Home - List All Discussions

A question for prochoicers

If "choice" is about supporting "all the choices"......

by: yoda

Where are all the prochoice materity homes for unwed pregnant women?

Where are all the prochoice organizations to help poor women with prenatal care?

Where are all the prochoice adoption agencies?

Why is all the prochoice effort directed towards abortion?

reply from: ChristianLott

AHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry.

reply from: YodeMan

Yes, it is about ALL the choices, at least for me. That is what "choice" means. If some believe otherwise, that's for them to decide. But just because a single person or organization will place their focus on one or two aspects of the issue ... well, that doesn't generally mean anything.

If it did, I could say the same to you: Where are all those things in the pro-life movement?? Why is all your concern focused on the fetus? What about mommy, you know, the one some of your kind refer to as 'whore'? What about the infant, baby, child, teen-ager, you know, the one some of your kind call 'bastard'? Why does it seem you all care so much about a fetus, but once it is born, both mother and child are on their own??

I think that maybe if both sides came together and focused more on the problems that lead to having to make that choice, I mean the real problems of poverty, education, shame, etc., and our general attitudes toward other people, maybe we would see a change and the abortion rate would drop because we just don't need it anymore. But no, we can't have any of that, because we're all just murderers and satan-worshippers in your eyes.

Next time you ask a question, take a look in the mirror first, and then make sure you ask a serious question.

reply from: Amy

Wow...now you want to tell anyone where you came up with any of that whining? I have yet to read anyone in this forum say the things you've just rambled on about. Even remotely so. So chill out skippy and take a few breaths in and out slowly.

You cannot escape the fact that to the VAST majority of people who are pro-abortion choice means one thing...the right to abort. What it means to you is just peachy but that is not what the abortion community is selling. And if it really was about the woman having a choice they wouldn't try and talk a woman in to having an abortion the minute she walks in to a PP office...or as Bob says...won't let her change her mind at any time before the actual procedure.

I quite honestly don't think you really want anyone to come to compromise, if there were one. You want people to just find it in their hearts to accept abortion....that's simply not going to happen. It is not inherent that if someone struggles they have to choose to murder their child...the best things sometimes come from struggle.

You really need to understand that people who are against abortion are just that...against it...there is no room for compromise on that issue. You want social compromises? Well you've got welfare, medical aid, pell grants for displaced homemakers, free housing, work-study programs, free day care, dental care, counseling programs, food stamps, shelters, etc Ummm...what's next...a free car for anyone not willing to abort their own child? Do you think that would do it?

reply from: YodeMan

You talk about me? With the kind of garbage you and some others here spew out? Like what you just wrote! And where the hell did welfare come from? And the compromise thing, well that is exactly your problem. You're right and we're all wrong. We're evil, you are God's special chosen one. Black and white, nice and simple. Well goody for you. But guess what, your attitude proves that this place isn't for you. The board owner made that clear. We've settled that. But don't lose heart, there are plenty of places on the internet full of people who would adore you, so please, go and find a new home, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out!

But make sure you get this straight: You're position may be quite simple and clear, but you don't know me even a tenth as well as you think you do. You don't know what I believe about much of anything, never bothered to ask, and you don't have a very good grasp of my take on abortion either. This place obviously has zero moderation, except when the pro-lifers want to ban someone for using naughty words, and also seems to have only 10% adults. This whole thread is just another example of you people starting something just to play some childish game or have a big pro-life group hug. And I am calling you on it.

I responded to this thread in kind. I answered the question by pointing out that I could reverse it right back at you people. I see no problem with it. And I sure won't apologize for it.

In short: Back off, woman, and stuff that 'skippy' thing where the sun don't shine!

reply from: yoda

I realize that prochoicers don't speak with a single voice, but the self-contradictions are staggering. We constantly hear (from prochoicers) how prolifers are horrible people because the don't constantly talk about the other problems of the world, especially those concerned with children in need. The idea that we may be working quietly behind the scenes to help them is insufficent, the prochoicers demand that we keep up a constant chatter about them on forums dedicated to abortion. And now you're telling me that doesn't apply to prochoicers? Hmmm.......

And what about this word "focus" that you use? Prochoice dogma states that prochoicers support equally all choices that a pregnant woman may make, and for that reason reject the term "proabortion" (which actually means to support the legality of abortion). So if you support all "choices" equally, why focus on just one..... the one which you reject so vehemently as a label?

Right out in front for all but the blind to see. Prolifers run crisis pregnancy centers, homes for unwed mothers, adoption agencies, and even embryo adoption agencies. Prochoicers only support the act of abortion, they show no interest in any other "choice".

When are you going to start?

reply from: yoda

You can't read the title of this forum? You don't know this is a "Prolife" forum?

reply from: Allizdog2000

Why can't Bobinsky answer your question, Yodavater? Where is American Pie and Dmourning?

reply from: Skippy

You can't read the title of this forum? You don't know this is a "Prolife" forum?

From the main page of the site:

So no, this is not a pro-life forum. It is an abortion debate forum that is part of a pro-life site.

Just thought I'd point that out.

reply from: ChristianLott

Ap got dumped. Bobo is in an important ACLU meeting right now trying to find out who this Mark Crutcher guy is and Dmourning is 'D' -evestated.

reply from: sarah

This place most certainly is for PRO-LIFERS....it's a, now get his....A PRO-LIFE FORUM. The owner is PRO-LIFE, imagine that.

So, if anyone needs to go looking for a new home, it's obvious who it should be. Got a mirror handy?

Well, thanks for "calling us on it"....but, there are no "games" being played, unless you think it's that one where the children's lives are at stake. You can call this a "game" if you wish, but we take those lives that are being slaughtered on the alter of convience a might more serious. And if you are going to skew something someone says and characterize it as a "pro-life hug" that says to me, you are the one who is definatley in the wrong place. "So, don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya." You wouldn't be missed. Whereas Amy's voice would most certainly be.

reply from: Skippy

It is, isn't it? Anyone who has a problem with the fact that the owner of a pro-life site would welcome differing viewpoints on his debate forum might be much more comfortable elsewhere.

You DO know that without all sides participating, it's not a debate, right? Where I come from we call it a... Never mind.

reply from: sarah

It is, isn't it? Anyone who has a problem with the fact that the owner of a pro-life site would welcome differing viewpoints on his debate forum might be much more comfortable elsewhere.

You DO know that without all sides participating, it's not a debate, right? Where I come from we call it a... Never mind.

Nobody says all view points aren't welcomed. I was merely responding to Yodeman who told Amy to find another forum.

reply from: Skippy

Codswallop. Your good buddy christianlott said "proaborts" are not welcome anywhere on the planet, let alone here. When it was pointed out to him that the site owner intends this to be a debate forum, he said the site owner can go to hell.

reply from: sarah

Codswallop. Your good buddy christianlott said "proaborts" are not welcome anywhere on the planet, let alone here. When it was pointed out to him that the site owner intends this to be a debate forum, he said the site owner can go to hell.

Well, why don't you take that up with CL? He's entitled to his own opinion. Or are you going to paint us all the the same broad brush? If that's the case, then I can presume you are for the woman being able to murder her child up to 24hrs after a 9 month gestation and a live healthy birth. After all, one of your "buddies" here has said that.

reply from: ChristianLott

Just like Bobinsky, Skippy is afraid to talk to me.

I don't know what it is Sarah. Am I abrasive?

reply from: Skippy

Codswallop. Your good buddy christianlott said "proaborts" are not welcome anywhere on the planet, let alone here. When it was pointed out to him that the site owner intends this to be a debate forum, he said the site owner can go to hell.

Well, why don't you take that up with CL? He's entitled to his own opinion. Or are you going to paint us all the the same broad brush? If that's the case, then I can presume you are for the woman being able to murder her child up to 24hrs after a 9 month gestation and a live healthy birth. After all, one of your "buddies" here has said that.

