Abortion????

[QUOTE="Choga"]

Nay, just because something is brain dead does not make it dead. What makes something dead is it's lack of electrical brain waves. So if somebody is a vegetable, thechnically they are still alive. A living human is not defined by its cognitive brain function. ALL living things are defined by the characteristics I mentioned...humans are not "special". There is great immorality in terminating an unborn fetus, since it encourages irresponsibility, and above all it cheapens life. You appear to be quite ignorant yourself - because I am pro-life I am ignorant and lazy? Sweeping generalizations ftw! It is the pro-choice advocates who care nothing for human life in general. A newborn baby is not sapient (which you confuse with sentient), so does that make a newborn baby not human? The fact is that if we say unborn babies are not human, what is to stop us from saying infants are not human? Or todlers who are not capable of being sapient?

Atrus

Of course pro-lifers are ignorant and lazy. If you actually cared for human life your focus would be keeping the many people who are living alive, rather than the abortion of those who aren't. It was just mentioned on TV that a million Africans dies a year from Malaria, and of course there are all those children in the world who die without a mention from these so-called "pro-life" advocates.

Pro-lifers care nothing for the life of the fetus after it's born, and care nothing for the lives of the many in the world that die. They only care for life which serves their ego the best. This is why there is an over-emphasis on Abortion then more pressing matters.

"Cheapening life" is vacuous term. What cheapens life? To kill is part of existing in this world, that we can better allocate resources to maintain the living shows much better respect for life than pushing another life into this world, caring little of what happens to anyone after they are born. If anything "cheapens" life it is the hypocritical nature of pro-life advocates. One that says, the this unborn North American thing is more valuable than the thousands or millions of the living. It is disgraceful.

Yes, you must be right huh? All those pro-lifers and churches out there setting up facilities and programs set up for taking care of unwanted children, helping women who DO decide to have the children, and all that are obviously hypocrytical? It is also a sweeping generalization to say all pro-lifers arent doing what they can to help those that do live. That's probably the biggest load of steaming **** i've ever heard.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="killtactics"]not when u get a doctor invlved and we are talking about ending what should have been a human... And while the embryo which will be a human has no say on the matter... if u wait 8 years it might...killtactics

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] Let's not forget that "pro-life" really only means "pro-human life."killtactics

wait what? so not arguing on a moral basis means its okfor them not to do all those things? also how on earth do u know that no one in Africa who is helping the ppl there is pro-life????????? or that pro life ppl dont take care of children????killtactics

If they weren't arguing from a position that pretended morality, they would have next to no argument.

I have no problem if someone wasn't a hypocrite and lived thier lives in such a way. I can understand why a Jainist fundamentalist would be against abortion, given that they are against the killing of any life (though even they can't do that in actuality without dieing). However, Pro-Life advocates are no Jainist fundamentalist.

Even some Jainists would think twice about the anti-abortionism, given that they also have to account for the suffering a human would endure bearing the baby. Same goes with some aspects of Buddhism, where the Dalai Lama says that the conditions for abortion are condition dependant (not only for physical harm but emotional and economic as well).

I'm neutral. It depends on the will of the motherrohver

That's not neutral, that's pro-choice :P.

Yes, you must be right huh? All those pro-lifers and churches out there setting up facilities and programs set up for taking care of unwanted children, helping women who DO decide to have the children, and all that are obviously hypocrytical? It is also a sweeping generalization to say all pro-lifers arent doing what they can to help those that do live. That's probably the biggest load of steaming **** i've ever heard.

Tolwan

Of course. Just like any ego-centric point of view they spend a disproportionate amount of time and resources catering to issues that they over-exagerrate than addressing them in order of severity. It's like how say.. the Palestinian-Israeli conflict disproportionately dominates the socio-political attention of world crises. Nobody gave a damn when a WWII-like event emerged in the 2nd Congolese Civil war, but they are all over a religious-centric land war.

You would think that if "life" was your emphasis, that you would be out there protecting the many that die all too readily than the few. Instead, the many ride on the coat-tails of the efforts of the few, because they feel they can borrow that kind of justification for their protests.

Like I said in an earlier post, I can see if these people were Jainist fundamentalists and truly "pro-life" as best as possible, but the Pro-life advocates aren't even a fraction of that. The Pro-Life movement is a blatent exercise in egotism.

I belive the government should legalize abortion under certain conditions. For example anyone underage should get parental consent. It shouldnt even be an issue in case of certain diseases or rape. In case of an adult woman she should be alowwed to make her own choice. Personaly I dont belive anybody has the right to terminate another human life. but like I said thats a personal opinion, In the end everybody has to answer for their actions. there is a karmic price to pay for everything we ever did.

