignored my responses, don't care about what I meant, and are looking for any excuse to indulge in sactimony.

reply from: yoda

That's your best response? Okay, I'll consider that a surrender to the facts.
Now then, please explain to us why we should not use the term "baby" on a "real" debate forum? (You know, the ones where they have rules and stuff?)
Or do you just not want to talk about this issue at all?

reply from: Faramir

I don't mind at all talking about it, but if the ground keeps shifting, it's impossible.

reply from: yoda

Isn't it the job of the honest debater to keep putting the ground back where it belongs? Surely we can at least pretend to be debating, even here on this forum, don't you think?
edited to add: Okay, if you're that reluctant to discuss it, I'll leave your name out of it and post it as a poll question here.

reply from: faithman

I think you should go and read "Marks Blog" on the home page for this month. The spirit of this forum is spelled out there. We are in a water front bar room brawl. But everyone keeps trying to make it some civil, college debate team event. Suck up, grow a pair, and let's fight to win. I could care less what any scum bag maggot punk borthead thinks. And I hope that the scancs are offended. I have certainly tried hard enough. And if little panty waist nice guys don't like it tuff. Monsters deserve no respect, and I certainly have none for them. It is far past time that we kick the door of abortion in, and take back the ground we have lost playing nice with evil. Only one cure for a mad dog, and it ain't patting them on the head and feeding them alpo.

reply from: yoda

Years ago, when I was first introduced to online abortion debates, I had a motto in my sig that went: "Being civil is more important than being right". But you know, I was attacked just for having that motto. So, it didn't last too long.
Nowadays I prefer to speak the plain, honest truth without worrying about whether that is perceived as being "civil" or not. IOW, I think that being right IS more important than being civil now. And standing up for what is right, not polishing your image, or trying to make the prolife movement "look good". I don't really care if we look like hell, as long as we save babies.

reply from: Faramir

I have no problem with anyone referring to a fetus as a baby, and that's what I do myself most of the time.
My reference was to a very specific situation.
It would be similar to having a debate with someone about God's existence. If I am trying to prove God to an opponent who did not believe in God, I could not use "The Word of God" as an authority, since I haven't yet demonstrated to him that God exists.
Similarly, my job in a true debate setting with a prochoicer would be to prove that the fetus is a baby, or morally equivalent to a baby. I don't have a problem with restricting use of the word "baby" to a "born baby" in that situation.
I think that's fair in a debate setting. That's my opinion, and it makes sense to me, but whether I'm right or wrong, does not reflect on whether I'm prolife or not. I believe that all human life should be respected and protected from the moment of conception until natural death, regardless of what it is called in various stages of development. The life in the womb is as precious as the life ouside the womb.

reply from: Teresa18

Baby is a predefined term in the vernacular. There is nothing wrong with using the vernacular to describe a zef regardless of the stage. Zygote, embryo, and fetus are referring to a person in a particular stage of development. Here are the definitions from the beginning of the thread:
The Baby Center (UK):
fetus: The name given to a growing baby after eight weeks of development; before eight weeks, the developing baby is called an embryo. http://www.babycentre.co.uk/glossary/F.html
AllWords.com
fetus noun
1. (embryology) An unborn or unhatched vertebrate showing signs of the mature animal.
2. (embryology) An unborn baby after the 7th week of gestation.
http://www.allwords.com/query....ind+it%21&Language=ENG

And here's the BEST one yet:
from WordNet 3.0 Vocabulary Helper:
Hyponyms of noun fetus 1 sense of fetus
Sense 1
fetus, foetus -- (an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal)
* monster, teras -- ((medicine) a grossly malformed and usually nonviable fetus)
* abortus -- (a human fetus whose weight is less than 0.5 kilogram when removed or expelled from the mother's body)
* baby -- (an unborn child; a human fetus;

I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside'' )

reply from: yoda

I don't think so. I think that the dictionaries prove that, all by themselves. All we have to do is to quote them accurately, and link them.
If we had to "prove" anything, why wouldn't they have to "prove" that fetus is a proper word? Why is "fetus" any more standard than "baby"? Isn't "baby" much older, much more commonly used than "fetus"?
And what word would you have us use BEFORE we had "proven" the validity of the word "baby" to the proaborts? Would you have us say "fetus" until the proabort agreed to allow us to use "baby"? Is that your preference? Do you want us all to start saying "fetus" when we're on one of those forums that "actually debate" (unlike this one)?
All in all, I'm completely unable to understand your objections to the use of the term "baby" with reference to an unborn human being. In fact, it seems to me exactly as if you were objecting to the use of the term "human being" instead of "Homo sapiens". They are exactly the same thing, and an unborn baby is exactly the same thing as a zef.

reply from: Faramir

Are you misrepresenting me on purpose, or have you not read the five or six times I emphatically stated I have no objection to the use of the word "baby."

reply from: yoda

Sure I've read those. But I've also read your objection (which you haven't withdrawn) to the use of term "baby" in which you said: "We're equivocating and begging the question if we insist upon using "baby" instead of "fetus" in a debate setting." Is that an "objection" or not?
So which is it? ARE we "equivocating and begging the question" by our use of the word "baby", or not?

reply from: Faramir

In the context of a lengthy discussion on a another message board, and as it pertains to a very limited situation where "baby" needs to be proved and not accepted, or else there would be no debate, then I stand by what I said.
That's my opinion, and I think I've stated it sufficiently several times.
Does that make me a "bort head"?

reply from: faithman

In the context of a lengthy discussion on a another message board, and as it pertains to a very limited situation where "baby" needs to be proved and not accepted, or else there would be no debate, then I stand by what I said.
That's my opinion, and I think I've stated it sufficiently several times.
Does that make me a "bort head"?
Pretty damn close, quack quack.......

reply from: sander

Why concede this point under any situation? It's like Yoda said in another post, if we aren't talking about a baby, then what are we worried about in the first place? (or words to that effect)
If we give them that ground, what's the point thereafter?
Sorry, jury is still out.

reply from: Faramir

Why concede this point under any situation? It's like Yoda said in another post, if we aren't talking about a baby, then what are we worried about in the first place? (or words to that effect)
If we give them that ground, what's the point thereafter?
Sorry, jury is still out.
No need to apologize. If the "jury" is who I think it is, their "verdict" is of no importance to me.

reply from: sander

Why concede this point under any situation? It's like Yoda said in another post, if we aren't talking about a baby, then what are we worried about in the first place? (or words to that effect)
If we give them that ground, what's the point thereafter?
Sorry, jury is still out.
No need to apologize. If the "jury" is who I think it is, their "verdict" is of no importance to me.
The "jury" is me...I try and speak just for myself.
Anyway, care to answer my question?

reply from: Faramir

There is no point because either you and yoda cannot understand or refuse to understand that I was referring to a very controlled debate setting where PROVING "baby" is part of the debate.

reply from: yoda

I'm sorry to hear that. Quite frankly I find it impossible to understand how any prolifer could ever, under any circumstances, be reluctant to use the term "baby" in a debate. It's as if a core value has been abandoned. It's as if we're just debating for academic, or egotistic reasons, rather than to save babies.
No. Supporting the legality of elective abortion makes one a "borthead". So until you cross that line, I will not challenge your status as a prolifer. But I don't mind saying, you're a prolifer whose thinking I cannot fathom.

reply from: yoda

You mean like in this thread?
Did you notice that while I set about proving the validity of the use of the term "baby" in this context, I continued to use the word "baby"?
DID YOU NOTICE that I did not yield this point to our opponents while I debated it?
ARE you SUGGESTING that we must first surrender our convictions BEFORE we attempt to prove they are correct???
How on earth can you not see the absurdity of your position?

reply from: faithman

You mean like in this thread?
Did you notice that while I set about proving the validity of the use of the term "baby" in this context, I continued to use the word "baby"?
DID YOU NOTICE that I did not yield this point to our opponents while I debated it?
ARE you SUGGESTING that we must first surrender our convictions BEFORE we attempt to prove they are correct???
How on earth can you not see the absurdity of your position?
Because his position has been totally absurd from the beginning. He has yet to see a pro-life position he hasn't attacked, nor a borty one he has defended. Go figure... With "pro-lfers" like this, the borties can take a vacation.

reply from: Faramir

I'm sorry to hear that. Quite frankly I find it impossible to understand how any prolifer could ever, under any circumstances, be reluctant to use the term "baby" in a debate. It's as if a core value has been abandoned. It's as if we're just debating for academic, or egotistic reasons, rather than to save babies.
No. Supporting the legality of elective abortion makes one a "borthead". So until you cross that line, I will not challenge your status as a prolifer. But I don't mind saying, you're a prolifer whose thinking I cannot fathom.
You say you are an agnostic. But I can prove God exists. I have a book we refer to as the "Word of God." Because it has the authority of God, anything I read from it to you will be true, and from it I can prove God exists, and that will settle it, and you can be a believer too.
Are you getting my point or not?
If not, I give up on trying to explain it further.

reply from: yoda

The validity of the word "baby" is not proven by the babies themselves. It is proven by ordinary, every day dictionaries.
I notice that you used the capitalized "God", rather than the generic "god" or even "deity". You did not abandon the use of the word that Christians use to label their deity, just for the sake of the argument, did you? And yet you advise us to abandon the use of the oldest, most common word in our language used to refer to unborn humans?
And IF you had used the word "Bible", how would that have weakened your argument?
No, nothing you are saying in this regard makes any sense to me. How can we communicate our passion to save babies if we abandon their rightful. established, almost universally used (except by proaborts) name?
If we don't stand up for them by the use of the most respectful name, how can we ask anyone else to respect their right to life?

reply from: sander

I'd really like to see this addressed. Hope it will, it deserves further examination by anyone who opposes the use of the word "baby" in the context of abortion debates.

reply from: yoda

It makes you wonder, doesn't it..... when a prolifer opposes the use of the term "baby" under any circumstances. Is the top priority trying to win an academic point, or saving babies?
I mean, where is the passion? Where is the devotion to saving lives? Where is the love for the 4,000 a day being killed?

reply from: yoda

~bump~ because it's still unanswered, IMO.....

reply from: Faramir

I doubt you could be referring to me, since I answered this question about five time, but just want to make sure.
If you are referring to me, please reread my responses and tell me what I didn't address.

reply from: yoda

A clear, logical reason for opposing the use of the term "baby" would be the missing ingredient, IMO.
And no contrived, overly technical, nonsensical obfuscation, please?

reply from: faithman

Gosh yoda! You be asking the boy not to breath!!! Thats all he knows how to do. He would rather cry baby about "debate rules" insted of getting in on the fun of body slamming bortheads. Thank God for a forum that doesn't listen to such nonsence. Sir doofis faramir the egotist needs to learn that this is a fight, not a debate. Winning the fight is when the womb child stopps dying. This is not a "debate rules issue", nor a "post abortive ministry issue". This is first last and always personhood to the womb child issue. When personhood is restored to the preborn BABY, they will be protected by law, and we can start stringing them killers up. Light poles work for me.

reply from: Faramir

I don't object to using the word as I stated a whole bunch of times.

reply from: faithman

I don't object to using the word as I stated a whole bunch of times.
Now sir doofis debates himself. He objects, now he don't. He must be sitting on a windshield wipper. Object, no objection, object, no objection, object, no objection...... Should there be a "rule" against debating your own position? Just saying.....

reply from: Faramir

I don't object to using the word as I stated a whole bunch of times.
Now sir doofis debates himself. He objects, now he don't. He must be sitting on a windshield wipper. Object, no objection, object, no objection, object, no objection...... Should there be a "rule" against debating your own position? Just saying.....
You're totally misrepresenting me. I would call you a liar, but I'm cutting you some slack in that you either didn't bother to read my responses or don't understand them.
But if you say again that I oppose calling the fetus a baby-and I have made it clear that I do not, and made it clear that I do so myself at times--you will be a liar at that point, and I won't hesitate to call you one.

reply from: faithman

I don't object to using the word as I stated a whole bunch of times.
Now sir doofis debates himself. He objects, now he don't. He must be sitting on a windshield wipper. Object, no objection, object, no objection, object, no objection...... Should there be a "rule" against debating your own position? Just saying.....
You're totally misrepresenting me. I would call you a liar, but I'm cutting you some slack in that you either didn't bother to read my responses or don't understand them.
But if you say again that I oppose calling the fetus a baby-and I have made it clear that I do not, and made it clear that I do so myself at times--you will be a liar at that point, and I won't hesitate to call you one.
OOOOOOOHHHHH!!! ya got me shaking. I have read your little semantical doosy doo. You say don't use baby, then you say ok. We realize you are a yooyoo, but you don't have to play us for one. Baby has been the proper term for the pre-born WWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY before the borties tried to cloud the issue with their intended confussion of it. And you being the good little converted catholic, should understand that FETUS means young one in latin, and is the same word the vulgate uses to discribe the preborn john the baptist, as well as the born Christ child. SSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOO if you use the word fetus, you are actually saying little one, or babe, in latin. Of course we wouldn't want to confuse the bortheads with truth for the sake of debate now would we?!!!!!!!!!!!

reply from: yoda

You don't? You've changed your mind? You don't object to "equivocating and begging the question" now?
Why not, you seem to object to about everything else that a prolifer says on this forum?

reply from: yoda

I'm getting dizzy........

reply from: Faramir

You don't? You've changed your mind? You don't object to "equivocating and begging the question" now?
Why not, you seem to object to about everything else that a prolifer says on this forum?
You obviously were not paying attention.
I said it would be equivocating if used in certain circumstances--like in a formal debate where proving "baby" is part of the debate.
Please stop misrepresenting me, or at least take the time to understand what I mean.

reply from: jujujellybean

Hey Yoda, just thought I'd let you know you might wanna add cracrat (sounds to me sorta like crack rat, just my take though) to the name of this post. I think they need to do research, but your post sorta does a lot of that and may be useful to this pro abort.

reply from: yoda

WHY?
Why should we abandon a perfectly well established term just to appease the proaborts in a debate?
Why should we turn a cold shoulder to unborn babies just to make them happy?

reply from: faithman

WHY?
Why should we abandon a perfectly well established term just to appease the proaborts in a debate?
Why should we turn a cold shoulder to unborn babies just to make them happy?
Because some folks agenda is to be a "good debater" not a defender of womb children. Some prefer to be master debaters and pleasure themselves with endless prattle while the womb children die.

reply from: cracrat

You're right on the money with that juju, a name taken in honour of where some of my friends lived when they were at uni. So bad, they said, even the damn rats were crack addicts. Crack rats.
I do feel quite warm and special inside though. Less than 24 hours into my membership and I'm having threads named after me. My mother will be so proud.
To what am I supposed to respond? You dug up some definitions? Jolly good, have a gold star.
If there were no pro-choice types on this site, what would you all do all day? Sit at your desks and congratulate each other on what bloody marvellous people you all are? I would suggest you bully less and debate more or you may find yourselves with a fairly pointless site.

reply from: faithman

Only 24 hours, and you are going to dictate how the site be run? Jolly good show ole borthead chap. But we really don't care to hear what folks have to say that we whipped over 200 years ago. And some of us fully intend to whip the baby killers as well. I don't care to debate bortheads, just kick the crap out of the bloody burgers, and win personhood for the womb child by the same document that set us free from your bloody country ole chap. SSSSOOOO go back to paying homage to your inbread royals, and surrendering your freedoms to your socialist government and radical Islam. I think we are grown up to take care of our own problems this side of the pond mate. We don't need euro trash imported bortheads to tell us how to run a pro-personhood forum in the states.

reply from: cracrat

I have no interest in telling you how to run your site, just commenting that the speed at which you collectively set upon anyone who dissent is likely to stifle debate rather than encourage it. If this forum isn't for debate, what's it for?
And our government isn't socialist enough, we've maintained more of our freedoms than you lot and I don't notice the radical Islamists knocking down any of our iconic buildings.

