So this has to do with him supporting abortion how?JacobisthemanAll of those policies aim to limit the number of abortions...
The majority of people in the US Pro-Life for the first time in 15 years.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] Sorry, I meant to say supported the abortion, but I would not be surprised if Obama, by Obama I mean the girl he got pregnant, had an abortion but I have no proof. Jacobistheman
As you say, you have no proof, nor evidence of any kind, so I think your opinion here isn't exactly credible ;).
Well, the fact that I said I have no evidence, that it is pure speculation, means that my argument is credible, and my opinion is logical. but looking at the crazy guy obama was in his teen's and twenty's, I wouldn't be surprised if he got some girl pregnate.Speculation does not makea argument crediable..:| With this logic, than McCain is infact gay.
[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"]So this has to do with him supporting abortion how?-Sun_Tzu-All of those policies aim to limit the number of abortions... Yeah, he may try to limit them but he still supports them in some situations.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] since you can't do that my argument it correct.JacobisthemanNot at all, the burden of proof is on you my friend. I just did, you can't tell me that obama is totally against abortion so he is for abortion and thus pro-abortion, it is as simple as that. Where I come from, baseless speculation is not considered proof. And I have provided actual evidence that suggests that Obama would not encourage women getting abortions.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"]So this has to do with him supporting abortion how?JacobisthemanAll of those policies aim to limit the number of abortions... Yeah, he may try to limit them but he still supports them in some situations. It is not accurate to say that he supports them. He is tolerant of abortion in some situations, but that doesn't mean anything. So do a signficant number of those who call themselves pro-life, including people like Sarah Palin...
Well, the fact that I said I have no evidence, that it is pure speculation, means that my argument is credible, and my opinion is logical. but looking at the crazy guy obama was in his teen's and twenty's, I wouldn't be surprised if he got some girl pregnate.[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
As you say, you have no proof, nor evidence of any kind, so I think your opinion here isn't exactly credible ;).
sSubZerOo
Speculation does not makea argument crediable..:| With this logic, than McCain is infact gay.
No, that pictures proves that McCain is a blood drinking lizard
Let me tell you a little something about Obama
It can still reproduce, meanining it is alive.
No, it can't reproduce. When I see/hear of a "male" fetus getting it on with a "female" fetus to make a "baby" fetus, I'll agree, but until then, no. And for the record, I, too, just had a HORRIBLE mental image of that.
Yes, it can reproduce. Are you seriously trying to prove that a fetus is not alive?
You said the fetus couldn't think for itself, which is why it doesn't have a choice.A newbowrn baby could not either.
Yes. And newborn babies are irrelevent.
Newborn babies are not irrelevant. Your arugments supporting killing fetuses has to only apply to fetuses. If the same argument applies to newborns, it is illogical.
You said that fetuses should be allowed to be killed because they can't make their own decision on the matter. A newborn baby can't make its own decision either, so using your reasoning, it should also be legal to murder it.
If you don't think that killing newborns should be legal, than your argument is useless.Yes, just like having an illegal abortion is up to the mother.
Now if only abortions were illegal... but they aren't.
You are responding to my point as if it were a single statement when it was really in response to a different point...
Someone else - By making it illegal you just encourage back-street abortions where women die.
Me - They are making the choice to get illegal abortions... Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. We already discussed this.
Someone else - No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion with the way things are now, so what's the problem?
Me - Let's say that they legalized murder, as in you can kill absolutely anyone and not be punished by the law. Nobody is forcing you to murder, so why not have murder legal?
Someone else - In a hypothetical universe where murder is legal, would whether or not the act takes place be left completely up to the moral standpoint of the individual?
Me - Yes, just like having an illegal abortion is up to the mother.
If abortion were illegal, having an illegal abortion is up to the mother.
Yes it "could be" ****fied as if made illegal, but they also may make a separate law for it. By the way she asked what I would make the law be.
I'm fully aware of that. I'm taking your fantasy world and applying it to reality. The two realities just don't mix.
What fantasy... If abortion were illegal, it could be ****fied as murder.
How is this unrealistic?scorch-62
Let me tell you a little something about Obama
Dark-Sithious
Holy crap, this post wins :lol:
[QUOTE="scorch-62"]
It can still reproduce, meanining it is alive.
No, it can't reproduce. When I see/hear of a "male" fetus getting it on with a "female" fetus to make a "baby" fetus, I'll agree, but until then, no. And for the record, I, too, just had a HORRIBLE mental image of that.
Yes, it can reproduce. Are you seriously trying to prove that a fetus is not alive?
You said the fetus couldn't think for itself, which is why it doesn't have a choice.A newbowrn baby could not either.
Yes. And newborn babies are irrelevent.