[QUOTE="Tolwan"]

Yes, you must be right huh? All those pro-lifers and churches out there setting up facilities and programs set up for taking care of unwanted children, helping women who DO decide to have the children, and all that are obviously hypocrytical? It is also a sweeping generalization to say all pro-lifers arent doing what they can to help those that do live. That's probably the biggest load of steaming **** i've ever heard.

Atrus

Of course. Just like any ego-centric point of view they spend a disproportionate amount of time and resources catering to issues that they over-exagerrate than addressing them in order of severity. It's like how say.. the Palestinian-Israeli conflict disproportionately dominates the socio-political attention of world crises. Nobody gave a damn when a WWII-like event emerged in the 2nd Congolese Civil war, but they are all over a religious-centric land war.

You would think that if "life" was your emphasis, that you would be out there protecting the many that die all too readily than the few. Instead, the many ride on the coat-tails of the efforts of the few, because they feel they can borrow that kind of justification for their protests.

Like I said in an earlier post, I can see if these people were Jainist fundamentalists and truly "pro-life" as best as possible, but the Pro-life advocates aren't even a fraction of that. The Pro-Life movement is a blatent exercise in egotism.

You seem to display a great degree of arrogance to give out such sweeping generalizations and think you're right. I know plenty of pro-lifers in the military for a career hoping to make the world a better place, I know pro-lifers who are in charitable organizations that go around the world. You cant save the world single handedly, so you pick an area to focus on and try and make as big a difference as you can. There are pro-lifers with organizations for many different areas.

Liberals are evil. They won't be satisfied until everyone aborts their child and adopts a Mexican.That's why I never have and never will vote Demorcrat, even though I support public assistance programs.FPSGunnerDude

Nobody is talking about mandatory abortion thats an argument ad absurdum. What is truly 'evil' as you put it is that you feel the life of a Mexican child is worth less than an American one. Instead of specifically leaving it at adopt, you had to go further and emphasize that it is a 'Mexican' child.

Sounds quite inhuman to me.

Liberals are evil. They won't be satisfied until everyone aborts their child and adopts a Mexican.That's why I never have and never will vote Demorcrat, even though I support public assistance programs.FPSGunnerDude

I really hope you are kidding man, or are you really that hoplesy stupid???? and what have you got against mexicans AS IF YOU ARE ANY BETTER??? for your own sake I realy hope you grow up. And leave all that ignorance behind. And Its not about being democrat or republican its about being a CITIZEN and doing what is right for the country as a whole. not pushing some halfassed political agenda. In case you realy are that stupid you should try taking a smart pill. The kind that comes in a SMITH and WESSON aplicator.

You seem to display a great degree of arrogance to give out such sweeping generalizations and think you're right. I know plenty of pro-lifers in the military for a career, I know pro-lifers who are in charitable organizations that go around the world. You cant save the world single handedly, so you pick an area to focus on and try and make as big a difference as you can. There are pro-lifers with organizations for many different areas.

Tolwan

If you are to focus on something, you focus on the issues on the order of severity. I am all for 'Pro-Life' registration. Let's find out who you all are and we can put you to good use by maximizing your income to save lives. I'm all for saving lives, so why not capitalize on the people who believe they can call themselves "pro-life"?

I see nothing but a level of hypocrisy and squalor with the Pro-Life movement. You call it a sweeping generalization, but it's the majority truth. What a few people do does not mean that the rest can ride their coat-tails. These type of people focus solely on the religious-centric case against abortion and care nothing for the living. These people have no right to label themselves as pro-life.

If you want to call people pro-life there are some Jainists and Buddhists who would qualify, ascetic peoples who give everything they have to save and protect lives regardless of taxonomy, and give more despite being poorer.

[QUOTE="FPSGunnerDude"]Liberals are evil. They won't be satisfied until everyone aborts their child and adopts a Mexican.That's why I never have and never will vote Demorcrat, even though I support public assistance programs.Pythos77

I really hope you are kidding man, or are you really that hoplesy stupid???? and what have you got against mexicans AS IF YOU ARE ANY BETTER??? for your own sake I realy hope you grow up. And leave all that ignorance behind. And Its not about being democrat or republican its about being a CITIZEN and doing what is right for the country as a whole. not pushing some halfassed political agenda. In case you realy are that stupid you should try taking a smart pill. The kind that comes in a SMITH and WESSON aplicator.

