Home - List All Discussions

'Unforgettable' Pro-Life Film

"It's the SAME THING".....

by: yoda

September 21, 2009
'Unforgettable' Pro-Life Film
PopModal.com: "It's The Same Thing" is controversial, polarizing, and unique in the way it depicts present-day attitudes about abortion. This film will impact you deeply, and you'll either be infuriated or in solemn agreement. Regardless of your beliefs about abortion, you will never forget "It's The Same Thing."
http://www.covenantnews.com/blog/archives/060929.html

reply from: saucie

I'll never forget it...it's the utter and complete truth.
Thanks so much for bringing this to our attention, Yoda.
Did you notice how the mother escaped death? Did you notice how the mother and father walked away with their very lives?
Did you notice that the baby was the only one who didn't escape with his life?
Wonder if the emphasis and urgency should remain with the child?
I vote yes.

reply from: yoda

Sure, but you forget that someone might "call them names" if they find out what they did!
Why, someone might call them "murderers"!!
Wouldn't that be AWFUL???? Their tender little feelings might be hurt, even before the guy washes all the blood off his hands!!
We don't want that, do we?

reply from: nancyu

That is disturbing. (In the same way that abortion is disturbing.)

reply from: saucie

Of course it's distubing....and it happens nearly 4,000 times a day in this country.

reply from: yoda

Because it's so realistic?
I wonder why none of the baby killers have chimed in on this thread?

reply from: SpitMcGee

Am I correct to assume, then, that you would throw a woman who had an abortion into the same jail cell as someone who shot their child dead in their living room?
Committing murder, as defined by current law, can mean life in prison. Would you sentence a woman who had an abortion to life in prison?

reply from: leftsfoil

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Heck, even in the Bible forcibly causing a woman to miscarry will cost you a fine, while murdering a person calls for your death.
Even the Christian god places little value on a ZEF:
"Additional evidence that a fetus is considered to be less than a human life is that the biblical penalty for causing a miscarriage is only a fine to be paid to the woman's husband (I don't know what is to be done if she doesn't have a husband!), while for an injury to a born person, it is life for life, eye for eye, etc. (Exodus 21:22-25, Leviticus 24:17-21).
Wrong again bovine breath.. There is a significant distinction between accidentally causing a miscarriage and intentionally performing an abortion.
Exodus 21:22-25 reads: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."
This verse does not reference abortion whatsoever, it references accidental death.
Your conclusion that "the Christian God places little value on a ZEF" is not only asinine but offensive in the extreme. You are a willful liar.. a worthless, lowdown, stinking LIAR.
Thank you for bringing discredit to your cause by lying openly without shame. Keep up the good work cowface.

reply from: Shenanigans

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Heck, even in the Bible forcibly causing a woman to miscarry will cost you a fine, while murdering a person calls for your death.
Even the Christian god places little value on a ZEF:
"Additional evidence that a fetus is considered to be less than a human life is that the biblical penalty for causing a miscarriage is only a fine to be paid to the woman's husband (I don't know what is to be done if she doesn't have a husband!), while for an injury to a born person, it is life for life, eye for eye, etc. (Exodus 21:22-25, Leviticus 24:17-21).
Wrong again bovine breath.. There is a significant distinction between accidentally causing a miscarriage and intentionally performing an abortion.
Exodus 21:22-25 reads: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."
This verse does not reference abortion whatsoever, it references accidental death.
Your conclusion that "the Christian God places little value on a ZEF" is not only asinine but offensive in the extreme. You are a willful liar.. a worthless, lowdown, stinking LIAR.
Thank you for bringing discredit to your cause by lying openly without shame. Keep up the good work cowface.
Actually, the orginal Hebrew text doesn't use the word "miscarriage" it uses a word which means "give birth prematurely", noting that the child doesn't die, merely is born early - it's more a nusiance to the woman which the fine is in regards too.
its just another one of those "lost in translation" things.

reply from: sk1bianca

returning to the subject...
why don't you people stop worshiping laws made by brainless chimps and start looking at the FACTS?
just judge reality through your own eyes! see it for what it IS not for what other tell you it is.

reply from: nancyu

So?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So Republicans are "brainless chimps?"
Apparently some of them are.