Newborn babies are not irrelevant. Your arugments supporting killing fetuses has to only apply to fetuses. If the same argument applies to newborns, it is illogical.
You said that fetuses should be allowed to be killed because they can't make their own decision on the matter. A newborn baby can't make its own decision either, so using your reasoning, it should also be legal to murder it.
If you don't think that killing newborns should be legal, than your argument is useless.Yes, just like having an illegal abortion is up to the mother.
Now if only abortions were illegal... but they aren't.
You are responding to my point as if it were a single statement when it was really in response to a different point...
Someone else - By making it illegal you just encourage back-street abortions where women die.
Me - They are making the choice to get illegal abortions... Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. We already discussed this.
Someone else - No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion with the way things are now, so what's the problem?
Me - Let's say that they legalized murder, as in you can kill absolutely anyone and not be punished by the law. Nobody is forcing you to murder, so why not have murder legal?
Someone else - In a hypothetical universe where murder is legal, would whether or not the act takes place be left completely up to the moral standpoint of the individual?
Me - Yes, just like having an illegal abortion is up to the mother.
If abortion were illegal, having an illegal abortion is up to the mother.
Yes it "could be" ****fied as if made illegal, but they also may make a separate law for it. By the way she asked what I would make the law be.
I'm fully aware of that. I'm taking your fantasy world and applying it to reality. The two realities just don't mix.
What fantasy... If abortion were illegal, it could be ****fied as murder.
How is this unrealistic?McJugga
The argument against abortion is flawed.. Abortion is not like murder stop trying to compare that act objectively for whether you ban it or not.. IT is closer to such as Alochol.. We all know howsuccessful prohibtion was.. It was a dieaster and did more harm than help.. The same can be said of abortion, infact numerous countries in South America are having problems with this where women are getting back alley abortions in which they risk their lives.. Its a fine line, but history has shown in similar things that prohibition of any simila ract is not about the best way of minimizing the damage.
I love the argument: "He's not pro-abortion, he's pro-choice." How would you feel is he legalized murder in the country. Would he still be pro-choice then or would he be pro-murder?Genetic_CodeBefore I respond, let me first share an excerp from Judith Thomson's infamous paper, "A Defense of Abortion":
"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."
Now, what if Bush made it illegal for you to remove those plugs that connect your circulatory system to someone who has a fatal kidney ailment. Would he still be pro-life or would he be pro-enslavement?
The argument against abortion is flawed.. Abortion is not like murder stop trying to compare that act objectively for whether you ban it or not.. IT is closer to such as Alochol.. We all know howsuccessful prohibtion was.. It was a dieaster and did more harm than help.. The same can be said of abortion, infact numerous countries in South America are having problems with this where women are getting back alley abortions in which they risk their lives.. Its a fine line, but history has shown in similar things that prohibition of any simila ract is not about the best way of minimizing the damage.
sSubZerOo
Re-read this
Someone else - By making it illegal you just encourage back-street abortions where women die.
Me - They are making the choice to get illegal abortions... Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. We already discussed this.
Someone else - No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion with the way things are now, so what's the problem?
Me - Let's say that they legalized murder, as in you can kill absolutely anyone and not be punished by the law. Nobody is forcing you to murder, so why not have murder legal?
Someone else - In a hypothetical universe where murder is legal, would whether or not the act takes place be left completely up to the moral standpoint of the individual?
Me - Yes, just like having an illegal abortion is up to the mother.
The two red parts are the important parts. I never said abortion was murder, at the moment. The legal murder thing was just hypothetical.
Before I respond, let me first share an excerp from Judith Thomson's infamous paper, "A Defense of Abortion":[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]I love the argument: "He's not pro-abortion, he's pro-choice." How would you feel is he legalized murder in the country. Would he still be pro-choice then or would he be pro-murder?-Sun_Tzu-
"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."
Now, what if Bush made it illegal for you to remove those plugs that connect your circulatory system to someone who has a fatal kidney ailment. Would he still be pro-life or would he be pro-enslavement?
You didn't willingly get kidnapped.
You willingly have sex.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
The argument against abortion is flawed.. Abortion is not like murder stop trying to compare that act objectively for whether you ban it or not.. IT is closer to such as Alochol.. We all know howsuccessful prohibtion was.. It was a dieaster and did more harm than help.. The same can be said of abortion, infact numerous countries in South America are having problems with this where women are getting back alley abortions in which they risk their lives.. Its a fine line, but history has shown in similar things that prohibition of any simila ract is not about the best way of minimizing the damage.
Re-read this
Someone else - By making it illegal you just encourage back-street abortions where women die.
Me - They are making the choice to get illegal abortions... Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. We already discussed this.
Someone else - No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion with the way things are now, so what's the problem?
