Home - List All Discussions

Purest Form

Story not like Egg is NOT Dead

by: JasonFontaine

Purest Form
***
The purest form
Of innocence
The unborn
At your mercy to be torn
Sucked and swayed
Ripped away
By your choice
Never given a voice
It's not a life
Ask the childless
Husband and wife
Ask those that are lost
Prematurely
If this life is not
We prove
With our actions
God exists
For only we could not resist
To choose our choice
Over the voice
Of a child
We'll never fully allow
To exist
***
I'm the Egg is NOT dead man. No support - but full of dreams. These things always grow feet and walk away.
Had I wanted to write a graphic story on abortion - this is it. However, I wanted the general public to embrace the story of, "The King" - and that is that.....but both messages say the same thing....

reply from: yoda

One of the sickest arguments made by proaborts is that unborn children are "not innocent" by reason of "not having the capacity to form immoral thoughts".
As with other abortion related issues, proaborts confer upon themselves the authority to change the meaning of centuries old terms of the vernacular. The actual meaning of "innocent" has nothing to do with the ability to have immoral thoughts.
It means "lack of guilt".
So when I ask proaborts what the unborn are guilty of, I never get an answer. Big surprise, eh?

reply from: Cecilia

I think "ignorant" is more applicable to the fetus than the term of innocence, however the term ignorance usually has a negative connotation, although it should not always be so.
I tend to find that the term innocence implies a spiritual meaning or application, of which is not only subjective but inappropriate. The act of being conceived by circumstance is not a spiritual occurance.
Nice poem, and I'm not being saracastic. I like it when people portray their feelings sincerely in art.

reply from: JasonFontaine

Ignorance and innocence are essentially the same. People put far too much emphasis on the word.
Ignorance is simply, "not knowing".
And,
We all know better....
Thanks!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well I think they mean "not innocent or guilty" by having a complete lack of moral structure, period. Just like any animal that does not have self-awareness, the unborn is similarly incapable of having morals applied to it, period. This positively means that the unborn is not an "invader" either, which is another pro-choice argument, so pro-choicers cannot use the argument that "just like a criminal", pregnancy should be treated like a self-defense case. I have actually had pro-choicers try to tell me that abortion is "judgement" on embryos/fetuses that have "trespassed, raped, stolen," and violated the woman's rights.

reply from: yoda

Ah, yet another "independent expert" on the meaning of words. Let me guess, you consider dictionary definitions worthless when compared to your opinion of their meaning, right?

reply from: yoda

The term "innocent" is not necessarily a moral judgment. It has one meaning that simply declares the "absence of guilt".
Are unborn humans "guilty" of anything?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The term "innocent" is not necessarily a moral judgment. It has one meaning that simply declares the "absence of guilt".
Are unborn humans "guilty" of anything?
Please re-read my post and you will find the answer to that question.

reply from: yoda

Rather than do that, I'll just post an honest, linked definition of the word under discussion:
Main Entry: in·no·cent Function: adjective1 a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : BLAMELESS <an innocent child> b : harmless in effect or intention http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/innocent

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well I think they meant "not innocent or guilty" by having a complete lack of moral structure, period. Just like any animal that does not have self-awareness, the unborn is similarly incapable of having morals applied to it, period.
The unborn is neither innocent nor guilty in the moral sense. I do not get into the legal sense because you can claim the unborn is not innocent at all, that it has committed rape, theft, and trespassing. You can also claim it is innocent because it hasn't committed any crimes. That's why I don't get into the legal sense of the word "innocent".
I believe the unborn cannot have the words innocent or guilty applied to it. It is not innocent and it is not guilty. IT JUST "IS".

reply from: yoda

There is nothing "legal" about the definition, do I need to repost it?
Did you not understand the definition? What keeps that definition from fitting an unborn child?

reply from: lukesmom

The term "innocent" is not necessarily a moral judgment. It has one meaning that simply declares the "absence of guilt".
Are unborn humans "guilty" of anything?
Of course they are guilty. Guilty of having the audacity to be alive when thier mothers don't want them to be. Some evidently are guilty of another's crime of rape and some are guilty because they are in the unfortunant circumstance of not being physically perfect and some are guilty because of their very excistance. By that guilt they are executed by their mother's consent and an abortionists hands.

reply from: Cecilia

I can go along with that.

reply from: Cecilia

Ah, yet another "independent expert" on the meaning of words. Let me guess, you consider dictionary definitions worthless when compared to your opinion of their meaning, right?
"Innocent" is frequently applied in a spiritual context by individuals who adhere to certain religions. It's a well known colloquialism.
If you turn to answers.com dictionary (the first google hit when searching for 'define innocence') this result appears:
The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:
Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil.
Guiltlessness of a specific legal crime or offense.
Freedom from guile, cunning, or deceit; simplicity or artlessness.
Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté.
Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance.
Freedom from harmfulness; inoffensiveness
While a fetus or baby does carry some of these qualities, some others are subjective and/or not applicable. Therefore, I find the term "ignorant" to be more descriptive.
Ignorant carries these meanings, from dictionary.net:
1. Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened.
2. Unacquainted with; unconscious or unaware; -- used with of.
3. Unknown; undiscovered.
4. Resulting from ignorance; foolish; silly. (this is the negative connotation I was referencing above.)
So, you can stuff your sarcasm in a sock, mister.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There is nothing "legal" about the definition, do I need to repost it?
Then how is a person found "innocent" or "guilty" in a court of law? I'm sorry you're so ignorant, but innocence is indeed a legal term.
Do you not understand American law?
The very nature of the unborn, as I have said at least three times. It does not have consciousness. It cannot think. Thus, it cannot do ANY action with ANY moral intent at all. It cannot "innocently" kick your rib (well definitely not yours, since you're male) nor can it do the same action "just to be mean".
Again, this is exactly the same as to how a lion catching a gazelle is not "evil". A cold virus is not "evil", nor is a good smelling flower "innocent". Nature cannot have ethics applied to it because these things are nor CONSCIOUS of their own actions.
They cannot judge, thus judgment cannot be passed against them.

reply from: yoda

You apparently don't understand how to use a dictionary. When a dictionary lists several definitions, one need not apply ALL of them in order to show that a particular thing fits the definition of that word. ONLY ONE is needed.
And unborn babies do indeed fit ONE of those definitions, so yes, they are "INNOCENT", and you cannot dump any "guilt" on them.
So, stuff a sock in it.

reply from: yoda

Well I'm sorry you're so nasty and inclined to name calling, but that's beside the point.
Here's a newsflash for you: THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW.... and therefore we are NOT BOUND by legal definitions here!!
Yours is a typical proabort argument, and bogus for the same reason theirs is: communication in the vernacular is not bound by, nor subject to the definition of terms in the legal sense. Funny how you parrot the proabort line of thinking, yet claim to be prolife. Very, very odd....
Therefore the vernacular definition of "innocent" stands as quoted.... your idiotic objections notwithstanding.
Main Entry: in·no·cent Function: adjective1 a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : BLAMELESS <an innocent child> b : harmless in effect or intention http://www.m-w.com

reply from: Cecilia

You apparently don't understand how to use a dictionary. When a dictionary lists several definitions, one need not apply ALL of them in order to show that a particular thing fits the definition of that word. ONLY ONE is needed.
And unborn babies do indeed fit ONE of those definitions, so yes, they are "INNOCENT", and you cannot dump any "guilt" on them.
So, stuff a sock in it.
Therefore, I find the term "ignorant" to be more descriptive.
Don't forget to read posts thoroughly when you respond to them.
Main Entry: thorough
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1: carried through to completion : exhaustive <a thorough search>
2 a: marked by full detail <a thorough description> b: careful about detail : painstaking <a thorough scholar> c: complete in all respects <thorough pleasure> d: having full mastery (as of an art) <a thorough musician>
- thor·ough·ly adverb
- thor·ough·ness noun

reply from: Cecilia

Well I'm sorry you're so nasty and inclined to name calling, but that's beside the point.
Here's a newsflash for you: THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW.... and therefore we are NOT BOUND by legal definitions here!!
Yours is a typical proabort argument, and bogus for the same reason theirs is: communication in the vernacular is not bound by, nor subject to the definition of terms in the legal sense. Funny how you parrot the proabort line of thinking, yet claim to be prolife. Very, very odd....
Therefore the vernacular definition of "innocent" stands as quoted.... your idiotic objections notwithstanding.
Main Entry: in·no·cent Function: adjective1 a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : BLAMELESS <an innocent child> b : harmless in effect or intention http://www.m-w.com
Here is an example of the term "ignorant" being taken as slander.(above)