reply from: saucie

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Heck, even in the Bible forcibly causing a woman to miscarry will cost you a fine, while murdering a person calls for your death.
Even the Christian god places little value on a ZEF:
"Additional evidence that a fetus is considered to be less than a human life is that the biblical penalty for causing a miscarriage is only a fine to be paid to the woman's husband (I don't know what is to be done if she doesn't have a husband!), while for an injury to a born person, it is life for life, eye for eye, etc. (Exodus 21:22-25, Leviticus 24:17-21).
Wrong again bovine breath.. There is a significant distinction between accidentally causing a miscarriage and intentionally performing an abortion.
Exodus 21:22-25 reads: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."
This verse does not reference abortion whatsoever, it references accidental death.
Your conclusion that "the Christian God places little value on a ZEF" is not only asinine but offensive in the extreme. You are a willful liar.. a worthless, lowdown, stinking LIAR.
Thank you for bringing discredit to your cause by lying openly without shame. Keep up the good work cowface.
Leftsfoil, that was just plain fun to read!

reply from: saucie

That's what judges and juries are for....they decide the sentence.
A woman who murders her child is a woman who murders her child...one is out of sight, one is in full view...one acutally can be in patial view....in ALL cases the child dies a death he or she didn't deserve.
Is that so hard to understand?
No matter how it's done, the child never has a chance, not one chance.
That should disturbed any clear thinking person with even half a functioing conscience.

reply from: yoda

Nah, that won't work. The proaborts, and some who call themselves prolife, insist that we be judge, jury, and warden for every woman in the future who might have an illegal abortion. We've got to tell them which prison they would go to, also.
It's just hard to satisfy the proaborts and their prolife allies sometimes....

reply from: leftsfoil

Thank you for noticing, saucie. I really am trying to ignore old cowbreath and only pay my disrespects from time to time, but that one had to be dealt with. Did you notice that the hypocrite tried to quote the Bible again and thereby reinforced my critique of her? Then, incredibly, she went on to disparage the Bible as worthless.. but apparently not worthless enough for her to use as a reference to make her points. Idiocy personified. I think it's time she was turned out to pasture.

reply from: SpitMcGee

Maybe.
Why "maybe?"
If you agree 100% with the message of that video, then you agree that there is no difference between a woman who has an abortion and a woman who shoots her child.
You wouldn't say "maybe" about sentencing a woman who had shot her child to life in prison, would you?

reply from: SpitMcGee

Nah, that won't work. The proaborts, and some who call themselves prolife, insist that we be judge, jury, and warden for every woman in the future who might have an illegal abortion. We've got to tell them which prison they would go to, also.
It's just hard to satisfy the proaborts and their prolife allies sometimes....
The question I asked was pretty simple. But if you insist, I'll change the context: Do you THINK that a woman who has an abortion should be given the same sentence as a woman who shoots her child?
And what about women who have had legal abortions in the past? By your logic, they are on the same level as parents who shot, drowned, or beat their children to death in the past. Should their charges and punishments be the same?
FYI: 1 in 3 woman will have at least one abortion. Do you realize how many murderers that is? It would likely overwhelm the prison system.

reply from: Rawr

Admittedly I'm no Bible expert, but I believe those verses in Jeremiah 10 are condemning idolatry, and Jeremiah 10:2-4 is just describing how they go about making an idol to worship.
I'm sure the Christians here are not worshiping their Christmas tree as some sort of magic forest god/spirit.

reply from: yoda

IF the locality in which the illegal[/] abortion occurs puts child killers into prison, then of course they should also put such women. And if they don't have such laws, yes, I think they ought to. It's simple justice.
We have a constitutional prohibition against punishing things that were legal when they were done. It wouldn't be legal, but if it was, then I'd have no problem with it.
Not a problem, IMO. Just turn out all the people convicted of using (or simple possession of) drugs, and replace them with women who kill their own children. Or, follow the example of "Sheriff Joe", and build tent cities. Problem solved?

reply from: saucie

At the risk of insulting rocks (again)....this one is as dumb as a box of them!
She comes here and actually may think she's not a total laughing stock!
But, it's the "net" and the strangest things happen!

reply from: AbortionSupport

Well said. This is tough to watch.

reply from: SpitMcGee

You're either joking or hopelessly naive.
There are currently about 2.5 million people in federal or state prisons and local jails. 20% of these people are serving time for drug-related charges.
Since 1973, over 45 million abortions have been performed. Something tells me that all these women wouldn't fit in tent cities.