Me - Let's say that they legalized murder, as in you can kill absolutely anyone and not be punished by the law. Nobody is forcing you to murder, so why not have murder legal?
Someone else - In a hypothetical universe where murder is legal, would whether or not the act takes place be left completely up to the moral standpoint of the individual?
Me - Yes, just like having an illegal abortion is up to the mother.
The two red parts are the important parts. I never said abortion was murder, at the moment. The legal murder thing was just hypothetical.
And I CLEARLY POINTED OUT.. THat MURDER is not the correct comparison.. I have pointed out that it has more in common with the prohibition of Alochol during the 1920s..[QUOTE="McJugga"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
The argument against abortion is flawed.. Abortion is not like murder stop trying to compare that act objectively for whether you ban it or not.. IT is closer to such as Alochol.. We all know howsuccessful prohibtion was.. It was a dieaster and did more harm than help.. The same can be said of abortion, infact numerous countries in South America are having problems with this where women are getting back alley abortions in which they risk their lives.. Its a fine line, but history has shown in similar things that prohibition of any simila ract is not about the best way of minimizing the damage.
sSubZerOo
Re-read this
Someone else - By making it illegal you just encourage back-street abortions where women die.
Me - They are making the choice to get illegal abortions... Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. We already discussed this.
Someone else - No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion with the way things are now, so what's the problem?
Me - Let's say that they legalized murder, as in you can kill absolutely anyone and not be punished by the law. Nobody is forcing you to murder, so why not have murder legal?
Someone else - In a hypothetical universe where murder is legal, would whether or not the act takes place be left completely up to the moral standpoint of the individual?
Me - Yes, just like having an illegal abortion is up to the mother.
The two red parts are the important parts. I never said abortion was murder, at the moment. The legal murder thing was just hypothetical.
And I CLEARLY POINTED OUT.. THat MURDER is not the correct comparison.. I have pointed out that it has more in common with the prohibition of Alochol during the 1920s..I never said that it is murder.
Re-re-read it.
Before I respond, let me first share an excerp from Judith Thomson's infamous paper, "A Defense of Abortion":[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]I love the argument: "He's not pro-abortion, he's pro-choice." How would you feel is he legalized murder in the country. Would he still be pro-choice then or would he be pro-murder?McJugga
"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."
Now, what if Bush made it illegal for you to remove those plugs that connect your circulatory system to someone who has a fatal kidney ailment. Would he still be pro-life or would he be pro-enslavement?
You didn't willingly get kidnapped.
You willingly have sex.
People always offer that rebuttal - they always say that - almost verbatim. What I don't understand is the distinction between getting an abortion because you were raped and getting an abortion because you were unlucky or irresonsible. Even the rape victim - or to stick to the metaphor - the person who was kidnapped, is to some extent responsible for what happened. And if you were going to assume that life is life no matter what, why is it alright to kill the child because his father was a rapist? How is that the child's fault?[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="McJugga"]
Re-read this
Someone else - By making it illegal you just encourage back-street abortions where women die.
Me - They are making the choice to get illegal abortions... Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. We already discussed this.
Someone else - No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion with the way things are now, so what's the problem?
Me - Let's say that they legalized murder, as in you can kill absolutely anyone and not be punished by the law. Nobody is forcing you to murder, so why not have murder legal?
Someone else - In a hypothetical universe where murder is legal, would whether or not the act takes place be left completely up to the moral standpoint of the individual?
Me - Yes, just like having an illegal abortion is up to the mother.
The two red parts are the important parts. I never said abortion was murder, at the moment. The legal murder thing was just hypothetical.
And I CLEARLY POINTED OUT.. THat MURDER is not the correct comparison.. I have pointed out that it has more in common with the prohibition of Alochol during the 1920s..I never said that it is murder.
Re-re-read it.
I am not suggesting you are saying its murder.. I am pointing out that your comparison of it being like legalizing murder is ridiculous and does not fit.well Obama is on record of saying he would like to reduce teen pregnancy rates. Also the election comes down to more than just being pro-choice or pro-life.
Serraph105
Good luck with that. Giving kids condems is the closest thing you are going to be able to do, and at that point you are almost incouraging teen sex.If you are under the misapprehension that when Harry is 17 that you are going to have even a remote influence on what he decides in the back seat of a Chevy on a Saturday night....
DrPhil
Do you really think he would come out and say that in situation X, this person should have an abortion? JacobisthemanNo I don't, which is why I am wondering why you are under the presumption that Obama supports and encourages abortions in some situations.
Yes, it can reproduce. Are you seriously trying to prove that a fetus is not alive?No, it cannot reproduce. The cells that something is made of reproducing does not mean that the thing itself is alive. Based on your logic, a tumor is considered a living organism and getting rid of it is wrong.
