Another interesting pro-lifer conundrum.

canndo said:
I am in full agreement that "life" begins at conception. I will go no further unless pushed. When pushed I argue that abortions are collateral damage that comes from a full complement of rights claimed by adults. If i have the right to protect myself and my property from threats to that life and property then I have the right to kill a child in the womb just as I have the right to kill an intruder into my home. EVEN if that intruder is initialy invited.
Click to expand...
So you believe you can invite the neighbors over for dinner and then murder them?
 
canndo said:
Think it? I see ample evidence of it, including my initial opening statement on this thread. The obligation a pro-lifer believes he owes to a child ends at birth.
Click to expand...
Yeah, your initial opening statement is evidence. I saw you murder a homeless woman. Yep, that's ample evidence.
 
canndo said:
400 bc and 600 ad? no, I'm not out of touch. I understand rights and in particular Constitutional rights. Rights are for people and fetuses are not people, they have no legal exstence save for that imparted to them by the mother.
Click to expand...
Blacks are less than human. Jews are less than human. Mexicans are less than human. Fill in the blank are less than human. I am God. I decide who gets to live. Who are you to try to tell me I'm not allowed to kill those I decide are less than human?
 
canndo said:
Collateral damage, no different than those children who are accidentaly shot in crossfire, no different than those who are blown up by our unexploded mines in other countries, no different than those we dust off our shoes after a bombing of one country or another. Death is one of the costs of freedom in this country, and children take the brunt of much of that cost. Murder is the illegal taking of a human life. Abortion is not presently murder. Murder, to the pro-lifers is just a shock word, just as pictures of mutilated fetuses are used to shock, so is that word, misused and thrown about.
Click to expand...
Why do you find it wrong to show the would be mother what the result of her actions are? Is it because it shows the lie to your claim that the unborn are just "a bit of tissue"? Why do you claim an ultrasound is "intrusive" when it clearly is not? Is it because it shows the lie to your claim that the unborn are just "a bit of tissue"?
 
Red1966 said:
Blacks are less than human. Jews are less than human. Mexicans are less than human. Fill in the blank are less than human. I am God. I decide who gets to live. Who are you to try to tell me I'm not allowed to kill those I decide are less than human?
Click to expand...
A stack of paper and a typewriter is not a book....6 week old cell clusters are not alive as individuals, they are parasites and their god is the host. Mother knows best.
 
canndo said:
My point is simple. (my errors are from my phone primarily, and as you know I do not spell well). If the "pro-life" faction were actually pro life, they would be concerned over the poisons in the environment that tend highly to endanger the life and health of that very "child" they seek to "save". If they were truely pro life they would at least show some outrage over the poisons that the mother is forced to ingest and thus pass on to her fetus - that thing they profess to be so concerned over.

I said nothing about other "innocent things".

You think that a total of 238 foreign chemicals in a human fetus is just enviro-wacko nonsense do you? They have found benzene in fetal blood of over 1 part per million, DDD, DDT (in children in the upper and lower latitudes), and hundreds of other chemicals. What would a pro-lifer say to a mother who drinks excessively? Smokes tobacco? smokes crack? but not a word about all these other things. If they were as concerned as they claim, they would be fighting to preserve the life and future of the unborn, yet they are not.


Why?
Click to expand...

Late to the party.
For me to do the question justice, i need more information.
I request a link to this list of 238 chemical entities, with concentration determinations and distributions. A simple "have been detected" is not sound science, since after all every single breath we take contains some atoms of radon.
 
canndo said:
"what if adoption were an an option?" it is, and there are, if I recall, between 40,000 and 100,000 per year. A far cry from 1.2 million needed to take care of the current number of abortions. I have a high opinion of you Doc, I have for a long time, but your responses just aren't up to your normal caliber.
Click to expand...
The average waiting time to adopt a baby is 5 years. Less than 2% of those who apply succeed. 40,000(your MINIMUM number) times 50 is 2,000,000. More than enough.
 
canndo said:
You mistake information and debate with whining. Isn't it you that whines about: Taxes The poor Bengazi Health care Presidential actions Socialism The liberal media welfare regulations government intrusion gun control Obama in general polls
Click to expand...
Information? What information? You mean your OPINION that the unborn only have the rights the mother decides? Sense you decided to drag all that totally unrelated stuff in, by your standards, they way to solves all those other problems is to just kill the bastards?
 
canndo said:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newborn-babies-chemicals-exposure-bpa/ I don't really have as much of a problem with science as you portray. I believe you are talking exclusively about the Seralini study, which, it seems now, is being vindicated anyway. Nor am i say we have a higher moral standing, I am saying that my statement tends to lead us to believe that the pro-life crowd is more in favor of control for its own sake than for the "rights" of fetuses". You seem to maintain that the introduction of hundreds of foreign chemicals must surely be benign and I must be a crackpot but history shows over and over again that these foreign chemicals are indeed deleterious to one's health as cancer clusters clearly show. Are those crack pot observations as well? Are the evacuaton of superfund sites simply a waste of time because people like me have these superstitions?
Click to expand...
You have yet to show any evidence at all that your bullshit preposition that pro-lifers are pro-pollution has any validity at all. I could just as easily claim pro-choicers go around poisoning the water supply.
 
This debate is pointless, the bottom line is this is about womens rights, we live in a patriachy dominated system, conteoling womens rights to her body is just another opression tactic.
 
Red1966 said:
But killing for inconvenience makes moral sense?
Click to expand...

Morality is my honest opinion in the matter. It is not killing, it is not a conscious individual but part of the mother, and I respect the difficulty of the choice and know when to shut up about a topic that is a womans issue. So, morality is a concern for actual people and fault me for that as I know you will.
 
foreverflyhi said:
This debate is pointless, the bottom line is this is about womens rights, we live in a patriachy dominated system, conteoling womens rights to her body is just another opression tactic.
Click to expand...
Why, because you disregard the life of the child? There is more than just the woman involved here.
 
canndo said:
Easy enough to demonstrate. Enforce birth at every occasion but cut out all programs that prop up poor moms. I don't know how much clearer it can be.
Click to expand...

Because some are, so is the whole. Not good logic. I'm not part of your stereotype whole and probably a lot more "liberal" on many subjects you're toward the middle.
 
burgertime2010 said:
Morality is my honest opinion in the matter. It is not killing, it is not a conscious individual but part of the mother, and I respect the difficulty of the choice and know when to shut up about a topic that is a womans issue. So, morality is a concern for actual people and fault me for that as I know you will.
Click to expand...
Yes, dehumanize those you wish to kill, be they of different ethnicity, religion, skin color, income level, or just inconvenient to a promiscuous lifestyle. The mother made a conscience decision to engage in the actions that result in the conception of the child. She has already made her "choice". The "solution" to her bad "choice"? Kill the unborn. After all, they can't vote, but the woman can.
 
Red1966 said:
Why, because you disregard the life of the child? There is more than just the woman involved here.
Click to expand...

I understand why u would say that, but really, u have to understand that this is not a issue of the unborn, its A WOMEN issue. You have to u understand that we live in a culture where men dominate women, we live in a culture where sadly rape has become the norm.
once agian i understand why you would say that, i really do, but i have taken a turn in my life by reading femenist literature, im man enough to consider myself a femenist, and im man enough to stop a rape, and to stop people like you from taking a womens right away. If you cant connect the dots between rape culture and reproductive rights, then honestly, i feel bad for all the women in your life because u look at them as creature that u have control over.

And to further my point, why would u debate in a matter in which the majority of people agree upon? What kind of arguement would u propose to all these millions of women? Do u consider yourself a man? If so, man up and respect womens rights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top