reply from: yoda

It may have escaped your attention, but the vast majority of women in this county OBEY THE LAWS.
WHEN abortion is once again illegal, relatively very few abortions will be performed.
Would you like to turn all murderers loose because the prisons are so crowded? This country is good at building jails...... the best in the world.

reply from: SpitMcGee

It may have escaped yours, but I was referring to women who have had abortions in the past. You clearly stated that they, too, should face prison time.

reply from: Imaginary

I watched it till the "Believe in Jesus" thing came up. Ugh. Can you guys try to make a pro-life movie without bringing religion into it? *frustrated*
Also, the movie stated that those who have had an abortion would get help. Now you're trying to put them in prison. You sure change your minds quickly.
Edit for spelling fail.

reply from: SpitMcGee

My point exactly. This video essentially says that women who have abortions are murderers. In practically the same breath, it offers "healing" and "forgiveness" to these exact same women.
If it really is "the same thing" then don't those parents on the video deserve healing and forgiveness as well?

reply from: leftsfoil

Sure, the day you pro-aborts make a movie bringing Jesus and religion in it.. you bet.
Why can't you get used to Christians talking like Christians. What do you expect. DUH. Perhaps we should speak differently in deference to your tendency to become frustrated by people of faith?
Wake up or shut up.

reply from: Imaginary

I can get used to Christians talking like Christians, thank you very much. One of my friends is one, and while we never talk about subjects like these, we get along quite nicely.
But why would I, a non Christian, listen to what a Christian tells me based on his/her religious values? Cause if I were to have an abortion, you'd try to stop me (right?), but what makes my atheistic believes wrong and your Chrisitian ones right? Cause, to me, Jesus doesn't exist. To you, he obviously has existed/still exists. So, while god/jesus/... is an argument for you, it isn't for me. Why do you keep using it then?
...And I just can't explain what I want to explain. Anyone Dutch on here who can help me translate? x.x;

reply from: nancyu

Maybe.
Why "maybe?"
If you agree 100% with the message of that video, then you agree that there is no difference between a woman who has an abortion and a woman who shoots her child.
You wouldn't say "maybe" about sentencing a woman who had shot her child to life in prison, would you?
I would listen to the evidence (if I were on the jury) then I would decide what her punishment should be.

reply from: nancyu

He clearly stated exactly the opposite. Learn to read.

reply from: saucie

He has never advocated that...is it all proaborts that have reading comprehension problems.

reply from: bozo

Sure, the day you pro-aborts make a movie bringing Jesus and religion in it.. you bet.
Why can't you get used to Christians talking like Christians. What do you expect. DUH. Perhaps we should speak differently in deference to your tendency to become frustrated by people of faith?
Wake up or shut up.
Have you seen "Christians talking like Christians"? On THIS board?
I haven't seen that yet.
Do you have any examples?
But here's a hint to help you narrow the prospects. The comment "Wake up or shut up" is not one of them.

reply from: bozo

I understand what you're saying, and it would be foolish for a Christian to try to talk you out of an abortion based on Christian theology that you don't accept.
Is this a rhetorical question?
Are you pro-life?

reply from: Imaginary

It was rethorical, I don't expect an answer.
I'm not 100% pro-life, nor am I 100% pro-choice. I've heard of women killing themselves becaus they weren't able to get an abortion, and they didn't want to carry the child to term. Most of them refer to the fetuses as parasites, and they don't want anything to do with it. There were other options for those women... In the worst case, they should have been allowed an abortion imo. I'm also for abortion if there's a medical reason: woman has cancer, child has a life threathening decease and will not be able to survive, fallopian tube pregnancies, ... It should also remain legal in cases of rape, etc. That's all my opinion, off course. Feel free to disagree.
I'm against abortion as anticonception. If you don't want to use conception, and if you get pregnant... Well, you knew the consequences. At least try and carry the child to term, and give it up for adoption afterwards if you don't want it. Don't just have abortion after abortion...
Becoming pregnant while using protection is a grey zone for me. I had a pregnancy scare once, the condom broke and I hadn't been taking the pill regularily. I was 19, and knew I couldn't keep the baby if I turned out to be pregnant. Luckily the morning after pill solved everything... But I trust woman to make their own judgement here.
I'll also never force a woman to keep a baby, nor will I force her to have an abortion. How could I decide for someone else if I couldn't decide for myself?