reply from: yoda

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the topic here was what YOU found to be more descriptive........ how could I miss that?
"Innocence" (NOT IGNORANCE) is the topic, and unborn humans are the MOST PERFECTLY INNOCENT of all human beings, whether you agree or not.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well I'm sorry you're so nasty and inclined to name calling, but that's beside the point.
Here's a newsflash for you: THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW.... and therefore we are NOT BOUND by legal definitions here!!
Yours is a typical proabort argument, and bogus for the same reason theirs is: communication in the vernacular is not bound by, nor subject to the definition of terms in the legal sense. Funny how you parrot the proabort line of thinking, yet claim to be prolife. Very, very odd....
Therefore the vernacular definition of "innocent" stands as quoted.... your idiotic objections notwithstanding.
Main Entry: in·no·cent Function: adjective1 a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : BLAMELESS <an innocent child> b : harmless in effect or intention http://www.m-w.com
Here is an example of the term "ignorant" being taken as slander.(above)
Actually no, I wasn't name calling and that was the entire point of me using the word "ignorant". I could have called him stupid, or moronic, etc. Instead, I simply said he knew nothing about the subject he was discussing. He CHOSE to be offended. That was not my doing. He is the one who consistently name-calls first. Such as "idiotic", which he has just called me simply because I disagree with him.
Yoda, no. This is not a court of law. However, you were stating that "innocent" does not have a lawful meaning. You were wrong; yet your insistence that innocent is not a law term seems to imply that you are ignorant of American law. What am I to assume?
The unborn simply "does not know". It is ignorant. If you are ignorant, you cannot know good or bad. I do not believe we are inherently good OR bad at the start of our lives. Good and Bad are CHOICES we make ONLY once we are capable of realizing what good and bad are. Young children can't even make these types of choices. They are not able to understand good and bad - they are ignorant.
Let me simplify this into steps for you. Since you're such a fan of demanding this of others, "A simple yes or no will suffice":
Do you believe ethics (good/evil innocent/guilty) can be applied to nature?

reply from: yoda

ABSOLUTELY NOT. I called your argument "idiotic", and it was.
ABSOLUTELY NOT. I stated that the definition I posted had no legal meaning, and it did not.
And that is not a precondition of innocence. Innocence and ignorance are NOT mutually incompatible.
Yes, in some cases, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.

reply from: Cecilia

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the topic here was what YOU found to be more descriptive........ how could I miss that?
"Innocence" (NOT IGNORANCE) is the topic, and unborn humans are the MOST PERFECTLY INNOCENT of all human beings, whether you agree or not.
I didn't disagree that unborn humans don't fit the bill of innocence (strawman), simply that ignorant was a more fitting descriptor. You place a focus on dictionary definitions only when it's in your best interests, eh?

reply from: yoda

No, you simply tried to shift the focus away from "innocent".
Oh, and btw, I place a "focus" on dictionary definitions ANYTIME there is a dispute about the meaning of a word. But I am aware that some proaborts don't like that, so I'm well accustomed to taking heat for it.

reply from: Cecilia

No one cares to hear your "sob story". http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=4565&STARTPAGE=10&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

reply from: Cecilia

No, you simply tried to shift the focus away from "innocent".
Oh, and btw, I place a "focus" on dictionary definitions ANYTIME there is a dispute about the meaning of a word. But I am aware that some proaborts don't like that, so I'm well accustomed to taking heat for it.
No, that was what you thought, not what I "was doing". Incidentally, the original poster, who wrote the poem, which included the concept of 'innocence', agrees with me.
Still you ignore the concept that 'ignorant' is a better fitting descriptor in favor of putting a crown on your head.

reply from: yoda

Oh, I have no problem with the use of the term "ignorance" either, but I do have a problem with shifting the focus away from the word "innocent". That word has a moral implication, while "ignorance" does not.
See above. BTW, is standing up for the unborn a bad thing in your mind?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, in some cases, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
A simple yes OR no will suffice. If you believe ethics can be applied in some cases then your answer is yes.
So then, WHAT in nature can have an ethic applied to it? Those evil hurricanes? Those mean-hearted lions?

reply from: yoda

Sorry, that's a little too far off the topic for my taste. Unless you want to make some sort of connection, I'm not going there.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh I'm going to bring it right back on topic if you'd gussy up some courage.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Okay: I feel you cannot ever apply ethics to nature. Your turn: In what cases do you feel you CAN apply ethics to nature?

reply from: sweet

cecilia,
you were INNOCENT while in your mother's womb!
"no woman is free to give birth unless she is free to kill her babies at will"...that's what that little quote reminds me of...whoever it came from - please be real with yourself, at least.

reply from: sweet

There is nothing "legal" about the definition, do I need to repost it?
Then how is a person found "innocent" or "guilty" in a court of law? I'm sorry you're so ignorant, but innocence is indeed a legal term.
Do you not understand American law?
The very nature of the unborn, as I have said at least three times. It does not have consciousness. It cannot think. Thus, it cannot do ANY action with ANY moral intent at all. It cannot "innocently" kick your rib (well definitely not yours, since you're male) nor can it do the same action "just to be mean".
Again, this is exactly the same as to how a lion catching a gazelle is not "evil". A cold virus is not "evil", nor is a good smelling flower "innocent". Nature cannot have ethics applied to it because these things are nor CONSCIOUS of their own actions.
They cannot judge, thus judgment cannot be passed against them.
of course babies are innocent in the womb. during an abortion they are executed like a criminal! what is your motive for denying this?!

reply from: sweet

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the topic here was what YOU found to be more descriptive........ how could I miss that?
"Innocence" (NOT IGNORANCE) is the topic, and unborn humans are the MOST PERFECTLY INNOCENT of all human beings, whether you agree or not.yoda,
exactly right. i couldn't have said it any better!

reply from: sweet

No, you simply tried to shift the focus away from "innocent".
Oh, and btw, I place a "focus" on dictionary definitions ANYTIME there is a dispute about the meaning of a word. But I am aware that some proaborts don't like that, so I'm well accustomed to taking heat for it.
No, that was what you thought, not what I "was doing". Incidentally, the original poster, who wrote the poem, which included the concept of 'innocence', agrees with me.
Still you ignore the concept that 'ignorant' is a better fitting descriptor in favor of putting a crown on your head.
uum, babies are INNOCENT in the womb...like it or not...you were, your momma was, your daddy...everyone...and that is not an insult so why are you offended?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There is nothing "legal" about the definition, do I need to repost it?
Then how is a person found "innocent" or "guilty" in a court of law? I'm sorry you're so ignorant, but innocence is indeed a legal term.
Do you not understand American law?
The very nature of the unborn, as I have said at least three times. It does not have consciousness. It cannot think. Thus, it cannot do ANY action with ANY moral intent at all. It cannot "innocently" kick your rib (well definitely not yours, since you're male) nor can it do the same action "just to be mean".
Again, this is exactly the same as to how a lion catching a gazelle is not "evil". A cold virus is not "evil", nor is a good smelling flower "innocent". Nature cannot have ethics applied to it because these things are nor CONSCIOUS of their own actions.
They cannot judge, thus judgment cannot be passed against them.
of course babies are innocent in the womb. during an abortion they are executed like a criminal! what is your motive for denying this?!
If you actually read my post, you would already have your answer.

reply from: yoda

A lot depends on how you define "nature", but to me it would include all (non-human) animals. Pets in particular, have individual personalities, just like we humans, and some of them are just downright disgusting. I have seen pet behavior that I would indeed consider "immoral" because of the way they attack smaller, weaker pets, and seem to enjoy it. But that's just me, others might excuse their behavior on some rationalization that "they're just animals", but I don't buy that. That's why they have ways to "train" your pet not to engage in offensive behaviors, which actually is quite a lot like humans "train" their children. And that's about the only clear example I can give you right now.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