Let me go slowly.

YOU made the statement - "Nobody says all view points aren't welcomed."

I demonstrated that someone had INDEED said exactly that. In other words, I pointed out that your statement was false.

I have nothing to "take up" with christianlott. He isn't the one who made a false statement about what NOBODY says.

Analogously, if I said "Nobody says a woman should be allowed an abortion throughout her pregnancy for any reason", that, too, would be a false statement. That's why I'd never say it.

reply from: ChristianLott

Logic is good, Skippy.

Can you apply it toward abortion?

reply from: Amy

Thin skinned are you?

" You talk about me?"

Yes well, you're the one who made the post and I would assume was looking for a response...no? Sheesh, if you're going to near tank every time someone disagrees with you this is a rather odd forum to be in.

"With the kind of garbage you and some others here spew out?"

What garbage would that be exactly Yodeman? Just another broad whine or are you going to give an example?

"And where the hell did welfare come from?"

Well, historically minor community centers helped those in need...the majority of all welfare came from religious houses of worship. The federal welfare program, we learned in history class, became law in the mid 30's due to the crash of 29. I remember my Nana telling us how terrible it was how many people were jumping from buildings and the like due to the crash. In any case, welfare sure the hell wasn't from the benevolence of any pro-abortionist organization. Of course that means the taxpayer is where welfare comes from directly...even *gasp* the evil pro-Life taxpayers.

"And the compromise thing, well that is exactly your problem. You're right and we're all wrong. We're evil, you are God's special chosen one."

So I am not willing to compromise on the aborting of innocent children and that's my problem? Ok...then it's my problem. And yours would be? That you are not willing to compromise to not rip tiny children to shreds? Ok...you keep that one.

Hmmm...that's how I feel, what I support, and how I vote. It's certainly right for me and mine...and for the lives of babies who are being heinously murdered. But guess what? Now don't faint or anything...but you don't have to agree with me. That still will not change how I feel, what I support, nor how I vote. It also won't stop me from talking against the barbaric practice of abortion and the criminal use of women for political gain and control. K?

I never said you were evil...are you? You'd be able to determine that better than I. I am no more special than any other child of God...but in that I am special...yes. Hmmm...'chosen one' huh? We all have our tasks in life...sometimes they change along the way depending on the choices we make...at least that's what I believe. So I guess we're all chosen for some thing or another.

You know...I bet you meant all that as some kind of insult. I like my take on it better. You're welcome...I don't mind helping you sound nicer.

"Black and white, nice and simple. Goody for you. But guess what, your attitude proves that this place isn't for you. The board owner made that clear. We've settled that. But don't lose heart, there are plenty of places on the internet full of people who would adore you, so please, go and find a new home, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out!"

Wow, buddy...you sound a mite perturbed.

There most certainly is black and white and all shades in between. Everyone determines their absolutes in life based on a myriad of things...their black and whites if you will. One of mine is abortion...there is NO room for compromise on the procedure of abortion. You're not going to change my mind...nor many other peoples...hence the debate on this topic for many many years. Are you following along here? You were calling for compromise on an issue where there is NO room for one. Just in case you want to have a go at having Christians/Jews/Buddist/etc compromise on their faith...I don't think you'll get very far on that one either.

Per my leaving...I didn't get the memo. So I will be staying and thanks for your, I am sure, well-intended welcome.

"But make sure you get this straight: You're position may be quite simple and clear, but you don't know me even a tenth as well as you think you do. You don't know what I believe about much of anything, never bothered to ask, and you don't have a very good grasp of my take on abortion either."

No...I didn't want your social security number or your favorite color either. I was responding to your post.

"This place obviously has zero moderation, except when the pro-lifers want to ban someone for using naughty words, and also seems to have only 10% adults. This whole thread is just another example of you people starting something just to play some childish game or have a big pro-life group hug. And I am calling you on it."

I don't know anything about the moderator's...sorry can't help you. I have, however, read some very thoughtful posts here...so I think you're wrong about the other posters to an extreme. Although that does beg to ask...why do you continue to post here if you think so little of these people and what they have to say?

So what is the childish game? Calling a pro-abortionist (or enabler) on their silly spin? Hey that's part of debate or we're you absent that day in class?

Are you hurt because you didn't get in on the hug? You could have joined in...we hug 'evil' abortion enablers...of course we're hoping to rub off on you...but it's all good.

"I responded to this thread in kind. I answered the question by pointing out that I could reverse it right back at you people. I see no problem with it. And I sure won't apologize for it."

LOL...yeah we (I) made you all childish. Ok...well you did a fine job. Nope...no problem and no apology is necessary nor did I expect one in my wildest dreams. Although you might want to reconsider considering the whole trying to kick me out on my @ss...that just was not very nice at all.

"In short: Back off, woman, and stuff that 'skippy' thing where the sun don't shine!"

In short...no. And skippy is what we here call everyone who is all running around in circles...kind of an endearment for someone who is getting ahead of themselves. Since it appears we have a poster using that name I will refrain from using it in deference to them. Do you feel better now? Want that hug?

One last thing...how about answering any of my points. How about just "You want social compromises? Well you've got welfare, medical aid, pell grants for displaced homemakers, free housing, work-study programs, free day care, dental care, counseling programs, food stamps, shelters, etc Ummm...what's next...a free car for anyone not willing to abort their own child? Do you think that would do it?"

Thanks bunches.

reply from: Amy

You can't read the title of this forum? You don't know this is a "Prolife" forum?

From the main page of the site:

So no, this is not a pro-life forum. It is an abortion debate forum that is part of a pro-life site.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Skippy...I think more to the point...it is a discussion forum. I don't intend to debate anything on the matter of the abortion procedure. That's a clear-cut issue for me. One cannot have a hissy fit when someone doesn't agree with their presentation and then start whining about the other person believing they are the 'chosen' one because they have the gall to disagree. Well they can but other people may well giggle at them.

reply from: sarah

Just like Bobinsky, Skippy is afraid to talk to me.

I don't know what it is Sarah. Am I abrasive?

Nah, you're just hard core truth....and thems don't like that!

reply from: YodeMan

Amy, you have a very interesting style. One that I have encountered often in life. So much so that I respond very sharply. But I won't apologize for my response or let you further belittle me for it. You, from moment one, have displayed no desire for honest debate(or discussion or whatever you want to call it). You seem to excel at lowering others to raise yourself. In fact, you are among the better that I've encountered in this regard. People like you twist and generalize. They take the clear and straight-forward and convert it into a way to hurt other people and reinforce their own feeble arguments based more on personal needs than rational thought. You are not a nice person, contrary to appearances. You are a manipulative, self-centered, and cold person who honestly believes deep down that she is better than everyone else, regardless of your humble rhetoric which people like you find the need to use. I have watched you attack others in similar fashion since you have been here. I have witnessed it first hand. And I say enough. You will not get an answer from me because you are an arrogant, self-involved waste of time who has yet, like many here, to ask an honest question.

In short, again, back off!

reply from: Amy

Well Yodeman...I will take that as a negative response to being able to answer a simple question.

In regards to the rest of your paranoid rambling...I am completely mystified. Either I fiind a way to laugh and joke with those that support the murder of innocent babies...or I allow anger to be the response. I don't care for anger so I will continue to laugh at or with...makes no difference to me.

As I said before, God loves all his children...me no more than any other. Now if you want to see me as better than you, that's your challenge. Apparently this is a problem for you since you've encountered it so terribly often. Did you ever think, perhaps, that others don't think more of themselves they simply won't allow you to twist and play your games to make them question their own heart and mind? Again, that seems to be your problem...not mine. If you feel lowered by someone else's questioning your logic...I don't know what to tell you...maybe you need some personal time to get your center balance back. I don't want you to feel lower...I want you to know I don't buy that kind of twisted rhetoric seemingly to get me to think about 'the other side' only so you can try and force me to question my beliefs. And you know, I actually thought you might try and come up with an answer...but I guess I should have known better. Oh well...live and learn.