reply from: faithman

I have no interest in telling you how to run your site, just commenting that the speed at which you collectively set upon anyone who dissent is likely to stifle debate rather than encourage it. If this forum isn't for debate, what's it for?
And our government isn't socialist enough, we've maintained more of our freedoms than you lot and I don't notice the radical Islamists knocking down any of our iconic buildings.
The site is for pro-personhood types to net work to fight for personhood of the preborn, bortheads are allowed for our intertainment. And the reason the rug heads haven't knocked your buildings down is because you have surrendered your bums to them and allowed them to have their way with ya. "Debate" all you want. No one is stopping you. We set upon any scum bag that denies personhood to womb children. And just what freedoms are you talking about? The freedom to die while waiting in line for health care? The freedom to have most of your income taxed away from you? No, I would say the more we follow you bloody brits down the path of socialism, the more our institutions and freedoms degrade.

reply from: Faramir

WHY?
Why should we abandon a perfectly well established term just to appease the proaborts in a debate?
Why should we turn a cold shoulder to unborn babies just to make them happy?
Fort the LAST TIME, I'm reffering to a specific situation such as a FORMAL DEBATE where the opponents agree to a set of rules and where "baby" is yet to be proved.
I am NOT referring to your signs.
I am not referring to THIS forum, which is not a debate forum.
I am NOT referring to common everyday use of the word.
AND, I explained all this several times and you still keep coming back at me as if I see somethign wrong with using that word.

reply from: 4given

Someone had their Wheaties this morning!

reply from: yoda

It's for the benefit of all anti-abortion/prolife posters who wish to keep each other informed, and sharpen their skills at defeating the lies of proaborts.
Didn't you notice the name of the forum?

reply from: yoda

"Formal debate"? You mean like on PCT, where you made that statement? I've debated at both places, and I can say from experience that their "rules" are no more formal than ours. A little more strict, perhaps, but in no way does that change the "appropriateness" of using the term "baby", one way or the other. And "baby" has NO NEED to be "proved", except to lying proabort baby killers who disdain dictionaries, encyclopedias, and any other academic sources that document their lies.
So, where's the beef?
Then WHY IN BLAZES are YOU here? IF we don't debate here, what's your "function" here? To "crusade"?????? Oh JOY... we have a crusader amongst us...

reply from: Faramir

I came here to discuss and learn about the prolife movement.
But I hope you are not serious by implying this is a place where there is a "debate."
Attacking the opposition and making personal insults is not debating them.

reply from: Faramir

There is nothing wrong with assuming a position for the sake of argument.
Just like for the sake of argument I could enter into a debate where the presumption is that there is no God, and my job in the debate is to prove that there is.

reply from: Faramir

You're right on the money with that juju, a name taken in honour of where some of my friends lived when they were at uni. So bad, they said, even the damn rats were crack addicts. Crack rats.
I do feel quite warm and special inside though. Less than 24 hours into my membership and I'm having threads named after me. My mother will be so proud.
To what am I supposed to respond? You dug up some definitions? Jolly good, have a gold star.
If there were no pro-choice types on this site, what would you all do all day? Sit at your desks and congratulate each other on what bloody marvellous people you all are? I would suggest you bully less and debate more or you may find yourselves with a fairly pointless site.
I've been trying to tell some of them the same thing, but they don't take kindly to newbie party poopers.
There a few here who are quite logical and reasonable, though.
But there are others who will use their cause as an excuse to use you for a doormat. Sorry that's that how it is.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, actually in between the attacks and the insults, there is some actual debating at times.... but perhaps you wouldn't notice that since you spend most of your time here telling prolifers what they're doing wrong........???
No kidding? Well I hate to be the one to break this to you, but winning academic debates (which never actually happens on the internet anyway) is NOT the primary obligation of a passionate, dedicated prolifer....... but do you know what is? No?

reply from: yoda

No kidding? Really? Are you telling him something you don't think he could've figured out for himself? Or just beating your gums?

reply from: Faramir

And who said that's the ONLY thing to do? I was referring to a particular circumstance and not to abortion discussion in general, as I think I made clear about twenty times by now.
Just go ahead and pin whatever it is you are looking to pin on me, and save us both some time.

reply from: yoda

You mean like the "particular circumstance" of being on PCT forum? When you made that statement, you didn't really restrict it to any other particular circumstance, did you?
And you added: "But since we are here to debate whether a baby and a fetus are morally equivalent--which I think they are, then we have to structure the debate and accept terms we might not like."
WHY must we "accept terms we might not like"? WHY NOT insist that the OTHER SIDE accept terms that THEY don't like? Or why not just let BOTH SIDES use whatever terms they like?
AND you finished off your little treatise by saying: "However...once a prochoicer entertains any hypolthetical which would imply the personhood of the fetus, then it is perfectly fair to resort to using the word baby or child."
So we have YOUR PERMISSION to use "baby" ONLY AFTER we get the agreement of the other side?
Wow...... how very generous of you..... I'm sure all the babies will be grateful for your help..... but of course, we can't call them "babies", can we?

reply from: yoda

IF you felt any passion about saving babies, it would show through on every forum you posted on, I'm sure of that.
But IF you're simply using abortion related forums to "sharpen your skills", or "kill some time"....... well, no passion needed for that.

reply from: Faramir

You have misrepresented and mischaracterized my postion.
You are not interested in debating me or discussing the issue with me, but in attacking me on a personal level, and are doing it in a very dishonest manner.

reply from: yoda

Maybe so...... maybe I should change my tactics, while I'm waiting for you to debate why you don't want prolifers to say "baby" during a debate.
I'm real patient...... why don't you want us to say "baby"?

reply from: cracrat

You can say baby all you like. The language in which you dress up your arguement, whilst I suspect deliberately emotive, doesn't change the fundamentals of the opposing arguement.

reply from: sander

You can say baby all you like. The language in which you dress up your arguement, whilst I suspect deliberately emotive, doesn't change the fundamentals of the opposing arguement.
Are you missing the point on purpose? I rather doubt it.
Using a proven description is hardly "emotive".
Here's a clue... the "baby" is at the very center of the debate.
But, you proaborts must always find ways to skirt the center, it exposes your view for what it is...the sanctioned murder of innocent "babies".

reply from: faithman

Poor little thing!! sniff sniff

reply from: cracrat

You can say baby all you like. The language in which you dress up your arguement, whilst I suspect deliberately emotive, doesn't change the fundamentals of the opposing arguement.
Are you missing the point on purpose? I rather doubt it.
Using a proven description is hardly "emotive".
Here's a clue... the "baby" is at the very center of the debate.
But, you proaborts must always find ways to skirt the center, it exposes your view for what it is...the sanctioned murder of innocent "babies".
No I completely understand where you're coming from. If you describe "it" as a foetus or an embryo then people's emotions aren't raised an you can have a discussion without it degenrating into a tearful, shreiking slanging match.
If you describe "it" as a baby, an infant, a babe in arms, you evoke a very primal response from people. I completely understand that it is this primal instinct you are trying to appeal to. Rather like the animal-rights lot showing cute little lambs bouncing in fields next to plates full of chops.
It's an extraordinarily cynical way of making your point, but go right ahead.

reply from: jujujellybean

let's see...we don't mind arguing, that's fine and all. That's why this is a forum, TO DEBATE. But the the thing is, when people start throwing out dumb arguments like 'it's not a baby' then it gets annoying. Denying facts can't be anything less. And what are you, bloody english? Sorry, just wondering....

reply from: cracrat

let's see...we don't mind arguing, that's fine and all. That's why this is a forum, TO DEBATE. But the the thing is, when people start throwing out dumb arguments like 'it's not a baby' then it gets annoying. Denying facts can't be anything less. And what are you, bloody english? Sorry, just wondering....
Half English, half Irish.
I tried to explain my view on this in another thread, but cannot remember where now I'm afraid.
In a nutshell, I accept it's a baby, I accept that aborting said baby requires it to die. I don't accept that I, nor anyone else, has the the right, moral or otherwise, to make the decision for anyone else.

reply from: sander

What? Do you really believe this dribble?
Who's crying?
Truth now has been reduced to a crying match...nice try.
How about trying to "evoke" reality?
And your comparison of human babies and lambs romping in a field falls short.
You're the only one comparing the two.
One has nothing to do with the other.
I'M cyncial! Wow, you've got nerve, I'll give you that.
YOU'RE the one showing contempt for what's a perfectly accepted and truthful defination.

reply from: cracrat

What? Do you really believe this dribble?
Who's crying?
Truth now has been reduced to a crying match...nice try.
How about trying to "evoke" reality?
And your comparison of human babies and lambs romping in a field falls short.
You're the only one comparing the two.
One has nothing to do with the other.
I'M cyncial! Wow, you've got nerve, I'll give you that.
YOU'RE the one showing contempt for what's a perfectly accepted and truthful defination.
I wasn't comparing babies to lambs, that would be absurd. I was comparing the manner in which the pro-life group and the pro-animal-rights group garner support for their different causes in the same manner by appealling to the primal emotions in all of us. In one case, the desire to protect the young, in the other for anything cute, fluffy and care-free.
I am showing no contempt. You are right, a feotus is a baby is an embryo is a child etc. No arguement there. I was calling you cynical for exploiting people's emotions in order to prove your arguement.

reply from: sander

Again, what about "evoking" reality? Anything wrong with that in your view?
So, now it's exploiting emotions to use a totally accepted and truthful term.
If someone murders a born person, is it "cynical" to call the deed and person "murder/murderer"?
Seems that would be very cynical from your point, it rather does evoke "emotion".
Can you stretch this any further? It's rather amusing to watch.

reply from: cracrat

Again, what about "evoking" reality? Anything wrong with that in your view?
Nope. Absolutely fine. I really don't object to any appropriate words being used. 'Baby' fine, 'soon to die sausagemeat' not fine. I hope we agree. Baby is a perfectly acceptable term to use to describe the entity that may or may not be aborted.
So, now it's exploiting emotions to use a totally accepted and truthful term.
If someone murders a born person, is it "cynical" to call the deed and person "murder/murderer"?
Seems that would be very cynical from your point, it rather does evoke "emotion".
Can you stretch this any further? It's rather amusing to watch.
I suspect I made a mistake in not making myself clear. By 'you' in the above statement, I was refering to the pro-life movement in general of which I assume you are a part.
No, when discussing everyday items like the birds in the trees or the flowers in the garden or a horrifying triple homocide you read about in the paper, using any and every term to describe what you are seeing, feeling, smelling, etc. is not exploitative.
However, when discussing something, such as abortion rights, which is an intrinsically emotional topic, it could be construed that use of terms, such as baby, whilst being completely correct and accurate, is a deliberate ploy on the part of whoever uses such terms to evoke a base, emotional response and as such reduce the impact of other rational arguements.
Utilising such emotional responses to ellicit the result of a debate that one is seeking is something I have seen various people do, with respect to various topics and I feel that it is a deeply cynical ploy that has no place in an adult discussion.
I further think you have completely understood my point from the beginning, you're just trying to wind me up.

reply from: yoda

"Deliberately emotive"? Wow, this is like dejavu all over again, I've had this same argument with several proaborts.
Yes, I do believe in the morality of genuine emotions. Does that make me a lunatic in your eyes? Do things like compassion, empathy, and a passion for fair play seem totally irrational to you? Do you look down on us "emotional" posters like some sort of serfs?
And do I choose words that best convey my emotions? Sure as hell I do, and I don't see a single thing wrong with that. If you do, tough luck.
Well, I pity you if you do, because you're going to see a lot of emotion as long as you stay on this forum. We're "full of it", actually. That's what motivates us to be here, the emotion of love for innocent human victims of abortion.
I have no idea what your motive is for being here, and I don't really care.

reply from: yoda

That's true. My question is..... so what?
What's wrong with primal instincts that urge us to protect the helpless, innocent victims? What's wrong with primal instincts that make us feel sorrow at the thought of tiny little limbs being ripped off their bodies?
You just can't stand the idea that some of us may feel compassion, can you?

reply from: yoda

How very ungallant of you.
I'm sure you are equally distant, cold, and unconcerned about the killing of newborn babies as well, eh?
You just don't have the "right to make the decision" about whether to kill a newborn either, do you?

reply from: yoda

Of course, aren't you "hip"?
Actually telling the truth about abortion is UNcool..... definitely NOT politically correct...... we must lie, hedge, exaggerate, and fabricate at every opportunity in order to be "with it".
Come on, get "with it".......

reply from: yoda

Again, so what?
What is wrong is "base emotions" like love, respect, compassion, empathy, etc.????
Do you insist we be as cold hearted as all proaborts?

reply from: sander

Except when it comes to discussing abortion...
Except when it comes to discussing abortion...I'm sensing a pattern here.
Yep, I was right, it's a definate pattern.
Again, except when it comes to abortion all bets are off...all emotions are to be buried. It takes a pretty cold hearted person to pull that one off, so forgive me if I don't try.
Do I have that kind of power? Who knew.
I understand your point to be baseless and was trying to point that out.

reply from: sander

Of course, aren't you "hip"?
Actually telling the truth about abortion is UNcool..... definitely NOT politically correct...... we must lie, hedge, exaggerate, and fabricate at every opportunity in order to be "with it".
Come on, get "with it".......
LOL!
NOBODY I know has ever accused me of "being with it"...I take that as a compliment, especially when it comes to PC! I work at NOT being PC.
You have to admit, the proaborts know how to stick to their lies and exaggerations. They prove the point, there's nothing new under the sun. I get a kick out of watching a new proabort show up here and give the same old tired excuses and think they're making a new point!

reply from: cracrat

Except when it comes to discussing abortion...
Except when it comes to discussing abortion...I'm sensing a pattern here.
Yep, I was right, it's a definate pattern.
Again, except when it comes to abortion all bets are off...all emotions are to be buried. It takes a pretty cold hearted person to pull that one off, so forgive me if I don't try.
Do I have that kind of power? Who knew.
I understand your point to be baseless and was trying to point that out.
No, you don't have that power.
My point is that it is virtually impossible to maintain a level of rationality in a discussion when one side counters any rational arguement with with a deliberately emotive response. When a person is upset or angry, they cannot make reach rational conclusions. If the pro-life group counters any rational arguement with one of their own and vice versa then the conclusions reached by the observers, whatever they may be, will be sound ones based on the facts as presented to them. If they are forced, by the strategies employed by one side or the other, to make their judgement when emotionally impaired then their conclusions will be unsound which is of no help to anyone.

reply from: yoda

There is NOTHING "irrational" about a genuinely felt emotion.
Your problem is that you know that if one feels any emotion at all about the concept of electively killing a healthy unborn baby, it will probably be revulsion.
Therefore you whine and complain about "emotive terms" and hope that you can bluff some posters into entering into your cold, emotionless state of complete and total selfishness.
It's not gonna work. We CARE about helpless, innocent babies, and we know that YOU DON'T.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, and then, a day or two after they've admitted their error, they slip right back into the same tired old crap again. Anything at all to obfuscate, confuse, distract, and divert the discussion.

reply from: sander

All that to say using "baby" in a discussion about killing "babies" is irrational.
Me thinks you protest too much. We're use to proaborts hiding from the truth, you just use more words than most.

reply from: sander

There is NOTHING "irrational" about a genuinely felt emotion.
Your problem is that you know that if one feels any emotion at all about the concept of electively killing a healthy unborn baby, it will probably be revulsion.
Therefore you whine and complain about "emotive terms" and hope that you can bluff some posters into entering into your cold, emotionless state of complete and total selfishness.
It's not gonna work. We CARE about helpless, innocent babies, and we know that YOU DON'T.
EXACTLY
But, maybe you're not wordy enough. He may be use to digging for the truth buried somewhere in a thousand word post, and when it hits him square in the face it alludes him, but proabably it's more like it's hard to bare the truth.
Think that was wordy enough???