A lot depends on how you define "nature", but to me it would include all (non-human) animals. Pets in particular, have individual personalities, just like we humans, and some of them are just downright disgusting. I have seen pet behavior that I would indeed consider "immoral" because of the way they attack smaller, weaker pets, and seem to enjoy it. But that's just me, others might excuse their behavior on some rationalization that "they're just animals", but I don't buy that. That's why they have ways to "train" your pet not to engage in offensive behaviors, which actually is quite a lot like humans "train" their children. And that's about the only clear example I can give you right now.
Training an animal, and that animal actually knowing right from wrong are two different things. The dog only behaves because of the rewards, whether that's positive attention or a treat. Of course some dogs enjoy tearing up other animals; just like some enjoy tearing up furniture. It's a sign they have pent up frustration and they can be trained to expend that energy elsewhere. They don't care; chewing up a mouse or chasing down a toy; it all does the same thing.
Humans "train" young children, but at a certain age the child becomes capable of understanding right and wrong. Before that stage, you're right, the child is just like the dog, and must be trained to behave. The child doesn't care; if screaming gets results they'll do it. They don't understand they are being annoying.
Neither the dog nor the young child can understand right from wrong; modern psychology and child development understands this concept VERY clearly.
IF the young child (and younger into the womb) cannot understand right from wrong, you cannot charge that child with a crime because the child simply can't understand that it is wrong. IF the young person cannot understand right or wrong, those two words cannot be applied to it at all. Young children do not have morals. This doesn't mean they are "moraless" as one would describe an adult, the child is simply outside of morality.
Thus, the unborn is not innocent or guilty. It just IS.
IF you try to apply morals to the unborn, then you must charge it with all of the crimes listed before; assault, theft, trespassing, etc. I believe these accusations are ridiculous, because the unborn has NO intentions. It doesn't even have a brain to think with when it implants. It does not have a moral code. It cannot be innocent or guilty.
If you apply morals to the unborn, it is anything BUT innocent. It has committed crimes, and it continues to commit these crimes for the duration of pregnancy. That's the reason I think it's absolutely ridiculous to apply morals to the unborn AND young children. The same exact research and philosophy that is applied to the young child can be applied to the unborn.

reply from: yoda

All that meaningless hot air, and you have said nothing.
There is nothing in the definition of the word "innocent" that I quoted and linked that indicates that one must have an "understanding of right and wrong" to be innocent.
You're simply too dishonest to admit what is in plain black and white right in front of you. So, I'll post it again for you to ignore again:
Main Entry: in·no·cent Function: adjective1 a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : BLAMELESS <an innocent child> b : harmless in effect or intention http://www.m-w.com
See? nothing there about "understanding", is there?

reply from: lukesmom

You forget, you are trying to reason with a proabort masquarading as a prolifer.

reply from: Cecilia

That is very interesting since you just told me you felt the 'right to life' comes from nature.

reply from: Cecilia

sweet, I haven't denied that fetuses carry qualities of innocence.
You could also say that no woman is free to give birth if she is forced to it as well.

reply from: yoda

As I've said before, no (pregnant) woman has any choice about giving birth, that will happen unless she dies first.
The only choice she has is whether to give birth to a live baby, or a dead one.

reply from: Cecilia

I find your delineation redundant as common sense indicates what the topic is at hand.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Abortion isn't birth by any standards.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That is very interesting since you just told me you felt the 'right to life' comes from nature.
I don't think the right to life is an ethic.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

At implantation the unborn releases HCG into the woman's bloodstream. The buildup of this hormone causes her body not to reject the unborn like the foreign object it is, and this hormone is also the cause of early pregnancy symptoms such as morning sickness. Implantation can also cause bleeding in some women.
Implantation can indeed harm the mother.

reply from: Cecilia

That is very interesting since you just told me you felt the 'right to life' comes from nature.
I don't think the right to life is an ethic.
you may not "think" so, yet it is. Ethics are 'A set of moral principles' or such, and this 'right to life' is a moral value (which you say comes from nature) which can be argued and counterargued.
So you have applied ethics to nature.

reply from: yoda

I find your delineation redundant as common sense indicates what the topic is at hand.
Well you know sometimes redundancy is necessary when your opponents keep regurgitating the same old crap.......
And I reserve the right to change the "topic" at any point, in any thread. You have the right to ignore my posts, or make a feeble attempt to respond, which is what you have done in this case.

reply from: yoda

Let me predict the outcome of this: I will post a definition that proves you wrong, and you will argue as if you were of superior intellect and authority to the dictionaries. Is that about right?
Main Entry: 1birth Function: noun1 a : the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent b : the act or process of bringing forth young from the womb
Birth process of bringing forth a child from the uterus, or womb. http://www.britannica.com/bps/home#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked%3E%2Fbps%2Ftopic%2F445271%2Fparturition&title=parturition%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia

reply from: yoda

Of course you don't.... but you DO think that the "RIGHT TO KILL" is an ethic, don't you?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Of course you don't.... but you DO think that the "RIGHT TO KILL" is an ethic, don't you?
The abortion is performed by an adult on an adult. Ethics is most certainly involved. That's why we are having this debate.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Holy crapp... where did my post go!?

reply from: yoda

And there is no baby involved, right? And no "victim", right?
Tell us again about how "prolife" you are, will you?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

An unborn or recently born human child is completely without the capacity for malice in thought or action, or innocent in the purest sense of the word....
You are forgetting the other half of that equation. If it is innocent, it has knowledge of sin. If you start applying an ethic to it you have to make it take responsibility for its actions, which can be interpreted as invasion.
We need the arguments over words. Without the words, we can't debate. We all interpret these words differently, so we have to try to come to a consensus before the debate over abortion can even begin.
I'm trying to prove it is NOT an invader! You're getting all in a tizzy because I'm saying the unborn is not innocent, and you're assuming that means I think it is guilty. That's not true; I take the third path of it being totally outside of ethics.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Accidents happen, and that's the thing: with an accident, it is NO one's fault. Not the mother, not the father, and not the child. Stop blaming the parents!! All they did was have sex. Everything else that occurs to cause pregnancy is nearly completely out of their control.
Ovulation is not a voluntary action, the woman is not forcing the egg to ovulate. The egg doesn't ovulate with any mean or nice intentions, it just does it. Sperm generation is also involuntary, so neither mum nor dad is responsible for these actions. Only the woman can currently control her body, with birth control pills, and in that case she's certainly forcing her body NOT to ovulate.
No one forces the sperm to swim up through the uterus, they do that all on their own with their own tails. They don't do it with malice or kindness, they just do it. The egg floats down the fallopian tube, and I suppose you could say the fallopian tube is "forcing" the egg downwards, but that's silly. The movements of the fallopian tube are involuntary.
No one forces the sperm to penetrate the egg. You could say the sperm is forcing itself upon the egg, but that would be silly too. The sperm is not raping the egg. No one forces the egg to close up against all other sperm. No one forces it to start division. No one forces it to implant: and again, it does not do so with ill will or with caring in mind. It just does it because that's what it is made to do.
That's how I view things. You can't apply ethics to this; it's just nature doing its thing. If anything, nature is imposing itself upon US. But again, that's quite silly.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That is very interesting since you just told me you felt the 'right to life' comes from nature.
I don't think the right to life is an ethic.
you may not "think" so, yet it is. Ethics are 'A set of moral principles' or such, and this 'right to life' is a moral value (which you say comes from nature) which can be argued and counterargued.
So you have applied ethics to nature.
Nature will struggle to live whether we are looking at it or not. Life exists. Period. I don't know if you want to say it has the right to exist, but the mere fact that it DOES seems to me to say it does. And without any human ethics attached.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Let me predict the outcome of this: I will post a definition that proves you wrong, and you will argue as if you were of superior intellect and authority to the dictionaries. Is that about right?
Main Entry: 1birth Function: noun1 a : the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent b : the act or process of bringing forth young from the womb
Birth process of bringing forth a child from the uterus, or womb. http://www.britannica.com/bps/home#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked%3E%2Fbps%2Ftopic%2F445271%2Fparturition&title=parturition%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
Does it count if the "individual" is in little pieces?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And there is no baby involved, right? And no "victim", right?
Tell us again about how "prolife" you are, will you?
I never said there was no baby involved. I never said there was no victim. As you know, I consider both the woman and the child to be a victim.

reply from: yoda

Not according to any definition of the word "birth" that I have found, no.
It simply means to exit the woman's body.

reply from: yoda

And there is no baby involved, right? And no "victim", right?
Tell us again about how "prolife" you are, will you?
I never said there was no baby involved. I never said there was no victim. As you know, I consider both the woman and the child to be a victim.
Yes, I know.... but your omission implied as such.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I did not intend that interpretation. I was only referring to the two people involved who are making the decisions. The unborn is not, so I felt it unnecessary to mention it. It has no ethics, so when discussing the ethics of the adults I felt it as completely pointless to mention the unborn. I wasn't talking about it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Not according to any definition of the word "birth" that I have found, no.
It simply means to exit the woman's body.
Wait, you just contradicted yourself. I asked, "does it count if the individual is in pieces?" and you said no. So abortion does not count as birth. But then you went on to say that birth only means "to exit" the body, which would mean the amount of pieces are irrelevant. So which is it? According to your definitions, abortion IS birth. According to your words abortion is not birth, and I will quote:
[me]Does it count if the "individual" is in little pieces?
[you]Not according to any definition of the word "birth" that I have found, no.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that has a familiar ring. A lot of people who debate abortion never mention the baby either.