reply from: yoda

No, I clearly stated that if the laws of our land were written that way, I'd have no problem with them. Do you get your exercise by jumping to conclusions?

reply from: yoda

Perhaps because for many Christians, it's impossible to separate their beliefs that are based on their religion, and what their conscience tells them. Some see them as being a part of the same thing.

reply from: yoda

They get all their exercise by jumping to conclusions.........

reply from: yoda

I don't know about the "etc." part, but tell us why a child conceived in rape has less of a moral right to life than one conceived otherwise, please?
Did it? Did that pill prevent fertilization, or kill the new baby?
You can't force anyone to "keep a baby", unless you mean "threaten her with jail time if she kills it". Is that what you meant to say? Euphemisms are SO, SO confusing........

reply from: SpitMcGee

No, I clearly stated that if the laws of our land were written that way, I'd have no problem with them. Do you get your exercise by jumping to conclusions?
No, I misread your post. I'm sorry.

reply from: fetalisa

Fine. Abortion kills mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons in the form of ZEFs, which is no different than killing a mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person in the form of a head of cabbage. We do not criminalize the killing of mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons in our society.
It's really not difficult to understand, with or without the law.

reply from: bozo

It was rethorical, I don't expect an answer.
I'm not 100% pro-life, nor am I 100% pro-choice. I've heard of women killing themselves becaus they weren't able to get an abortion, and they didn't want to carry the child to term. Most of them refer to the fetuses as parasites, and they don't want anything to do with it. There were other options for those women... In the worst case, they should have been allowed an abortion imo. I'm also for abortion if there's a medical reason: woman has cancer, child has a life threathening decease and will not be able to survive, fallopian tube pregnancies, ... It should also remain legal in cases of rape, etc. That's all my opinion, off course. Feel free to disagree.
I'm against abortion as anticonception. If you don't want to use conception, and if you get pregnant... Well, you knew the consequences. At least try and carry the child to term, and give it up for adoption afterwards if you don't want it. Don't just have abortion after abortion...
Becoming pregnant while using protection is a grey zone for me. I had a pregnancy scare once, the condom broke and I hadn't been taking the pill regularily. I was 19, and knew I couldn't keep the baby if I turned out to be pregnant. Luckily the morning after pill solved everything... But I trust woman to make their own judgement here.
I'll also never force a woman to keep a baby, nor will I force her to have an abortion. How could I decide for someone else if I couldn't decide for myself?
I would say based on what you said you are 100% prochoice, even if you are not hardcore, and even if in some cases you would "prefer" that a woman not abort.
But if you would not support legislation which would protect life in the womb from being unjustly killed by abortion, you are prochoice.
Prolifers believe a human person begins at conception, and has as much right to live as you or I, so there is never a reason good enough to destroy that life directly and intentionally.
It wouldn't make any sense for me to preach to you from Christian writings, unless they are steeped with reason and don't require you to embrace the faith to see the point, and there are many Christian writings which do that. But I would agree with you that an argument like "Jesus says it's wrong," would not be a good one for the atheist or agnostic.
Obviously a baby comes out at the end of a pregnancy. Obviously (I hope) that a day before the delivery, the baby was substantially the same as the day after, so therefore the baby's beginnings were in the womb and not when it popped his head out.
If you go backwards in time from that fully developed fetus in the womb to the zygote, at what stage can you say for certain that this is a baby and this is not a baby?
You can't because it's a continuous and indivisible process with a definite beginning.
And if there were any doubts, why not err on the side of life?
We don't call the undertaker if we see a man lying in the street. We call an ambulance and presume life. There's a lot more to lose by burying the man before we are sure, than to "risk" the possibilty he might be alive and try to help him.

reply from: fetalisa

Yet never offer any EVIDENCE to back up this claim, when the scientific evidence actually CONTRADICTS the above claim.
True that. We don't write our law based on xtian fairy tales and never have in this country.
When it comes out of the womb. The words zygote, embryo and fetus exist for a reason.
How so? The words zygote, embryo and fetus, describe the different stages of gestation, which are CLEARLY divisible into separate stages.
There are no doubts. Sentience, a characteristic of personhood, can not exist prior to the 7th month of gestation, because the nerve pathways don't develop fully enough to allow sentience until that point in time, if the doctor who created the world standards for fetal anaesthesia protocols can be believed.
On what basis can you presume personhood, particularly in the case where the brain doesn't exist or isn't developed?
Life does not imply personhood. Terry Schiavo was alive, but her personhood, or the 'who she was' disappearred never to return once her brain liquified. So how can you assume personhood simply because there is life?