If I don't fall all over myself in the benevolence of your suggestion that we all find a compromise for something that holds NO...let me repeat...NO compromise...then you're going to try some kind of sophmorish psycho-analysis? Please...spare me....my sixteen year old could have done better.

Speaking of generalizations there Yodeman...I asked for one example of all these awful things you accuse me...and you generalize and throw the whole 'you people' in there. Do you even realize how disengenuous that makes the rest of your silly temper tantrum where everyone else's opinion is feeble-minded when not in accordance with yours?

For someone who was just going on and on about whether someone 'knows' you or not you seem to take painstaking assumption about who I am. tsk tsk. Simple psychology would only tell a student that you are actually self-analyzing. I found issue with your premise and presentation...you, apparently know whether I am cold, nice, honest, egotistical, etc. All that from internet posting huh? Amazing considering it takes quite a bit more than that for any trained professional to come to those kinds of conclusions. Besides, I still cuddle with my 18 yo, 16 yo and babies, hide my face in a pillow when watching Wizard of Oz (those monkeys creep me out), and wear fuzzy slippers...you just can't possibly be mean or cold when wearing fuzzy slippers for cryin out loud.

And again, I have no intention of being intimidated by you. This is not a hundred years ago and I will not be reduced to a simpering woman forced to sit staring down at my hands folded in my skirts. You don't still require a woman to walk ten paces behind you do you?

"In short, again, back off!"

Really Yodeman, you've GOT to be kidding.

Now that you've done all this skirting of the issue...are you going to answer the question?

With all the social programs...community, faith-based, federal and state programs...what exactly will it take to get pro-abortionists to stop advising women to kill their children? They are supported all over the place yet the reasons given by proabortionists on this forum and elsewhere is they are don't receive enough help. I believe I asked earlier if it was a nice new car...but I'll let you think it out on your own.

reply from: Tam

You can't read the title of this forum? You don't know this is a "Prolife" forum?

From the main page of the site:

So no, this is not a pro-life forum. It is an abortion debate forum that is part of a pro-life site.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Skippy...I think more to the point...it is a discussion forum. I don't intend to debate anything on the matter of the abortion procedure. That's a clear-cut issue for me. One cannot have a hissy fit when someone doesn't agree with their presentation and then start whining about the other person believing they are the 'chosen' one because they have the gall to disagree. Well they can but other people may well giggle at them.

Yes, I think it's a debate and discussion forum. Sometimes there's a fine line between the two, sometimes not. Yes, everyone is welcome to participate. Yes, Mark set this forum up for that purpose. But let's all remember that Mark is the head of LDI, and LDI's motto is:

Pro-Life
Without Compromise
Without Exception
Without Apology

So I rather think anyone with that viewpoint is welcome here, wouldn't you say? It seems to me that Amy is quite welcome here.

reply from: yoda

And this has WHAT to do with abortion??????? (And I picked a the mildest one!)

Ans: NOTHING, this has EVERYTHING to do with diverting and distracting us away from talking about abortion!!

Chalk up one for the PROABORTS, they CHANGED THE SUBJECT AWAY FROM ABORTION again!!

reply from: yoda

Right, Skippy. So I guess that eliminates the possibility of some proabort whinning about favoritism towards the prolifers here, right? We need not worry about that, right?

reply from: Skippy

Right, Skippy. So I guess that eliminates the possibility of some proabort whinning about favoritism towards the prolifers here, right? We need not worry about that, right?
I suppose you need to worry about whatever you think is important. If favoritism on an internet forum is amongst those priorities, then yes, you should worry. If not, then you oughtn't to fret.

reply from: yoda

Well, AT LEAST no whinning will come from YOU, right?

reply from: Tam

Right, Skippy. So I guess that eliminates the possibility of some proabort whinning about favoritism towards the prolifers here, right? We need not worry about that, right?
I suppose you need to worry about whatever you think is important. If favoritism on an internet forum is amongst those priorities, then yes, you should worry. If not, then you oughtn't to fret.

What are you on about, Skippy? What favoritism is being shown, in your opinion, on this forum? I mean, I am open about who are MY favorite posters, but it's not MY forum. I haven't noticed any such remarks from Terry, the moderator. As for Mark--he doesn't post here, so he's hardly favoring anyone in his nonexistent posts. So what, precisely, is the favoritism of which you speak? I don't see what you're talking about.

reply from: Skippy

Right, Skippy. So I guess that eliminates the possibility of some proabort whinning about favoritism towards the prolifers here, right? We need not worry about that, right?
I suppose you need to worry about whatever you think is important. If favoritism on an internet forum is amongst those priorities, then yes, you should worry. If not, then you oughtn't to fret.

What are you on about, Skippy? What favoritism is being shown, in your opinion, on this forum? I mean, I am open about who are MY favorite posters, but it's not MY forum. I haven't noticed any such remarks from Terry, the moderator. As for Mark--he doesn't post here, so he's hardly favoring anyone in his nonexistent posts. So what, precisely, is the favoritism of which you speak? I don't see what you're talking about.

You people are very funny.

Yodavater asked if he (actually, I believe he intended to speak for all the Hatfields because he said 'We') needed to worry about cries of favoritism from the McCoys. I responded by saying that if favoritism on internet forums is important to him, then he should worry, and if it wasn't, he shouldn't.

Read the exchange very carefully, now. I didn't say there was any favoritism going on. I merely pointed out that if the subject caused him concern, he should worry, and if not, he shouldn't.

reply from: yoda

That's GREAT, Skippy! YOU certainly aren't worried about favoritism, are you?

reply from: Skippy

That's correct. It matters not to me whether the rules are applied selectively, uniformly, or not at all. If it did, I wouldn't post here.

reply from: bobinsky

That's correct. It matters not to me whether the rules are applied selectively, uniformly, or not at all. If it did, I wouldn't post here.

Skippy, if I may add my two cents worth, I also find the mod to be fair and mostly impartial I wouldn't want his/her job for all the tea in China. I think Terry's a he, and he is pro-life, and some of his feelings toward the subject could creep into his feelings for the things being discussed here. But whenever I've had a question for him, he has answered promptly, fairly and honestly. If you feel there's some unfairness somewhere here, don't bother with the posters themselves. Go to Terry and discuss it with him and he'll give you some good advice.
He's given me some excellent advice - see your PM's.

reply from: Tam

Right, Skippy. So I guess that eliminates the possibility of some proabort whinning about favoritism towards the prolifers here, right? We need not worry about that, right?
I suppose you need to worry about whatever you think is important. If favoritism on an internet forum is amongst those priorities, then yes, you should worry. If not, then you oughtn't to fret.

What are you on about, Skippy? What favoritism is being shown, in your opinion, on this forum? I mean, I am open about who are MY favorite posters, but it's not MY forum. I haven't noticed any such remarks from Terry, the moderator. As for Mark--he doesn't post here, so he's hardly favoring anyone in his nonexistent posts. So what, precisely, is the favoritism of which you speak? I don't see what you're talking about.

You people are very funny.

Yodavater asked if he (actually, I believe he intended to speak for all the Hatfields because he said 'We') needed to worry about cries of favoritism from the McCoys. I responded by saying that if favoritism on internet forums is important to him, then he should worry, and if it wasn't, he shouldn't.

Read the exchange very carefully, now. I didn't say there was any favoritism going on. I merely pointed out that if the subject caused him concern, he should worry, and if not, he shouldn't.

Skippy, do you understand how logic works?

Premise 1: If A, then B.
Premise 2:
Conclusion: B

What is the missing premise? I'll give you one guess. YES! You got it! It's "A". In other words, in case this isn't getting through to you, let's put this a different way.