reply from: yoda

I took your use of the word "count" to mean "matter", as in "does it matter".
And that's all you need to know. I do not contradict dictionary definitions. I leave that up to proaborts.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I took your use of the word "count" to mean "matter", as in "does it matter".
No, sorry, I meant "count" in the other way. And some posters think words don't matter!!
And that's all you need to know. I do not contradict dictionary definitions. I leave that up to proaborts.
No, you just seemed to because of how you interpreted the word "count". The rest of my post was irrelevant because of that.

reply from: lukesmom

And there is no baby involved, right? And no "victim", right?
Tell us again about how "prolife" you are, will you?
I never said there was no baby involved. I never said there was no victim. As you know, I consider both the woman and the child to be a victim.
Unless, of course, the child is 12 weeks or under in gestation then it is nothing to you.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And there is no baby involved, right? And no "victim", right?
Tell us again about how "prolife" you are, will you?
I never said there was no baby involved. I never said there was no victim. As you know, I consider both the woman and the child to be a victim.
Unless, of course, the child is 12 weeks or under in gestation then it is nothing to you.
Another lie. Good try. It's not "nothing" to me at all. Why would you assume that?

reply from: lukesmom

Another lie. Good try. It's not "nothing" to me at all. Why would you assume that?
What am I assuming? Didn't you say this:

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Another lie. Good try. It's not "nothing" to me at all. Why would you assume that?
What am I assuming? Didn't you say this:
That doesn't mean I think babies younger than 12 weeks are "nothing", and I didn't say anything like that. So yes, you are assuming. I did not say and have never said "Babies under 12 weeks mean nothing to me."

reply from: lukesmom

Another lie. Good try. It's not "nothing" to me at all. Why would you assume that?
What am I assuming? Didn't you say this:
That doesn't mean I think babies younger than 12 weeks are "nothing", and I didn't say anything like that. So yes, you are assuming. I did not say and have never said "Babies under 12 weeks mean nothing to me."
Then why do you condone killing them?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Another lie. Good try. It's not "nothing" to me at all. Why would you assume that?
What am I assuming? Didn't you say this:
That doesn't mean I think babies younger than 12 weeks are "nothing", and I didn't say anything like that. So yes, you are assuming. I did not say and have never said "Babies under 12 weeks mean nothing to me."
Then why do you condone killing them?
It's a complicated answer. You're not going to like it, either.
Up until 8 weeks, new research has made me decide that the unborn is not classified as a human being/person/whatever. It is human material, so don't jump on me about it being a frog or a mouse. It's human. But this paper I read discussed how a human being is a multicellular creature, where the cells are specified to tasks and are incapable of surviving if separated from the whole. At 8 weeks, a baby human has formed all of its organs, and also happens to become known as a fetus at this point.
This is not when I think "life" begins. Person or not, those cells were alive before all of the organs formed. Life still began billions of years ago.
So anyway, that's when I feel the unborn truly becomes a human BEING, a person. This is when I believe PERSONHOOD begins. So for me, the argument that abortion is murder is not applicable before 8 weeks.
Up to 8 weeks, I have no real reason to be opposed to legal abortion. I still don't like it, it still kills a human that could be a baby, BUT, it isn't murder. I wish it didn't have to happen, but I feel it should be legal for now.
So for that aspect, I'm partially pro-choice. I'm pro-choice up until 8 weeks. After that though, I believe the woman will need an actual reason. She needed time to accumulate the money, she didn't know yet, etc. That's until 20 weeks. After that, elective abortion will be illegal, like it is in most places anyway.
So really what I want is an Accountability Law from weeks 8 - 20. There would be restrictions, and a woman wouldn't be able to walk in one day and abort the next without giving her reasons. I'm trying to think of a reason that wouldn't be good enough... I do know I'd want counselors working with these women to choose life if it was possible. If the woman was just worried about the kids she currently had then adoption could be worked out. Things like that. I don't want a woman to abort when adoption is an option. And no, adoption is NOT always an option.
I am still trying to figure out what to call my position. I'm not pro-choice, because I am not for the legalization of all abortions. I am not pro-life, because I am not for the illegalization of most abortion.
Percentage wise I suppose I'm mostly pro-choice because I approve of abortions up to 8 weeks. However, the fact that I want ANY kind of limit on abortion past that point gets me called pro-life on pro-choice forums. So it's frustrating. I don't like abortion, but I feel it's ok in some cases. I cannot be 100% for either side.

reply from: galen

sorry no matter what the pro choice fanatics tell you... it still makes you pro choice...
as you put it most abortions are done in your range of acceptability... therefor you don't really want to abolish the practice as much as you say you do...
From what i read... you hate the practice because of what it does to women currently, in a medical sense... you think that it could be regulated. IMO and other's opinions, that is never going to be the case because of the intrisically abhorrent nature of what happens in an abortion... taking of life. For some reason it falls and will always fall to the lowest form of physician... one who can not or will not get a job doing anything else. No abortionist delivers babies... can you wonder as to why? Some OB's will preform the occasional abortion... but no clinic doc will ever deliver a pregnant woman or follow her medically.. PP and well women my left nostril!...
So you don't care about the fetus at 8 weeks, and you live in a fantasy world about how all those clinics can be cleaned up.....
head>>>>>>>>>>>>>sand

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I DO care about it, where did I say I didn't?
You = compulsive liar.

reply from: galen

when you say its ok to kill it it means you don't care....otherwise it would not be ok.

reply from: galen

Let me predict the outcome of this: I will post a definition that proves you wrong, and you will argue as if you were of superior intellect and authority to the dictionaries. Is that about right?
Main Entry: 1birth Function: noun1 a : the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent b : the act or process of bringing forth young from the womb
Birth process of bringing forth a child from the uterus, or womb. http://www.britannica.com/bps/home#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked%3E%2Fbps%2Ftopic%2F445271%2Fparturition&title=parturition%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
Does it count if the "individual" is in little pieces?
______________________________________________
little callous tidbits like this show your lack of respect for that child who is... as you put it 'in little pieces'...
Either you care or you don't but don't keep trying to have it all ways... some things either are or are not... and this , abortion, in the MAJORITY of cases is one of those thing... you can't get wishy washy about dead.

reply from: lukesmom

Well, at the very least you are starting to become honest with yourself at least. I picture you sitting on a fence with a leg in both camps and neither camp is "fooled" by you. Your balancing act can't go on very long and when you fall, if you still have a leg in both camps, it's gonna hurt bad. That perch can't be very comfortable and anyone in it looks pretty foolish. I truly pity you in your blindness...

reply from: yoda

You statement is quite confusing, and I suspect that may be deliberate, at least subconsciously.
We CANNOT "become" human beings. We ARE human beings at fertilization because of our biological classification, PERIOD, END OF SENTENCE.
We are "people" in the vernacular sense at ALL TIMES of our existence, because of the vernacular definition of that word. We have a twisted legal definition of that word which hinges totally on the whim of the Supreme Court, and thus means nothing at all in the vernacular.
That's simply because you have no empathy, no compassion for innocent human life at that stage of development. For that reason alone, you cannot ever understand the motivation of a genuine prolifer.
You are prochoice with exceptions, it's just that simple.

reply from: sweet

pathetic - dishonest - confused - denial...that's what's this position sounds like. (no offense)...but how hard could it be to admit that killing babies is wrong? what are your hidden motives REALLY?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You statement is quite confusing, and I suspect that may be deliberate, at least subconsciously.
We CANNOT "become" human beings. We ARE human beings at fertilization because of our biological classification, PERIOD, END OF SENTENCE.
That's why I also mentioned PERSON, YOU *****!
Lalalla.... I REALLY don't care right now... Nothing you *****tards can dish out compares to wrestling a 4 year old for an hour trying to get him to nap.
You can all go to hell! Have a good night.

reply from: Cecilia

You statement is quite confusing, and I suspect that may be deliberate, at least subconsciously.
We CANNOT "become" human beings. We ARE human beings at fertilization because of our biological classification, PERIOD, END OF SENTENCE.
That's why I also mentioned PERSON, YOU *****!
Lalalla.... I REALLY don't care right now... Nothing you *****tards can dish out compares to wrestling a 4 year old for an hour trying to get him to nap.
You can all go to hell! Have a good night.
Did...did you...did you just wish rape on everyone?