Newborn babies are not irrelevant. Your arugments supporting killing fetuses has to only apply to fetuses. If the same argument applies to newborns, it is illogical.
In an argument about fetal abortion, yeah, they kind of are. This argument has absolutely nothing to do with newborns, other than their relevence to the argument itself.
You said that fetuses should be allowed to be killed because they can't make their own decision on the matter.
Did not.
A newborn baby can't make its own decision either, so using your reasoning, it should also be legal to murder it.
I never said anything about killing fetuses. Your argument effectively boiled down to "a fetus should be able to have a say in the matter" which is 100% impossible.
If you don't think that killing newborns should be legal, than your argument is useless.
Again: newborns are irrelevent...McJugga
[QUOTE="McJugga"]I never said that it is murder.I am not suggesting you are saying its murder.. I am pointing out that your comparison of it being like legalizing murder is ridiculous and does not fit.Also what I was getting at. But I gave up.Re-re-read it.sSubZerOo
[QUOTE="Serraph105"]
well Obama is on record of saying he would like to reduce teen pregnancy rates. Also the election comes down to more than just being pro-choice or pro-life.
Spicy-McHaggis
Good luck with that. Giving kids condems is the closest thing you are going to be able to do, and at that point you are almost incouraging teen sex.If you are under the misapprehension that when Harry is 17 that you are going to have even a remote influence on what he decides in the back seat of a Chevy on a Saturday night....
DrPhil
Teen education and protection worse.. Promoting abstience does not.. Look at the recent years of Central and South America... Sense thePope has promoted abstience it has infact caused a booming population growth and increased spread of STD's.. Education is the only way that can stop pregnances..
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] No, there are times when he thinks a woman should have an abortion, this is not tolerance this is support. JacobisthemanShow me where he has said "I think a woman should have an abortion in scenario x". He is a politician, and a damn good one at that (even though he has terrible ideas he is a great politician). Do you really think he would come out and say that in situation X, this person should have an abortion?
Hey Jacob you still havn't gotten to my claim that McCain is gay with that photo..
No I don't, which is why I am wondering why you are under the presumption that Obama supports and encourages abortions in some situations.I am under that presumption becuase 1. he has the most pro-choice voting record of anyone, and is obviously super against any restrictions on abortion, 2. know a lot of poeple who are against abortion in almost all areas and still think that a woman should have one in very specific cases, and they are for banning almost all abortions, and if those poeple that are against making almost any abortion legal think that abortion is necessary in a situation. It is logical that a man who is for allowing all abortions, and even supported a bill letting kids that you tried to abort die, would say that abortion is appropriate in at least one situation (but most likely a lot more).[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"]Do you really think he would come out and say that in situation X, this person should have an abortion? -Sun_Tzu-
Do you really think he would come out and say that in situation X, this person should have an abortion? JacobisthemanNo I don't, which is why I am wondering why you are under the presumption that Obama supports and encourages abortions in some situations.I am under that presumption becuase 1. he has the most pro-choice voting record of anyone, and is obviously super against any restrictions on abortion, 2. know a lot of poeple who are against abortion in almost all areas and still think that a woman should have one in very specific cases, and they are for banning almost all abortions, and if those poeple that are against making almost any abortion legal think that abortion is necessary in a situation. It is logical that a man who is for allowing all abortions, and even supported a bill letting kids that you tried to abort die, would say that abortion is appropriate in at least one situation (but most likely a lot more). So you are suggesting that Obama is for aborting babies because he may support the decisions on aborting if the baby is racked with deformities that most likely lead to its immediate death or at best a extremely short life? Or rape? Incest? If the mothers life is endanger? Are you seriously argueing that he is pro abortion upon that?
[QUOTE="McJugga"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] And I CLEARLY POINTED OUT.. THat MURDER is not the correct comparison.. I have pointed out that it has more in common with the prohibition of Alochol during the 1920s..sSubZerOo
I never said that it is murder.
Re-re-read it.
I am not suggesting you are saying its murder.. I am pointing out that your comparison of it being like legalizing murder is ridiculous and does not fit.It fits perfectly. Someone said that abortion laws are fine the way they are, since nobody is being for to get an abortion. I said, if we lived in a country where murder is legal, people are still not forced to murder other people. Therefore, using his reasoning, it would be morally OK to murder in this country.
I was not equating murder and abortion (although they are on the same level in my mind) by saying that, I was merely saying that based solely on the fact that nobody is forced to murder, that does not make the current laws OK.