reply from: cracrat

There is NOTHING "irrational" about a genuinely felt emotion.
Your problem is that you know that if one feels any emotion at all about the concept of electively killing a healthy unborn baby, it will probably be revulsion.
Therefore you whine and complain about "emotive terms" and hope that you can bluff some posters into entering into your cold, emotionless state of complete and total selfishness.
It's not gonna work. We CARE about helpless, innocent babies, and we know that YOU DON'T.
You're right, there isn't. Genuine emotion is an absolutely necessary part of being human. Without it you're a sociopath or psychopath or something and tend to get locked up.
My point is that when attempting to reach a conclusion, the less emotion involved in its formation, the more sound that conclusion will be. Reducing arguments to heart string tugging contests does us all a disservice.

reply from: sander

Your refusal to admit the obvious is very telling all the same.
The only disservice pro-life people care about is the one perpertrated against the unborn child.
Do you not even get that much?

reply from: Faramir

If you accept it's a baby, then you are making the born and unborn morally equivalent.
How can you then say that we "can't make the decision for someone else," when there is another "someone else" whose life is at stake?

reply from: cracrat

If you accept it's a baby, then you are making the born and unborn morally equivalent.
How can you then say that we "can't make the decision for someone else," when there is another "someone else" whose life is at stake?
I get it. I really really do. I've tried to make my feelings known on two separate occasions elsewhere but here goes for a third.
Abortion is wrong. Utterly, totally, unequivocably wrong.
Abortion is not like murder, it's not tantamount to murder, it is murder. It is the non-consensual, premature ending of another person's life. Even more tragically, a life which that person hasn't even begun to enjoy.
There are extremely few instances in which anyone could convince me that aborting a child is the least worst course of action. Even fewer where you'd convince me it was the right thing to do. Rape and incest might qualify as such instances. Consensual statutory rape is not such an instance. You dug that hole, silly girl, now sit in it.
Aborting a child because it has a genetic abnormality or a congenital deformity of some sort or because a bunch of doctors believe that its quality of life would be impaired by some other means is not such an instance. Nobody is in a position to describe someone else's quality of life, particularly without even meeting them.
Aborting a child in order to 'shop' for particular traits such as gender, skin tone, height, etc. is utterly abhorant. In effect, that person is suggesting their child would be worth less to them if it were a girl not a boy, or if they had brown hair rather than blonde. It is only a tiny step from there to abject racism, sexism or some other sort of -ism.
But I recognise that my views are fairly extreme. Not as extreme as some others on this forum and in the world, but certainly more so than the majority of the population. I am in a minority, and therefore have no right to dictate to the rest of the population how they should live their own lives. Such a thing would be minority rule over the majority. There are examples of this from history; white rule in apartheid South Africa, Sunni-Muslim rule in pre-2003 Iraq to name just two. Such minority groups are rarely respected by those they mean to rule.
If there was a shift in public perception regarding the rights of the unborn child towards the pro-life stance, and a corresponding change in the law, in principle I would think it a good thing but in practice a bad thing. People would still find themselves pregnant and unable or unwilling to carry the child to term. There would be a return to unsafe and unsanitary abortions being carried out. I suspect the internet would proliferate with sites detailing "Guaranteed DIY Home Abortions, just pay $10 and read on!!!" or some such similar. Women all over the country would start 'falling down the stairs'. Abortion would not go away, it would just be driven beyond any semblance of control by any authority. Yodavatar has commented elsewhere that there was not one single conviction for an illegal abortion pre-Roe, why would it be any different today?
Faithman says that it would be unnecessary to bring in any new laws, just recognise the womb-child as a person. The pro-personhood movement he calls it. Nice idea, but consider the outcome. An unborn child is a person, so anyone performing an abortion is guilty of murder, and anyone else involved, the mother especially, is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. Fine.
But now take that argument and run with it. Is a pregnant women who continues to smoke, drink or take drugs guilty of assualt? Is a woman who trips and falls, causing a miscarriage guilty of 3rd degree murder? Will there be investigations into any and every miscarriage to ensure no foul play? What if a pregnant woman develops a medical complication that will kill her if untreated but the baby if treated?
How would you police such a thing without laws and powers that would violate all sorts of sections of your constitution? Would police have the right to demand a pregnancy test? For at least the first 3 or 4 months of a pregancy, nobody aside from the woman need know anything is up, how would you enforce these new rules on them?
I'm anti-abortion but also a pragmatist. The huge number of abortions being carried out everyday, mostly for the sake of convenience, is scandelous. However, I don't see banning the procedure outright as the most sensible and realistic way to reduce this scandel.
Attack me all you like for such a view, but at least there's a chance my goal of reducing the prevalence of abortion will be achieved in my lifetime. In all probability, you lot will go to your graves knowing that you've failed at your all consuming task and nothing I can say or do will make you feel worse than that.

reply from: yoda

Nope! Much too simple, must too straight to the point. It'll go straight over his head.

reply from: yoda

ONLY if that "conclusion" is a totally dry, emotionless subject. And there are very few of those.
Elective abortion, on the other hand, is an almost totally emotional subject, and it's the height of lunacy to try to deal with it in the absence of emotion.
It's all about personal values. It's about whether you value the autonomy and personal power of the woman, or the life of the unborn child higher.
And that is a purely emotional decision.

reply from: yoda

What a cowardly cop-out. Absolute spinelessness!
No one suggests that you "dictate" ANYTHING..... we only implore you to follow your "conscience" as you have stated it. We all know you would not be this spineless if newborn babies were being slaughtered, would you?
And I'm absolutely certain you wouldn't be posting on an online forum IN SUPPORT of infanticide, would you?
You're not only spineless, you're extremely hypocritical and two-faced.
Have you ever heard of state laws, and state criminal courts? That's what they are for, to sort out questions such as those. You're simply attempting to hide behind technicalities, and yet again demonstrate your lack of a spine.
What a joke, what a sick joke.
With "friends" like you, we don't need any proabort enemies.

reply from: Faramir

Are you saying that even if the was a majority who is antiabortion that you would still be opposed to making it illegal?

reply from: cracrat

Are you saying that even if the was a majority who is antiabortion that you would still be opposed to making it illegal?
Yes I would be opposed, because even then there would still be a minority in favour, and so likely to seek it out. In an ideal world, the would be no need for abortion laws of any variety because there would be no procedure. However, the option exists and as such people are going to want to take advantage of it, regardless of its legal status, if and when they feel they have to.
Banning something doesn't make it go away. Ensuring that people are aware of other options and ensuring that people always have other options is, IMO, far more likely to bringdown the abortion numbers than anything else.

reply from: Faramir

The law would be a deterrent.
If abortion is illegal ther will be less ways to abort.
And the law is also a "teacher" and fills in where conscience is lacking.

reply from: NewMom

When you start to feel things, you let me know, will you? Your heart might soften just a little. If you don't want your child at all, I'll gladly take it since I fought so hard to keep mine, and he died while he was still inside me. How DARE you, honestly dumb something down like that. I don't think you realize yet the impact this is going to have on your life. Don't tell me it DOESN'T relate to the issue at hand, it DOES relate to the issue at hand! I'm sure I can speak for Yoda that our crusade is AGAINST people like you who take things for granted (ie. a pregnancy, a LIFE) people like you who have no remorse and no feelings towards a baby (ITS A BABY!)
Wait till you start feeling movement. Guess what? With my son, movement stopped when he was halway out feet first and I felt him die inside me. Don't ****ing dumb it down and tell me its nothing, its not life!
People like you make me so inconceivably mad at the disrespectful nature of your argument. People like you are the people who do not deserve to have children in the first place. But, you never thought you'd end up pregnant right? You never thought it'd happen to you! Too bad sweetheart, your stuck with the consequences, and this non-life stuck inside you! How dreadful! And at the same time I envy you... clearly you don't want the child and you'll be one of the lucky ones to have a healthy pregnancy full term. God forgive me for being so angry at someone I don't even know but God keep that child safe!

reply from: cracrat

Yes, for most people
I sort of agree, the methods available today would mostly disappear. There would be an expansion of 'quack doctor' methods, with predictably dire consequences.
I know very few people who base their code of conduct entirely on the law. Particularly with regards to things they fell strongly about.

reply from: sander

But, he didn't say that. Laws are created to establish a society's code of condut as a whole. And thereby protecting all people regardless of who does or does not base their conduct on what the laws actually say or what they feel strongly about.
He said and rightfully so, that the laws fill in the gap for the individual conscience.
Laws demand that people take responsibility for their own actions.
That somehow always gets glossed over in the abortion debate.

reply from: sander

When you start to feel things, you let me know, will you? Your heart might soften just a little. If you don't want your child at all, I'll gladly take it since I fought so hard to keep mine, and he died while he was still inside me. How DARE you, honestly dumb something down like that. I don't think you realize yet the impact this is going to have on your life. Don't tell me it DOESN'T relate to the issue at hand, it DOES relate to the issue at hand! I'm sure I can speak for Yoda that our crusade is AGAINST people like you who take things for granted (ie. a pregnancy, a LIFE) people like you who have no remorse and no feelings towards a baby (ITS A BABY!)
Wait till you start feeling movement. Guess what? With my son, movement stopped when he was halway out feet first and I felt him die inside me. Don't ****ing dumb it down and tell me its nothing, its not life!
People like you make me so inconceivably mad at the disrespectful nature of your argument. People like you are the people who do not deserve to have children in the first place. But, you never thought you'd end up pregnant right? You never thought it'd happen to you! Too bad sweetheart, your stuck with the consequences, and this non-life stuck inside you! How dreadful! And at the same time I envy you... clearly you don't want the child and you'll be one of the lucky ones to have a healthy pregnancy full term. God forgive me for being so angry at someone I don't even know but God keep that child safe!
It's stunning how cold hearted and unfeeling so many women and men have become since abortion on demand was made legal.
They've de-humanized the child to the point they can't even reconize their own living baby!
They've painted themselves in a terrible corner, on one had they have beat the drum of keep abortion legal and now when they're faced with their own pregnancy they can't seem to swallow their own words. They have to find a way to not look like a complete hypocrit.
This poor baby, I hope at least in secret she'll show him/her how special this child is.
I wouldn't worry about God being upset with your honest heart felt attempt at explaining to this woman she's blessed.

reply from: cracrat

But, he didn't say that. Laws are created to establish a society's code of condut as a whole. And thereby protecting all people regardless of who does or does not base their conduct on what the laws actually say or what they feel strongly about.
He said and rightfully so, that the laws fill in the gap for the individual conscience.
Laws demand that people take responsibility for their own actions.
That somehow always gets glossed over in the abortion debate.
Again, I sort of agree with you. You're right in that many people would, if an abortion was not legally available, seek out and research their other options. I'm more refering to the people who would find out they're pregnant, decide there is no way they can go through a pregnancy and then act accordingly. I don't believe the legal status of abortion would matter a jot to them. Particularly not in the first few months when it could 'be sorted out' without friends or family knowing.

reply from: sander

But, he didn't say that. Laws are created to establish a society's code of condut as a whole. And thereby protecting all people regardless of who does or does not base their conduct on what the laws actually say or what they feel strongly about.
He said and rightfully so, that the laws fill in the gap for the individual conscience.
Laws demand that people take responsibility for their own actions.
That somehow always gets glossed over in the abortion debate.
Again, I sort of agree with you. You're right in that many people would, if an abortion was not legally available, seek out and research their other options. I'm more refering to the people who would find out they're pregnant, decide there is no way they can go through a pregnancy and then act accordingly. I don't believe the legal status of abortion would matter a jot to them. Particularly not in the first few months when it could 'be sorted out' without friends or family knowing.
You lost all credibility...what needs to "be sorted out" is your standing on this board.
You need to weigh whether anything you say will be viewed as an honest attempt to discuss any topic.
I for one, can't see you, if you will, as an honest broker.

reply from: cracrat

I don't understand when I lot whatever credibiltiy I had. I have never intentionally deceived anyone. I have apologised for when I've used a careless turn of phrase. I certainly haven't posted any lies. I have tried to express myself as honestly and accurately as I can, if not always as concisely as I could.
Please clarify.

reply from: sander

I don't understand when I lot whatever credibiltiy I had. I have never intentionally deceived anyone. I have apologised for when I've used a careless turn of phrase. I certainly haven't posted any lies. I have tried to express myself as honestly and accurately as I can, if not always as concisely as I could.
Please clarify.
I think MC3 summed it up very well, much better than I did.

reply from: cracrat

I read MC3's post carefully. He seems to be the sort who only wades into the argument when he has something important to say. As I said in my response, my misrepresentation of my position was an honest mistake. I have retracted that. I have apologised. There was no malice in my attempt to associate with your side.
I also read some of NYKAREN's posts, as he suggested. It seems that you (the forum) treated her just as appallingly as you're now treating me. Never mind the fact that we agree on almost everything. I have never disputed that a feotus is a human being. I have never disputed that abortion is murder. I have never questioned the morality of abortion. The only part we disagree on is whether or not we have the right to make a moral judgement for everybody else.
Any fool can stand up a sceam their convictions of conscience until they're blue in the face. Particulalarly in a society with a constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech. But such grandstanding never engenders progress. There was no progress in Northern Ireland until everybody sat down and talked, there will be no progress in the Middle East until people start to sit down and talk and there will be no progress in the abortion debate until both sides are willing to concede the other's opinion is valid and then start to talk.

reply from: sander

I read MC3's post carefully. He seems to be the sort who only wades into the argument when he has something important to say. As I said in my response, my misrepresentation of my position was an honest mistake. I have retracted that. I have apologised. There was no malice in my attempt to associate with your side.
I also read some of NYKAREN's posts, as he suggested. It seems that you (the forum) treated her just as appallingly as you're now treating me. Never mind the fact that we agree on almost everything. I have never disputed that a feotus is a human being. I have never disputed that abortion is murder. I have never questioned the morality of abortion. The only part we disagree on is whether or not we have the right to make a moral judgement for everybody else.
Any fool can stand up a sceam their convictions of conscience until they're blue in the face. Particulalarly in a society with a constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech. But such grandstanding never engenders progress. There was no progress in Northern Ireland until everybody sat down and talked, there will be no progress in the Middle East until people start to sit down and talk and there will be no progress in the abortion debate until both sides are willing to concede the other's opinion is valid and then start to talk.
MC3 owns this board, have you read the home page? He doesn't have the time to weigh in often, but when he does you can bet it's important.
You lost your cedibility when you blamed your now pro-abortion stance on "us"...really, we didn't just fall off a truck. Nobody who is pro-life is moved by what others think of them...try and cover it as you will, but it's a croc of crap all the same.
And you'll just have to live with that for as long as you're on this board.

reply from: cracrat

I understand he owns the board, hence is probably busier than than the rest of us. That is why I read his posts so carefully.
I have blamed nobody for my view. I arrived at it all by myself. You flatter yourself to think that your cheap and snide insults matter enough to make me change my convictions.
I do notice you seem to be unwilling to accept my apology, it really is genuine, and that you don't respond to the fact that we mostly agree. I further notice that you don't respond to the suggestion that unless people begin to talk, really talk and not just yell at each other, no progress will be made.
I ask you, which is more important; sticking to your guns come hell or high water? Or trying to make progress to affect the change we both seek, even if it means a little compromise?