reply from: yoda

I don't get it..... you threw out one erroneous assertion, and it's supposed to be okay because you think a second one was better?

reply from: sweet

here's advice:
i have a 4yr old...if naptime turns into a "wrestling match"...i just tell him to have "quiet time" with a book...then early bedtime....just a suggestion. by the way you get mommy points for having naptime for your kid... it helps their growth.....oh yeah, it is still wrong to kill the innocent babies in the womb!

reply from: yoda

And you know, "****tards" ("retards") is not a nice word to use, for a variety of reasons.

reply from: 4given

You have a four year old? I thought you were a newly pro-life Christian that teaches school children, but never had a child of your own. Why the anger? Why again would you be "wrestling" any child? This may be something the school district would be interested in.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You have a four year old? I thought you were a newly pro-life Christian that teaches school children, but never had a child of your own. Why the anger? Why again would you be "wrestling" any child? This may be something the school district would be interested in.
I don't have a 4 year old, I teach in a pre-K classroom of severely mentally and physically disabled children. Quick story: the district decided to preemtively look at student numbers, decided that the school needed fewer teachers, and I was fired since I was a new hire and the school year hadn't started yet. My principal waited for the first open position she could find, and exactly one week before school, the paraprofessional position came open in the ESE (exceptional student education) Pre-K room, and she handed it to me.
The child in question has autism, and wrestle is not a metaphor. He has never had any barriers or rules that we can tell, and so we are now in charge of teaching him "no". No, don't touch that button, no, don't turn off the lights, no, no no. He cannot talk, and probably doesn't understand speech very well either from what I can tell. He doesn't even seem to know his own name.
He thinks he's fuuuuny, you should see the grin on his face when we're chasing him away from the computers. I hope to someday see that smile and hear that laugh over something besides creating trouble.
So yesterday when naptime came, he did not want to sit down and be quiet, much less take a nap. The other assistant and I spent the hour alternating between cradling and rocking him in our arms, repeatedly laying him down on the sleeping mat (that was the wrestling part, since he would kick and scream and struggle), and hushing his high-pitched screeching. Thankfully he didn't bite us.
He likes touch, so today went much better, as we changed our game plan. Instead of constant contact which I believe may have overstimulated him, today we just layed him down and walked away. If he stood up, we walked back over, said "no, it is nap time," layed him back down, and walked away. I allowed him to sit up or play with soft fabric toys/books, and even babble, but if he stood up, I walked back over and layed him down again.
Near the end of naptime his babbling was getting more insistent, so I adapted. I stayed near him but out of touch range. If he quieted, I would pet his arm. If he started making too much noise I stopped. He caught on fairly quickly to that but then naptime ended. Naptime overall was ... SO MUCH BETTER than the agonizing hour it was yesterday!! I was seriously considering if I could handle this job, though now I realise that it was probably one of the worse days I will have.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's why that's not the word I used. I said f**k-tards.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

here's advice:
i have a 4yr old...
Is he severely autistic and developmentally disabled, incapable of verbal communication with no boundaries or rules?
Probably not. Your child is probably fairly normal and thus complies with normal social constraints. This child cannot. We're working on that.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You statement is quite confusing, and I suspect that may be deliberate, at least subconsciously.
We CANNOT "become" human beings. We ARE human beings at fertilization because of our biological classification, PERIOD, END OF SENTENCE.
That's why I also mentioned PERSON, YOU *****!
Lalalla.... I REALLY don't care right now... Nothing you *****tards can dish out compares to wrestling a 4 year old for an hour trying to get him to nap.
You can all go to hell! Have a good night.
Did...did you...did you just wish rape on everyone?
If you can find the word "rape" in my post, go for it. If not (and you can't) then please screw your eyeballs back in and try to read it again. I am not the one wishing rape on people; that would be Galen's "friends".

reply from: yoda

Oh wait, I forgot that you have self-control issues, so I'm not supposed to mention it when you go off on us, am I?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh wait, I forgot that you have self-control issues, so I'm not supposed to mention it when you go off on us, am I?
You can mention that I have gotten angry. I do not have self control issues any more than you do. I'm just more colorful in my language when angry.

reply from: yoda

Is that what you call it, "colorful"?
Wait until FMan gets back, he can use that explanation too!

reply from: lukesmom

That's why that's not the word I used. I said f**k-tards.
As the mother of a child with learning and behavior disabilities, I would not want you near my child, much less teaching him after reading your use of "tards". You should be ashamed.

reply from: 4given

And nor would I. How disgraceful. Welcome to public school education folks. Someone wnated to "shape" anothers views.. Hard to do with the time, energy, effort and patience it takes with the challenged. You know the same beings that are sacrificed under a late term exception in the womb.

reply from: lukesmom

Oh really? Go to any middle or high school and see if you can tell the difference. Since you don't have a child, much less a challanged child, save your opinions, they don't mean squat.

reply from: 4given

i have a 4yr old...
Is he severely autistic and developmentally disabled, incapable of verbal communication with no boundaries or rules?
Probably not. Your child is probably fairly normal and thus complies with normal social constraints. This child cannot. We're working on that.
I care for an autistic child from time to time. It is challenging. When he leaves, I feel the relief and sometimes dread at his early arrival. Granted I work longer hours than in a public school setting, so he would come at 6:30 and leave at 5:30. Either way, I can relate to your frustration somewhat, and am concerned about your wrestling match to get him to nap. Clearly you don't understand him. Because autism is determined after birth, would these parents have been better off aborting had they known of his condition en utero? Would his life be better had he not experienced trying to deal with you and others that don't understand him? I would consider a job change. I know you weren't anticipating the very children you advocate killing, and God knows you are the last person I would desire to "teach" my child. Apply at the mall maybe. I don't know. Perhaps working with these precious babes will enlighten you. How much we take for granted. Would you abort your child if it was found to have the same or similar disabilities?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You've never heard the word "colorful" used to describe bad language?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's why that's not the word I used. I said f**k-tards.
As the mother of a child with learning and behavior disabilities, I would not want you near my child, much less teaching him after reading your use of "tards". You should be ashamed.
Whatever lady. I'm not ashamed. I never will be. In my opinion, 'tard and any words attached to the front of it does not mean "retard". I also consider "retard" an insult completely unattached to its medical terminology. It is still used in the medical world to describe mentally handicapped people.
It's kind of like b*tch and b*tch. You can say both. In one context it's extremely insulting but has nothing to do with dogs. In the other situation, it's a perfectly polite term for female dogs that no one even blinks at.
If you refuse to separate the two terms that's your choice. When I hear a british person say "hand me a f@g", I know they're not talking about a gay man. If I hear an american say "You're a f@g!" I get extremely pissed off.
So be offended about *****tard because it is an insult. Don't be offended because it has the second syllable of retard in it. I wasn't calling anyone a "mentally handicapped person", I was calling them "a stupid person who is mean and refuses to accept sane arguments".
OH, by the way, stupid and ignorant are also two different things. Stupid means you DO know better, you know the facts and/or how to behave, but you refuse to do so. Ignorant isn't an insult, and simply means you are without knowledge.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And nor would I. How disgraceful. Welcome to public school education folks. Someone wnated to "shape" anothers views.. Hard to do with the time, energy, effort and patience it takes with the challenged. You know the same beings that are sacrificed under a late term exception in the womb.
Please read my reply to Luke's Mom. When I say *****tard, I am not referring to a mentally handicapped person in any way, shape or form.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Considering it's an insult I just made up, I've never heard a middleschooler use it. I'm sure other people have made this term up too, but the thing is that a knowledgeable person using it realises that it has no reference the mentally handicapped.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

i have a 4yr old...
Is he severely autistic and developmentally disabled, incapable of verbal communication with no boundaries or rules?
Probably not. Your child is probably fairly normal and thus complies with normal social constraints. This child cannot. We're working on that.
I care for an autistic child from time to time. It is challenging.
Yes it is!
Well of course I don't understand him; I'd never met a severely autistic child before. But I followed the lead of the head teacher in the room. She forcibly laid him down and did it over and over again each time he stood up. So I did the same. She told me we must be firm with these students because they will think we are kidding around if we're not. The second day he did stay down longer so I was able to sit farther away from him and just walk over each time he stood up to lay him back down. Each day it was better; he learned that he was going to have to lay down during that hour and nothing else aside from sitting quietly with a soft toy or book would be acceptable.
He still hasn't napped yet, but thursday he did lay down on the mat with the blanket over him for a few minutes so I was happy! He ended up getting back up, but hey, I'll take what I can get. I think his mother bringing his blanket from home helped. She was supposed to have had it there on Monday, so that wasn't our fault.
Absolutely not. These children have as much a right to life as anyone else in this world. He has something to teach all of us; he has joy and learning to experience.
Again absolutely not.
Why? You can't handle it? I don't know why you don't change YOUR job of you think these children are so terrible.
I don't.
I changed my opinion about that a while ago. You're behind the power curve. This job has solidified my opinion on that: these children deserve life. They aren't perfect according to society's standards, but they are perfect according to their own very existence. Life is perfect, they are alive, they are perfect.
Why?
Go ***** yourself.
That's obvious. You're talking about something you have no knwoledge about, assuming things about me that are wrong, and making a giant ass of yourself in the process. Good job; most people have to TRY to sound as stupid as you do.
They aren't "babes". They are precious. But thanks for assuming I'm an uneduacted troll, moron.
Indeed. You took for granted that you thought you knew all about me just because I used to be pro-choice, but you were wrong.
Again, of course not. I would never abort unless I was going to die.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Here's some advice for you all:
STOP ASSUMING YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME.
You look like a bunch of idiots. You just want to accuse me of something, anything. Well you can't.