Right....I'm making the point that abortion is legal here and not there and that is why they are overtaking so much of the country. And yes I would care about my own child or one my countrymans children more than somebody elses, from some other country, from some other race. That doesn't make me racist, that makes me human. What I should have said was that flaming liberals are stupid, not neccessarilly evil, although there are plenty of those too.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Yeah, I believe a woman owns her body.Silver_Dragon17

So she owns the body that's getting aborted?>_>

Thats MURDERRamboSymbiot

[QUOTE="RamboSymbiot"]Thats MURDERZaeryn

Abortion is taking a life. Anyone who argues otherwise is just kidding themself.

[QUOTE="Zaeryn"][QUOTE="RamboSymbiot"]Thats MURDERFPSGunnerDude

Abortion is taking a life. Anyone who argues otherwise is just kidding themself.

[QUOTE="FPSGunnerDude"]

[QUOTE="Zaeryn"][QUOTE="RamboSymbiot"]Thats MURDERyoshi-lnex

Abortion is taking a life. Anyone who argues otherwise is just kidding themself.

Say what? That doesn't even make sense. Anyways, we should be looking for ways to reduce the abortions, not looking for ways to discount it as life.

[QUOTE="Choga"][QUOTE="Dark__Link"][QUOTE="Choga"][QUOTE="Dark__Link"][QUOTE="Choga"][QUOTE="Erasorn"][QUOTE="Choga"]

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Choga"]I am against abortion for most cases. My main problem with abortion is that we so arrogantly dictate what is and is not life.Dark__Link

No, I believe "anyone who gets an abortion and is not raped or something" is generally irresponsible. Regarding abortion laws, the government arrogantly dictates which stage of human development is and is not considered life. I think we have no right to say who has a right to live, and who has a right to die based on their stage of development.

Well for one, sperm cells only have 23 chromosomes, and embryos have 46 (a very human characteristic), so that basically shoots down your whole arguement.

You're killing the potential for the potential... for the potential for life. MURDERER!

Too bad sperm cells cannot develop into humans by themselves, while embryos can. Potential nothing. An embryo IS life from the moment it is fertilized.

A sperm cell is the potential for an embryo, which is the potential for a fetus, which is the potential for a baby. You're still a monster.

Potential means nothing. Nobody is arguing about POTENTIAL for life. A fetus IS life...period.

Murderer.

how can you kill something that isnt alive yet....and so i i kick you in the groin and just so happen to kill a sperm im a murderer?

[QUOTE="Zaeryn"][QUOTE="RamboSymbiot"]Thats MURDERFPSGunnerDude

Abortion is taking a life. Anyone who argues otherwise is just kidding themself.

Liberals are evil. They won't be satisfied until everyone aborts their child and adopts a Mexican.That's why I never have and never will vote Demorcrat, even though I support public assistance programs.FPSGunnerDude

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

You used the word murder, so I did as well.

It will never grow into a human being because it will not exist. Something that is nonexistant has no chance of feeling anything att all. If you practice abstinence (Like I do) then your sperm cells die and are replaced by more sperm cells. Little humans swimming around inside of me aren't dieing. Eggs in a woman are not human. A sperm mixed with an egg equals human, in existence, alive, and growing.

No, it is not guaranteed that it will be born, but like I said, that is natural, and not caused by humans. Therefore, it is not killing.

And I have value for the life of a child; I'm sorry, what a fool I am.:roll:

CptJSparrow

Oh, yes, the "It's not human till it comes out!" argument. In that case, let's all just kill unborn babies two days before it comes; after all, it hasn't come out yet.

The eggs and sperm are not humans, and will never be humans until they mix. A sperm will not grow into a human on its own; it will live its natural life and die. Same with an egg. They are not human possibilities if they have not mixed.

The fetus, is, however, a human possibility, and should therefore live.

[QUOTE="FPSGunnerDude"]

[QUOTE="Zaeryn"][QUOTE="RamboSymbiot"]Thats MURDERquiglythegreat

Abortion is taking a life. Anyone who argues otherwise is just kidding themself.

No, it's taking a life.:|

Any abortionist will tell you it's alive.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

You used the word murder, so I did as well.

It will never grow into a human being because it will not exist. Something that is nonexistant has no chance of feeling anything att all. If you practice abstinence (Like I do) then your sperm cells die and are replaced by more sperm cells. Little humans swimming around inside of me aren't dieing. Eggs in a woman are not human. A sperm mixed with an egg equals human, in existence, alive, and growing.

No, it is not guaranteed that it will be born, but like I said, that is natural, and not caused by humans. Therefore, it is not killing.

And I have value for the life of a child; I'm sorry, what a fool I am.:roll:

Silver_Dragon17

Oh, yes, the "It's not human till it comes out!" argument. In that case, let's all just kill unborn babies two days before it comes; after all, it hasn't come out yet.