reply from: Faramir

I read MC3's post carefully. He seems to be the sort who only wades into the argument when he has something important to say. As I said in my response, my misrepresentation of my position was an honest mistake. I have retracted that. I have apologised. There was no malice in my attempt to associate with your side.
I also read some of NYKAREN's posts, as he suggested. It seems that you (the forum) treated her just as appallingly as you're now treating me. Never mind the fact that we agree on almost everything. I have never disputed that a feotus is a human being. I have never disputed that abortion is murder. I have never questioned the morality of abortion. The only part we disagree on is whether or not we have the right to make a moral judgement for everybody else.
Any fool can stand up a sceam their convictions of conscience until they're blue in the face. Particulalarly in a society with a constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech. But such grandstanding never engenders progress. There was no progress in Northern Ireland until everybody sat down and talked, there will be no progress in the Middle East until people start to sit down and talk and there will be no progress in the abortion debate until both sides are willing to concede the other's opinion is valid and then start to talk.
Imagine a scenario in which I want to kill you, and you don't want to be killed. What do we have in common? How can we compromise? If you live I lose. If I kill you, you lose. Where is the middle ground? Kill you in-part? Maim you? Say nasty things to you?
If you believe an abortion is murder, then out of a sense of justice, how can you leave the fate of the life in the womb to the consciences of the would-be murderers?
Either they are malicious, or very igorant. Doesn't justice demand that we stop the malicious and inform the ignorant?
An abortion either takes a human life or it does not. It can't be both. It cannot be that it takes a life if you belive it does, and does not take a life if you believe it doesn't. There is an objective truth about it.
The only "validity" I would give a prochoice argument is that they might be arguing in good faith and they might believe that at a certain point a fetus or embryo is legitimately to be not regarded as a human person. But no matter how sincerely they believe, it does not change whatever the objective truth is.
And then there are the prochoicers who don't care whether it is a human person, and will concede it to be, yet still support abortion rights, and with people such as these, there can be no compromise or even a concession that they are arguing in good faith. They would say the woman has the right to kill the baby so long as it is attached to her, and that's an entirely unacceptable defense of abortion, and anyone with an ounce of common sense or compassion would reject it.
I'm sure you would support laws against infanticide. And you certainly seem to be admitting that infanticide and abortion are morally equivalent. So I'm not understanding how you could allow any room for compromise on the latter.

reply from: cracrat

Yes, yes, yes. Absolutely. You are completely right. We must inform the ignorant. We must make them understand what they are doing when they elect to have an abortion. Show them horrible videos or cutesy ultrasounds if you like, I prefer to appeal to people' rational side, but whatever you do make them see.
But I don't believe that banning abortion will stop the malicious. I don't believe that a change in the law will make everybody decide that the procedure is wrong. I am unaware of a single case in the entire history of human civilisation where banning something has made the problem go away.
Drive abortion underground and you put these people completely beyond reach. There is no helping them then, there is no forcing them to see an ultrasound, or insisting on counselling before the abortion occurs, or mandating a period of reflection between request and action. A ban will not achieve anything that couldn't be achieved by other means, but will serve to criminalise otherwise good people.

reply from: Faramir

Yes, yes, yes. Absolutely. You are completely right. We must inform the ignorant. We must make them understand what they are doing when they elect to have an abortion. Show them horrible videos or cutesy ultrasounds if you like, I prefer to appeal to people' rational side, but whatever you do make them see.
But I don't believe that banning abortion will stop the malicious. I don't believe that a change in the law will make everybody decide that the procedure is wrong. I am unaware of a single case in the entire history of human civilisation where banning something has made the problem go away.
Drive abortion underground and you put these people completely beyond reach. There is no helping them then, there is no forcing them to see an ultrasound, or insisting on counselling before the abortion occurs, or mandating a period of reflection between request and action. A ban will not achieve anything that couldn't be achieved by other means, but will serve to criminalise otherwise good people.
Except I don't think you're right that a ban would drive everyone undergroun. Some--but not all. Some will not abort. How many--I don't have a clue. But if the percentage is significant, it would be worth it.

reply from: cracrat

Ok, say for the sake of argument that the ban stops 90% of abortions. 4000 a day to 400 a day by Yodavater's numbers. A hell of an achievement I think we can all agree. What do you do about the other 400 which you now have no idea where they are happening, by who and to whom?

reply from: Faramir

First I would celebrate the progress, and would never think of going backwards for the sake of the 10% who continue to abort.
Even one life lost by abortion is a tragedy, but 3,600 averted tragedies are certainly worth an abortion ban.
Ok, say for the sake of argument that the ban stops 90% of abortions. 4000 a day to 400 a day by Yodavater's numbers. A hell of an achievement I think we can all agree. What do you do about the other 400 which you now have no idea where they are happening, by who and to whom?

reply from: cracrat

OK, celebrations done. What do you do? Divert law enforcement resources away from their other duties? Run a 'shop an abortionist' campaign? Ramp up the penal consequences for those you catch? Start a government snooping campaign on citizens in general? Run name and shame campaigns on the internet and in the media?
All of these and more have been deployed in the 'War on Drugs' and more recently the 'War on Terror' without the desired effect of tackling these problems. Where do you go once the ban is in place? What is your follow-up strategy?
This is not a game to try and catch you out. I'm not playing tricks. I want to know what the pro-life movement's next move is once a ban is place, because you all know as well as I do that a ban will not be the end of it.

reply from: Faramir

Whether I have an answer or not, and whether those 400 can also be eliminated or not, there is no reason to not ban abortion because of the few that could not be saved.
That would be comparable to not going on a rescue mission to save some stranded people because you could only save 90 instead of all 100 of them.
It would be great to save them all but we should not sacrifice the 90% because of the 10% who will perish.

reply from: sander

Odd thing to say in face of this:
BeProLifewithme said:
Since when do prolife people shove pregnant women into childbirth. we only help and suggest to let a baby live!!!! And what pushed you to the prochoice side?
Your answer:
A week ago, if someone had asked me, I would've said I was pro-life. 3 days ago I joined this forum to learn and to ask questions. It took less than 24 hours for the comprehensive attacks of me, my character and my position to come rolling in. I didn't decide I was pro-choice, you lot did.
What are you apologizing for? For once being pro-life and now becoming pro-choice?
Mostly agreeing doesn't save one single baby from a torterous death.
I'm talking, you're talking, we're all talking, so I don't see your point. What I do see is that while we were doing all this "talking" 4,000 babies were slaughtered.
How does one compromise on killing babies? Do we just kill them a little?
No, can't compromise on my stand, never will.
In this country all is needed is for the child in the womb to be reconized as a "person". Then as Faithman has said, all the side issues disappear, the child will then be afforded ALL the rights a born child has.

reply from: sander

None of the above tactics are necessary...no shame campaigns, no diversion of law enforcement.
We give the child in the womb the same rights of personhood and the same laws that protect the born protect the child in the womb. Game over.
A nation that refuses to at least try to protect it's most vulnerable is in a terrible condition and will go to heck in a hand basket in due time.
Nations just can't keep killing their young without dire consequnces at some point.

reply from: cracrat

Whether I have an answer or not, and whether those 400 can also be eliminated or not, there is no reason to not ban abortion because of the few that could not be saved.
That would be comparable to not going on a rescue mission to save some stranded people because you could only save 90 instead of all 100 of them.
It would be great to save them all but we should not sacrifice the 90% because of the 10% who will perish.
Your answer is disingenuous. You seem to be suggesting that a ban would be the only way of saving those 3600 kids. My point is that I believe there to be other ways of saving them. Ways that won't make people feel as though you're trampling all over their rights. Whatever your motivation for banning abortion, and whatever the populous at large feels about it, those who don't like it and feel their autonomy threatened will scream and scream and scream about it, rather like you guys are right now.

reply from: yoda

Yet another cowardly cop-out.
MURDER is favored by a "minority"..... so by your principle, you are supporting the LEGALIZATION OF MURDER!
What a cowardly position you take just to support the elective slaughter of innocent unborn babies.

reply from: yoda

We have about 1.2 million of them doing that in thing country every year, as they have abortions simply because "it's legal".
And we have thousands of proabort babykilling supporters who scream about how abortion is "okay" simply because it's legal.
Here's what one great American had to say about it:
"Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless".
-Dr. Martin Luther King

reply from: yoda

"Compromise" with proaborts will NEVER get us any closer to protecting the unborn.
As long as you and your kind keep on killing babies, we will keep on opposing you at ever turn.

reply from: faithman

We have about 1.2 million of them doing that in thing country every year, as they have abortions simply because "it's legal".
And we have thousands of proabort babykilling supporters who scream about how abortion is "okay" simply because it's legal.
Here's what one great American had to say about it:
"Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless".
-Dr. Martin Luther King
This punk is SOOOO open minded their britty borty brains have dashed upon the bloody ground mate.

reply from: yoda

Yes you do, and that's why you oppose it so vehemently.
You don't want anything to slow the "baby disassembly line" of abortion, you want to keep the numbers as high as possible.

reply from: cracrat

Odd thing to say in face of this:
BeProLifewithme said:
Since when do prolife people shove pregnant women into childbirth. we only help and suggest to let a baby live!!!! And what pushed you to the prochoice side?
Your answer:
A week ago, if someone had asked me, I would've said I was pro-life. 3 days ago I joined this forum to learn and to ask questions. It took less than 24 hours for the comprehensive attacks of me, my character and my position to come rolling in. I didn't decide I was pro-choice, you lot did.
I abhor abortion yet have been lambasted for suggesting that other people should be allowed to make up their own minds. It has been made extremely clear to me that unless I were to totally and whole-heartedly support a ban on abortion I have no business describing myself as pro-life. In the face of this, BeProLifewithme implying that pro-lifers don't shove pregnant women into childbirth is laughable.
If she is asking how I arrived at m current thinking, then it mostly stems from an ingrained respect for the right of any and every person to be allowed to arrive at their own opinion. If she is asking how I came to be labelled pro-choice rather than pro-life, it is as a result of things I hve learned here since the weekend.
What are you apologizing for? For once being pro-life and now becoming pro-choice?
Mostly agreeing doesn't save one single baby from a torterous death.
I'm talking, you're talking, we're all talking, so I don't see your point. What I do see is that while we were doing all this "talking" 4,000 babies were slaughtered.
You and me talking can and will affect little change except perhaps to harden our respective positions a little more. The people who need to stop screaming at each other a talk are those in positions of authority. I assume that there are both pro-life and pro-choice politicians all over the US. How often do the two groups come together to try and overcome their differences?
How does one compromise on killing babies? Do we just kill them a little?
No, can't compromise on my stand, never will.
In this country all is needed is for the child in the womb to be reconized as a "person". Then as Faithman has said, all the side issues disappear, the child will then be afforded ALL the rights a born child has.
No, you can't kill a baby a little bit. You can't cut off its arms, declare it half-aborted and expect anyone to suggest what a clever fellow you are for finding a solution.
You can, however, compromise on your demand for a total ban of abortion. You could drop that but insist on videos graphically displaying the procedure to school children. You can instead insist that any parent wanting an abortion sees an ultrasound of their child before going ahead. You can ensure that state or federal care facilties for unwanted children are of a quality and quantity that they aren't just a breeding ground for future criminals. These are compromises on your current position that would reduce abortion numbers, saving lives, but not requiring of an unrealistic ban to implement.

reply from: yoda

You find them and put them in jail as fast as possible.
WHAT do you do about the ILLEGAL murders, rapes, and robberies that happen every day?????
SOME of them get away too, don't they? So NOW you'll be wanting to make those crimes legal, because SOME of the get away, right?

reply from: faithman

You find them and put them in jail as fast as possible.
WHAT do you do about the ILLEGAL murders, rapes, and robberies that happen every day?????
SOME of them get away too, don't they? So NOW you'll be wanting to make those crimes legal, because SOME of the get away, right?
At least "WE THE PEOPLE" would no longer be co-conspirators in murdering womb children.

reply from: yoda

And I'm sure you're doing everything in your power to OPPOSE those "other ways", right?
You're sure not showing any evidence of support for ANYTHING to reduce elective abortion on THIS forum.

reply from: yoda

You're being too charitable. IMO, this is a case of one pretending to be indecisive, ignorant, and confused. A wolf in sheep's clothing is still very dangerous.

reply from: cracrat

Yes you do, and that's why you oppose it so vehemently.
You don't want anything to slow the "baby disassembly line" of abortion, you want to keep the numbers as high as possible.
You are grotesquely misrepresenting my position. I have stated over and over that I consider any and every aborted child a victim of murder and a tragedy. I have no more desire to maintain the current figures than anyone else here and for you to suggest otherwise is incredibly insulting and unbecoming of a man of your intelligence. That 1.2m American women and 200K British women annually find themselves in a position that they feel the only exit from is the murder of a child is disgusting and demonstrative of something deeply wrong in our respective societies.

reply from: cracrat

And I'm sure you're doing everything in your power to OPPOSE those "other ways", right?
You're sure not showing any evidence of support for ANYTHING to reduce elective abortion on THIS forum.
Perhaps you should pay a little more attention to what I'm saying before you decide what I'm thinking

reply from: yoda

This is like talking to a brick wall. Or is that a stone wall?
DOES YOUR POSITION FIT ANY OF THESE DEFINITIONS??????
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

pro-life adjective opposed to the belief that a pregnant woman should have the freedom to choose an abortion if she does not want to have a baby
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=63328&dict=CALD

pro-life -adj.
opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/pro-life

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -
pro-life -adjective opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-life&r=66

pro-life adjective supporting the belief that it is immoral for a pregnant woman to have the freedom to choose to have an abortion (= an operation to end a pregnancy) if she does not want to have a baby http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=prolife*1+0&dict=A

reply from: yoda

I have been. You have shown no inclination to protect the unborn on any issue. You have not disputed anything any proabort has said, you have argued ONLY with prolifers.
I watch what you DO with much more interest that what you SAY.

reply from: sander

You accuse prolifers here of screaming. Well, you would hear the scream of proaborts round the world if even one of these suggestions were brought to the table.
There is no compromise, don't you understand that?
The right to abortion on demand is fiercely protected.The proaborts aren't interested in anything other the unfettered access to abortion and if that isn't enough they want the taxpayers to foot the bill at every turn.
You're whistling in the wind or just kidding yourself if you think the abortion side is interested in any compromise.
They won't even allow the mother to see the ultra sound in an abortion clinic, why on earth do you think they wouldn't scream bloody murder if the schools showed grahpic details of an abortion?
No, there is no chance of a compromise...try again.

reply from: yoda

No, I think he's kidding us. I think he's trying to blow hot air.... you know where.
He knows there is no room for compromise between life and death... he just wants to slow us down a bit..... and maybe leave us confused.

reply from: sander

No, I think he's kidding us. I think he's trying to blow hot air.... you know where.
He knows there is no room for compromise between life and death... he just wants to slow us down a bit..... and maybe leave us confused.
Another pretend, "I want the killing to stop", "oh, please don't murder the child", but if you must "I won't force my views on you".
Sickening.

reply from: yoda

Oh gee, I almost overlooked this little gem.........
So, you want to maintain the legality of people committing "murder and a tragedy"? That's your compassionate position?
Your respect for the babies killed in every "murderous and tragic" abortion is so very, very low that you don't want ANY of them protected by law?
Oh, my, how very kind of you.........

reply from: yoda

Exactly. And to what end? Oh, maybe to encourage us to follow their "example", and abandon our opposition to the legal status of abortion, perhaps?
Yes, I do think that's the whole idea...... the whole rotten, stinking, nasty idea.....

reply from: sander

Oh gee, I almost overlooked this little gem.........
So, you want to maintain the legality of people committing "murder and a tragedy"? That's your compassionate position?
Your respect for the babies killed in every "murderous and tragic" abortion is so very, very low that you don't want ANY of them protected by law?
Oh, my, how very kind of you.........
Help me out here, Yoda...I don't understand his logic.
If that's how he feels...abortion is murder but won't force his views on others.
Why would he scream bloody blue murder if we suggested he must also support the murder, rape, etc. of born people?
You can't have it both ways, or are people like this really all there? What makes a person think that?

reply from: sander

But then, how does he get out of supporting all murders, born or unborn, all rapes, all every illegal activity?
Boy, he does flatter himself if he thinks we're going to abandon our prolife stance. That's some ego.