I am under that presumption becuase 1. he has the most pro-choice voting record of anyone, and is obviously super against any restrictions on abortion Jacobistheman
You have still failed to explain how pro-choice equates pro-abortion
2. I know a lot of poeple who are against abortion in almost all areas and still think that a woman should have one in very specific cases, and they are for banning almost all abortions, and if those poeple that are against making almost any abortion legal think that abortion is necessary in a situation.
Jacobistheman
That's nothing more than a weak induction
It is logical that a man who is for allowing all abortions, and even supported a bill letting kids that you tried to abort die, would say that abortion is appropriate in at least one situation (but most likely a lot more).Jacobistheman
Again, there is a difference between thinking that an abortion is appropriate in a certain situation, and encouraging an abortion in a certain situation. And besides, many pro-life advocates share that same exact view. Do you call Sarah Palin pro-abortion because she thinks an abortion is appropriate when the life of the mother is at risk?
I am not suggesting you are saying its murder.. I am pointing out that your comparison of it being like legalizing murder is ridiculous and does not fit.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="McJugga"]
I never said that it is murder.
Re-re-read it.
McJugga
It fits perfectly. Someone said that abortion laws are fine the way they are, since nobody is being for to get an abortion. I said, if we lived in a country where murder is legal, people are still not forced to murder other people. Therefore, using his reasoning, it would be morally OK to murder in this country.
I was not equating murder and abortion (although they are on the same level in my mind) by saying that, I was merely saying that based solely on the fact that nobody is forced to murder, that does not make the current laws OK.
Wrong, murder effectsus directly abortion does not... Its a poor comparison and its clear that you are making the comparison based upon your bias.. It holds more similarities to things like prostitution.. Its still happening its spreading STD's its putting peoples lives in danger due to it being illegal instead of legal and under watchful eyes of the government.. Abortion is just that, banning it will not stop it, it may curb it.. But it will endanger far more women's lives and it will fill our prisons even more.. That is not the correct way to fix the so called problem.. Clamping down on things like usually has the opposite effect historically, it is ridiculous to make that comparison of legalizing murder.. Murder does effect you it means you are not safe any more and are afraid of your nieghbor.
Yes, it can reproduce. Are you seriously trying to prove that a fetus is not alive?
No, it cannot reproduce. The cells that something is made of reproducing does not mean that the thing itself is alive.
Cell division is reproduction, fetuses are alive.
Based on your logic, a tumor is considered a living organism and getting rid of it is wrong.
I was not trying to say it is wrong to get an abortion by proving that a fetus is alive. Someone said that a fetus is not alive, I was just pointing out that that is false. So no, "based on my logic" getting rid of a tumor is not wrong.
Newborn babies are not irrelevant. Your arugments supporting killing fetuses has to only apply to fetuses. If the same argument applies to newborns, it is illogical.
In an argument about fetal abortion, yeah, they kind of are. This argument has absolutely nothing to do with newborns, other than their relevence to the argument itself.
Wrong, if you say that it is ok to kill a fetus, and the argument you used applies to newborns as well, that means that you must support killing newborns for that particular argument to be valid.
Ex. -Fetuses can't say that they don't want to be killed.
-Neither can a baby, making your argument invalid.You said that fetuses should be allowed to be killed because they can't make their own decision on the matter.
Did not.
Yes you did:
Bean-with-bacon - It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not - people deserve the CHOICE.
Me - Why does the fetus not have a choice?
YOU - Because the fetus can't think for itself
A newborn baby can't make its own decision either, so using your reasoning, it should also be legal to murder it.
I never said anything about killing fetuses.
So you don't support abortion?
Your argument effectively boiled down to "a fetus should be able to have a say in the matter" which is 100% impossible.
I never said that...
If you don't think that killing newborns should be legal, than your argument is useless.
Again: newborns are irrelevent...
Wrong, your reasoning applies to newboarn babies as well.
scorch-62
[QUOTE="McJugga"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] I am not suggesting you are saying its murder.. I am pointing out that your comparison of it being like legalizing murder is ridiculous and does not fit.sSubZerOo
It fits perfectly. Someone said that abortion laws are fine the way they are, since nobody is being for to get an abortion. I said, if we lived in a country where murder is legal, people are still not forced to murder other people. Therefore, using his reasoning, it would be morally OK to murder in this country.
I was not equating murder and abortion (although they are on the same level in my mind) by saying that, I was merely saying that based solely on the fact that nobody is forced to murder, that does not make the current laws OK.
Wrong, murder effectsus directly abortion does not... Its a poor comparison and its clear that you are making the comparison based upon your bias.. It holds more similarities to things like prostitution.. Its still happening its spreading STD's its putting peoples lives in danger due to it being illegal instead of legal and under watchful eyes of the government.. Abortion is just that, banning it will not stop it, it may curb it.. But it will endanger far more women's lives and it will fill our prisons even more.. That is not the correct way to fix the so called problem.. Clamping down on things like usually has the opposite effect historically, it is ridiculous to make that comparison of legalizing murder.. Murder does effect you it means you are not safe any more and are afraid of your nieghbor.