The eggs and sperm are not humans, and will never be humans until they mix. A sperm will not grow into a human on its own; it will live its natural life and die. Same with an egg. They are not human possibilities if they have not mixed.

The fetus, is, however, a human possibility, and should therefore live.

They are human possibilities, despite the fact that they have not mixed. You have no understanding of genetics whatsoever. I wouldn't kill a fetus two days before it's born, I would kill it as an embryo--before it has an immune system. It's really none of your business what people decide to do with them, so if abortion isn't your thing, don't have one.CptJSparrow

No they don't. Without them, a human cannot come. That has been your argument. That is also correct. However, they are not developing into a human. Are you saying that in nine months I'll have millions of babies swimming around with my testacles?:shock:

And as for your shot about how it's none of my buisiness, I think killing humans is everybody's buisiness.

Pro-choice. And I am very unhappy with the way Bush and his cronies are chipping away at Roe V Wade slowly and every chance they get. Ginsburg needs more power in the Supreme Court for liberal views and that is why I am going to vote Democrat in 08', among other liberal issues.richyrichCT

[QUOTE="Choga"]

Nay, just because something is brain dead does not make it dead. What makes something dead is it's lack of electrical brain waves. So if somebody is a vegetable, thechnically they are still alive. A living human is not defined by its cognitive brain function. ALL living things are defined by the characteristics I mentioned...humans are not "special". There is great immorality in terminating an unborn fetus, since it encourages irresponsibility, and above all it cheapens life. You appear to be quite ignorant yourself - because I am pro-life I am ignorant and lazy? Sweeping generalizations ftw! It is the pro-choice advocates who care nothing for human life in general. A newborn baby is not sapient (which you confuse with sentient), so does that make a newborn baby not human? The fact is that if we say unborn babies are not human, what is to stop us from saying infants are not human? Or todlers who are not capable of being sapient?

Atrus

Of course pro-lifers are ignorant and lazy. If you actually cared for human life your focus would be keeping the many people who are living alive, rather than the abortion of those who aren't. It was just mentioned on TV that a million Africans dies a year from Malaria, and of course there are all those children in the world who die without a mention from these so-called "pro-life" advocates.

Pro-lifers care nothing for the life of the fetus after it's born, and care nothing for the lives of the many in the world that die. They only care for life which serves their ego the best. This is why there is an over-emphasis on Abortion then more pressing matters.

"Cheapening life" is vacuous term. What cheapens life? To kill is part of existing in this world, that we can better allocate resources to maintain the living shows much better respect for life than pushing another life into this world, caring little of what happens to anyone after they are born. If anything "cheapens" life it is the hypocritical nature of pro-life advocates. One that says, the this unborn North American thing is more valuable than the thousands or millions of the living. It is disgraceful.

You sir have just discredited yourself by generalizing a whole entire group of people who share a similar concern. Fetuses are alive because they meet all the biological criteria for life - so you fail. Because I am pro-life I dont care about people who die from Malaria? Very ignorant of you. What cheapens life is pro-choicers so arrogantly defining life beyond biological terms. Life doesnt not have to be "meaningful" or "sapient" to be characterized as life. If this flawed definition of life (sapience) were to be applied to all living things - then we could justify the mass slaughter of tolders because they most certainly cannot act with wisdom or judgement.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] They are human possibilities, despite the fact that they have not mixed. You have no understanding of genetics whatsoever. I wouldn't kill a fetus two days before it's born, I would kill it as an embryo--before it has an immune system. It's really none of your business what people decide to do with them, so if abortion isn't your thing, don't have one.Silver_Dragon17

No they don't. Without them, a human cannot come. That has been your argument. That is also correct. However, they are not developing into a human. Are you saying that in nine months I'll have millions of babies swimming around with my testacles?:shock:

And as for your shot about how it's none of my buisiness, I think killing humans is everybody's buisiness.

My argument never was that sperm can become humans on their own. You might want to re-read everything I've said. I've said that they're human possibilities and genetic possibilities, not that they'll grow into humans on their own. Where do you keep getting that from?:| Why worry about what they're doing? Because you might have been aborted? You wouldn't be here worrying about it if you were and you would have no idea what was going on as an embryo. I don't think you can speak for the situation that every single couple is in. If you are against abortion, don't have one and encourage others around you not to, however not everyone has the same stance on it as you, nor a feeling that human life has some sanctity at the embryonic level. The feelings and suffering of the couple is much more significant.CptJSparrow

You are saying that they are possibilities, and I agree, they are. However, it is not killing if they die, because when they mix, the fertilized egg is guaranteed (unless a miscarriage occurs) to become a child. No possibilities about it.