reply from: cracrat

You accuse prolifers here of screaming. Well, you would hear the scream of proaborts round the world if even one of these suggestions were brought to the table.
There is no compromise, don't you understand that?
The right to abortion on demand is fiercely protected.The proaborts aren't interested in anything other the unfettered access to abortion and if that isn't enough they want the taxpayers to foot the bill at every turn.
You're whistling in the wind or just kidding yourself if you think the abortion side is interested in any compromise.
They won't even allow the mother to see the ultra sound in an abortion clinic, why on earth do you think they wouldn't scream bloody murder if the schools showed grahpic details of an abortion?
No, there is no chance of a compromise...try again.
I understand from a post on another thread that there is a bill before the Ohio Senate (I think I've got that right) that would force abortion clinics to show an ultrasound of the child before the operation occurs. Is there massive opposition to it? I don't get such news over here.
And yes, there would be opposition to introducing the other measures, and any more measures people could think up. But each one would be easier to introduce than the last and I for one, apparently a baby-hating, infantcidal, borthead scumbag, would support every single one of them. I would argue and argue the validity and necessity of such measures with any and everyone careless enough to oppose them within my earshot. Just as I argue and argue my standpoint from anyone who supports abortion within range.

reply from: cracrat

But then, how does he get out of supporting all murders, born or unborn, all rapes, all every illegal activity?
Boy, he does flatter himself if he thinks we're going to abandon our prolife stance. That's some ego.
I am under no illusions suggesting that I would be able to change your minds. I don't believe the person exists with such powers of persuasion

reply from: sander

Massive is an understatment. The abortion lobby is filthy rich and can throw millions of dollars at any bill that would be a compromise and threaten congress people with that same money used to derail their next bid for office.
So, why don't you come over here and argue and aruge, we're about of breath.
And no each one is not easier to introduce, that's a fantasy world view.
We're fought fiercly at every turn with more money then the prolife side can even dream of.
Our only option left is the give the child in the womb personhood status.

reply from: cracrat

Massive is an understatment. The abortion lobby is filthy rich and can throw millions of dollars at any bill that would be a compromise and threaten congress people with that same money used to derail their next bid for office.
That's incredibly sad. It seems like such a sensible thing to do. Do you think it will pass?
So, why don't you come over here and argue and aruge, we're about of breath.
And no each one is not easier to introduce, that's a fantasy world view.
We're fought fiercly at every turn with more money then the prolife side can even dream of.
Our only option left is the give the child in the womb personhood status.
Because I'm busy enough arguing with people over here. When I'm done with them, we'll see.

reply from: yoda

You may as well be "done" now. You have underwhelmed us all.

reply from: jujujellybean

Yoda, I'll do the job for you this time, so
~bump~

reply from: cracrat

Who took my name off the top of this thread?
I was proud of the 3 threads aimed at me unnecessarily, now I only have 2.

reply from: yoda

Did you not admit that the word "baby" was a legitimate term for use in any debate situation?

reply from: jujujellybean

lol cracrat, don't worry I think you still hold the record for most posts.
And Yoda, I still don't wanna let this one go...

reply from: yoda

Then we must keep it bumped.......

reply from: ProChoiceProud

I've been away for a while but I see the anti-choice wack-jobs are still at it. Has anyone read the crap on "Mark's Blog" that is posted today? He must be the dummest of the whole bunch.

reply from: joe

Are you kidding me??? You call us fanatics???
You clearly are mental. You freaks never realize how brainwashed you sound. You advocate the right to kill the unborn and cheer for this holocaust like its some sort of victory.
You are evil and cowardly, extremists who kill defenseless human beings.
Now do us a favor freak and practice your choice on your own movement.

reply from: Teresa18

Excuse me? Away for a while? This is only your 3rd post. It sounds like you were really never here. You are the one that sounds like a "wack-job". You are here defending the right for mothers to kill their own children in the womb. If you are so firm in your position, you surely must have something more than personal attacks to lob. Go ahead. Address our arguments in a civil manner.

reply from: JasonFontaine

This is why I've promoted The King, the Chicken and the Egg
Many abortion rights activists are "out of sight - out of mind"...and if it doesn't "look" like a baby - it's not alive.
This is why I think my little story is good....hmmmm....but I think it relates...
The egg has no head. It has no mouth to be fed. It has no legs. Therefore, the egg is dead!
Actually, a living being is forming within the egg - with a mouth to be fed, and legs and head...the egg is not dead!
The woman's egg is NOT dead...and life begins at CONCEPTION....
That's the whole point of promoting the picture - arguing over an egg - anyway, it's pretty cool....
Life begins at conception - with the egg...the egg's not dead!
See?
http://web.mac.com/jasonfontaine

reply from: JasonFontaine

This is why I've promoted The King, the Chicken and the Egg
Many abortion rights activists are "out of sight - out of mind"...and if it doesn't "look" like a baby - it's not alive.
This is why I think my little story is good....hmmmm....but I think it relates...
The egg has no head. It has no mouth to be fed. It has no legs. Therefore, the egg is dead!
Actually, a living being is forming within the egg - with a mouth to be fed, and legs and head...the egg is not dead!
The woman's egg is NOT dead...and life begins at CONCEPTION....
That's the whole point of promoting the picture - arguing over an egg - anyway, it's pretty cool....
Life begins at conception - with the egg...the egg's not dead!
See?
http://web.mac.com/jasonfontaine

reply from: jujujellybean

Were you ever really here? Sorry, but with three posts, it doesn't seem like you stayed very long.
Why are we 'wack jobs'?

reply from: yoda

Don't you know, juju? EVERYONE who opposes the elective slaughter of innocent babies is a "whack job".
After all, who could be against that?

reply from: jujujellybean

Yes, I suppose so!
Yah? Who could support innocent human life? That's just plain ludicrous! Sheesh!

reply from: yoda

~bump~ for all the babies (who are not JUST "fetuses")

reply from: Faramir

Congratulations on reaching your 10,000th "~bump~" post.

reply from: faithman

Congratulations on reaching your 10,000th "~bump~" post.
YEA YODA!!!! what a marvilous bumper crop it has been!!!! Thanks for standing and bumping for the little womb persons.

reply from: Faramir

Congratulations on reaching your 10,000th "~bump~" post.
YEA YODA!!!! what a marvilous bumper crop it has been!!!! Thanks for standing and bumping for the little womb persons.
Yeah, yea for yodavater. His threads SHOULD be always bumped to the top becasuse everybody else's threads suck. There's nothing like reading a thread that is 90% " ~bump~ ".
~bump~

reply from: yoda

YEA YODA!!!! what a marvilous bumper crop it has been!!!! Thanks for standing and bumping for the little womb persons.
How about that?

reply from: faithman

YEA YODA!!!! what a marvilous bumper crop it has been!!!! Thanks for standing and bumping for the little womb persons.
How about that?
Seems we have a jealous one amongst us. If one does not like bumped threds, one does not have to read them, now does one? Defender of prodeath trash, but attacker of pro child bumps! Go figure...

reply from: nancyu

http://www.humanlifeamendment.info/
Click on the link to listen to the Roe V Wade Oral arguments. It is a baby, and a baby is a person.

reply from: nancyu

It is a baby, it is a person. Do you think it has any chance of becoming a puppy or a rainbow? Nope it won't. It is human and a person, and will continue to be a human person throughout its life. I wonder at what point will it elicit emotion from you. Sounds like you don't have capacity for much emotion at all if you don't object to a woman having the right to kill her child.

reply from: yoda

Of course they are. Unfortunately, many on your side, and at least one on our side has questioned the "correctness" of the term "baby". That's the reason for this thread, actually.
That's the greatest weakness of their silly pronouncement, they can't establish a "transition point" at which the word "baby" becomes technically acceptable. They just prattle on about their "beliefs", as if they were a cult that was trying to spread it's theology, without support. Come to think of it, that's pretty accurate.

reply from: Faramir

You're still lying about me, Yodavater.
I do NOT question the correctness of using the term "baby."

reply from: yoda

Then you withdraw your objections as stated previously?

reply from: Faramir

Then you withdraw your objections as stated previously?
No, because the "objections" involved a very limited circumstance, which I thoroughly explained, and which you have thoroughly misrepresented.
But I still might consider withdrawing even those statements if you ever decide to withdraw your head from your arse.

reply from: yoda

In that case, my statement was correct. There is one on "our side" who objects to the use of the term "baby". The "limited circumstances" of your objection are duly noted.

reply from: faithman

In that case, my statement was correct. There is one on "our side" who objects to the use of the term "baby". The "limited circumstances" of your objection are duly noted.
Kinda reminds you of the kid who owns the ball and bat, and demands the game be played by his stupid contrived rules. Maybe this one will take his ball and bat, and go home. Last I checked, no one needs them to play on this field. It has been commonly accepted that a pregnant woman is WITH CHILD!!! A common question has been, "when's the BABY due?" If we have to deny these facts, then it should be a field we refuse to even walk onto. Let the borties stand alone on such play grounds. The more they deny children the right to live, the sooner such play grounds will be empty. Only a fool would even give such idiots the time of day. They deserve no respect, and they most assuredly do not need us to play their unreasonable, willingly ignorant games!!!! All they deserve is to be trampled under foot as we stampede to the goal of personhood for the womb child, the preborn BABY!!!.

reply from: Faramir

In that case, my statement was correct. There is one on "our side" who objects to the use of the term "baby". The "limited circumstances" of your objection are duly noted.
I do not object to a sign that says "a fetus is a baby" and you continue to misrepresent my position about that by using my name in the title of your thread.
I do not object to use of the word baby to refer to life in the womb.

reply from: yoda

No, your name in the title of this thread is indicative of your "special circumstances" objections to the use of the term "baby", which you specifically declined to withdraw in this thread. Therefore, there is nothing being misrepresented.
Wonderful. But you still don't withdraw your "limited objection", do you?
Just as I thought.....

reply from: Faramir

No, your name in the title of this thread is indicative of your "special circumstances" objections to the use of the term "baby", which you specifically declined to withdraw in this thread. Therefore, there is nothing being misrepresented.
Wonderful. But you still don't withdraw your "limited objection", do you?
Just as I thought.....
You're totally misrepresenting me by dragging something from another forum, taken out of context, and applying it as if I oppose, IN GENERAL, the use of the word "baby," which is ridiculous and very dishonest.
You misrepresent me here and in other posts in which you have insinuated that I oppose using the word "baby."

reply from: yoda

Oh, you poor abused fellow! I would say "poor abused baby", but I'm afraid you might object.......
I feel quite confident that with all the times you've protested your innocence, and all the times I've recognized the "limited" nature of your objection, that just about everyone on this forum and probably in the state of Texas knows your position now. But feel free to repeat it as many times as you like. As long as you maintain your "limited objection", then I will keep you on this list.
There is no reason to object to the use of the term "baby" in any context for which there is a legitimate dictionary definition, just to appease the "sensitivities" of the baby killer opponents who hate to see that word.
We owe the babies the dignity of using the most appropriate term for them, at ALL times. We owe the baby killers NOTHING.

reply from: Faramir

If you look at the title of the thread and the commentary below it, you are making it appear that I agree with "a fetus is not a baby" signs, which I do not.
You've taken something from another forum and twisted it into something it is not.
It has nothing to do with appeasing sensitivities.
In a debate setting, words can be defined for the sake of the debate. Positions can be assumed for the sake of the debate.
For the sake of argument, I could assume there is no God. For the sake of argument, I could assume there is no Jesus. For the sake of argument, I could assume the war in Iraq is not just. For the sake of argument, I could assume the Catholic Church is not the true church, and it would be my job in the debate to prove that it is.
For the sake of argument, in a debate setting, I could assume that "baby" is something to be proven and is not a given.
What you're doing is extremely dishonest and misleading, and I consider your thread, and your continual snide comments (referring to this) in other places, to be harrassive.
I think you owe the babies an apology for using them to serve your own ego.

reply from: yoda

There is no mention of any "sign" in the thread title, you just made that up to have something to whine about.
Absolutely not, I quoted it here verbatim by copy and paste.
Yes, YOU could, but I would not agree with you, and would not defer to your wishes on the subject. Just read the first post in this thread and tell me where I should have used "fetus" instead of baby in that post, okay? Otherwise you are just blowing hot air as usual.......
I would cry for you, but I'm all out of tears right now from reading the posts of the proaborts on this forum, to which you only rarely respond.

reply from: Faramir

Excuse me, the word is "posters" and not "sign." I misunderstood "posters" to mean a sign one would hold up.
But I am not a "fetus is not a baby" poster, so it makes no sense to use my name in vain.

reply from: Faramir

I'm not surprised you took only one example out of context, so as to twist the meaning (as usual).
And where did I say that was my "wish" on the subject?
I haven't said such a thing.
Note that in my signature it says that I believe in "personhood" from the moment of conception, which pretty well covers it, so I don't see why you continue to distort this.
But if I were in a debate (not an open discussion forum like this but in a TRUE dabate) where personhood needs to be proved, then I can't prove my position by virtue of my definition.

reply from: yoda

"Posters" as in "those who post" on a forum....... geeeeez!
A. "Personhood" does not need to be proven, it has existed for hundreds of years as shown by many, many dictionaries. Anyone who thinks that dictionary definitions need to be "proven" has a serious character flaw, IMO.
B. One need not abandon one's convictions in order to debate effectively. In fact, that would be a sign of a weaker conviction, IMO.
C. The example of my first post is quite sufficient to demonstrate that it is not necessary to first bow to the lying claims of proaborts in order to prove them wrong. You can prove them wrong without making ANY concessions to them.
D. Any concessions at all made to the proaborts on such a basic issue as the word "baby" is tantamount to collusion, IMHO.

reply from: Faramir

I think the problem is that you don't understand what "debate" means, and before you get out your dictionary and play your equivocation games, I mean a REAL debate, where two sides discuss an issue, agreeing to certain rules and definitions, before entering into a discussion.
Or are you purposely misunderstanding to have an excuse to paint someone as a proabort or a colluder?
I don't need to prove that God exists to have faith in God, yet I might enter into a debate with an atheist, and PRESUME nonexestence for the sake of argument and debate, whereby it would be my job to prove God is real.
Doing so does not make me a colluder with the Godless and does not make God mad at me.
Do you get it yet?

reply from: yoda

Very, very bad comparison. Unborn babies are not a matter of faith, they are flesh and blood and a very, very concrete reality.
And the usage of that word to apply to them is well established and has been accepted for centuries, long before the words "embryo" and "fetus" were ever thought of. It's ridiculous to pretend that there is any genuine doubt.
It's a form of pandering and appeasement, at the expense of the babies.

reply from: faithman

Very, very bad comparison. Unborn babies are not a matter of faith, they are flesh and blood and a very, very concrete reality.
And the usage of that word to apply to them is well established and has been accepted for centuries, long before the words "embryo" and "fetus" were ever thought of. It's ridiculous to pretend that there is any genuine doubt.
It's a form of pandering and appeasement, at the expense of the babies.
Sir dufus really cares more about his self image of being intelectually superior, than actually standing up for the womb child. His objective is to be a debator, not a fighter for the pre-born. I would say he has reached his goal. I haven't seen a better MASTER deBATER on this forum. I have sent him cards, and not one testimony as to their use. Just what does this one do for the womb children besides attack those who deffend them?

reply from: Faramir

Very, very bad comparison. Unborn babies are not a matter of faith, they are flesh and blood and a very, very concrete reality.
And the usage of that word to apply to them is well established and has been accepted for centuries, long before the words "embryo" and "fetus" were ever thought of. It's ridiculous to pretend that there is any genuine doubt.
It's a form of pandering and appeasement, at the expense of the babies.
It's not ridiculous to debate someone who does not believe that.
Just like it's not ridiculous to debate someone who does not believe something infinitely more important--that God exists.
But the bottom line here is that you continue to lie about me every time you post in this thread.
You don't need to lie to save babies.

reply from: yoda

I guess that's all he has time for................

reply from: yoda

A. I don't believe there is a single, rational, half way intelligent person who actually "does not believe that".
B. Even if there were, and even if one were to debate such a person, there would be NO NEED to defer to, bow down to, appease, or pander to that person while in the process of proving the ALREADY PROVEN fact that "baby" is an appropriate label for unborn children. That would be like agreeing not to say the Sun is hot, just for the sake of the debate. It's idiotic and disgraceful to make such an unnecessary concession.
Aw geez... I had almost stopped crying for you, and now I'm going to have to get out my crying towel again..... do you need one too?