reply from: bozo

Toddler, adolescent, and adult also describe stages, but all of the same person and the same body.

reply from: fetalisa

Except the stages of gestation describe a phase where life exists, but personhood does not.

reply from: fetalisa

You should be disgusted, given that 35 years after Roe abortion is still legal, because the public knows the differences between persons and non-persons; the public knows the differences between ZEFs and babies;the public knows the difference between ZEFs and children, in spite of the silly word games the prolife has played to blur these lines in an attempt to fool the ignorant and gullible.
What is that old saying about repeating the same action, even when you know it isn't working?

reply from: Rawr

"Personhood" is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. There is no set criteria for what makes someone a person.
At one time colored people were not considered to be persons by many. Does that mean it was true just because many people believed in it?

reply from: fetalisa

It is SCIENTIFIC FACT personhood CAN NOT EXIST without a DEVELOPED BRAIN.
Did the slaves inhabit the body of another as ZEFs do?
Since slaves did not inhabit the body of another as ZEFs do, can you provide an analogy that is RELEVANT?
On what the hell. Let's go with slavery. Why not?
Without the legal principle of bodily autonomy, a woman may be:
1. owned as a slave (without her consent)
2. raped (without her consent)
3. forced to carry a pregnancy to term (without her consent)
Read numbers 1-3 above again a few times Rawr, so that you can fully SEE and fully UNDERSTAND, exactly what you are really supporting here.

reply from: Imaginary

1) Cause I'm not talking about the zygote here in the first place, but about the woman. I can imagine that getting raped is a terrible experience. However, having to carry an unborn for 9 months afterwards, and then raising that child for I don't know how many years... Some women can handle it, some can't. I've heard stories from people of women commiting suicide because they were pregnant from a rapist. To those that can carry the child to term, kudos. I wouldn't be able to do it.
If we talk zygote here, then there is no difference whatsoever. However, here the woman's psychological health can be at risk, and thus the fertilised egg/blastocyst is secondary.
Also, isn't it so that when you report a rape, you have to take a pregnancy test, and if pregnant, an abortion? I know it's like this in Europe.
2) Morning after pill.
How does it work?
It's believed Levonelle works by:
* preventing your ovaries from releasing an egg
* altering the lining of the womb, so a fertilised egg can't embed itself there.
In Britain and many western countries it is regarded as an emergency contraceptive, not an abortion-causing drug - it won't work if you are already pregnant.
It stops an egg from embedding. Fertilised egg isn't blastocyst/embryo/baby whatsoever. So no, it doesn't kill the "new baby", as you so affectionally called it. Cause it aint a baby. It merely has the small potential to become one.
3) Hmm. Mistranslation then. Persuade? I dunno. :/
Lemme rephrase it. I would talk it over, explain the possibilities but let the woman herself choose. It is, after all, her life that will be heavily changed.

reply from: Rawr

Well, since a late term fetuses brain is as developed as a newborns, that must mean at least a late term fetus is a person, right?
And how "DEVELOPED" must this brain be? A neonate's brain is not fully developed. Who's arbitrary standards do we go by? Yours? Peter Singer's? Steven Pinker's? John Holdren?
My anology is "RELEVANT" because you were insinuating that fetuses are non-persons merely because many people believe it, and just because many people believe in something does not make it true or ethical.
And last I heard, the population was split about 50/50 on whether they approved of abortion for convenience. So about half of the population doesn't think that ZEFs/embyros/fetuses are non-persons.

reply from: yoda

That's not true at all. "Personhood" is a semantic debate, and one which is easily settled by a common dictionary.
There are many definitions of the word "person", and here are just a few that illustrate the most common usage:
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=

reply from: yoda

"Junk science", perhaps?
You know, just throwing out the word "scientific" doesn't really prove anything..... have you ever thought of that?