Person 1: How's the crime in this neighborhood?
Person 2: Well, if crime is something you're concerned about, you should worry.

Person 1: Let's eat at the restaurant across the street!
Person 2: Well, if botulism is something that's important to you, you should worry.

Person 1: I'm thinking about getting an account with that bank on the corner.
Person 2: Well, if financial solvency is among your priorities, you should worry.

Are you getting the picture? The fact that yoda used the word "favoritism" meant you had two options. You could have said, "I don't mean favoritism, I mean [whatever the heck you mean]." Instead, you said, If favoritism is important to you, you should worry. That doesn't imply that there ISN'T favoritism, it implies that there IS. Now you want to say, "I never said there was!" Look--I don't care what you said or how you said it except to figure out what you mean. So I think you said it, you think you didn't, who cares? The point is: do you think there is favoritism on this board or not? That's all I'd like you to clarify, if you would.

reply from: megan

That's correct. It matters not to me whether the rules are applied selectively, uniformly, or not at all. If it did, I wouldn't post here.

Hey Skippy I agree with Tam that it sure seems like you are saying there's favoritism in how the rules are applied--when you say if it mattered to you, you wouldn't post here, that makes it seem like you are saying the rules are applied in a way that, if how rules were applied mattered to you, would make you leave because it's unfair. Do you really think that? If so, why? Just asking.

Thanks,
Meg

reply from: Skippy

I think all you nice Hatfields are hollering "Fire!" when there isn't even any smoke. Yodavater asked TWICE whether he should worry about claims of unfair moderating from me, and I told him the same thing both times: Worry about whatever the hell you want to. I didn't add that worrying about what someone thinks of the moderating is, in my opinion, downright stupid. But I'll go ahead and add that now.

To elaborate on my statement that if I was worried about the quality of moderation, I wouldn't post here: There's roughly a gazillion message boards on the internet. The only one where I can know for sure that I'll be treated completely fairly is my own. With the rest of them, it's a crap-shoot. So if I cared how the rules are applied, I'd post nowhere but on my own board.

Got it?

reply from: flickad

The term Pro-Choice relates only to a position with regard to legal and available abortion. That is what WE are fighting for, despite the fact that, of course, we support whatever option the individual pregnant woman might feel is right for her. Women wishing to adopt or carry to term may find support at a variety of agencies. Being pro-choice is to fight for a woman to always have the OPTION of a safe, legal abortion should she wish to terminate a pregnancy. It is purely an ABORTION movement. Believing in the free availability of a variety of options for pregnant women does not mean that we must have a finger in every pie just to prove it.

And anyway, it's not as if anyone is trying to retract the legal right to adopt out one's child or to birth a live baby, are they? Now the legality and availability of that other choice, abortion? That's constantly under threat thanks to the efforts of people like yourselves who see forced gestation as perfectly benign, and who think the theoretical rights of a ZEF trump the obvious needs of an adult woman.

Seeing as your movement is the one pushing the enforcement of live births in all pregnancies, shoudn't you be the ones all interested in adoption or prenatal care? Or do even your precious bayyybees fall into insignificance once they no longer enjoy the sanctity of ZEFdom?

reply from: yoda

Wow! A clear, concise, accurate statement! Bravo!

Possibly, you might be interested in the history of this line of questioning. It stems from the often repeated statements of prochoicers that "choice" is about all the choices, not just abortion. In point of fact, most prochoicers reject the label "proabortion", or even "pro-abortion rights" on the grounds that they don't support abortion, they support "all the choices". Of course, I realize that you are not bound by the statements of other prochoicers, so that just leaves one question: do you accept the label "proabort"?

How do one's moral rights "trump" another's moral right to life? How does that work? How many (moral) "rights" (of what magnitude) are required to cancel out the moral right of an innocent baby to remain alive? How does one moral right "cancel out" another moral right?

Implict in your question is the accusation that prolifers do nothing to help born children, and others in need. I'm sure you will decline to offer any proof of that, and you probably will also ignore all the maternity homes and crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies run by prolifers, right? Why am I so sure? Oh, I've heard this all before.

reply from: flickad

Personally, I'm quite happy to be called pro-death, pro-abort, pro-abortion or whatever epithet you want to use in describing my belief in legal abortion on demand. I AM pro-abortion in that I am strongly in favor of its free availability for all. Am I for FORCED abortions? No. I am for the free availiability of individual choice. The only choice with regard to unwanted pregnancies that is under any kind of threat is abortion and it is THAT crucial option which my movement is fighting to save as one legally available to all women wanting it.

How do one's moral rights "trump" another's moral right to life? How does that work? How many (moral) "rights" (of what magnitude) are required to cancel out the moral right of an innocent baby to remain alive? How does one moral right "cancel out" another moral right?

Simple. A ZEF is not unarguably a fully fledged human being which has achieved personhood in the same manner that an adult female unarguably has. A ZEF is an undeveloped organism and should, as such, be secondary to the adult whose life you would so casually and drastically alter by enforcing unwanted gestation.

Implict in your question is the accusation that prolifers do nothing to help born children, and others in need. I'm sure you will decline to offer any proof of that, and you probably will also ignore all the maternity homes and crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies run by prolifers, right? Why am I so sure? Oh, I've heard this all before.

I'm NOT saying pro-lifers do nothing for born human beings. But you must admit, your movement as a whole is suddenly far less interested in life once it's emerged from the birth canal. Conservatives, often also pro-life, are generally quite happy to let the impoverished go without essentials while being up in arms over the fates of zygotes and embryos.

reply from: ChristianLott

A baby is an undeveloped adult. Can we murder those too?

If that were so, we'd be like you and want all women on welfare to have abortions or be sterilized and the unemployed to have the 'choice' of assisted suicide.

Pro aborts have the red carpet rolled out for those who are entering this world and leaving it through abortion and euthanasia. You are brutal and callous, so I think your jibe at pro lifers not helping the poor enough to be hypocritical. It's also false. Who do you think feeds the poor day after day from their own pockets - the faith based groups. They don't expect any money from the government, they do all of their work voluntarily and they do a good and thorough job of it.

I can't imagine you have any experience with such things, but I thought you'd like to know - the state run welfare bureaucracies suck up one hundred times more money than ever goes to the poor. Sorry, that's just how they work. When they count 100 homeless in their city, they mark down 500. Regardless, they take that alloted money for themselves, give a small portion to just make it look like they've done their job, then allow the churches and faith groups to handle the rest.

Why do I waste my time, your jibes are rote red herrings meant to distract.

Brutal and callous. And you oppose coercive abortion?

I doubt it. Take your own advice and kill yourself. One less pro abort coercing women into murdering their children.

reply from: yoda

Well there you go! Now where ARE all those "prochoicers" who constantly insist that there is NO SUCH THING as a proabort? bobinsky, are you reading this?

You still don't seem to understand the question, so I'll put it in your own terms. How does being "secondary to the adult" justify the destruction of an innocent human being? What is there about "drastically altering a life" that is so horrible that it's worse than the death of an innocent baby?

The "movement" is not a monolithic unit. It's millions of individuals who barely communicate with each other. As individuals, I find prolifers to be very inclined to engage in all sorts of charities, much more so than the average individual. And if someone is "prolife" simply because they are conservative, they aren't really prolife IMO. Besides which I don't identify myself as "conservative", so I surely am not answerable for your perception of conservative politics.

reply from: flickad

A baby is an undeveloped adult. Can we murder those too?

No. Children, babies and all born humans have achieved personhood. ZEFs haven't. Simple.

If that were so, we'd be like you and want all women on welfare to have abortions or be sterilized and the unemployed to have the 'choice' of assisted suicide.

I never said I was in favor of eugenics, forced abortion or sterilisation. I want abortion available freely as an OPTION.