reply from: Faramir

You are making a strawman.
There is no need to "bow down, appease or pander" in a debate.
If I for the sake of argument I enter into a debate in which I have to accept that God does not exist or that the earth is flat, I haven't done any of the above, even though I would be debating something that as far as I'm concerned is a done deal.
The problem I have is not in this nitpicking disagreement over a technical issue dragged over from another board and an etirely different context, but that you continue to apply it as if I don't accept the moral equivalence of a fetus and a baby, which I do. And I have no objection to using the word baby in reference to the fetus, which I do myself, have done, and have not objected to anyone else doing.
So you are barking up the wrong tree.

reply from: yoda

Ah, so now you are withdrawing your "limited objection" to the use of the term "baby", right?

reply from: faithman

Gosh yoda!!!! I thought the MASTER deBATER did indeed object to the word baby being used on use little playing field where only his ball and bat could be used. Now that no one has come over to play, he has to conceed to playing by the rules on the publicly play ground. Must really suck to be a control freak with no one who will play his game.

reply from: Faramir

I never used the words "limited objection."
What I had referred to had to do with a situation in which there was a somewhat formal discussion and in which certain words and definitions had to be accepted by both sides, so that the discussion could make some sense.
It had nothing to do with general discussions like this, or everyday use.
I believe an abortion is unjust, and in personhood from the moment of conception. I believe that abortion should be illegal for any reason.
I have never said a fetus is not a baby.
Lying about another prolifer is not good and does not save babies.

reply from: yoda

Yes, I know..... those were my words..... were they not accurate?
Ah I see...... so it's okay to say "baby" here, but not on PCT, right? When gee golly gosh I sure do appreciate your permission!
I mean, they always adhere to strict rules of debate there, right? No one ever makes snide remarks, or changes the subject, or dodges the issues, right? That's strictly a "formal debate" format, right? And both sides agree on "certain words and definitions" there, right? Gosh, I wonder why I had to fight so hard to get people there to agree that it was "okay" to use that word, then....... I must not have realized how "civilized" it was there!
Well, anyway, here we are in the wild, uncivilized, area of the web where there are no rules and no agreements, and yet you stay and try to "reform" us..... and get no appreciation in return. Bummer, eh?

reply from: yoda

Can't you tell that you are being "reformed"?

reply from: Faramir

Yes, I know..... those were my words..... were they not accurate?
Ah I see...... so it's okay to say "baby" here, but not on PCT, right? When gee golly gosh I sure do appreciate your permission!
I mean, they always adhere to strict rules of debate there, right? No one ever makes snide remarks, or changes the subject, or dodges the issues, right? That's strictly a "formal debate" format, right? And both sides agree on "certain words and definitions" there, right? Gosh, I wonder why I had to fight so hard to get people there to agree that it was "okay" to use that word, then....... I must not have realized how "civilized" it was there!
Well, anyway, here we are in the wild, uncivilized, area of the web where there are no rules and no agreements, and yet you stay and try to "reform" us..... and get no appreciation in return. Bummer, eh?
You are lying about me when you say I'm a "fetus is not a baby poster."

reply from: yoda

I might be, if I had actually said that..... I simply asked where all of them are.
But if you don't wish to be associated with them in any way, then perhaps you ought to withdraw your limited objection to the use of the word "baby".
After all, the most you've done so far is to claim that it would be a poor debating tactic in certain situations...... is that claim really worth how it makes you look?

reply from: Faramir

I might be, if I had actually said that..... I simply asked where all of them are.
But if you don't wish to be associated with them in any way, then perhaps you ought to withdraw your limited objection to the use of the word "baby".
After all, the most you've done so far is to claim that it would be a poor debating tactic in certain situations...... is that claim really worth how it makes you look?
You didn't ask where "they" are. You asked using specific names, implying that each and every one is a "fetus is not a baby poster."
Since that doesn not apply to me, and since you continue to do it, that means you are being intentionally harrasive, are twisting the truth, and are a liar.
If you feel a need to attack me personally, why not use the truth instead? I've got plenty of sins and faults I could list for you.

reply from: faithman

The MASTER deBATER has spoken!

reply from: sander

But, very little addressing the proabortion arguments. Odd.

reply from: yoda

Actually, yes I did. The Topic Summary says: Where are all the "A fetus is not a baby" posters?
Hardly. In this case, you're just a minor part of the "big picture", a part which associates itself with those who object to the use of the word "baby" (for different reasons than you do).
To put it in technical terms, (so you can understand it), the presence of your name on that list is as a "hyponym". The main category is "posters who object to the use of the term baby for any reason", and the sub category that you fit into is "posters who object because they think it's a bad debate tactic". I'm not going to make up a special thread just for you.
This is a very emotional subject for me, and I'm not about to "compromise" with you or with any proabort on it. If you don't like being lumped into that main category, then withdraw your objection to our use of the term "baby". Otherwise, you're just another name on the list.

reply from: yoda

Can you figure out why a "master debater" would waste their time on a forum that "doesn't actually debate"?

reply from: Faramir

I might be, if I had actually said that..... I simply asked where all of them are.
But if you don't wish to be associated with them in any way, then perhaps you ought to withdraw your limited objection to the use of the word "baby".
After all, the most you've done so far is to claim that it would be a poor debating tactic in certain situations...... is that claim really worth how it makes you look?
You didn't ask where "they" are. You asked using specific names, implying that each and every one is a "fetus is not a baby poster."
Since that doesn not apply to me, and since you continue to do it, that means you are being intentionally harrasive, are twisting the truth, and are a liar.
If you feel a need to attack me personally, why not use the truth instead? I've got plenty of sins and faults I could list for you.
Spin it how you like if it makes you sleep better, yoda, but you continue to lie about me.

reply from: yoda

Well anyway, thanks for bumping the thread again.

reply from: Faramir

But, very little addressing the proabortion arguments. Odd.
Unfortunately, I'm being forced to defend myself against a manipulative ****k who continues to lie about me.

reply from: faithman

But, very little addressing the proabortion arguments. Odd.
Unfortunately, I'm being forced to defend myself against a manipulative ****k who continues to lie about me.
Oh my gosh!!!! tell us who ist twisting your arm, and forcing you to post such stupid self indulgent crap!!! We will call the authorities, and see if we can stop such an assault on inteligence.

reply from: sander

But, very little addressing the proabortion arguments. Odd.
Unfortunately, I'm being forced to defend myself against a manipulative ****k who continues to lie about me.
That's a lame excuse. Blaming others for not engaging the proaborts after all this time just doesn't wash.
But, if that's not why you're here in the first place, it's certainly your right.

reply from: pilgrim

To all of you out there who believe a unborn fetus is not a baby. Go to ABORT73.COM AND OR ABORTIONNO.ORG and see what abortion is all about. Learn the truth if you have the stomach to watch.

reply from: sander

The proaborts don't have the courage to look and worse, if they do they still don't care.

reply from: yoda

I believe it's accurate to say that he has already said that this is not a forum where "actual debate" takes place, so I suppose that's an excuse not to even try, right?

reply from: sander

I believe it's accurate to say that he has already said that this is not a forum where "actual debate" takes place, so I suppose that's an excuse not to even try, right?
Right.
He spent much more time interrupting whatever he thought we were doing with his "fairness" doctrine.
But, got to give him credit, at least he stopped doing that.

reply from: yoda

I suppose every forum needs a "crusader" to jump right in and show everyone the error of their ways, from an "outside viewpoint".... how else can we achieve perfection?

reply from: yoda

I'm still waiting for someone to explain and/or document why the use of the term "baby" is not appropriate in any discussion of unborn humans, no matter what the context........ anyone?

reply from: teddybearhamster

i have no explanation or argument. the pictures i saw last night looked like babies to me.

reply from: yoda

As they do to any honest person, TBH. That's the whole point of this thread, to defend the honesty of the word "baby".

reply from: faithman

But you must understand that according to the MASTER deBATER, one must not use the word baby in a "proper" debate with death scancs until it is "proven" to be a legitimate use of the term. Then after a proper amount of chasing ones tail, and a few trips around the semantical mulbery bush, the MASTER deBATER may deem it ok to use in the narrow context of "who cares" debate forum. All to make the MASTER deBATER feel good about his self.

reply from: Faramir

Is a zyogote a baby?
Is an embryo a baby?

reply from: Faramir

I don't care either, but Mr. Dicktionary is on some kind of crusade, so expect to see this thread bumped about a hundred more times.
(I think he gets a kick out of seeing his name at the top of the list).

reply from: sander

I don't care either, but Mr. *****tionary is on some kind of crusade, so expect to see this thread bumped about a hundred more times.
(I think he gets a kick out of seeing his name at the top of the list).
Mr. *****tionary...not very Christ like, now is it? Thought you turned over a new leaf, how fair is that?
Yoda has done more for the pro-life movement then you'll ever dream of doing, and you've done what again?
Oh yea, you vote and come here to pounce on the prolifers...I forgot, sorry.

reply from: ChristopherLaRock

I don't get it.
If abortionists themselves can admit it's a life, why can't their supporters?

reply from: sander

And when someone has nothing relevant to say they always resort to personal attacks. It's not attractive. You have company with faramir.

reply from: sander

Good question.
According to some, it might hurt the proaborts "wittle" feelings.
Or some such nonsense.

reply from: sander

It is true that when someone can't stand up to the argument being made they resort to personal attacks and make up things about the person.
None of it makes you look intelligent, it always comes back on the person making the personal attack.
But, have it your way.

reply from: 4given

Get off the fence boy. What have you done for the unborn? Being cuddly with the pro-aborts likely won't save them from terminating a pregnancy.. Out of curiosity- What do you do to try to educate others on the abortion truth?
I prefer to see Yoda at the "top of the list".Thanks again Yoda for all you have done and continue to do!

reply from: Faramir

I don't care either, but Mr. *****tionary is on some kind of crusade, so expect to see this thread bumped about a hundred more times.
(I think he gets a kick out of seeing his name at the top of the list).
Mr. *****tionary...not very Christ like, now is it? Thought you turned over a new leaf, how fair is that?
Yoda has done more for the pro-life movement then you'll ever dream of doing, and you've done what again?
Oh yea, you vote and come here to pounce on the prolifers...I forgot, sorry.
This thread is an attack and a misrepresentation, so I don't take it kindly, though I have been more than patient about it.
Whatever Yoda has done does not excuse him to come to this board and be an a**hole to someone else.
Do you wish to answer the questions I posed or are you just going to be a referee?
Is an embryo and a zygote also a baby?

reply from: Faramir

Get off the fence boy. What have you done for the unborn? Being cuddly with the pro-aborts likely won't save them from terminating a pregnancy.. Out of curiosity- What do you do to try to educate others on the abortion truth?
I prefer to see Yoda at the "top of the list".Thanks again Yoda for all you have done and continue to do!
He made one post quoting a dictionary, and then bumped this thread 87 times.
And I am not "on the fence" thank you.
Yoda's prolife position does not give him a blank check to distort the views of others.

reply from: yoda

You claim to be here on a crusade to improve our forum, and you don't know the answers to that?
Does this help?
MSN-Encarta Online:ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby

reply from: yoda

That makes you the exception that proves the rule.

reply from: yoda

You don't care? Then why do you cling to your "objection"?
And you announced that you were here on a crusade to reform our little forum, so what do you have against crusades?
Oh, btw, you're the first poster claiming to be prolife who has attempted to ridicule my use of standard dictionary quotes. But many, many proaborts baby killers have done so in the past. Do you like that company?

reply from: Faramir

You claim to be here on a crusade to improve our forum, and you don't know the answers to that?
Does this help?
MSN-Encarta Online:ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby
I don't claim to be on any crusade. That's your word and your mischaracterization.
I'm here to learn and to contribute.
I didn't expect to be harrassed by another prolifer, but I'll deal with it.
The original definition you posted seemed to be referring only to the fetus as a baby. Does this definition also include the stages before it becomes a fetus?

reply from: cracrat

That makes you the exception that proves the rule.
Hold on. By default I'm pro-choice and don't care what you call it outside of a biological discussion where the different terms may be required for the sake of accuracy. Can't I be an exception too?

reply from: yoda

So it would seem
Nah, I get a kick seeing Farimir's name at the top in the company of all his friends.

reply from: yoda

And your problem with someone reading (and quoting) the dictionary is ........ what, exactly?
Oh wait, I know..... you and Faramir hate that because it's too "black and white", and difficult to manipulate, right?

reply from: Faramir

And you make personal attacks and misrepresent the positions of others just like the proaborts I've dealt with. Do you like that company?
I can use the same "logic" too.

reply from: yoda

Pretty good question....... you might ask Faramir.

reply from: yoda

Thank you for being here and speaking out for the voiceless, 4given. Every voice counts in this world full of enemies and "false friends".

reply from: yoda

Is someone trying to take over your role as referee here?
Yes, a zygote and an embryo are babies, according to some dictionaries. They may not be dictionaries that are "proabort approved", however, so you probably won't recognize their authority, right?
Your really are determined to limit the use of the term "baby", aren't you?

reply from: yoda

No, you did say that once...... but I've no doubt that you've forgotten it already.
When will you start doing either?
The word "child" includes all stages, so yes it does:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Main Entry: child 1 : an unborn or recently born person http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/child

Now then, what is your next strategy to limit the use of the term "baby"?

reply from: yoda

Certainly. Who ever said there was only one?

reply from: Faramir

Is someone trying to take over your role as referee here?
Yes, a zygote and an embryo are babies, according to some dictionaries. They may not be dictionaries that are "proabort approved", however, so you probably won't recognize their authority, right?
Your really are determined to limit the use of the term "baby", aren't you?
Why didn't you include zygote and embryo in your original definition?
I believe in personhood from the moment of conception, so once again you are making a false implication with your question, and are trying to mischaracterize my position.

reply from: yoda

Because it wasn't, and isn't "my" definition. It belongs to the folks who have a copyright on the definitions. But in all such controversies, it's best to take one little step at a time, and establishing the fact that "fetus" and "baby" were interchangeable was the first step. Are you now ready for the second step, or are you still dragging your feet?
Don't need to. I quoted you verbatim, and you haven't budged one inch from that position.
I'd say your position is well known and well defined, and that's what you're so upset about.

reply from: Faramir

Because it wasn't, and isn't "my" definition. It belongs to the folks who have a copyright on the definitions. But in all such controversies, it's best to take one little step at a time, and establishing the fact that "fetus" and "baby" were interchangeable was the first step. Are you now ready for the second step, or are you still dragging your feet?
Don't need to. I quoted you verbatim, and you haven't budged one inch from that position.
I'd say your position is well known and well defined, and that's what you're so upset about.
You know a lot more about "my position" than I do, apparently.
If I'm "upset" it is more that another prolifer would distort someone else's position out of spite, and out of a "holier than thou" attitude.
Now back to the question I asked. According to your definition of baby that you are using as an authority, the words "fetus" and "embryo" are not included, so how can you say that an abortion kills a baby, if it is in the early stages when it is an embryo?

reply from: yoda

You mean that what you said was not your position? Wow, that's weird.
Once again, it's NOT "my" definition. I get so frustrated when the typical proabort baby killer says that, and now YOU are doing it! And you seem so comfortable in their company!!
And I have never used just one definition, I use all that are relevant. But just like the baby killers, you are trying to manipulate them to your advantage.
The word "fetus" is well defined as a "baby" in the first post of this thread, but I don't suppose you have time to read that before you attack, do you?
The word "embryo" is included in the definition of "baby" by virtue of it's inclusion in the umbrella term "unborn child", which is not restricted as to developmental stage.
You just won't give up trying to restrict our usage of that word, will you?