reply from: yoda

Ah so... IYO a short bout of post delivery depression is more important than the life of the innocent baby? Okay, now I see where you are coming from..... it's values, values, values.....
Women in Europe are FORCED to have abortions when they report a rape??? Now, that's just plain weird.....
First, there is NO SUCH THING as a "fertilized egg". Once fertilization occurs, there is no longer an egg or a sperm. What you have then is a new human being, a baby. YES, a BABY! Would you like to see some definitions of that word, or just go on spouting your opinion as if it was law?
Oh? And the baby's life would not be "changed" by being killed?

reply from: fetalisa

Where in the quote is the word 'person' even mentioned?
The nerve pathways necessary for sentience do not develop until the 7th month of gestation, according to the doctor who created the worldwide standards for fetal anaesthesia protocols.
What is 'arbitrary' about the SCIENTIFIC FACT that sentience IS NOT POSSIBLE until the 7th month of gestation?
Your analogy is NOT relevant, because slaves do not inhabit the body of another PERSON as ZEFs do.
There are NUMEROUS reasons ZEFs aren't persons, not a one of which has to do with belief.
1. Civil rights, like bodily autonomy, do not hinge on popular vote.
2. You reveal yourself to be an IMBECILE when you TRIVIALIZE the choice to decline the lifelong commitment necessary to raise a child. When someone declines to take on the BIGGEST RESPONSIBILTY THEY EVER COULD UNDERTAKE IN THEIR LIFE, BY REFUSING TO RAISE ANOTHER PERSON, it is not merely for matters of 'convenience.' But keep pretending it is. It will only serve to insure the public never actually implements your whacko views.
So about half of the population doesn't think that ZEFs/embyros/fetuses are non-persons.

reply from: yoda

That's the biggest load of HORSE HOCKEY in the world!!
Where did you borrow the big words from????
I see you follow the old theory, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS".

reply from: fetalisa

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain
http://fetus.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/our_team/anesthesiologists.asp
1. Professor and Vice Chairman of Anesthesia,
2. Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences,

3. Director of Obstetrical Anesthesia and
4. Director of the Anesthesia Residency Training Program at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF).
5. graduated magna cum laude from the University of California Davis in both Zoology and Genetics, and
6. magna cum laude from the UCSF School of Medicine.
7. Dr. Rosen completed training in anesthesia and fellowship training in obstetrical anesthesia at UCSF (board certified), and has been a faculty member at UCSF since 1981.
He is quite the BRILLIANT doctor, considering the http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Rosen_Mark_61469395.aspx
I am sorry, but did someone here earlier say something about "HORSE HOCKEY?'
I wonder if they might care to argue the FACTS of this 'BS' with the doctor who SET THE WORLDWIDE STANDARDS FOR FETAL ANESTHESIA PROTOCOLS?
OR AM I THE ONE WHO IS STUPID TO THINK A SPECIALIST IN FETAL ANAESTHESIOLOGY MIGHT HAPPEN TO KNOW A WEE BIT ABOUT FETAL PAIN?

reply from: yoda

You totally MISS THE POINT!
"Sentience" has zero to do with being a person!!
Where ARE your links to THAT?

reply from: fetalisa

Why are you lying? Anyone here can scroll up and read your post, but I will make it easy so they don't have to:
That's the biggest load of HORSE HOCKEY in the world!!
You very clearly took issue with the claim that sentience is impossible prior to the 7th month of gestation. Now that you have been caught with your pants down, you wish to change the goalpost and pretend you took issue something different.
You are such a liar and the proof is here for any who care to read. Yet you dare claim to be morally superior when you clearly lie like a dog if it suits you.

reply from: yoda

I have no reason to take issue with that, because it is IRRELEVANT!
IT DOESN'T MATTER!! Do you understand now?
You, on the other hand, have EVERY REASON to want to CHANGE THE SUBJECT, don't you?
How's this: I'll stipulate the "theories" on sentience in the unborn, if you will address my objection to linking sentience to "personhood".
Deal?

reply from: fetalisa

Provide a direct quote and post number where I have ever claimed such and I will be more than happy to answer the above question.
Scroll up and read the post I made after you first asked. Notice how long that post is? Notice how many links are in it? Do you think I might have been busy responding to someone else's post? Is it possible everything posted on these forums is NOT about you?
What is the point in pretending my views hinge solely on sentience when you know damn well they don't?