I might have been aborted, but that's not why I care. Why is adoption such a horrible idea? If you were raped, put the kid up for adoption. In that case, you can change your mind later if you'd like, you can name the kid, or you never even have to see it or hear about it. Either way, you don't have to deal with an unwanted baby, and you don't have to go through the horrible psychological trauma of abortion. Also, somebody who wants a baby but is, say, infertile, can have one.

A fetus is not a person, it is apart of a womens body. It has the potential for life, yes, but then having sex has the potential for life to, so if you use a contraceptive you are ruining the chance for life. Whats the difference whether its the night you have sex or a month after, your stopping the chance for life. Its the womens choose and shouldnt have to do with law.crackajacks

You argument fails, because an abortion is stopping a human development already in progress, not keeping one from happening.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]My argument never was that sperm can become humans on their own. You might want to re-read everything I've said. I've said that they're human possibilities and genetic possibilities, not that they'll grow into humans on their own. Where do you keep getting that from?:| Why worry about what they're doing? Because you might have been aborted? You wouldn't be here worrying about it if you were and you would have no idea what was going on as an embryo. I don't think you can speak for the situation that every single couple is in. If you are against abortion, don't have one and encourage others around you not to, however not everyone has the same stance on it as you, nor a feeling that human life has some sanctity at the embryonic level. The feelings and suffering of the couple is much more significant.Silver_Dragon17

You are saying that they are possibilities, and I agree, they are. However, it is not killing if they die, because when they mix, the fertilized egg is guaranteed (unless a miscarriage occurs) to become a child. No possibilities about it.

I might have been aborted, but that's not why I care. Why is adoption such a horrible idea? If you were raped, put the kid up for adoption. In that case, you can change your mind later if you'd like, you can name the kid, or you never even have to see it or hear about it. Either way, you don't have to deal with an unwanted baby, and you don't have to go through the horrible psychological trauma of abortion.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]My argument never was that sperm can become humans on their own. You might want to re-read everything I've said. I've said that they're human possibilities and genetic possibilities, not that they'll grow into humans on their own. Where do you keep getting that from?:| Why worry about what they're doing? Because you might have been aborted? You wouldn't be here worrying about it if you were and you would have no idea what was going on as an embryo. I don't think you can speak for the situation that every single couple is in. If you are against abortion, don't have one and encourage others around you not to, however not everyone has the same stance on it as you, nor a feeling that human life has some sanctity at the embryonic level. The feelings and suffering of the couple is much more significant.Silver_Dragon17

You are saying that they are possibilities, and I agree, they are. However, it is not killing if they die, because when they mix, the fertilized egg is guaranteed (unless a miscarriage occurs) to become a child. No possibilities about it.

I might have been aborted, but that's not why I care. Why is adoption such a horrible idea? If you were raped, put the kid up for adoption. In that case, you can change your mind later if you'd like, you can name the kid, or you never even have to see it or hear about it. Either way, you don't have to deal with an unwanted baby, and you don't have to go through the horrible psychological trauma of abortion. Also, somebody who wants a baby but is, say, infertile, can have one.

That is not the case. There are a lot more kids in orphanages than there are being adopted. There is also a lot of abuse in orphanges. After abortion was legalized 17 years later crime went down. Thats because those kids are at the highest risk for crime.

You sir have just discredited yourself by generalizing a whole entire group of people who share a similar concern. Fetuses are alive because they meet all the biological criteria for life - so you fail. Because I am pro-life I dont care about people who die from Malaria? Very ignorant of you. What cheapens life is pro-choicers so arrogantly defining life beyond biological terms. Life doesnt not have to be "meaningful" or "sapient" to be characterized as life. If this flawed definition of life (sapience) were to be applied to all living things - then we could justify the mass slaughter of tolders because they most certainly cannot act with wisdom or judgement.

Choga

Again, retreating to an argument ad absurdum. You call yourself "pro-life" when all you mean is "pro-human life that is in your immediate vicinity".

If you really gave a damn about life, your efforts would be directed at the greatest injustices to life overall. Like I said before, I could understand it if you were a Jainist fundamentalist, but you're not. The North American Judeo-Christian standpoint is a "for show" egotistical effort.

It's simple economics. If you really cared about life your efforts would be dedicated to the sustaining of the life that currently suffers. You might ask, why not spread that assistance around? But since everything less that the greatest orders of severity means a focus on actions resulting in fewer lives taken, it means that you move away from pro-life toward pro-ego.