reply from: faithman

Because it wasn't, and isn't "my" definition. It belongs to the folks who have a copyright on the definitions. But in all such controversies, it's best to take one little step at a time, and establishing the fact that "fetus" and "baby" were interchangeable was the first step. Are you now ready for the second step, or are you still dragging your feet?
Don't need to. I quoted you verbatim, and you haven't budged one inch from that position.
I'd say your position is well known and well defined, and that's what you're so upset about.
You know a lot more about "my position" than I do, apparently.
If I'm "upset" it is more that another prolifer would distort someone else's position out of spite, and out of a "holier than thou" attitude.
Gosh dude!! You have done nothing but that to us sence you been here!!!

reply from: Faramir

Here is an example of you being an arrogant ass, and completely misrepresenting me.
I don't have a strategy to limit the use of the word baby. I use the word myself to refer to a fetus.
Either you are a liar or are a blockhead.

reply from: yoda

Gosh dude!! You have done nothing but that to us since you been here!!!
He's been just like a "Holy Roller", huh?

reply from: yoda

Ah, so this latest tactic of questioning the use of "baby" to refer to zygotes and embryos is just your way of nibbling at the edges, right? You're not really trying to keep us from calling zygotes and embryos "babies", right?
It's all just an educational exercise to broaden our minds, right?

reply from: sander

OMG! I can't believe you actually asked that...are you worried you're going to lose your only position on these boards and the only thing you do for the prolife cause? You're funny.

reply from: Faramir

Thank you for being here and speaking out for the voiceless, 4given. Every voice counts in this world full of enemies and "false friends".
You would do well to not dismiss someone as an enemy or a false friend over pettiness and ego.
Putting someone else down might make you feel better about yourself, but it doesn't serve the cause you profess in the slightes.

reply from: yoda

Did you see your name in that post? Or did you see yourself, perhaps?

reply from: yoda

Yep....... there isn't room for TWO referees here, pardner, this forum isn't big enough for both of you...... you're going to have to shoot it out at high noon...

reply from: Faramir

Did you see your name in that post? Or did you see yourself, perhaps?
By your question then, I should assume you were not including me, then, and that I misunderstood?

reply from: yoda

I decline to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.
But you have already implicated yourself.

reply from: Faramir

So I was right that it was directed at me, and I deny it, so stuff your implication where the sun cannot shine on it, thank you.

reply from: cracrat

Certainly. Who ever said there was only one?
Hooray!!

reply from: yoda

I'm not admitting anything, but you seem to have seen yourself in the post without being named.
If the shoe fits, wear it.

reply from: Faramir

I'm not admitting anything, but you seem to have seen yourself in the post without being named.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
I see that you have used this thread repeatedly to make personal attacks and distort and misrepresent my position.

reply from: yoda

Thanks for bumping the thread.

reply from: sander

Yep....... there isn't room for TWO referees here, pardner, this forum isn't big enough for both of you...... you're going to have to shoot it out at high noon...
Where's the corral....oh, never mind, he can have the job. But, my husband does have some stripped shirts and a whistle or two, maybe he'd like those.
What an ego...yikes!

reply from: yoda

Yeah, it gives new meaning to the term "megalomania".

reply from: yoda

I do hope all the proaborts who hate the word "baby" will address the first post in this thread...... so far not a single one of them has.

reply from: nancyu

I'm not admitting anything, but you seem to have seen yourself in the post without being named.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
I see that you have used this thread repeatedly to make personal attacks and distort and misrepresent my position.
And what is your position again? How do you feel about personhood? What is your position on that? This is a direct question to allow you to clarify your position and defend yourself.

reply from: Faramir

All you have to do is look at my signature.
I believe personhood begins at conception and that abortion is an injustice which should be made illegal.
I've said this many times.
I suppose you don't understand it, though, because of this misleading thread that yodavater has made, which mischaracterizes my position.

reply from: nancyu

All you have to do is look at my signature.
I believe personhood begins at conception and that abortion is an injustice which should be made illegal.
I've said this many times.
I suppose you don't understand it, though, because of this misleading thread that yodavater has made, which mischaracterizes my position.
I'm not convinced.

reply from: cracrat

All you have to do is look at my signature.
I believe personhood begins at conception and that abortion is an injustice which should be made illegal.
I've said this many times.
I suppose you don't understand it, though, because of this misleading thread that yodavater has made, which mischaracterizes my position.
I'm not convinced.
What would convince you?

reply from: Faramir

All you have to do is look at my signature.
I believe personhood begins at conception and that abortion is an injustice which should be made illegal.
I've said this many times.
I suppose you don't understand it, though, because of this misleading thread that yodavater has made, which mischaracterizes my position.
I'm not convinced.
You're not convinced yoda's thread is misleading?

reply from: nancyu

All you have to do is look at my signature.
I believe personhood begins at conception and that abortion is an injustice which should be made illegal.
I've said this many times.
I suppose you don't understand it, though, because of this misleading thread that yodavater has made, which mischaracterizes my position.
I'm not convinced.
What would convince you?
I'm not sure really. I'll know it when I see it, I think.

reply from: Faramir

I'll have my pastor fax a letter to you.

reply from: yoda

I'll have my pastor fax a letter to you.
Send me one, too.

reply from: yoda

I just can't forget my dear friend, Faramir today.......

reply from: yoda

Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to push current posts to page two, and all I have to do to overcome that is to post once. Good deal!

reply from: yoda

Yeah, s/he is determined to bury this thread, it seems.... I wonder why?

reply from: faithman

It is about the personhood of the womb child. Once established, all this craziness goes away. So pro-personhood folks just need to ingnore prochoice/prolife and keep the focus on personhood for the womb child. Anything else is a distraction, and ultimatly deadly to our preborn brothers and sisters. They are who we fight for, and there is where our loyalty belongs, not to a "movement" that has sold them out, and cares more about looking good, than saving BABIES lives. This is 1st last and always about the child in the womb. This is not about all the neo-prolifers that have personal aggendas, who have even point blank said on this forum that they would fight presonhood tooth and nail just to keep future killers out of Jail. Pro-personhood folks need to quit being bogged down in emotionalism, and realize the guilty should be prosicuted. That no new laws will have to be legislated when personhood for the womb child is established. The ones already there will work just fine, and a jury of 12 citizens have the final say. Pro-personhood people need to elect state legislators that will establish personhood at the state level, then let them graduate to the federal level to get the job done there as well. WE THE PEOPLE need to speak loud and often. It is time we quit asking, and demand action on behalf of children in the womb. Or we can continue to play stupid little semantical games and watch the children die another 3 plus decades.

reply from: yoda

Well, I have some good suspects in mind..........

reply from: yoda

But of course, they shall remain nameless... and anonymous...... just the way they (and all cowards) like it.

reply from: AshMarie88

I'll help Galen with random posts about babies/abortion in every topic.
http://seroxatkillsbabies.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/babies1.jpg

reply from: galen

cool try this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3mtiJTkmYg

reply from: Gingerbreadman

you just hate that he's black. racists.

reply from: galen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMsqyns5eBM

reply from: galen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PPamlX4HQ0

reply from: galen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMsqyns5eBM

reply from: yoda

Looks like Faramir has invited all his "friends" over tonight........

reply from: yoda

Wow..... the trolls are all out tonight!

reply from: sander

Must be a full moon.
We can always retire to the private chat room....they can't follow us there.

reply from: yoda

Thanks for bumping the thread, troll.......

reply from: yoda

Sander is right...... let's all go to the private thread.......

reply from: yoda

Can't let this one slip down too far........

reply from: yoda

Is it all over now? Can we come out and play again?

reply from: sander

LOL!
I hope so...maybe Terry fixed it so they can lurk but can't post!

reply from: RedTaintedRose

More equivocation yoda? After I kicked your ass on eHealth over it. I hadn't thought you were such a masochistic subby. Still totally impressed with yourself too I note.

reply from: Teresa18

You are always in a bad mood. It's like you're in a permanent state of PMS.

reply from: faithman

You are always in a bad mood. It's like you're in a permanent state of PMS.
Punk Murderes Symdrome?

reply from: sander

You are always in a bad mood. It's like you're in a permanent state of PMS.
Punk Murderes Symdrome?
Yep, that works.

reply from: sander

Ah, I see we have an imitator of Yoda.
You know what they say about imitation?
And it's got nothing to do with a pig wearing a silk gown going to a prom with Faithman. So, don't even go there...or else.

reply from: faithman

You really know how to paint a verbal picture.

reply from: sander

You really know how to paint a verbal picture.
I try.

reply from: faithman

The piglets thank you. [ever try to hold one with a silk dress on]

reply from: sander

LOL!!
I think I've pulled a muscle....

reply from: yoda

You are always in a bad mood. It's like you're in a permanent state of PMS.
They say that people who show such constant hatred generally hate themselves as well.... makes sense to me.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, several of us had clones last night...... I was so confused I wasn't sure which one of us was the real ¥oda.......

reply from: Teresa18

I'd hate myslef too if I supported the murder of 1.5 million unborn children per year.

reply from: yoda

That surely is reason enough....... for self-hatred

reply from: yoda

My goodness, this one nearly escaped........

reply from: sander

Well, we can't be letting that happen!

reply from: yoda

Nope!
Gotta keep it up there in case someone changes their mind and allows us to say "baby" when we want to......

reply from: sander

Wouldn't that be refreshing.

reply from: yoda

I wonder if anyone has changed their minds this morning.......

reply from: yoda

Well thanks for bumping the thread anyway. I notice that you're the second imitator I've had recently, so I must be doing something right. And all the other imitators have left, so you must really love it here, right?

reply from: jujujellybean

hey did CP come back? He hasn't been on FOREVER!!!!!!!

reply from: galen

he was here a couple of days ago..

reply from: yoda

Sadly, I must announce the departure of my latest imitator, bloviater. He ate too much baloney and exploded, leaving nothing but a large greasy spot on his monitor. Farewell, old chum.........

reply from: jujujellybean

lolol more like it, if you ask me. You sure have a lot of fans, yoda! lol!

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I try not to let it go to my head.......

reply from: sander

Yeah, I try not to let it go to my head.......
LOL!
Aww, what's not to like!

reply from: nancyu

http://www.smoothmarketplace.com/screencleaner.swf

reply from: sander

http://www.smoothmarketplace.com/screencleaner.swf
Hilarious!
But, I don't think blovy is that cute.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.smoothmarketplace.com/screencleaner.swf
Hilarious!
But, I don't think blovy is that cute.
Blovy is no more, (I think that was his dog)

reply from: sander

http://www.smoothmarketplace.com/screencleaner.swf
Hilarious!
But, I don't think blovy is that cute.
Blovy is no more, (I think that was his dog)
Yikes...is the dog going to be okay?

reply from: galen

somebody pump the poor animals stomach before it blvs up...
( bad i know)

reply from: 4given

Oh and it is such a cute little pug! Spaceman is next.. right? The forum needs a check up!

reply from: galen

LOL!!!
any other trolls out there we need to innoculate against?

reply from: yoda

I still hold out a faint hope that some of the "don't say baby" posters will try to make their case on this thread..... and if not, maybe the little dog can become our mascot!

reply from: Faramir

For the record, please note that Yoda, by putting my name in the title of this thread has lied about me and continues to lie, since I am not a "don't say baby" poster.
I do not understand why this fellow so often resorts to lies, cheap shots, and distorting the views of other posters.
The prolife cause is good and noble, and lies, distortions, and meanness are not needed to justify it or advance it.

reply from: galen

yeah we know everyone hates faramir...

reply from: yoda

¶ <---------- World's smallest violin playing hearts and flowers.....

reply from: sander

LOL!
Good one, Yoda!
And very fitting.

reply from: Faramir

It's not about hate, this time. It's about truth.
His thread is a lie.

reply from: galen

i've never known Yoda to lie... he posts what he sees as the truth.

reply from: jujujellybean

lol he should be ou mascot...any name ideas? How about ladypug?

reply from: nancyu

She looks like a ladypug to me!

reply from: sander

Yep, ladypug...cute name!

reply from: Faramir

Then you haven't looked at this thread. It's a lie that he started and that he continues telling every time he bumps this thread.
And when he takes posters' words out of context and distorts their meaning, that is also a form of lying.
Of course he's excused if he's mentally incompetent and doesn't realize what he's doing.

reply from: jujujellybean

lol our new mascot......Ladypug!!!!!!!!!!

reply from: lukesmom

What was that boom? ME falling of my chair laughing!

reply from: yoda

What was that boom? ME falling of my chair laughing!

reply from: yoda

This one's for ladypug.........

reply from: galen

-----------
dear ladypug.

reply from: yoda

Best little dog ole bovy ever had.......!!

reply from: galen

think i could get my new puppy over for a playdate?

reply from: Faramir

I make my case that yodadistorter is a liar and his purpose on this forum is to goad others, since he continues to refer to me as a "don't say baby" poster. And he doesn't have the guts to hear my "case" anyway, since he made it so he can't see me.

reply from: jujujellybean

lol she is the sweetest little thing...faithful to old blovy till the end....the REAL end no joke!

reply from: Faramir

Hey, while you're here could you tell me where I "goofed on my age"?
I've been searching through my posts and can't find it.

reply from: yoda

Yep, she's just slurping him up!!

reply from: jujujellybean

EWWWWW.....that just sounds gross.........lol!

reply from: 4given

The clean-up crew has to take care of others "gross". Enter the testimony of the women and men that worked at the abortuaries.. They say the little bodies, being re-assembled to check for missing parts was traumatic.. Abortion is a gross sin! I can't fathom doing that job.. Either aspect of abortion- even given the testimonies of those that aborted.. The staff, the woman, the abortionist.. I can't understand that the final choice would be to put an innocent being to death..

reply from: cracrat

My God, that sounds like when a friend described to me what goes on after a huge car pile up or train crash. They get two arms, two legs, a head and a torso, making sure the skin tone matches, to determine the death toll. Becomes a bit of a problem when they've got an arm or a leg left over...

reply from: Faramir

Not me, anyway.
I'm still not a "don't say baby" poster.

reply from: yoda

In the abortion industry, it's just the opposite. It's quite a problem when they can't find all the parts they're supposed to find. That means they may have left human flesh behind to host infectious bacteria.

reply from: yoda

Under ANY and ALL circumstances?

reply from: Faramir

Under ANY and ALL circumstances?
If there is an agreement for the sake of argument that it is not a baby, then I won't say baby--just like if there is an agreement for the sake of argument that the bible is not a legitimate way to prove the existence of God, I won't appeal to the Bible.
In the overall informal discussion, I have used the word "baby" as much as anyone and have never suggested it's inappropriate.
I don't see why this is such an issue. It's nitpicking and distorts my position which is a belief in personhood from the moment of conception. We should use any and all words that can help convey that reality.
I think "person" is a stronger word to use than "baby," as my own preference. And I am frankly a little confused about the definition of a fetus as a baby, since it leaves out embryos. If we can't call an embryo a "baby" by that definition, then "personhood" has it covered.
Here's the bottom line. I think abortion is an injustice. I think it should be made illegal. I don't know enough about the law and all the technicalities involved to suggest how the laws should be written and whether punishment should be involved, and if not, could not come up with a moral and legal explaination as to why not. I can only give my opinions.
If you throw me in with all those who advocate abortion, just on the basis of a technical debate point, which would have very limited application, made on another board months ago, then I think you are ufairly making me appear to be an abortion advocate, or a sympatizer with those who advocate it, which I most definately am not.
I think an abortion kills a baby or a person. But in a discussion with someone who does not believe that, I might rule out using those words, since that would be the thing I need to demonstrate or prove.
But if you will look at my posts here, I have used the word "baby" to describe life in the womb many times, and I have not criticized others for using that word.