You are taking what I said way out of context.
Someone said the laws are fine because no one is being forced to do anything.
I responed with the murder analogy.
My point was not that abortion is murder.
I was simply pointing out that the fact that nobody is being forced to get an abortion does not make it OK to allow someone the choice to get an abortion.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
[QUOTE="McJugga"]
It fits perfectly. Someone said that abortion laws are fine the way they are, since nobody is being for to get an abortion. I said, if we lived in a country where murder is legal, people are still not forced to murder other people. Therefore, using his reasoning, it would be morally OK to murder in this country.
I was not equating murder and abortion (although they are on the same level in my mind) by saying that, I was merely saying that based solely on the fact that nobody is forced to murder, that does not make the current laws OK.
Wrong, murder effectsus directly abortion does not... Its a poor comparison and its clear that you are making the comparison based upon your bias.. It holds more similarities to things like prostitution.. Its still happening its spreading STD's its putting peoples lives in danger due to it being illegal instead of legal and under watchful eyes of the government.. Abortion is just that, banning it will not stop it, it may curb it.. But it will endanger far more women's lives and it will fill our prisons even more.. That is not the correct way to fix the so called problem.. Clamping down on things like usually has the opposite effect historically, it is ridiculous to make that comparison of legalizing murder.. Murder does effect you it means you are not safe any more and are afraid of your nieghbor.
You are taking what I said way out of context.
Someone said the laws are fine because no one is being forced to do anything.
I responed with the murder analogy.
My point was not that abortion is murder.
I was simply pointing out that the fact that nobody is being forced to get an abortion does not make it OK to allow someone the choice to get an abortion.
AND I AM POINTING out that if we were to legalize murder it would effect me NO MATTER what.. EVEN if I wanted nothing to do with it.. If it was legal my security would be shattered because my nieghbor could kill me.. Abortion is a controversial right.. The laws on murder are there to keep order and security.. With out it we would be in anarchy..sSubZerOo
Fine, how about this analogy...
If it were legal to kill any baby 1 month old (after being born) or younger, would you be forced to kill your baby? No. Does this mean that having this law is morally acceptable? No.
(To understand this analogy, you have to read this:
Someone else - By making it illegal you just encourage back-street abortions where women die.
Me - They are making the choice to get illegal abortions... Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. We already discussed this.
Someone else - No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion with the way things are now, so what's the problem?
The analogy is in response to "No one is forcing...")
I think the only way to settle this issue is for america to have a national referendum
The Options of the referendum:
Yes, I am against abortion and would be willing to adopt a child and to be taxed X% more to fund orphanages.
No, I am happy with the current laws.
I'm tired of the "its just a group of cells that means its not a baby argument". We all know its going to be a baby and you are still killing a human being.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]AND I AM POINTING out that if we were to legalize murder it would effect me NO MATTER what.. EVEN if I wanted nothing to do with it.. If it was legal my security would be shattered because my nieghbor could kill me.. Abortion is a controversial right.. The laws on murder are there to keep order and security.. With out it we would be in anarchy..McJugga
Fine, how about this analogy...
If it were legal to kill any baby 1 month old (after being born) or younger, would you be forced to kill your baby? No. Does this mean that having this law is morally acceptable? No.
(To understand this analogy, you have to read this:
Someone else - By making it illegal you just encourage back-street abortions where women die.
Me - They are making the choice to get illegal abortions... Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. We already discussed this.
Someone else - No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion with the way things are now, so what's the problem?
The analogy is in response to "No one is forcing...")
bad analogy AGAIN.. A 1 month year old baby can live OUTSIDE of the womb.. It does not depend off one specific person.. So yet again its a poor analogy.
People supporting something that insinuates they take responsibility for their actions? I find this poll hard to believe.
[QUOTE="McJugga"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]AND I AM POINTING out that if we were to legalize murder it would effect me NO MATTER what.. EVEN if I wanted nothing to do with it.. If it was legal my security would be shattered because my nieghbor could kill me.. Abortion is a controversial right.. The laws on murder are there to keep order and security.. With out it we would be in anarchy..sSubZerOo
Fine, how about this analogy...
If it were legal to kill any baby 1 month old (after being born) or younger, would you be forced to kill your baby? No. Does this mean that having this law is morally acceptable? No.
(To understand this analogy, you have to read this:
Someone else - By making it illegal you just encourage back-street abortions where women die.
Me - They are making the choice to get illegal abortions... Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. We already discussed this.