reply from: fetalisa

I have no reason to take issue with that, because it is IRRELEVANT!
Why did you respond to something which you had no reason to respond to? Why did you respond to something that is irrelevant as you did here:
That's the biggest load of HORSE HOCKEY in the world!!
You've been caught in a lie, yet you are STILL LYING about it. So much for any supposed 'moral' superiority of the prolife.

reply from: yoda

No, but you are still DODGING the point like crazy....... still won't talk about the "link" between sentience and personhood, will you? Well, I don't blame you really, you've already made a big enough fool of yourself here.
I hadn't heard that one before, are we "supposed to be morally superior" to you?
Goodness..... ??

reply from: fetalisa

No, but you are still DODGING the point like crazy....... still won't talk about the "link" between sentience and personhood, will you?
My original post had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the link between personhood and sentience. It merely stated the SCIENTIFIC FACT that sentience can not exist prior to the 7th month of gestation. You claimed that FACT was horse hockey. If you had intended to argue the link between sentience and personhood, you would have responded with something along the lines ofL
"it doesn't matter when sentience occurs because sentience doesn't prove personhood."
That's not what you did. You claimed the SCIENTIFIC FACT that sentience can not exist prior to the 7th month was horse hockey.
You have been caught. Quit trying to lie your way out of it. Anyone here can read it and see it for themselves. You are fooling no one here.

reply from: yoda

Oh good, you've finally seen the light....... GOOD!
Nope. The Bull Hockey was your entire argument about sentience being a prerequisite to personhood.
But I'm VERY, VERY GLAD that you have SEEN THE LIGHT!!

reply from: fetalisa

You are such a liar"
That's the biggest load of HORSE HOCKEY in the world!!

reply from: fetalisa

Why ask a question when you already know the answer 'genius?'
The only gibberish is your diversion. You have no interest whatsoever in the topic itself, but only creating asinine diversions.
You are lying, and anyone who searches for the thread titled 'right to life for the unborn is solely imaginary' where all the constitutional issues were discussed, can easily see you were already aware my views do not hinge solely on sentience. How could you possibly believe my views hinge solely on sentience, given the voluminous number of posts you made in that thread on the constitutional issues?
How many times are you going to ask me the same question repeatedly in this manner? Oh, that's right. For you it's all about creating diversions.

reply from: SpitMcGee

Is there anyone who would like to answer my question? Pro-lifers?
If abortion and shooting a child to death are the "same thing," then why are women who have had abortions offered hope and healing at the end of the video?

reply from: fetalisa

True that. If abortion is murder then any woman who gets one should be tried for premeditated murder. The prolife leaders will never suggest this publicaly because they know the public would run them out of town as quickly as possible.

reply from: saucie

All people who have fallen are offered hope and healing....there is really such a thing as redemption.
Murderering your child does not exclude anyone from the hope that is for all, no matter how you murdered your child.

reply from: bozo

Anyone can be forgiven of anything. There is always hope.
But who says abortion and shooting a child are "the same thing"?
Is running over a child with your car by accident and shooting a child "the same thing"?
What is meant by "thing"?
A woman who aborts is not a murderer in the moral sense if there is not the intent or knowledge she is murdering, so it would not be the "same thing" as shooting a child.

reply from: fetalisa

See? Abortion is 'murder' until we start discussing what the criminal consequences should be. At that point, abortion is no longer murder.

reply from: saucie

See? Abortion is 'murder' until we start discussing what the criminal consequences should be. At that point, abortion is no longer murder.
Judges and juries decide what the consequences should be.
"We" don't have to discuss anything.
Deliberatly taking the life of your child, in or out of the womb is still murder, whether the government reconizes it or not.
Governments get things wrong all the time.

reply from: bozo

See? Abortion is 'murder' until we start discussing what the criminal consequences should be. At that point, abortion is no longer murder.
She was speaking from a moral perspective.
Many women who have aborted feel guilty and want to make some kind of peace with it, and if they are Christians or seeking the Christian faith, they are being assured that they are not hopeless cases bound for hell, and that they can find mercy and forgiveness.