For you to be debating the 'life' of the aborted instead of say... the millions who die from war, famine, and disease means a shift away from pro-life toward a stance of pro-ego. One like I pointed to in someone elses post is typically nationalistic. Seperating humans by virtue of where they are born.

If you cared so much about the life of children there are plenty of orphens around the world to be adopted or looked after. 14 million from sub-saharan Africa alone. Yet instead of chipping away at that, you would rather more be added to the burden, because of a viewpoint that strongly favours one probable nationals life over countless other already existing foreigners.

[QUOTE="Choga"]

You sir have just discredited yourself by generalizing a whole entire group of people who share a similar concern. Fetuses are alive because they meet all the biological criteria for life - so you fail. Because I am pro-life I dont care about people who die from Malaria? Very ignorant of you. What cheapens life is pro-choicers so arrogantly defining life beyond biological terms. Life doesnt not have to be "meaningful" or "sapient" to be characterized as life. If this flawed definition of life (sapience) were to be applied to all living things - then we could justify the mass slaughter of tolders because they most certainly cannot act with wisdom or judgement.

Atrus

Again, retreating to an argument ad absurdum. You call yourself "pro-life" when all you mean is "pro-human life that is in your immediate vicinity".

If you really gave a damn about life, your efforts would be directed at the greatest injustices to life overall. Like I said before, I could understand it if you were a Jainist fundamentalist, but you're not. The North American Judeo-Christian standpoint is a "for show" egotistical effort.

It's simple economics. If you really cared about life your efforts would be dedicated to the sustaining of the life that currently suffers. You might ask, why not spread that assistance around? But since everything less that the greatest orders of severity means a focus on actions resulting in fewer lives taken, it means that you move away from pro-life toward pro-ego.

For you to be debating the 'life' of the aborted instead of say... the millions who die from war, famine, and disease means a shift away from pro-life toward a stance of pro-ego. One like I pointed to in someone elses post is typically nationalistic. Seperating humans by virtue of where they are born.

If you cared so much about the life of children there are plenty of orphens around the world to be adopted or looked after. 14 million from sub-saharan Africa alone. Yet instead of chipping away at that, you would rather more be added to the burden, because of a viewpoint that strongly favours one probable nationals life over countless other already existing foreigners.

Failure again. I care about ALL life sir. You show your stupidity and ignorance by ASSUMING that I am Christian, and that the only life I care about is the unborn one. And what exactly do you mean by my efforts? Like I can accually go and single-handedly stop war or famine? Get real. I am also quite nationalistic, but that does not mean I dont value life in general. And do you honestly expect me to adopt a child from Africa? Somebody who is still living with their parents? I think not. There are many pro-life organizations that send missionaries and aid to third-world regions in the world, but you conveniently choose to ignore that, because pro-lifers are ignorant. :D What a hypocrite

[QUOTE="Atrus"][QUOTE="Choga"]

You sir have just discredited yourself by generalizing a whole entire group of people who share a similar concern. Fetuses are alive because they meet all the biological criteria for life - so you fail. Because I am pro-life I dont care about people who die from Malaria? Very ignorant of you. What cheapens life is pro-choicers so arrogantly defining life beyond biological terms. Life doesnt not have to be "meaningful" or "sapient" to be characterized as life. If this flawed definition of life (sapience) were to be applied to all living things - then we could justify the mass slaughter of tolders because they most certainly cannot act with wisdom or judgement.

Choga

Again, retreating to an argument ad absurdum. You call yourself "pro-life" when all you mean is "pro-human life that is in your immediate vicinity".

If you really gave a damn about life, your efforts would be directed at the greatest injustices to life overall. Like I said before, I could understand it if you were a Jainist fundamentalist, but you're not. The North American Judeo-Christian standpoint is a "for show" egotistical effort.

It's simple economics. If you really cared about life your efforts would be dedicated to the sustaining of the life that currently suffers. You might ask, why not spread that assistance around? But since everything less that the greatest orders of severity means a focus on actions resulting in fewer lives taken, it means that you move away from pro-life toward pro-ego.

For you to be debating the 'life' of the aborted instead of say... the millions who die from war, famine, and disease means a shift away from pro-life toward a stance of pro-ego. One like I pointed to in someone elses post is typically nationalistic. Seperating humans by virtue of where they are born.

If you cared so much about the life of children there are plenty of orphens around the world to be adopted or looked after. 14 million from sub-saharan Africa alone. Yet instead of chipping away at that, you would rather more be added to the burden, because of a viewpoint that strongly favours one probable nationals life over countless other already existing foreigners.