Someone else - No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion with the way things are now, so what's the problem?
The analogy is in response to "No one is forcing...")
bad analogy AGAIN.. A 1 month year old baby can live OUTSIDE of the womb.. It does not depend off one specific person.. So yet again its a poor analogy.
I don't think you know what an analogy is.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
[QUOTE="McJugga"]
Fine, how about this analogy...
If it were legal to kill any baby 1 month old (after being born) or younger, would you be forced to kill your baby? No. Does this mean that having this law is morally acceptable? No.
(To understand this analogy, you have to read this:
Someone else - By making it illegal you just encourage back-street abortions where women die.
Me - They are making the choice to get illegal abortions... Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. We already discussed this.
Someone else - No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion with the way things are now, so what's the problem?
The analogy is in response to "No one is forcing...")
bad analogy AGAIN.. A 1 month year old baby can live OUTSIDE of the womb.. It does not depend off one specific person.. So yet again its a poor analogy.
I don't think you know what an analogy is.
Yes I do and its a poor comparison for abortion.. The fetus can't be taken out and given to some one else to live, a new born baby CAN.. The baby is outside the womb and its classified as a human being.. There is no way around specifically.. As I said earlier the closest thing that you can compare it to would be like the alochol act during the 1920s.. Your making ridiculous comparisons that are quite frankly ludicrious to even suggest being remotely similar to compare one another.. Because they arn't both legalizing the euthnization of new borns and murder is completely different..Good. I see no reason for abortion in cases as birth control. This is not something that you should simply be able to go out and do.
Yes I do and its a poor comparison for abortion.. The fetus can't be taken out and given to some one else to live, a new born baby CAN.. The baby is outside the womb and its classified as a human being.. There is no way around specifically.. As I said earlier the closest thing that you can compare it to would be like the alochol act during the 1920s.. Your making ridiculous comparisons that are quite frankly ludicrious to even suggest being remotely similar to compare one another.. Because they arn't both legalizing the euthnization of new borns and murder is completely different..sSubZerOo
This analogy is the exact same:
If cheating were allowed in online video games, you wouldn't be forced to use cheats. Therefore it is OK to allow cheats.
I really don't think you are getting the proper message from my analogies.
Why the hell not??? Tell me how a woman terminating a pregnancy she does not want affects you. There are over 1million abortions per year in the USA. That's a lot of dead babies right? Imagine a large industrial water tank full of the remains of those pure, precious babies! Does it not just drive you mad??? And some how the sun still rises in the east, sets in the west, San Fransisco hasn't been turned into a pillar of salt and life goes on, all inspite of the dead baby massacre. Maybe its not a big a deal as y'all make it out to be. Life and death, part and parcel of the world we live in, and those at the very bottom of the totem pole of life (the non-sentient clumps of first trimester legal abortions) are at the mercy of the womb's owner, and that is how we roll, and it works! It has been working since the 70s! Abortion is as American as apple pie. Go find another sentimental crusade to get all huffy over. Freedom of choice forever!Good. I see no reason for abortion in cases as birth control. This is not something that you should simply be able to go out and do.
-TheSecondSign-
Why the hell not??? Tell me how a woman terminating a pregnancy she does not want affects you. There are over 1million abortions per year in the USA. That's a lot of dead babies right? Imagine a large industrial water tank full of the remains of those pure, precious babies! Does it not just drive you mad??? And some how the sun still rises in the east, sets in the west, San Fransisco hasn't been turned into a pillar of salt and life goes on, all inspite of the dead baby massacre. Maybe its not a big a deal as y'all make it out to be. Life and death, part and parcel of the world we live in, and those at the very bottom of the totem pole of life (the non-sentient clumps of first trimester legal abortions) are at the mercy of the womb's owner, and that is how we roll, and it works! It has been working since the 70s! Abortion is as American as apple pie. Go find another sentimental crusade to get all huffy over. Freedom of choice forever! Wow, that was a pointless rant. Why should a woman be able to murder own child becasue she made a mistake? This is the argument that comes from the type of person who cares only about what is good for themself and no one else.[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]
Good. I see no reason for abortion in cases as birth control. This is not something that you should simply be able to go out and do.
ScorpionBeeBee
Let me ask you, what would you do if there was a law that said that people were allowed to kill anyone which they took care of becuase that person couldn't live on thier own? This is what you are doing with an abortion.