I was talking about Conservative GOVERNMENTS and individuals, who tend to be in favor of welfare cuts (which, by the way, engender hardships such as the inability to afford medical essentials) while caring about the fate of my uteral lining so much.

Brutal and callous. And you oppose coercive abortion?

I doubt it. Take your own advice and kill yourself. One less pro abort coercing women into murdering their children.

Nah, just my way of being snarky. Internet bitchiness is an age-old tradition. Naturally I don't support coercion. I mean, it's a forum signature for Chrissakes. Taking it seriously seems rather silly, especially when it's quite obviously, I should think, a tongue-in-cheek one.

reply from: flickad

You still don't seem to understand the question, so I'll put it in your own terms. How does being "secondary to the adult" justify the destruction of an innocent human being? What is there about "drastically altering a life" that is so horrible that it's worse than the death of an innocent baby?

I understand the question perfectly. It seems, however, that I did not make myself quite clear in answering it. So, I'll spell it out now in very precise terms for you. A zygote/embryo/fetus IS NOT A HUMAN BEING. It is an undeveloped organism containing human DNA. It has not achieved persnhood in the manner that aborn woman unquestionably has.

The "movement" is not a monolithic unit. It's millions of individuals who barely communicate with each other. As individuals, I find prolifers to be very inclined to engage in all sorts of charities, much more so than the average individual. And if someone is "prolife" simply because they are conservative, they aren't really prolife IMO. Besides which I don't identify myself as "conservative", so I surely am not answerable for your perception of conservative politics.

Most pro-lifers I meet DO tend, across the spectrum, to be politically right-wing. Though, of course, pro-lifers of other political bents do exist, in the same manner that Bush-supporting pro-choicers do. I was talking about political tendencies of pro-lifers in the majority (in the same way that most pro-choicers identify as being Liberals). I did not state that there is not such thing as pro-lifers of varying bents. They exist. But they don't form the majority percentage.

reply from: Hereforareason

So what is personhood? How do you define it?

Amber

reply from: flickad

So what is personhood? How do you define it?

Amber

Personhood's been legally defined in various cases such as Roe vs Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions declaring abortion to be a legal right. I'm an Australian law student, so my familiarity lies almost solely in cases carrying weight as precedent here, such as the NSW decision in CES vs Superclinics (in which a woman successfully sued for failure to diagnose an accidental pregnancy in time for her to safely abort it) and various others declaring the fetus not to have achived personhood. US cases hold almost no weight in this country, so my familiarity with their details is quite limited. But I'm sure that if you're interested in your country's Supreme Court's take on personhood, it shouldn't be too hard for you to turn up decisions such as the one in Casey and have a flick through the Court's definitions. They hold far more weight than anything I could tell you as a simple personal opinion in any event.

reply from: Skippy

So what is personhood? How do you define it?

Amber
This question wasn't directed towaeds me, but I'd like to offer my thoughts. Whereas a phrase like 'homo sapiens' or 'human being' refers to an organism's species, 'person' refers to a human organism's legal status. Personhood confers certain rights and responsibilities on those it is granted to. Virtually all societies throughout history have chosen birth as the point one becomes a person.

reply from: yoda

Well now ole pal I hate to be a stickler for details, but could you supply some hint of documentation for that claim? BTW, there's no conflict between saying it's a human being and saying it's "an undeveloped organism containing human DNA."........ small children fit that description quite nicely.

BTW, for you edification, here is the typical definition of "human being":

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species
MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens

As you can see, there are NO EXCEPTIONS listed for "unborn members" of the species. Care to offer anything other than your obviously biased opinion?

reply from: yoda

Wrong again, Skippy. "Person" is much more commonly used in the vernacular than in the legal sense:

per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human’s body: a human being’s body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per•son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16

Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact

reply from: Tam

That's because the focus of the movement is on abortion. There are other movements with other agendas, and many people who care about unborn babies enough to participate in the pro-life movement also care about born babies enough to help them in various ways. And you should understand that, since you say:

So I guess everyone should be able to see the situation: although other issues come up that relate to this life and death issue, the issue here is abortion. The pro-life movement is also purely an ABORTION movement. Or, more to the point, one is a PRO-ABORTION movement and the other is an ANTI-ABORTION movement. Women with born babies may find support at a variety of agencies. Believing in the right to life of an unborn child does not mean that we must have a finger in every pie just to prove it.

Everybody clear on this yet?

reply from: Tam

So what is personhood? How do you define it?

Amber

Personhood's been legally defined in various cases such as Roe vs Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions declaring abortion to be a legal right. I'm an Australian law student, so my familiarity lies almost solely in cases carrying weight as precedent here, such as the NSW decision in CES vs Superclinics (in which a woman successfully sued for failure to diagnose an accidental pregnancy in time for her to safely abort it) and various others declaring the fetus not to have achived personhood. US cases hold almost no weight in this country, so my familiarity with their details is quite limited. But I'm sure that if you're interested in your country's Supreme Court's take on personhood, it shouldn't be too hard for you to turn up decisions such as the one in Casey and have a flick through the Court's definitions. They hold far more weight than anything I could tell you as a simple personal opinion in any event.

If the USA defined legal personhood differently from Australia, to which definition would you adhere? Or would the decision of a government have little to do with your own truth? Is your truth defined by your--or our--government? Or is your truth found somewhere else--and if so, where?

reply from: Hereforareason

I'm not in to law, and for the sake of a lot of women out there please give me a plain simple to understand answer. What is the difference between the day before and the day after birth?
What changes? The baby starts breathing, but what else about it wasn't there in the womb?

Amber

reply from: Skippy

The simple answer is, the difference between the day before birth and the day after birth is BIRTH. If you're waiting for me to say that the concept of personhood isn't arbitrary, you'll be waiting a long, long time. It is. It is an arbitrary point in time, and purely a man-made construct.

It's also not a construct that's uniformly applied. Feticide laws would suggest that in SOME states, SOME fetuses are persons. I think that's sort of stupid. They either are, or they aren't. Ideological inconsistency bugs me.

reply from: Tam

The simple answer is, the difference between the day before birth and the day after birth is BIRTH. If you're waiting for me to say that the concept of personhood isn't arbitrary, you'll be waiting a long, long time. It is. It is an arbitrary point in time, and purely a man-made construct.

It's also not a construct that's uniformly applied. Feticide laws would suggest that in SOME states, SOME fetuses are persons. I think that's sort of stupid. They either are, or they aren't. Ideological inconsistency bugs me.

So would you resolve the inconsistencies by declaring that birth is the dividing line after which a child is protected by law and before which s/he is not protected by law, period? If so, is that because you recognize that dividing lines such as "first trimester" or "quickening" or "viability" are arbitrary and even changing in some cases ("viability" is earlier and earlier as technology progresses)? If so, do you agree that the only three important biological moments are defined by conception, birth, and death--that all other "points" are really processes that have no specific demarcation? If so, do you understand that birth, too, is a process, and that the only biologically defining moments in the existence of a human being are not birth and death but rather conception and death? I know you'll start disagreeing with me somewhere, but I'm just wondering where--and why.

reply from: Skippy

Implantation is also a biologically defining moment. In many ways, it's analogous to birth. A "change in status" of the zygote, if you will, just like birth is a change in status (both biologically and legally) of the fetus.

reply from: Tam

Yes, implantation is as important as birth. There are many important things that happen during development--including puberty, etc. Want to answer any of my questions, though? I'm not accusing you of dodging them, just asking again because I really want to know what you think.

reply from: yoda

Hmmm...... yeah, but why is a proabort all of a sudden agreeing with what we've been saying all along? I smell a rat!

reply from: yoda

That's encouraging. What are you doing about it?

reply from: megan

Hmmm...... yeah, but why is a proabort all of a sudden agreeing with what we've been saying all along? I smell a rat!