Failure again. I care about ALL life sir. You show your stupidity and ignorance by ASSUMING that I am Christian, and that the only life I care about is the unborn one. And what exactly do you mean by my efforts? Like I can accually go and single-handedly stop war or famine? Get real. I am also quite nationalistic, but that does not mean I dont value life in general. And do you honestly expect me to adopt a child from Africa? Somebody who is still living with their parents? I think not. There are many pro-life organizations that send missionaries and aid to third-world regions in the world, but you conveniently choose to ignore that, because pro-lifers are ignorant. :D What a hypocrite

Those missonaries preach gods word, they have been preaching to the africans how contraceptives are wrong which has helped caused the spread of AIDS. Keep calling people names, it helps your argument.

Failure again. I care about ALL life sir. You show your stupidity and ignorance by ASSUMING that I am Christian, and that the only life I care about is the unborn one. And what exactly do you mean by my efforts? Like I can accually go and single-handedly stop war or famine? Get real. I am also quite nationalistic, but that does not mean I dont value life in general. And do you honestly expect me to adopt a child from Africa? Somebody who is still living with their parents? I think not. There are many pro-life organizations that send missionaries and aid to third-world regions in the world, but you conveniently choose to ignore that, because pro-lifers are ignorant. :D What a hypocrite

Choga

Read again, I said the North American Judeo-Christian attitude. That does not mean that YOU are Judeo-Christian. Neither did I say that one individual could stop war and famine but that any individual who has time to devote to the anti-abortion issue could use that same time and resources to dedicate it to something that is orders of magnitude worse. If you were pro-life then that would be what you'd do, to dawdle on minor issues instead is an act of egotism.

Did I say that nobody in the pro-life movement prioritizes? No. I dispute your right and that of the majority to ride on the actions of the minority. You don't get to excuse yourself from hypocrisy for what they do.

[QUOTE="Choga"][QUOTE="Atrus"][QUOTE="Choga"]

You sir have just discredited yourself by generalizing a whole entire group of people who share a similar concern. Fetuses are alive because they meet all the biological criteria for life - so you fail. Because I am pro-life I dont care about people who die from Malaria? Very ignorant of you. What cheapens life is pro-choicers so arrogantly defining life beyond biological terms. Life doesnt not have to be "meaningful" or "sapient" to be characterized as life. If this flawed definition of life (sapience) were to be applied to all living things - then we could justify the mass slaughter of tolders because they most certainly cannot act with wisdom or judgement.

crackajacks

Again, retreating to an argument ad absurdum. You call yourself "pro-life" when all you mean is "pro-human life that is in your immediate vicinity".

If you really gave a damn about life, your efforts would be directed at the greatest injustices to life overall. Like I said before, I could understand it if you were a Jainist fundamentalist, but you're not. The North American Judeo-Christian standpoint is a "for show" egotistical effort.

It's simple economics. If you really cared about life your efforts would be dedicated to the sustaining of the life that currently suffers. You might ask, why not spread that assistance around? But since everything less that the greatest orders of severity means a focus on actions resulting in fewer lives taken, it means that you move away from pro-life toward pro-ego.

For you to be debating the 'life' of the aborted instead of say... the millions who die from war, famine, and disease means a shift away from pro-life toward a stance of pro-ego. One like I pointed to in someone elses post is typically nationalistic. Seperating humans by virtue of where they are born.

If you cared so much about the life of children there are plenty of orphens around the world to be adopted or looked after. 14 million from sub-saharan Africa alone. Yet instead of chipping away at that, you would rather more be added to the burden, because of a viewpoint that strongly favours one probable nationals life over countless other already existing foreigners.

Failure again. I care about ALL life sir. You show your stupidity and ignorance by ASSUMING that I am Christian, and that the only life I care about is the unborn one. And what exactly do you mean by my efforts? Like I can accually go and single-handedly stop war or famine? Get real. I am also quite nationalistic, but that does not mean I dont value life in general. And do you honestly expect me to adopt a child from Africa? Somebody who is still living with their parents? I think not. There are many pro-life organizations that send missionaries and aid to third-world regions in the world, but you conveniently choose to ignore that, because pro-lifers are ignorant. :D What a hypocrite

Those missonaries preach gods word, they have been preaching to the africans how contraceptives are wrong which has helped caused the spread of AIDS. Keep calling people names, it helps your argument.

I was called a name first, so I think its only fair I retaliate. And the Africans dont have to believe contraception is bad. If I told you that eating is bad, would you stop eating? I think not. To ignore all of the humanitarian efforts of those organizations is quite ignorant.