reply from: Cecilia

Babe is a colloquialism for child.

reply from: yoda

Yes, but only by those actually use the profanity.
Anyway, what's good for the Lib is good for the FMan.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, but only by those actually use the profanity.
Anyway, what's good for the Lib is good for the FMan.
My mother does not use profanity, but she uses the word colorful to describe it. Same with both of my grandmothers. None of them use profanity but use the word colorful to describe it, so that's where I got it from. In fact, most people I know who describe language as "colorful" are very un-profane people themselves, mostly women who do not swear and do not like it.
Any other lies you'd like to spread?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Babe is a colloquialism for child.
I thought it was a colloquialism for baby, which these kids definitely aren't lol. That non-withstanding, it was the other half of that sentence of yours that offended me.

reply from: lukesmom

That's why that's not the word I used. I said f**k-tards.
As the mother of a child with learning and behavior disabilities, I would not want you near my child, much less teaching him after reading your use of "tards". You should be ashamed.
Whatever lady. I'm not ashamed. I never will be. In my opinion, 'tard and any words attached to the front of it does not mean "retard". I also consider "retard" an insult completely unattached to its medical terminology. It is still used in the medical world to describe mentally handicapped people.
It's kind of like b*tch and b*tch. You can say both. In one context it's extremely insulting but has nothing to do with dogs. In the other situation, it's a perfectly polite term for female dogs that no one even blinks at.
If you refuse to separate the two terms that's your choice. When I hear a british person say "hand me a f@g", I know they're not talking about a gay man. If I hear an american say "You're a f@g!" I get extremely pissed off.
So be offended about *****tard because it is an insult. Don't be offended because it has the second syllable of retard in it. I wasn't calling anyone a "mentally handicapped person", I was calling them "a stupid person who is mean and refuses to accept sane arguments".
OH, by the way, stupid and ignorant are also two different things. Stupid means you DO know better, you know the facts and/or how to behave, but you refuse to do so. Ignorant isn't an insult, and simply means you are without knowledge.
Liberal, as a medical professional, I can assure you retard is NOT a medical term to discribe people and is NEVER used as it is rude and has insulting conotations. I also have never heard or seen it used to discribe a condition either. Since that new movie came out, I am hearing "retard" and "tard" heard more and more, even by my kids and their friends. They think this language is "cool" and if a mentally challanged person is not in ear shot (they think) they don't consider this language as wrong. But it is. If someone in joking called another a "*****" or a "homo", the language police would jump big time. Why are these words not pc but now "retard" or "tard" is? Your use of the word was ment to be insulting and it was and is to a whole population of challanged people and their families.
Just a clarification and an educational moment.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Are you absolutely sure that "Mental Retardation" is not a medical term? I had a long hard argument with someone on another forum who assured me that it was indeed a real medical term. She is also a medical professional.
My use of the word was meant to be insulting, BUT devoid from any attachment to the mentally handicapped population of the world, which I have already explained quite thoroughly. Just like b*tch and b*tch.
Just a clarification and an educational moment.

reply from: lukesmom

I do understand your use was not intended to be insulting to the mentally challanged, but dispite this it still is. My biggest fear is someone will call my son this name. I am sure it is bound to happen sooner or later and it will break my heart and hurt him.
I have not heard "mental retardation" used as a medical term in some years. Many years ago I worked at a state facility for the mentally and physically challanged and in old records "mentally retarted or mental retardation" was used but in the 80's this term was replaced by "mentally challanged" or "mentally handicaped". I suppose there are a few areas that have not caught up to the rest of the US that still say mental retardation but I find that pretty hard to believe in this day and time. There is always the exception. I would be very offended if any healthcare worker or teacher would use mental retardation.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I just feel it is only an insult to them if you take it as such.
The woman I spoke with is also the pro-choicer who was for late-term abortions. She says the term is still in the books. So I don't know.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I am talking about its use today. I definitely know it was a term in the past.

reply from: lukesmom

I just feel it is only an insult to them if you take it as such.
Do you take the term proabort as an insult? Same thing. OK?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I am talking about its use today. I definitely know it was a term in the past.
Pejoration describes its use now.
Then why do I know modern medical professionals using it?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I just feel it is only an insult to them if you take it as such.
Do you take the term proabort as an insult? Same thing. OK?
At least retard is a real word eh? Not one made up. And proabort is done in reference to pro-choice and in reference to the abortion debate.
Look, I understand the parallel you draw, I just don't think it's quite applicable. Plus, pro-lifers consider proabort offensive too, that's why they use it.
But when I said *****tard, I didn't say it to offend mentally handicapped people. Now if proabort were being to describe someone completely unrelated to the abortion debate then I could understand it more.

reply from: lukesmom

Your statement
By your statement, it doesn't matter if it is an accepted word or not or how it is used, "it is only an insult if you take it a such". So, yes, it is the same thing. You take proabort as an insult and I take retard or tard as an insult.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You guys persist in saying proabort, so I suppose I will persist in saying *****tard.

reply from: lukesmom

So be it but I hope, for your job's sake, none of your student's parents hear you. You would be out of a job.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't talk like that at school; who in their right mind would do THAT!? This is the internet; the limits of free speech are almost non existent.

reply from: lukesmom

If it is not acceptable at your school, it is not acceptable anywhere. It's called integrety. Whatever, I am beating a dead horse. I'm done.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You are, because if you use offensive terms just to be offensive, you cannot expect others to have "integrity" either.

reply from: yoda

Good for her, but too bad the apple fell quite a ways from the tree.
Everyone here has seen your profanity, I see no need to debate that.

reply from: yoda

I thought it was a colloquialism for baby, .
It can be either, just like "proabort" is a colloquialism for "proabortion".

reply from: yoda

"tard" is not a real word, but you used it anyway.
Nope, they don't. "They" consider it just a plain statement of fact. What prolifer have you ever heard say that?

reply from: yoda

Fine with me.
Go ahead and take your oversensitivity and anger about a harmless word out on perfectly innocent people with mental handicaps. That isn't surprising at all, really.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't consider profanity the sign of a terrible person, sorry. My dad can be profane, but he's one of my heroes.
I use the word retard in the same way people use b*tch. What does b*tch mean today? It means "an angry woman who was mean to me". It has absolutely NO connection to the word's actual meaning which is simply "a female dog". It's really become two completely different words, and that's how I view retard. To be entirely honest, for me, retard is just a stronger version of stupid, which again means "someone who knew better, could have made the right choice, and decided not to". Like if you jump off of a building and break your wrist. Or crash into a pole because you were doing donuts in the parking lot. When I call someone retarded - or more likely, a derivative of it - I am saying they were acting REALLY stupid. They defied all common sense and just did something so astoundingly stupid that I can't even think of what to say. I say idiot too, which of course used to mean someone who was mentally handicapped as well.
I don't have oversensitiveity, I'm not "taking anything out" on anyone. I'm saying a word that I feel has absolutely no connection to its original meaning, and THAT'S IT. You are the one being over sensitive in my opinion.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

"tard" is not a real word, but you used it anyway.
I don't actually say 'tard all by itself. I attach something to it. Like my personal invention, retardicated. Or *****tard. None of which are real words. But lukesmom was complaining about the word "retard", not 'tard.
Nope, they don't. "They" consider it just a plain statement of fact. What prolifer have you ever heard say that?
You. You're changing your tune now, but I know you use it just because it annoys pro-choicers. I know this because pro-choicers only use anti-choice and anti-woman to annoy pro-lifers.