Yodavater, I think the reason is that you started this thread with what is usually thrown AT you, and by using that reverse psychology, if you will, you ended up with just what you were fishing for.

Good job with that, by the way. It's an important point and it is refreshing to see that at least for the time being both sides can agree that the topic in queston here is abortion and all other topics are discussed here only because of their relationship to the main topic. I find the off-topic posts distracting. I mean, I don't mind talking about rape or capital punishment or child abuse, but I like to talk about those things in a way that relates to abortion. In a way, all life/death issues are fair game, I suppose, here, but I think everyone understands (hey, even when they pretend not to?) that the reason for the board is to talk about abortion.

I personally hate being accused of doing nothing for women or children by someone who knows nothing about me or what I do in that respect. And that happens sometimes when I say anything about abortion being violence towards a child. I hear, "What about born children? Do you even care about them?" Put it this way: NO ONE who knows me in person, even those with whom I debate about abortion occasionally, would ever say such a thing to me. Protecting kids is tremendously important to me--and that is why I want to protect them from being brutally assaulted IN the womb as well as OUTSIDE of it. Enough said.

Meg

reply from: yoda

Thanks!

You've simply been treated to the old proabort "bait and switch (the subject)" tactic. They are painfully aware that they have no moral argument to justify the slaughter of unborn babies, so they will change the subject any way they can, regardless of how idiotic it sounds to us, and it actually is.

I've challenged them over that tactic on other forums. I've pointed out that if they reallly cared anything at all about "born children", they would be starting civil, calm threads on how to help born children, what they had done to help them, and why we should all be helping them.... INSTEAD of using their legitimate needs as a nasty, hostile weapon in this deabte. It's disgusting to me that anyone would use the sad situation of needy children to falsely villify an opponent in a debate, but then they are disgusting in many other ways as well.

reply from: Skippy

Yes, implantation is as important as birth. There are many important things that happen during development--including puberty, etc. Want to answer any of my questions, though? I'm not accusing you of dodging them, just asking again because I really want to know what you think.

If you want to get technical about it, life is something of a continuum. A female is born with all the eggs she'll ever have. So why draw the line at conception? Why not at the birth of a female?

Every point you might pick, as well as every one I might, is arbitrary. You thinking that personhood should begin at conception means that you think hormonal birth control, IUDs, and IVF should be illegal. After all, they all kill embryos.

I'm not dodging your questions. I've just somewhat given up on finding any answers. We (mostly) consider birth to be the beginning of personhood, for a variety of practical reasons. It's a boring, dry, legal definition. We make similar distinctions for other rights and privileges, like driving a car or drinking.

reply from: flickad

Hmmm...... yeah, but why is a proabort all of a sudden agreeing with what we've been saying all along? I smell a rat!

What rat is there to smell? Hopefully, each of us thinks through the issues involved in our positions regarding abortion for ourselves. Therefore both points of agreement between members of the two camps and divergences among members among members of any one camp are inevitable.

End of story.

reply from: flickad

So what is personhood? How do you define it?

Amber

Personhood's been legally defined in various cases such as Roe vs Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions declaring abortion to be a legal right. I'm an Australian law student, so my familiarity lies almost solely in cases carrying weight as precedent here, such as the NSW decision in CES vs Superclinics (in which a woman successfully sued for failure to diagnose an accidental pregnancy in time for her to safely abort it) and various others declaring the fetus not to have achived personhood. US cases hold almost no weight in this country, so my familiarity with their details is quite limited. But I'm sure that if you're interested in your country's Supreme Court's take on personhood, it shouldn't be too hard for you to turn up decisions such as the one in Casey and have a flick through the Court's definitions. They hold far more weight than anything I could tell you as a simple personal opinion in any event.

If the USA defined legal personhood differently from Australia, to which definition would you adhere? Or would the decision of a government have little to do with your own truth? Is your truth defined by your--or our--government? Or is your truth found somewhere else--and if so, where?

My truth is defined by my own beliefs. But I don't expect my personal opinions to be accepted as any kind of authority by others. Hence I pointed the questioner to legal definitions, which DO form an external authority of some kind, in general.

reply from: Allizdog2000

I am not going to argue with you. What I will do is respect you and your beliefs, even if I do not agree with your beliefs, I will still respect you.

reply from: flickad

I am not going to argue with you. What I will do is respect you and your beliefs, even if I do not agree with your beliefs, I will still respect you.

I agree that a mutual respect of beliefs and agreement to disagree is warranted. Though, of course, that does not prevent debate should members wish to engage in one.

reply from: ChristianLott

With a sig like that you expect 'mutual respect'?

reply from: yoda

Not really. The moment of fertilization is the first moment of existence of every single human being. There is nothing arbitrary about the first moment of your existence.

They are the moral equivilent of abortion, yes.

I find it sad to compare life itself to various "priviledges".

reply from: Tam

Not really. The moment of fertilization is the first moment of existence of every single human being. There is nothing arbitrary about the first moment of your existence.

They are the moral equivilent of abortion, yes.

I find it sad to compare life itself to various "priviledges".

Yoda is absolutely correct. There is nothing arbitrary about the first moment of your existence. Once YOU exist, YOU should have legal protection. Just as your mother does. And there is no point in comparing the privilege to drive on public roadways with the right not to be killed.

reply from: Skippy

It appears you're in the minority with that opinion. One of the Hatfields cited a survey where only - what was it? - 21% or something like that believe there should be no abortion for any reason. That means almost 80% of the population rejects your definition of when personhood should be granted.

I'd hazard a guess that even in that 21%, there's a subset that reject your definition of fertilization as the beginning of personhood, going instead with implantation as the defining moment.

What *I* originally said, and I stand by, is anybody can say that personhood SHOULD commence at {fill in the blank}. It is equally as arbitrary for you to choose conception as it is for me to choose birth, or unassisted respiration. I only reject viability as a good arbitrary point to choose because it is IMPRECISE.

reply from: Tam

It appears you're in the minority with that opinion. One of the Hatfields cited a survey where only - what was it? - 21% or something like that believe there should be no abortion for any reason. That means almost 80% of the population rejects your definition of when personhood should be granted.

I'd hazard a guess that even in that 21%, there's a subset that reject your definition of fertilization as the beginning of personhood, going instead with implantation as the defining moment.

What *I* originally said, and I stand by, is anybody can say that personhood SHOULD commence at {fill in the blank}. It is equally as arbitrary for you to choose conception as it is for me to choose birth, or unassisted respiration. I only reject viability as a good arbitrary point to choose because it is IMPRECISE.

I'd like to understand why you believe these things.

1) Conception is a completely arbitrary point in the existence of a human being.
2) When determining the right to live for a human being, the point at which that human being should have the right to live is not the point at which that human being comes into existence, but rather a later point in time. There is therefore a period of time between the point at which that human being began to exist and the point at which that human being has the right to continue to exist alive.
3) The point at which that human being has the right to live can be an arbitrary point, but it should not be an imprecise "point" but rather a clearly definable moment.
4) That precise but arbitrary point at which a human being gains the right to live should be determined by law, and should be said to be the moment at which the being completes his or her first unassisted inhalation/exhalation cycle.

To me, this makes almost no sense at all. I really would like to know why you believe those things, D. Each one, by itself, to me, seems indefensible. How do you defend this position? Because here's how I see it:

1) Conception is the precise moment at which a unique human life comes into existence.
2) Each human life has its own worth, separate from the worth of any other human, and equal to the worth of every other human.
3) No one human should have the "right" to kill another human.
Conclusion: From the moment of conception, a human life should be protected by law.

Please, explain to me first of all what logic you are using to claim that conception is in any way arbitrary. CL only said it was because, as he explained, he didn't know the correct meaning of the word "arbitrary." Since YOU presumably know, at this point at least since CL posted it here, the correct meaning of the words
arbitrary
human
life
conception
etc.