[QUOTE="crackajacks"][QUOTE="Choga"][QUOTE="Atrus"][QUOTE="Choga"]

You sir have just discredited yourself by generalizing a whole entire group of people who share a similar concern. Fetuses are alive because they meet all the biological criteria for life - so you fail. Because I am pro-life I dont care about people who die from Malaria? Very ignorant of you. What cheapens life is pro-choicers so arrogantly defining life beyond biological terms. Life doesnt not have to be "meaningful" or "sapient" to be characterized as life. If this flawed definition of life (sapience) were to be applied to all living things - then we could justify the mass slaughter of tolders because they most certainly cannot act with wisdom or judgement.

Choga

Again, retreating to an argument ad absurdum. You call yourself "pro-life" when all you mean is "pro-human life that is in your immediate vicinity".

If you really gave a damn about life, your efforts would be directed at the greatest injustices to life overall. Like I said before, I could understand it if you were a Jainist fundamentalist, but you're not. The North American Judeo-Christian standpoint is a "for show" egotistical effort.

It's simple economics. If you really cared about life your efforts would be dedicated to the sustaining of the life that currently suffers. You might ask, why not spread that assistance around? But since everything less that the greatest orders of severity means a focus on actions resulting in fewer lives taken, it means that you move away from pro-life toward pro-ego.

For you to be debating the 'life' of the aborted instead of say... the millions who die from war, famine, and disease means a shift away from pro-life toward a stance of pro-ego. One like I pointed to in someone elses post is typically nationalistic. Seperating humans by virtue of where they are born.

If you cared so much about the life of children there are plenty of orphens around the world to be adopted or looked after. 14 million from sub-saharan Africa alone. Yet instead of chipping away at that, you would rather more be added to the burden, because of a viewpoint that strongly favours one probable nationals life over countless other already existing foreigners.

Failure again. I care about ALL life sir. You show your stupidity and ignorance by ASSUMING that I am Christian, and that the only life I care about is the unborn one. And what exactly do you mean by my efforts? Like I can accually go and single-handedly stop war or famine? Get real. I am also quite nationalistic, but that does not mean I dont value life in general. And do you honestly expect me to adopt a child from Africa? Somebody who is still living with their parents? I think not. There are many pro-life organizations that send missionaries and aid to third-world regions in the world, but you conveniently choose to ignore that, because pro-lifers are ignorant. :D What a hypocrite

Those missonaries preach gods word, they have been preaching to the africans how contraceptives are wrong which has helped caused the spread of AIDS. Keep calling people names, it helps your argument.

I was called a name first, so I think its only fair I retaliate. And the Africans dont have to believe contraception is bad. If I told you that eating is bad, would you stop eating? I think not. To ignore all of the humanitarian efforts of those organizations is quite ignorant.

Your right, we should recoginize all they have done to help the africans and it is the africans fault for following what they say that it wrong. Or mabey the missonaries should leave it up to smarter organizations.

[QUOTE="Choga"]

Failure again. I care about ALL life sir. You show your stupidity and ignorance by ASSUMING that I am Christian, and that the only life I care about is the unborn one. And what exactly do you mean by my efforts? Like I can accually go and single-handedly stop war or famine? Get real. I am also quite nationalistic, but that does not mean I dont value life in general. And do you honestly expect me to adopt a child from Africa? Somebody who is still living with their parents? I think not. There are many pro-life organizations that send missionaries and aid to third-world regions in the world, but you conveniently choose to ignore that, because pro-lifers are ignorant. :D What a hypocrite

Atrus

Read again, I said the North American Judeo-Christian attitude. That does not mean that YOU are Judeo-Christian. Neither did I say that one individual could stop war and famine but that any individual who has time to devote to the anti-abortion issue could use that same time and resources to dedicate it to something that is orders of magnitude worse. If you were pro-life then that would be what you'd do, to dawdle on minor issues instead is an act of egotism.

Did I say that nobody in the pro-life movement prioritizes? No. I dispute your right and that of the majority to ride on the actions of the minority. You don't get to excuse yourself from hypocrisy for what they do.

If you were not calling me Judeo-Christian, what is the point of mentioning them? It is quite obvious I do not associate myself with them. You said I should concentrate MY efforts to stoping war and famine. That means you expect ME to do something about things that are out of my control.

You claim that I don't have the right to excuse myself from the hypocrisy of others? I am an INDIVIDUAL with INDIVIDUAL beliefs that differ from the majority. So you fail again because I don't associate myself with any organizations who are "pro-life". I use the term "pro-life" because it is the term commonly used to describe the beleif that abortion is wrong.