reply from: fetalisa

Here's the prolife game:
Statement: Abortion is murder.
Question: If abortion is banned, what should be the penalty for a woman who seeks abortion?
Statement: Women won't be prosecuted, but doctors will.
Analysis: You have just trivialized murder. If abortion is murder then the woman is guilty of premeditated murder and charged as such. However, no prolife leader would DARE suggest this and get quite offended if you DO suggest women would be tried for murder.
In other words, the prolife only prove they never believed abortion was murder to begin with.
Refusing to donate one's bodily resources to insure the survival of another is NOT murder.
If you need my kidney and will die without it and I refuse to DONATE my kidney to you and you die as a result, your family right has NO LEGAL RIGHT WHATSOEVER to sue me for murder, homicide, manslaughter nor any other such nonsense, because you had no LEGAL RIGHT to my BODILY RESOURCES to begin with.

reply from: bozo

Here's the prolife game:
Statement: Abortion is murder.
Question: If abortion is banned, what should be the penalty for a woman who seeks abortion?
Statement: Women won't be prosecuted, but doctors will.
Analysis: You have just trivialized murder. If abortion is murder then the woman is guilty of premeditated murder and charged as such. However, no prolife leader would DARE suggest this and get quite offended if you DO suggest women would be tried for murder.
In other words, the prolife only prove they never believed abortion was murder to begin with.
Wrong.
There are many prolifers here who would be happy to see the woman executed, imprisoned, or otherwise treated exactly like a murderer.
I personally don't agree with that, and that is not an inconsistency, and does not mean that I don't see abortion as unjustly killing a person.

reply from: fetalisa

The prolife LEADERS will never say that publically, because an overwhelming MAJORITY of the public would IMMEDIATELY turn AGAINST the prolife if the LEADERS did say it.
It most definitely IS an inconsistency to claim abortion is murder but then claim women who seek them should not be charged with premeditated murder. It proves you knew from the beginning it wasn't murder, or else you would treat it as if it were. All you have accomplished here is trivializing murder.

reply from: yoda

It's an arcane Christian tradition called "forgiveness".
They offer the same thing to those who kill their born kids with a shotgun.
It's still the same thing, MORALLY!

reply from: yoda

I do. Just add the word "morally" at the end of the statement, and you will get the picture.

reply from: saucie

I do. Just add the word "morally" at the end of the statement, and you will get the picture.
You'll have to "draw" the picture for the idiot to ever get it. Then good luck.
There must be some kind of pay off in it for him to be able to slam prolifers before he'll even consider the picture in any case.

reply from: yoda

I know. The idea of speaking in moral terms simply doesn't occur to him/her. S/he is hung up on legal and physical concepts. That's a common problem in some circles.

reply from: saucie

There is no doubt they are morally equal. The proaborts and their toadies can't stand the idea of them being the same, they have to jusitfy their murderous hearts and tendencies continually and their toadies must find a way to make their hurt feelings better.
It's a sickening thing to watch.

reply from: faithman

Because phony prolifers think they will out nice baby killers. Besides the point there are ministries who reach out to women behind bars as well. If you kill your kids [born or preborn] you should go to jail. Then the bleeding hearts can lavish all the sloppy agopy they want. Justice first, then mercy.

reply from: fetalisa

Which is asinine and inconsistent. You can't claim 'abortion is murder' and then claim 'women shouldn't be prosecuted for premeditated murder if they abort because we forgive them.' The only thing you accomplish with that is to TRIVIALIZE MURDER/

reply from: fetalisa

Abortion IS moral. Our present abortion law IS moral, with few exceptions, like the ban on D&X and nonsensical waiting periods or required viewing of ultrasounds.

reply from: SpitMcGee

It's an arcane Christian tradition called "forgiveness".
They offer the same thing to those who kill their born kids with a shotgun.
It's still the same thing, MORALLY!
Really?
From the video: "if you've had an abortion, it's not our intention to intensify your grief. Instead, we'd like to direct you to sources of healing, forgiveness, and restoration."
Replace the word "abortion" in that statement with the words "shot your child to death."
Is this something you would seriously say?

reply from: fetalisa

People who kill their kids DO go to jail. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,560941,00.html
However, abortion kills ZEFs, not children, as any medical dictionary can easily demonstrate.

reply from: fetalisa

When do the prolife EVER 'seriously say' anything? It's all smoke, mirrors and charade, based on pretending ZEFs are either babies, children or persons, as if the rest of us are dumb enough to fall for such idiocy.


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