Please provide the premises by which you have arrived at the conclusion that conception is an arbitrary point in the existence of a human life. Next, please explain why you reached the conclusion that law should assign the right to continue living to any point after the point of conception.

P.S. I am not talking about personhood. I have said several times that "personhood" and the development of personality is a very interesting concept but too nebulous to use as the basis to assign some humans the right to kill other humans with impunity. I am talking about the right to live free from being killed by another human being.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, what she said!

reply from: Tam

Yeah, what she said!

What's taking so long, D? Oh, wait, you're not really Dmourning, you're Skippy the Bush Kangaroo. Well, I don't care WHOM you voted for, you could be Dmourning the Kerry Kangaroo for all I care, but would you mind providing the premises I asked about? I'm quite curious.

---------

Skippy, I see you have plenty of time to post all kinds of stuff, but do you have time to explain your statements above? We're so curious as to how you could possibly think that conception is an arbitrary point in the existence of a human life. Are you dodging the question? Just wondering...

reply from: Tam

Ok. It's been a whole week, and you've been posting all sorts of things all week, but can't seem to find answers for the questions posed to you by me in this thread a week ago.

Now, I've asked some VERY simple and relevant questions above. I think you won't answer because you CAN'T answer, because your position is indefensible. Go ahead--prove me wrong. Defend your position using logic. Show the premises you used to arrive at your conclusions. I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU to prove that conception is an arbitrary point in the existence of a human life. And I triple dog dare you to just openly admit you are wrong.

Let's quote the stuff I'm interested in your answer to:

reply from: Skippy

I made the decision to cease interacting with you on this board because your obsession with Dmourning is incredibly creepy. Perhaps you should email or PM him and sort things out, but either way, leave me out of it.

reply from: Tam

ROFL Nice try, really. But unfortunately that is EXACTLY what D would have done to "respond" to that post. So...you're just digging the hole deeper, D.

P.S. That is really some ego you've got. I do admit that getting you to answer a logical question with a logical answer has become something of a hobby for me, and at times, for all of us. What a pity that you'd like to deprive us of the fun we have trying to think of ways to get you to debate abortion on an abortion debate forum...

reply from: Tam

P.S. I think it is pretty clear that the reason you won't show your premises is that there aren't any. You never arrived at that conclusion using logic. You came up with a conclusion you liked and just decided it was true without the benefit of a logical process of determination. And THAT, and nothing but that, is the reason you won't answer the question. I mean, and I hate to say it lest I be accused of obsession, but I have to say it: that is exactly what you used to do when you were here before as Dmourning. Or maybe you're not D, it really doesn't matter to anyone--not even to me, believe it or not--you and he are interchangeable and so it's irrelevant. What's relevant is that you'll use any excuse you can think of to dodge the question. But the truth is: you have no logical answer, and that's obvious to everyone, even probably to your fellow proaborts. Which is why they're not answering the question for you. It's not possible. And when you get backed into a corner, you don't answer, you just lash out. What a surprise.

reply from: yoda

Hey, SkippyDee........

Why do you take these positions?

1) Conception is a completely arbitrary point in the existence of a human being.
2) When determining the right to live for a human being, the point at which that human being should have the right to live is not the point at which that human being comes into existence, but rather a later point in time. There is therefore a period of time between the point at which that human being began to exist and the point at which that human being has the right to continue to exist alive.
3) The point at which that human being has the right to live can be an arbitrary point, but it should not be an imprecise "point" but rather a clearly definable moment.
4) That precise but arbitrary point at which a human being gains the right to live should be determined by law, and should be said to be the moment at which the being completes his or her first unassisted inhalation/exhalation cycle.

reply from: Tam

Yeah, what he said! Or are you going to dodge yoda's question (heck, you've already dodged it once, but why stop now?) and claim that HE is "obsessed" with something that has nothing to do with you and therefore that you don't HAVE to answer the question?

Just for the record: I did NOT say, when I first double dog dared DSkippy to answer the question, something I was thinking at the time, because I thought it would be not only obvious to all but also a little bit mean. But since DSkippy seems to think being mean is perfectly acceptable behavior, perhaps I'll just share my thoughts now: I knew he wouldn't answer the question. I knew because I know it's Dmourning, or someone indistinguishable from Dmourning. I knew there was no WAY that he would admit that he didn't have any logical premises and just pulled his conclusion straight out of his ear. I knew there was no way he could justify his idiotic claim that conception is an arbitrary point in the existence of a human life. Although those are the only two options I offered (answer the question logically, or admit that you can't answer it logically), there was a THIRD option in my mind. That option was: or, if you're Dmourning, you'll find a way to respond without either answering it or admitting you can't, and you'll do it in a really snarky, mean way and probably manage to incorporate either a lie, a personal attack or an outright threat. Now, I didn't SAY that. But I knew it would be option three. I knew it because that's what Dmourning would have done (don't believe me? I'll point to some past threads...).

To review:

Option 1: answer the question logically
Option 2: admit that you can't answer it logically
Option 3: in a snarky, mean way, use lies and/or personal attack to "respond" without answering

I knew it would be option 3 but I was trying to give him another chance. HA! What was I thinking!? Good luck, yoda, but I wouldn't get your hopes up--what Snarky is going to do next is one of the following (go ahead, Snarky, prove me wrong and DON'T do what I predict...don't you know how predictable you are?):

1) Completely ignore this thread from now on, but be extra snarky and mean in other places (although how he could get MORE snarky and mean, I do wonder!).

2) Say that because I originally challenged his inane statement, he doesn't have to respond to yoda's challenges along the same lines, because of the obsession he imagines I have for someone to whom Snarky supposedly has no connection.

3) Claim to have answered the question already.

4) Claim it's an unanswerable question.

5) Most likely: some combination of the above.

Go ahead, D, prove me wrong. That'd be a first for ya. Of course, you'll try to find a way to prove me wrong by doing something even LOWER than the predictions I made, so that you can simultaneously prove me wrong at long last while managing NOT to do the right thing, either. I guess I'll add one more CYA option:

6) Do something even nastier than anything I've predicted so far.

If anyone wants to start a pool to take guesses as to what he'll do, start a private thread about it. LOL

reply from: yoda

I pick this one: 1) Completely ignore this thread from now on, but be extra snarky and mean in other places

reply from: Tam

Yeah, that is my top choice as well (hence, why it was numero uno in the list), yoda.

Want to know WHY yoda and I both think it'll be option 1? Because that's what (all together now!) Dmourning would do. What a coincidence... oh, but please, prove me wrong, D...I mean, S.

We just want to see the PREMISES of your argument. You think it's such a sound argument, don't you? Well, let's see the premises behind it. We just want to discuss and debate them with you. That's what (as you know) this forum is FOR. Debating about abortion. We'd like to debate the premises to your argument, I think. But where are they? It seems you'd rather NOT debate those premises. But if that's the case, why are you here? Why come to a debate forum? I'd like you to put up or shut up, frankly. Or, in other words:

Debate the premises
or
Vacate the premises.
It's your CHOICE!

reply from: yoda

Personally, I like it that he won't answer questions. Since he has no answers anyway, any response would just take up forum space.

reply from: Amy

It appears you're in the minority with that opinion. One of the Hatfields cited a survey where only - what was it? - 21% or something like that believe there should be no abortion for any reason. That means almost 80% of the population rejects your definition of when personhood should be granted.

I'd hazard a guess that even in that 21%, there's a subset that reject your definition of fertilization as the beginning of personhood, going instead with implantation as the defining moment.

What *I* originally said, and I stand by, is anybody can say that personhood SHOULD commence at {fill in the blank}. It is equally as arbitrary for you to choose conception as it is for me to choose birth, or unassisted respiration. I only reject viability as a good arbitrary point to choose because it is IMPRECISE.