reply from: yoda

I have to disagree.
Although I'm usually the one who is NOT politically correct, in this case I do recognize the negativity attached to the word "retard". It's very much the same as that attached to the words "dunce", "dumbass", etc. It's simply not a nice thing to say, or a nice word to use.
And every time you use it, you are taking your anger out on the mentally challenged. And they haven't done anything to you.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I thought it was a colloquialism for baby, .
It can be either, just like "proabort" is a colloquialism for "proabortion".
No, proabort is a contraction of pro-abortion.

reply from: yoda

You. You're changing your tune now, but I know you use it just because it annoys pro-choicers. I know this because pro-choicers only use anti-choice and anti-woman to annoy pro-lifers.
I have NEVER, EVER said that I consider "proabort" to be offensive. If you claim I have, you're lying.
And as a mind reader, you really, really suck.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Good for her, but too bad the apple fell quite a ways from the tree.
Everyone here has seen your profanity, I see no need to debate that.
I don't see a need to debate it either; everyone on here has seen yours, too. In fact, most of us have sworn on here. Which is why I cannot understand what the big deal it.
Lukes mom just wants to be offended. She could choose not to be, she could choose to actually realise that I am not insulting her son or my students or any other mentally handicapped person. But she is CHOOSING to be offended because it lets her post angry and mean things about me, and that feels good.

reply from: yoda

No, proabort is a contraction of pro-abortion.
And the hyphen is supposed to make a difference? Actually, I can find it without the hyphen in many dictionaries, but not with the hyphen.
Besides, as I said, as a mind reader, you really, really suck.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You. You're changing your tune now, but I know you use it just because it annoys pro-choicers. I know this because pro-choicers only use anti-choice and anti-woman to annoy pro-lifers.
I have NEVER, EVER said that I consider "proabort" to be offensive. If you claim I have, you're lying.
And as a mind reader, you really, really suck.
According to lukesmom, you SHOULD consider it offensive and you should stop saying it right now.

reply from: yoda

If you're honest you'll admit that mine is much, much more rare then yours.
But the reason I'm bringing it up is that you and vexing seem to get a free pass on your profanity and personal attacks, while many proaborts and some prolifers always jump on the FMan for doing exactly the same thing.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You can disagree all you want, you're still wrong. Also, dumbass is a hilarious word. It's not supposed to be a nice word, because if someone is being a dumbass they don't deserve to be called a nice name.
No, I'm not taking my anger out on mentally handicapped people because I do not see the word attached to them in any way shape or form, just like b*tch and b*tch are not connected these days.

reply from: yoda

Then that's the thing for her to do. I disagree.

reply from: yoda

Then you're living in a dream world, not reality.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If you're honest you'll admit that mine is much, much more rare then yours.
So the heck what? A sin is a sin. One swear word or fifty, you are still guilty.
I don't exactly know why you're the only person that gets their panties in a wad about this. I think we should all get a free pass. I think the reason FMan may not get the free pass is due to the REAL nature of his profanity, unlike the fake nature you're trying to attach to mine. I honestly don't remember what FMan said anymore and I think I have him on ignore so I don't really care.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What does this post mean? You think lukesmom should get all angry for no reason at all?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Then you're living in a dream world, not reality.
It's just like c*nt is being used heavily by the feminist community these days, or how fag/faggot is being used by the gay community, or even n*gger by the black community. These words are being taken and removed from their offensive natures. If retard is no longer a medical term as many of you are claiming, then it no longer has a literal reference attached to it, thus it is free to be redefined.
You ask anyone I know if, when they say retard, they mean "mentally handicapped person". They'll look at you funny and say "no, I meant the person was being really stupid".
PS: I think it's a statement to the admin of this forum that it does not edit faggot, which most people consider very offensive. But they're just gay people so they don't matter.

reply from: yoda

"Fake nature"? Your "colorful" profanity is "fake" too?
My goodness, that sound even worse, if anything! You ought to at least be "genuine" when you use profanity!!

reply from: yoda

Then that's the thing for her to do. I disagree.
What does this post mean?

reply from: yoda

Wow..... you're trying to say that all those should be "acceptable" now?
No wonder you curse like a sailor sometimes.....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Wow..... you're trying to say that all those should be "acceptable" now?
No wonder you curse like a sailor sometimes.....
You're just being stupid now.
I'm not personally saying those words should be acceptable, but many people do feel they should be. Do you think those people are wrong? I think you need to actually talk to some of these people to understand where they (and I) am coming from in relation to swear words.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Then that's the thing for her to do. I disagree.
What does this post mean?
You haven't answered my question. What did your post mean? "That's the thing for her do to?" What thing? What do you disagree with?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

"Fake nature"? Your "colorful" profanity is "fake" too?
My goodness, that sound even worse, if anything! You ought to at least be "genuine" when you use profanity!!
No, my profanity is anything but fake. However, YOUR insistence that it is related to mentally handicapped children IS fake. I am genuinely calling whoever it was a *****tard. I am NOT relating that to mentally handicapped people. Your insistence that I am is what is a lie; fake.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

The newest politically-correct term for someone who has diminished mental capabilities is "intellectually challenged." Decades ago, I remember one of the terms being "sped", short for "special education."
Here is a nice explanation of the "old" terms which are no longer used, as well as an explanation of the term "mental retardation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation

"The term "mental retardation" is a diagnostic term designed to capture and standardize a group of disconnected categories of mental functioning such as "idiot", "imbecile", and "moron" derived from early IQ tests, which acquired pejorative connotations in popular discourse over time. The term "mental retardation" has itself now acquired some pejorative and shameful connotations over the last few decades due to the use of "retarded" as an insult among younger people. This may in turn have contributed to its replacement with expressions such as "mentally challenged" or "intellectual disability"."

reply from: lukesmom

Good for her, but too bad the apple fell quite a ways from the tree.
Everyone here has seen your profanity, I see no need to debate that.
I don't see a need to debate it either; everyone on here has seen yours, too. In fact, most of us have sworn on here. Which is why I cannot understand what the big deal it.
Lukes mom just wants to be offended. She could choose not to be, she could choose to actually realise that I am not insulting her son or my students or any other mentally handicapped person. But she is CHOOSING to be offended because it lets her post angry and mean things about me, and that feels good.
What angry and mean thing have I posted about you???? To my knowlege the one time I did get angry was when pinheaddy called my anencephalic son and others like him "alien mutant messes". I keep getting accused of angry posts by angry proaborts (just a word ya know, if you "choose" to be offended, that's your problem; per you) when in fact I am usually giggling at how easy it is to rile them. I would really life to see what posts are considered angry and where I posted mean things about you.

reply from: lukesmom

Oh really? Let me refresh your memory then.
http://prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=4558&STARTPAGE=3&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

Click here:
DOOMED FETAL DISASTERS
Click through the index and you can view one hideous mutant after another.
Why would you force any woman to carry one of these messes to term - much less endure labor and delivery - just to watch it die?
A lot of women would just put an end to the pregnancy, get healthy and sound, and start over. Why would you deny them that option?
-------------------------
Moral indignation is envy with a halo - HG Wells