reply from: yoda

Now there's a major difference between us...... I would NEVER agree to any such thing to begin with, and I can't fathom why any prolifer would.
Apparently you aren't aware of the difference in the reaction to killing a baby and killing an adult, for example (a "person" could be any age) .... for many of us, there is a tremendous difference because killing an adult can sometimes be justified, while (electively) killing a baby never can be.
That's simply not the case:
MSN-Encarta Online:ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby[/a]
Dictionary.com ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child
Now add to that the definitions of "child", and you see that the term "baby" is NOT restricted to the human fetus:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Main Entry: child 1 : an unborn or recently born person http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/child [/a]
MSN Encarta Dictionary: child [ (plural chil·dren noun 5. unborn baby
http://dictionary.msn.com/ [/a]
American Heritage Dictionary: Child: 2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus. IDIOMS: with child Pregnant. http://www.bartleby.com/61/ [/a]
The reason you are included in the thread title here is that you honor a "technical point" above the interests of babies that will be aborted in the future, IMHO. NO technical point ought to be given such an honor, when it detracts from the recognition of the humanity of the unborn. A true prolifer will at every opportunity defend and proclaim the humanity of the unborn, not compromise it just to satisfy the desires of a proabortion opponent.
And on that "other board months ago", you did not just say that you "might not use it yourself", you said that you thought "we" were wrong in using that term. You advocated that we cease using it there. I find that too horrific to dismiss.

reply from: cracrat

No it can't. It is sometimes the least worst option available but it can never be justified or indeed just.

reply from: sander

Just as the proabort has tried to drill in the heads of society that an unborn child is devoid of it's humanity, we must at all times, use every opportunity to debunk that lie. I think it's the only thing that has kept the debate alive for 35 years. The prolife community has steadfastly not given in on that ground. The proaborts know as long as the child continues to be de-humanized their legal right to kill that child will remain.

reply from: jujujellybean

No it can't. It is sometimes the least worst option available but it can never be justified or indeed just.
There is a MAJOR difference in killing Sadam Hussein who killed thousands of people than killing an innocent human who had no say whether it was even conceived or not.

reply from: sander

No it can't. It is sometimes the least worst option available but it can never be justified or indeed just.
There is a MAJOR difference in killing Sadam Hussein who killed thousands of people than killing an innocent human who had no say whether it was even conceived or not.
You're absolutley right, Juju!
I'm glad to see someone so young with the sense to understand this truth.

reply from: yoda

No it can't. .
Self-defense to preserve one's own life against an aggressor is sufficient, IMO.

reply from: sander

No it can't. .
Self-defense to preserve one's own life against an aggressor is sufficient, IMO.
And that of your family members. Given the choice of allowing a killer to kill my child or killing the aggressor...well, there isn't a moment's hesitation on my part.

reply from: yoda

Or any innocent victim of aggression, for that matter. But by contrast, there is NEVER an honest justification for an elective abortion.

reply from: cracrat

Of course, but neither is justified IMO.
Like I said, least worst option available.

reply from: yoda

The very use of the word "available" indicates an acceptance of that option. In the case of elective abortion, it would even not be "available" if I had my way.

reply from: Faramir

I don't honor a technical point above the interest of babies. And you mischaracerize it, if you say it is to "satisfy the desires of a proabortion opponent."
It has zero to do with that.
A real debate is sometimes "let's pretend."
Sometimes a prochoicer will do the same and concede personhood, even if they don't believe it to be so, just to show that they can still make a prochoice argument if personhood is granted.
If I were to argue with a Protestant, I might play "let's pretend" there is no Church authority that I can appeal to and that I can only use the Bible as an authority for our debate or discussion. That doesn't mean I value his Protestant beliefs over my Catholicism. It just means that I am allowing myself, for the sake of debate, to be forced to prove my position.
There's nothing wrong with that.
If you want to keep bumping this several times a day to goad me or whatever, that's your business and your error.
I have no problem using the word "baby," and have no problem with you using it either.
The title of your thread grossly distorts my position, since I am most definatly not a "don't say baby" poster.

reply from: jujujellybean

Of course, but neither is justified IMO.
No I don't necessarily think so either; but still, even you admitted that there is a huge difference and while one can come some what close to being justified the other is just pure selfishness.

reply from: yoda

IMO you have supported that act by your words, whether you actually do it or not. And yes, I consider it contrary to the interests of unborn babies to at any time agree to "pretend" that an unborn human is not a baby. There is no need to ever deny what is clearly in black and white in many dictionaries, just to play your "pretend" game. No debate has a value greater than that of showing respect for unborn humans by giving them their proper label, IMO.
In this particular case, there is no need to "prove" your position beyond posting verbatim quotes from various online dictionaries, it is already proven, and has been for a long time. Any retreat from a long established fact such as the validity of calling unborn humans "babies" is an unnecessary concession and/or compromise with the merchants of death. I have often made my points on this subject without resorting to the use of the term "fetus" or "embryo", and there's absolutely no reason why any prolifer could not do the same.
Look for it, as long as you maintain your present position.
You've just admitted that in limited circumstances you ARE such a poster.

reply from: Faramir

To say that I am a "don't say baby poster" is to make a false statement.

reply from: yoda

Well, I disagree on two counts:
1. You haven't defined what a "don't say baby poster" is.
2. The thread title doesn't say you are one.

reply from: yoda

Happy Mother's Day everyone.....

reply from: yoda

We must not forget Faramir today.........

reply from: sander

I didn't see this yesterday, Yoda. Thanks.

reply from: nancyu

I didn't see this yesterday, Yoda. Thanks.
Yes, thank you from me too, and I hope everyone had a Happy Mother's Day.

reply from: yoda

Same here. Mine was kinda sad, all I could do is take her some plastic flowers, and remember a truly beautiful person.

reply from: cracrat

Same here. Mine was kinda sad, all I could do is take her some plastic flowers, and remember a truly beautiful person.
When I was in primary school we used to make two cards for Mothering Sunday. One for our own mum and one to be sent to the women's shelter in the city. Maybe next year it's be nice if you did that too.

reply from: jujujellybean

Same here. Mine was kinda sad, all I could do is take her some plastic flowers, and remember a truly beautiful person.
I'm sorry!!! I never got to meet my grandpa(he died from lung cancer when my dad was only eighteen) so on Father's Day or Memorial Day we go and see the grave of a soldier, dad, and grandpa that I will never meet in this world.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that's sad. I got to meet three of my four grandparents, so I feel lucky that way. But it's tough to lose contact forever with someone who gave you life, and never turned against you in any way. Life's never quite the same after that, never quite as meaningful.

reply from: yoda

Seems like all the "it's not a baby until it's born" proaborts have gone on vacation....

reply from: jujujellybean

Me too, but it's weird.....that must be so sad!!!!

reply from: jujujellybean

nope....they just do that when they are exposed.

reply from: prolifeman

Maybe they like everyone else are bored with a thread that is 25 pages of "bump."
And it gives a bad appearance--like you have an inflated ego, and use babies to promote yodavater.
Just some food for thought

reply from: 4given

So blessed that she helped you to become a voice of compassion. Plastic flowers don't quite compare to the golden roads she is walking on if a Child of the King. The only guarantee, right? I believe we meet again and that helps others through their trials and pain. Her spirit lives on, whether acknowledged or not. I have lost people close to me. One in particular loved the color yellow. I planted numerous flowers of varying colors and type.. and there was always at least one yellow in the middle of the mix. That probably sounds strange, but I believe God gives me yellow flowers as a gift from her. Love never fails and it has no end.

reply from: sander

Not strange at all. God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform.

reply from: nancyu

Same here. Mine was kinda sad, all I could do is take her some plastic flowers, and remember a truly beautiful person.
I lost my own mom in 1986. I miss her so much. She never got to meet my two children. I still feel her around though. She loved Neil Diamond, and I played Hot August Night CD for her on Mother's day. It's good to remember a truly beautiful person.

reply from: yoda

It's also good to know that others remember their Mom the same way you do. What other gift can compare to that of having a terrific Mom?
And what horror can compare to having a Mom that kills babies...........?

reply from: sander

I can't think of any.
A woman just can't get any lower.

reply from: yoda

I have to agree with you. And that's probably the biggest reason that I get nostalgic about the "good ole days".... mothers, and women in general were held in much higher esteem back then, because you didn't have to worry about them killing their own babies.

reply from: yoda

This would be a good place for kay to comment about how mothers who kill their babies "aren't so bad", right kay?

reply from: yoda

This is for Fartboy..........

reply from: Faramir

I can't think of any.
A woman just can't get any lower.
I think women who sit back and self-righteously judge other women are MUCH lower.

reply from: sander

Ah, the dear little pretend moderator. What did we ever do without him, oh yeah...we debated abortion issues.

reply from: yoda

I like nancy's new nick for him, "Fartnomore".

reply from: Banned Member

Perhaps any of these people could explain what kind of "appendage" is being removed in the following link.
http://priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/suctionweb.jpg

reply from: sander

Couldn't get the link to work.
But our resident murderer, lowlita seems to think the cruel baby invades uteruses at will...so hard telling what any of them would think.

reply from: nancyu

Credit Sander with that one. I agree it's a good one.

reply from: sander

Credit Sander with that one. I agree it's a good one.
Well, actually it was someone else's idea...I just borrowed it!

reply from: Banned Member

http://priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/suctionweb.jpg

reply from: yoda

Well, according to the caption of the last drawing, it's the "contents of the collection jar". Pretty cold, huh?
I suppose that's where they have to count the parts, to make sure they got them all. I wonder how anyone could do that job and sleep at night.

reply from: sander

I guess the same way the SS who ran the death camps did. But, it's still the question of the ages.

reply from: nancyu

Credit Sander with that one. I agree it's a good one.
Yes, you must all be very proud of yourselves...
Yeah, maybe we are proud of ourselves. We are the SRPM.
We believe in defending unborn, "unwanted" babies, and the other defenseless, innocent persons in the world.
The people who murder them, or support the legality of murdering them, are our play toys. These are non-persons to us. We can torture them, harrass them, tear them limb from limb to our hearts content. It's such a good time we're having really. Until they show some mercy for the unborn "unwanted" ones, there will be no mercy for them. Too bad for us, but lucky for them, our only weapons are words.
When the day comes that the"M" stands for Majority, instead of Minority we can put an end to all of this madness. You want us to stop picking on them CP? Tell them to stop the slaughter of our unborn babies, and declare the legal person hood of all human beings: from conception until natural death.
(You might want to get right on that, CP. I'm not sure how much more CM can take, you know with her blood pressure and all. Faramir is starting to look a little peaked, too. so.. yeah, you want to hurry it up a little bit?)

reply from: Teresa18

I can't think of any.
A woman just can't get any lower.
I think women who sit back and self-righteously judge other women are MUCH lower.
God is the ultimate judge. We are allowed to form a moral opinion and discern right from wrong. It's important to point out moral truth. If we really love others, we should not allow them to continue in sin. I believe we should do so in a kind way. There are at times a place for being tough. Certain sins are worse than others - mortal sins. It is worse to kill for a person to kill her own child than to judge someone for doing so, especially if the person is fully knowledgeable regarding what she did and could care less. If the person is sorry and has found favor with God, then there is no reason to judge unless laws have been broken and this person is in court.

reply from: 4given

I missed this one.. Judging those that kill their own makes them lower than actually killing a child.. That is a new one. Why am I not surprised? Coming from the tips of the false-hearted.. it makes sense right?

reply from: sander

I can't think of any.
A woman just can't get any lower.
I think women who sit back and self-righteously judge other women are MUCH lower.
God is the ultimate judge. We are allowed to form a moral opinion and discern right from wrong. It's important to point out moral truth. If we really love others, we should not allow them to continue in sin. I believe we should do so in a kind way. There are at times a place for being tough. Certain sins are worse than others - mortal sins. It is worse to kill for a person to kill her own child than to judge someone for doing so, especially if the person is fully knowledgeable regarding what she did and could care less. If the person is sorry and has found favor with God, then there is no reason to judge unless laws have been broken and this person is in court.
Very well said, Teresa!

reply from: sander

Right, it makes sense coming from the pretend prolifer/moderator.
What nonsense, what foolishness to say such a thing.
I stand by what I said, there isn't a thing a woman could do to make herself lower than to kill her very own child and in ways that make the nazi death camps look like Sunday school picnics. There, how's THAT for judging!!

reply from: Faramir

Here's another person who is as good as God on this forum. We are blessed with at least two of them now.
I thought only God could see and judge the heart, but apparently He's got some competition here.

reply from: Faramir

Of course we should form moral opinions, discern right from wrong, etc. etc.
But we have no business judging the heart. We don't know what they know or don't know, and God has made it clear that that is not our job.
I was exaggerating, but it's very low for someone to act so holier-than-thou. That is the wrong kind of judgement. It serves no good. It is an ego trip.

reply from: yoda

Exactly. In fact, I'd say it's an obligation. And the first amendment makes
it our right to do so.
Being "brutally honest" (without making a personal attack) is sometimes the kindest thing we can do for others.

reply from: nancyu

I can't think of any.
A woman just can't get any lower.
I think women who sit back and self-righteously judge other women are MUCH lower.
What about men who sit back and self-righteously judge the women who judge other women?

reply from: sander

I can't think of any.
A woman just can't get any lower.
I think women who sit back and self-righteously judge other women are MUCH lower.
What about men who sit back and self-righteously judge the women who judge other women?
Good question....!
I wish there was a better word for hypocite...oh wait, just thought of one...Faramir!

reply from: yoda

Poor fellow, he's straining his noggin trying to think of a better way for me to witness to abortion bound women than holding a sign and taking their photos... I wonder what "experience" he has in that area?

reply from: Faramir

Poor fellow, he's straining his noggin trying to think of a better way for me to witness to abortion bound women than holding a sign and taking their photos... I wonder what "experience" he has in that area?
Being a professional photogapher, I have much experience with taking photos. I would not use that expertise to harrass someone, however. Taking photos of women about have an abortion is not "witnessing" to them.
Holding up a sign showing a photo of a fetus or embryo is a legitimate way to witness. But how the heck is taking their photos any kind of "witnessing"?

reply from: 4given

Here's another person who is as good as God on this forum. We are blessed with at least two of them now.
I thought only God could see and judge the heart, but apparently He's got some competition here.
In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.
Proverbs 10:13
Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction. Proverbs 10:14
He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool. Proverbs 10:18

reply from: nancyu

I think that you should do what feels right for you to do. Yoda is comfortable doing what he does. Maybe it wouldn't be the right thing for you.
I'm thinking that your discomfort is coming from your upbringing. I'm assuming you were brought up to be well mannered and chivalrous, and to make people feel comfortable. This is a good quality Faramir. But in the case of women going to have their children killed it's misplaced, and you should consider rebelling against your upbringing for a moment, and remember that we don't want women to be made to feel comfortable with their decision to abort their child.
(That's my less than 2 cents worth of psychoanalysis for you. I hope it helped.)

reply from: sander

Poor fellow, he's straining his noggin trying to think of a better way for me to witness to abortion bound women than holding a sign and taking their photos... I wonder what "experience" he has in that area?
Last I heard he votes and posts on message boards....impressive, huh, especially since all his posts are geared to make the proabort argument for the proaborts.

reply from: Faramir

My gut feeling says something is wrong with this tactic. My gut feeling is not infallible, but it's usually right.
I don't have the same feeling about showing photographs of a fetus, or in praying at the clinic, or in other peaceful demonstrations, but this idea of the picture taking doesn't sit well, and I'm not sure why. And I don't mean just for me, but as a general practice.
But I appreciate that you told me your opinion in a kind way and gave me the benefit of the doubt. Thank you for that.

reply from: yoda

You know, there are always plenty of people willing to give you advice, but very few actually willing to get out there in the trenches and stand shoulder to shoulder with you. That's the kind of help I want, even if they see things differently than I do, as long as they are putting themselves on the line while they are doing "their thing". Armchair quarterbacks don't impress me.

reply from: nancyu

I have an idea for your radio station faramir. Say this over and over and over:
An unborn child is a person.
Since you don't think women realize this yet, don't you think it's time they were told.

reply from: Faramir

I agree this message needs to be repeated often.
It just might sink in it is heard and demonstrated often.

reply from: yoda

Wow.... what a great idea. If I heard that, I'd be inclined to donate to the cause myself. Think there's any chance?


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