I'd like to understand why you believe these things.

1) Conception is a completely arbitrary point in the existence of a human being.
2) When determining the right to live for a human being, the point at which that human being should have the right to live is not the point at which that human being comes into existence, but rather a later point in time. There is therefore a period of time between the point at which that human being began to exist and the point at which that human being has the right to continue to exist alive.
3) The point at which that human being has the right to live can be an arbitrary point, but it should not be an imprecise "point" but rather a clearly definable moment.
4) That precise but arbitrary point at which a human being gains the right to live should be determined by law, and should be said to be the moment at which the being completes his or her first unassisted inhalation/exhalation cycle.

To me, this makes almost no sense at all. I really would like to know why you believe those things, D. Each one, by itself, to me, seems indefensible. How do you defend this position? Because here's how I see it:

1) Conception is the precise moment at which a unique human life comes into existence.
2) Each human life has its own worth, separate from the worth of any other human, and equal to the worth of every other human.
3) No one human should have the "right" to kill another human.
Conclusion: From the moment of conception, a human life should be protected by law.

Please, explain to me first of all what logic you are using to claim that conception is in any way arbitrary. CL only said it was because, as he explained, he didn't know the correct meaning of the word "arbitrary." Since YOU presumably know, at this point at least since CL posted it here, the correct meaning of the words
arbitrary
human
life
conception
etc.

Please provide the premises by which you have arrived at the conclusion that conception is an arbitrary point in the existence of a human life. Next, please explain why you reached the conclusion that law should assign the right to continue living to any point after the point of conception.

P.S. I am not talking about personhood. I have said several times that "personhood" and the development of personality is a very interesting concept but too nebulous to use as the basis to assign some humans the right to kill other humans with impunity. I am talking about the right to live free from being killed by another human being.

LOL, dang girl but that's a post Skippy will be licking his/her intellectual wounds from for a while. Of course, as we see, the expectation for people like that to come up with cohesive reasoning is always way over their heads.

LOL...now instead of trying to present his/her feet-of-clay position it necessarily has to be that you're obsessive...LOLOLOLOLOL...ahhh...too funny.

Thanks...I needed a laugh...you're cool Tam.

reply from: Tam

Well, happy to oblige with a good laugh!! You're cool, too! And I love it how you and the other smarties on the forum see right through "Skippy"'s nonsense as quickly as s/he dishes it out. (You're not fooling anyone but yourself, DSkippy. By the way, did yoda and I call it, or what!? Numero uno it is!! Thanks for being so obliging.) LOL

P.S. Announcement! I think I'm going to make "option three" one of my new phrases. It is a succinct way to describe this BS without naming it after Dmourning (OMG! I must be obsessed LOL!!!) Maybe that wouldn't be fair--after all, Dmourning is supposedly gone, and Skippy is the one championing Option Three these days. Maybe I should name it in honor of both of them.... Dippy Option Three. Yeah, that's got a nice ring to it, and an easy acronym: DOT. Gotta love an acronym.

reply from: cali2345

I'd just like to tell the pro-life folks on here that you are all awesome. I've never been more impressed with anyone's use of sound, perfect logic and beautifully clear wording to back proaborts into a corner. As Mark said in Lime 5, people don't try to hide good news; if the news about abortion was good, statistics would be released instantly and with perfect accuracy - but it's not, so all we hear is a resounding silence. Similarly here, if the "news" about proaborts' ability to logically defend their position was good, they'd have a neat little list of the premises of that logic posted back to you within a couple of hours at the most. They can't do that, so they ignore the challenge and often resort instead to being extra nasty. You guys have given me a lot of rhetorical tools for making proaborts think - and this is how we will eventually win the battle. Thank you so much.

reply from: yoda

Hey, Cali! Glad you are enjoying the forum. I can recommend a couple other resources for you, like "On Message" and "Who Broke the Baby"....... both of which are smallish books, filled with excellent prolife viewpoints and position statements. Both are well worth the low price!

reply from: cali2345

I own On Message and think it is awesome. I'll look for the other one.

Thanks!

reply from: Tam

P.S. Announcement! I think I'm going to make "option three" one of my new phrases. It is a succinct way to describe this BS

Ooh, I forgot about my cool new term "option three". It means

Remind me to use that term more often. There is certainly ample opportunity when reading posts by Snippy and Babblinsky.

reply from: Amy

P.S. Announcement! I think I'm going to make "option three" one of my new phrases. It is a succinct way to describe this BS

Ooh, I forgot about my cool new term "option three". It means

Remind me to use that term more often. There is certainly ample opportunity when reading posts by Snippy and Babblinsky.

ahhhhLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....Snippy and Babblinsky. Ohmigosh. LOLOLOL, I love you.

reply from: Tam

I love you too, Amy!!

P.S. Amy--are you getting your emails and/or PMs?

reply from: Amy

I love you too, Amy!!

P.S. Amy--are you getting your emails and/or PMs?

ummmm....I get email and pm's here? Nothing's popped up at me while I am reading/posting here.

Would you be a sweetie and point me in the right direction.

In the meantime, if anyone did email me or anything and I haven't responded to you...I'm really sorry.

reply from: sarah

I love you too, Amy!!

P.S. Amy--are you getting your emails and/or PMs?

ummmm....I get email and pm's here? Nothing's popped up at me while I am reading/posting here.

Would you be a sweetie and point me in the right direction.

In the meantime, if anyone did email me or anything and I haven't responded to you...I'm really sorry.

I'm the worlds worst person to try and help here. but if you go to profile (I think) you have to enable the ability to recieve PM.

reply from: Tam

I love you too, Amy!!

P.S. Amy--are you getting your emails and/or PMs?

ummmm....I get email and pm's here? Nothing's popped up at me while I am reading/posting here.

Would you be a sweetie and point me in the right direction.

In the meantime, if anyone did email me or anything and I haven't responded to you...I'm really sorry.

I'm the worlds worst person to try and help here. but if you go to profile (I think) you have to enable the ability to recieve PM.

That's right. Go into your profile. Then click "Personal Options". Make sure "Receive Private Messages" is set to ON and Disable Private Topics is set to OFF. Then click "Update Profile" at the bottom of the page. Then: to access Private Messages (PMs), look in the upper LEFT corner and you'll see how many you have and be able to click that link to read them. To access Private Topics (PTs), use the drop-down menu at the upper RIGHT of the page to select Private Topics. You might not be able to see any at first, because you can't be invited to any until you "flip the switch" so to speak and enable them. Then I can invite you as I've been trying to do.

reply from: cali1981

I decided to bump this thread because I think it is such a great example of the intellectual dishonesty we see in some proaborts.

reply from: galen

I am relatively new here to this board, when the original creatorof this avatar spoke about "skippy" I thought there might have been a personality issue between the two of them.... now i am not so sure....

I must say that "skippy and "michael' sound a whole lot alike. I do think that the philosophy spoken about on this thread could use a few years of improvement.

Mary

reply from: yoda

Yep. And they even had to invent a handle called "Yodeman" to cover up their moral bankruptcy.......

reply from: cali1981

More examples of intellectual dishonesty. Everyone please point out the most recent ones to me so I can update the thread...

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Are you pro-choicers really that ignorant?
Steps to recovery from psychosis and demensia:
1. Get your phone book.
2. Look up pregnancy crisis centers.
3. Look up adoption centers.
4. Look up any Birthrite.
5. Look up Planned Parenthood.
Now in steps 2-4, most of those will be pro-life. Especially the preg crisis centers and Birthrites.
Now look at step 5. These guys look at abortion. That's it. Lots of room for choice, there!

reply from: theamericancatholic

"Pro-choice" is to abortion what "states rights" was to slavery.
Each statement can only make veiled attempts to conceal one real interest.


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