reply from: yoda

Sorry, typo..... my post meant that if lukesmom feels that way, then she should act that way. I personally do not consider it offensive, so I don't plan to stop using it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Sorry, typo..... my post meant that if lukesmom feels that way, then she should act that way. I personally do not consider it offensive, so I don't plan to stop using it.
'Kay, so we can both agree to use terms that others consider offensive, or we can both agree to stop. But my point is, I don't consider retard offensive for the same reasons you or lukesmom do. And you don't consider proabort offensive at all, yet I do. So we are at an impass. Either we decide to use proper and polite terms, or we agree to use whatever words we want.
Since I'm pretty sure you'll never agree to stop using proabort (although you could surprise me) I see no point in me stopping my use of the word *****tard. You have your reasons, and while I disagree with them, I can come to the compromise that these words must either ALL be against the rules, or ALL must be acceptable.
On another note, if you feel Lukesmom has the right to be offended (even incorrectly) by my use of the word *****tard and thus act in an angry way, then do you feel I have the same exact right to be offended (even incorrectly) by your use of the word proabort and thus have the right to act in an angry way?
I'm all for fairness. I will do my honest best to not use words that other people may find offensive, but ONLY if you do the same. Just because I don't find *****tard to be an insult to the mentally handicapped clearly doesn't mean Lukesmom feels the same way. Just because YOU do not find proabort to be offensive clearly doesn't mean I feel the same way.
If you stop being offensive, I will stop being offensive. If you remember when I first came to the forums, I was actually extremely polite and cordial. After weeks of facing the verbal abuses of some of the posters, I retaliated, and suddenly I'm the villain. So let's get the ticket straight: certain people on here are the ones who started my mouth a'flapping. I always could, I just chose not to initially. I am more than HAPPY to go back to being polite; I think it's a healthier environment to debate in and personally, I don't like being called bad names so I can understand why other people don't like being called names.
Are we going to commit to this? Can YOU commit to this? It's easy for me to stop. I won't call anyone else a *****tard, or any deviation of the word. I will attempt to not call anyone stupid (or derivatives), directly or indirectly (aka "your idea is stupid" or "you are stupid"). I won't attack spelling or punctuation (I realise it's REALLY annoying to the victim). Etc, etc. From you though, the biggest thing I would want in return would be your abstinence from the term proabortion/proabort and any derivatives of it. I find it highly offensive, just like lukesmom finds *****tard to be offensive.
That's my two cents.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Good for her, but too bad the apple fell quite a ways from the tree.
Everyone here has seen your profanity, I see no need to debate that.
I don't see a need to debate it either; everyone on here has seen yours, too. In fact, most of us have sworn on here. Which is why I cannot understand what the big deal it.
Lukes mom just wants to be offended. She could choose not to be, she could choose to actually realise that I am not insulting her son or my students or any other mentally handicapped person. But she is CHOOSING to be offended because it lets her post angry and mean things about me, and that feels good.
What angry and mean thing have I posted about you???? To my knowlege the one time I did get angry was when pinheaddy called my anencephalic son and others like him "alien mutant messes". I keep getting accused of angry posts by angry proaborts (just a word ya know, if you "choose" to be offended, that's your problem; per you) when in fact I am usually giggling at how easy it is to rile them. I would really life to see what posts are considered angry and where I posted mean things about you.
I found all of the comments where you said you didn't want me near your child and that I should not be teaching any special needs students to be very mean.

reply from: yoda

There are no rules here about "offensive" words, so I choose the latter. Use whatever you like, whenever you like.
No one has a "right to be offended". But if someone is offended, and decides not to use a particular word because of that, then I think that's fine.
The word "retard" doesn't offend me, but I'm sure it offends people who have "mentally challenged" family members.
IMO, you over-retaliated. You went from biting your tongue to giving everyone a tongue-lashing, from one extreme to the other.
Glad we had this discussion.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yeah, except that we didn't solve anything. You're still going to get away with calling me a horrible person, and you're going to get away with calling people proabort. I lose both ways. That's not fair.

reply from: yoda

I don't recall calling you a horrible person, and the term proabortion most certainly doesn't mean that.
If, that is, you actually respect the academic integrity of dictionaries....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I consider proabort to mean just that, so yes, you are calling me a horrible person. You also think I'm terrible for using the word retard. So yes, you have indeed called me a terrible person. Proabortion isn't in a REAL dictionary. I can't pick up a printed copy of Webster's and find it. It's a word you made up, and I am offended by it.
Again, you said that Lukesmom had the right to act the way she was acting over the use of the word retard. I am simply doing the same thing over the word proabort.

reply from: lukesmom

Good for her, but too bad the apple fell quite a ways from the tree.
Everyone here has seen your profanity, I see no need to debate that.
I don't see a need to debate it either; everyone on here has seen yours, too. In fact, most of us have sworn on here. Which is why I cannot understand what the big deal it.
Lukes mom just wants to be offended. She could choose not to be, she could choose to actually realise that I am not insulting her son or my students or any other mentally handicapped person. But she is CHOOSING to be offended because it lets her post angry and mean things about me, and that feels good.
What angry and mean thing have I posted about you???? To my knowlege the one time I did get angry was when pinheaddy called my anencephalic son and others like him "alien mutant messes". I keep getting accused of angry posts by angry proaborts (just a word ya know, if you "choose" to be offended, that's your problem; per you) when in fact I am usually giggling at how easy it is to rile them. I would really life to see what posts are considered angry and where I posted mean things about you.
I found all of the comments where you said you didn't want me near your child and that I should not be teaching any special needs students to be very mean.
I don't want ANYONE who uses that word near my son period. I know you see no problem with that word same as I see no problem with the word that bothers you. To me that word has a picture with it and it is a picture of my learning disabled son who tonight spent 2&1/2 hours doing 3/4 of a paper it takes other kids 15 mins to finish. To see his frustration and finally just putting his head on the table and giving up. He wanted to be at football practice but couldn't because he knew his teacher had to have this by tomorrow. I'm sorry writing this all down here to you. You don't have kids, much less a special ed kid. You and no one else but other parents understand the pain seeing their struggle brings. My son is the most couragous person I know and he always keeps on trying, every single day... Oh well. Tomorrow is another day, another hope.
What I want you to understand is parents of a special needs child want them respected and treated with dignity and the use of that word does not bring feelings of respect and dignity.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

But you don't get it, and neither does Yoda. I CAN see a problem with using the word retard, even if the ONLY problem is the fact that it offends you. That's enough for me, that's enough reason for me to NOT use it. But I refuse to be polite all by myself. I wanted ONE concession from Yoda, for all I offered.
Lukesmom, YOU act like you have no idea what I go through every single day in half of your post. But you do, in the other half. So which is it? Am I a clueless idiot or not? You know the frustration I face when Lee is screaming on the floor and I don't know why. I rub his back and try to distract him with books (he likes to stand them up on the ground and walk around looking at them, I don't know why), or maybe a cold teething toy from the refrigerator. You know the frustration I feel when Evan hits me because he doesn't want to eat at lunch, and then shrieks when I say "No" and push down his arms. He was licking people today, we don't know why. He can't talk.
So I'm sorry that half the time you seem to think I'm a callous idiot who has no clue what your life is like. But I do. My hope is that you'll get it through your head what I'm ACTUALLY saying. What I want YOU to understand is that I'm perfectly willing to NOT SAY WORDS THAT OFFEND YOU, but that I expect that same respect back - I DESERVE that same respect just as you deserve it. But I refuse to give respect if I'm not going to get any back, and Yoda has made it extremely clear that he does not and will not respect me, not even enough to just abstain from saying one word: proabort. What I want you to understand is that I DO respect these students because I feel the word retard is disconnected from them; but if it bothers you, I will not say that word because I RESPECT YOU.
I don't consider retard offensive, but you do, so I will not say it.
Yoda doesn't consider proabort offensive, but I do, so he... gets to keep saying it? How is that fair? IT'S NOT.

reply from: lukesmom

I am not using that word to you if it offends you. I don't use it to offend anyone and I get you don't use your word to offend either. I do get what you do but you get to go home and leave that child and his problems. His parents NEVER get that luxury. You don't have to worry about that child beyond how he is going to act while you have him. His parents have to not only worry about that but how he is going to act for his entire life. I deal with teachers every day and everyday I try to educate them that what they see is a tiny part of this person. Parents see the whole person. I wish my son's teachers could see him as a whole person and not a learning disability. Good Lord...rambling again. Sorry

reply from: Cecilia

This thread is utterly juvenile. Proabort is not offensive, it is an accurate description. Arguing if any inclusion of "tard" in an insult is appropriate is absolutely juvenile.
You have no idea what other's lives are like. How presumptuous.

reply from: yoda

Sure, you could also "believe" that the word proabort means saintly, courageous, kind, reverent, or loyal. You can believe anything you want, no one can stop you. But really, who cares?
???? You think online dictionaries aren't "real" dictionaries???
IF there is a distinction between the printed version and the online version, it's because the online versions are UPDATED DAILY, whereas the printed ones are only updated every couple years or so.
I've seen some pretty irrational stuff here from you, but that just about takes the cake........ weird!! Are you really that desperate to have something to back up your opinion? That's just bizarre!!

reply from: yoda

It is rather whinny, isn't it?
How on earth can anyone adamantly and aggressively support abortion, and then recoil at the very mention of the word when used to describe their position?
It's just bizarre......

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You have no idea what other's lives are like. How presumptuous.
You have no idea what we're talking about. Secondly, I know a lot about other people's lives simply by LIVING myself. I am female; I can relate to many females on certain issues such as bleeding every month. I am a teacher, I can relate to other teachers and their struggles. I care for special needs children, thus I can relate to people who care for these children. There are a lot of things that you can relate to other people on. So yes, I DO have an idea of what Lukesmom's life is like. Do I have the whole picture? Hell no. But that doesn't mean I'm totally clueless either.


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