Why the hell not??? Tell me how a woman terminating a pregnancy she does not want affects you. There are over 1million abortions per year in the USA. That's a lot of dead babies right? Imagine a large industrial water tank full of the remains of those pure, precious babies! Does it not just drive you mad??? And some how the sun still rises in the east, sets in the west, San Fransisco hasn't been turned into a pillar of salt and life goes on, all inspite of the dead baby massacre. Maybe its not a big a deal as y'all make it out to be. Life and death, part and parcel of the world we live in, and those at the very bottom of the totem pole of life (the non-sentient clumps of first trimester legal abortions) are at the mercy of the womb's owner, and that is how we roll, and it works! It has been working since the 70s! Abortion is as American as apple pie. Go find another sentimental crusade to get all huffy over. Freedom of choice forever! Wow, that was a pointless rant. Why should a woman be able to murder own child becasue she made a mistake? This is the argument that comes from the type of person who cares only about what is good for themself and no one else. Who is talking about murder? Seriously, murder? Abortion is legal buddy, get used to it, its been legal your entire life I reckon. It is not murder, not even close! This is some serious La-Le-Lu-Li-Lo stuff you got going on there, you read abortion and your nano's substitute the word murder![QUOTE="ScorpionBeeBee"]
[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]
Good. I see no reason for abortion in cases as birth control. This is not something that you should simply be able to go out and do.
Jacobistheman
Wow, that was a pointless rant. Why should a woman be able to murder own child becasue she made a mistake? This is the argument that comes from the type of person who cares only about what is good for themself and no one else. Who is talking about murder? Seriously, murder? Abortion is legal buddy, get used to it, its been legal your entire life I reckon. It is not murder, not even close! This is some serious La-Le-Lu-Li-Lo stuff you got going on there, you read abortion and your nano's substitute the word murder! War is legal buddy, but it is still murder. Also, abortion is still illegal in many states(I think about 40 where abortion was illegal at the time of RoeVWade) but they can't enforce it because 5 people decided I REPEAT FIVE PEOPLE decided it was unconstitutional. It subsituets the word becuase that is what it is.[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"]
[QUOTE="ScorpionBeeBee"] Why the hell not??? Tell me how a woman terminating a pregnancy she does not want affects you. There are over 1million abortions per year in the USA. That's a lot of dead babies right? Imagine a large industrial water tank full of the remains of those pure, precious babies! Does it not just drive you mad??? And some how the sun still rises in the east, sets in the west, San Fransisco hasn't been turned into a pillar of salt and life goes on, all inspite of the dead baby massacre. Maybe its not a big a deal as y'all make it out to be. Life and death, part and parcel of the world we live in, and those at the very bottom of the totem pole of life (the non-sentient clumps of first trimester legal abortions) are at the mercy of the womb's owner, and that is how we roll, and it works! It has been working since the 70s! Abortion is as American as apple pie. Go find another sentimental crusade to get all huffy over. Freedom of choice forever!
ScorpionBeeBee
"Let me ask you, what would you do if there was a law that said that people were allowed to kill anyone which they took care of becuase that person couldn't live on thier own? This is what you are doing with an abortion."
Your nano's are misfiring again dude. We are talking about abortion but now you are talking about killing people that need assistance to live. PEOPLE =/= FETUS, ok? Get that through your skull, no matter how heinous or despicable you think it is for a woman to get an abortion within the first-trimester, it is NOT, by any legal and binding definition of the word, MURDER, PERIOD. You guys can't even discuss the topic at hand without going on some non-sequitur about legalizing murder. You don't add anything to the discussion, just yammerings on about murder and whatnot. Let me guess, you probably believe that if gay marriage is legalized then ZOMG men can marry dogs and pedophilia will be decriminalized right? Slippery slope of FAIL.
[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"]I am under that presumption becuase 1. he has the most pro-choice voting record of anyone, and is obviously super against any restrictions on abortion -Sun_Tzu-
You have still failed to explain how pro-choice equates pro-abortion
2. I know a lot of poeple who are against abortion in almost all areas and still think that a woman should have one in very specific cases, and they are for banning almost all abortions, and if those poeple that are against making almost any abortion legal think that abortion is necessary in a situation.
Jacobistheman
That's nothing more than a weak induction
It is logical that a man who is for allowing all abortions, and even supported a bill letting kids that you tried to abort die, would say that abortion is appropriate in at least one situation (but most likely a lot more).Jacobistheman
Again, there is a difference between thinking that an abortion is appropriate in a certain situation, and encouraging an abortion in a certain situation. And besides, many pro-life advocates share that same exact view. Do you call Sarah Palin pro-abortion because she thinks an abortion is appropriate when the life of the mother is at risk?
Well, first of all you know what I am saying is true, and yes sarah is pro abortion if she thinks a woman should get an abortion, nuff said. Well some one who is pro choice is more likely to have an abortion, you know how it equates so that is good enough. You have yet to denu my claim that obama doesn't support poeple having abortions, and untill that happens I assume that you agree with me because I have asked you directly to deny it and you haven't.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment