|
|
|
|
|
| | Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...Page 25 of 32 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32) | ^^And there goes another rightwinger making stuff up.
No liberal has condoned the murder of Dr Tilly, which is why you can't name any such liberal
I'm sure there are a few who are just fine with what happened
Typical rightwing logic allows wingnuts to be "sure" of things even when they have absolutely no evidence to support it | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/13/2009 8:54:51 AM | So, you're saying of the 5+ billion people in the world, not a single one is liberal, and opposed to abortion to the point where they wouldn't mind seeing a late-term abortion doctor killed? You may want to take a class on statistics, the law of averages disagree with you.
There are plenty of things I believe in that have no basis in first hand evidence collection. I believe in gravity, couldn't show you any scientific evidence to support it, tho. I believe in God, I suppose that's more the point you were trying to make, right? I'm a silly person for believing that? Do you love anyone? Care to show me some scientific evidence of that? If not, it must not exist, right?
Try being a bit more open-minded than the "wingnuts" you condemn. It's amazing how some liberals are the most hateful, prejudiced people in the world, as they whine about how the big, mean conservatives are judging everyone unfairly. | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/13/2009 9:23:23 AM |
So, you're saying of the 5+ billion people in the world, not a single one is liberal, and opposed to abortion to the point where they wouldn't mind seeing a late-term abortion doctor killed? You may want to take a class on statistics, the law of averages disagree with you.
A sure sign of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
You might want to take your own advice. There is no "law of averages" as you have used it in statistics. The "law of averages" is a fallacy used by people who don't understand statistics to make an unsupportable point.
Statistics would say that the probability of there being a "liberal" who supports the killing is somewhat greater than zero, but it would also say that the probability of there being no "liberal" who supports the killing is also somewhat greater than zero.
"Law of averages"
I believe in gravity, couldn't show you any scientific evidence to support it, tho.
I think you have just proven my first point. | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/13/2009 9:56:32 AM |
Can someone please tell me how you can be pro-life and kill someone in their church at the same time?
Because they're insane. There is plenty of contradictions when it comes to comparing these groups. For instance, stats of how abortion reduces crime have been bandied out as a positive outcome of abortion. However, some of the same people who are pro-choice are totally against the death penalty. People lose their sense of perspective when it comes to these issues. | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/13/2009 10:40:48 AM |
I believe in gravity, couldn't show you any scientific evidence to support it, tho. I think you have just proven my first point.
And, to add insult to injury, I bet he doesn't even understand HOW he just proved your point. | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/13/2009 11:11:06 AM | he will judged innocent or guilty by his maker, the creator of all life. we can only state our opinions.
my opinion is that it should not be legal to do late term abortions except to save the mother's life. | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/13/2009 11:52:58 AM |
my opinion is that it should not be legal to do late term abortions except to save the mother's life.
I dont think there are any other exceptions to that rule...maybe because the fetus is serverly deformed or did not survive gestation.
about 36 States ban Late term aborton outright, and about only 3-4 doctors nationwide preform this procedure. | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/13/2009 1:20:57 PM |
my opinion is that it should not be legal to do late term abortions except to save the mother's life
Another "the govt can't tell me what to do" conservative male who wants the govt to tell women what they can and can't do | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/13/2009 2:02:50 PM |
No liberal has condoned the murder of Dr Tilly, which is why you can't name any such liberal
Mark Johnson condoned it. And since you do not know Mark Johnson, you cannot claim he did not condone it. Case closed. Find something new to argue about. | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/13/2009 3:08:20 PM |
No liberal has condoned the murder of Dr Tilly, which is why you can't name any such liberal Mark Johnson condoned it. And since you do not know Mark Johnson, you cannot claim he did not condone it. Case closed.
I know Mark Johnson. He's a conservative. Case closed.
Find something new to argue about.
I just did!
 | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/13/2009 8:19:09 PM |
I wouldn't argue that it's not human nor alive... but I believe it's disingenuous to refer to it as a human life.. as if it is a person. Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade... I know you don't remember ever being in this position, but you too were a fetus at some point in time. Would it be a simple zero sum game if you had been aborted, or would you be irritated at the idea?
Would you advocate that all parasites (like intestinal worms) be allowed to stay in their hosts simply because they are "self-contained" and "alive"? No, of course not. It is an animal life that I would take freely because it is using my resources without my permission. I place more value on human life though, and I think it's foolish to terminate a human life because it is using my resources without my permission. Even adults who break into my house and try to steal. I might own a gun, but I don't have to kill anyone. Within 6 shots, I'd have your attention and your kneecap, but I wouldn't want to kill you.
And I believe that I should have complete control and autonomy over my own body and what it is used for. If I don't want to breed, I won't. I will have final say in how/what my body is used for and, quite frankly, my right to do that is not yours to take. Oh, that's quite simple, really. Get sterilized or don't screw. Once a second life is taken into account, however, it's not all about you. Does your right to resources and a drum skin taut stomach take precedence over the life of your own child? That's a pretty selfish request, especially considering it was your idea to take the risks anyway by not being sterilized or keeping your fly zipped.
Cancer cells do not share the patients' DNA in its entirety either, and a cancel tumor is NOT a body part This is untrue. Cancer cells do contain genetic material explicitly from your own body. Even though it is mutated or is currently expressing problematic genes, it came from you alone.
If a cancerous tumor is not a body part, what is it?
You're wrong on both counts. A fetus is not a human life, and more importantly a fetus is not a person. Explain to me how something that has 100% human DNA and is clearly alive is not a human life. Also, would you mind explaining how a fetus is not a person? It's not enough in a discussion to say it is simply so. | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/14/2009 6:05:39 AM | Explain to me how something that has 100% human DNA and is clearly alive is not a human life.
DNA is neither Human or Not human...DNA is common to all living objects
A palm tree has DNA
Think of DNA as letters of the alphabet...arrange some in a certain sequence and you have
H U M A N...re arrange the DNA and you have a P A L M T R E E...isnt genitics fun? | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/14/2009 6:21:04 AM |
Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade... I know you don't remember ever being in this position, but you too were a fetus at some point in time. Would it be a simple zero sum game if you had been aborted, or would you be irritated at the idea?
Is this where you start patting yourself on the back because you're such a "good guy" that you pick up for the poor fetuses? Appeals to emotion don't work with me. I'm far too logical for that.
If I were aborted, I would hardly know, so why would I get irritated at the idea? You think that's never knowing that you existed is somehow "worse" than growing up knowing that giving birth to you killed your mother? That she never wanted you in the first place, and the only reason you're alive is because someone forced her into it?
A one size fits all approach is unrealistic.. the decisions are better left to those involved and not some outsider whose only interest in the situation is that he wants to be the one to decide what another living, breathing human being does with her own body.
No, of course not. It is an animal life that I would take freely because it is using my resources without my permission. I place more value on human life though, and I think it's foolish to terminate a human life because it is using my resources without my permission. Even adults who break into my house and try to steal. I might own a gun, but I don't have to kill anyone. Within 6 shots, I'd have your attention and your kneecap, but I wouldn't want to kill you.
I hate to break it to you, Mr. Chuck Norris wannabe, but humans are animals too. An unwanted fetus is ALSO using the woman's resources without her permission.
You can place as much value on your personal definition of human life and people, but it doesn't matter. What matters is the living, breathing, fully formed human adult who has to live with the consequences of that pregnancy. Who are you, with your arbitrary definitions of "human life' or "people" to force YOUR opinion on the one most affected?
Oh, that's quite simple, really. Get sterilized or don't screw.
How very simplistic of you. Who the f*ck do you think you are to tell anyone that they have to undergo a surgical procedure or be forced into birth? There are other options, and the decision to use any/all of these is best left to those in the situation. Is this about the poor baby fetuses, or are you just really, really angry that someone else has a choice that you don't like? I think you're just really angry that people are doing what they want, and don't need or want input from you.
Does your right to resources and a drum skin taut stomach take precedence over the life of your own child? That's a pretty selfish request, especially considering it was your idea to take the risks anyway by not being sterilized or keeping your fly zipped.
I don't stop being my own person once a fetus implants itself in my uterus. That fetus does not have more of a right to my body than I do. As a matter of fact, it has none. Nor does someone who wants to force me to undergo pregnancy and delivery. And yes, my right to do what I want with MY body takes precedence over a possible baby or a bunch of angry people who think that having a baby I don't want is what's BEST in every given situation. It's my body... it doesn't stop being so because some angry dude who has taken it upon himself to be some sort of zygote protector.
Anyone who would refer to a decision to abort as being about a taut stomach is living in la la land. I can't take you seriously with an attitude like that. I've already outlined many medical reasons for you (which you conveniently ignored), financial and psychological reasons have also been discussed. You might dismiss it as being purely cosmetic, but then again, you don't have to deal with the aftermath or risk your life for a forced pregnancy so it's easy to just explain it away as being nothing... right?
And talk about selfish... where is your vested interest in what some stranger does with her own body and her own life other than you don't get to force what you want on someone else? It's not your business simply because you wish it to be so.... | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/14/2009 8:35:52 AM | Cancer cells do not share the patients' DNA in its entirety either, and a cancel tumor is NOT a body part This is untrue. Cancer cells do contain genetic material explicitly from your own body. Even though it is mutated or is currently expressing problematic genes, it came from you alone.
You are not being honest. First you claimed it was about "sharing DNA...in it's entirety". Now you've changed your arguement to "contains genetic material from your own body", which is nonsense because a cancer tumor also contains genetic material from your own body.
And you're wrong to say "it came from you alone". Many cancers are created when the DNA from a VIRUS combines with the DNA in a human cell.
Bottom line is that you are not only ignorant of the facts, you change your arguments whenever it's convenient to do so. Your arguments are so weak, even you won't stand up for them.
If a cancerous tumor is not a body part, what is it?
It's a tumor. To be more specific, it's a cancerous tumor. Some of the things in our bodies are not "body parts".
If you get a cut, the scab is not a body part; it's a scab made of dried blood, etc.
If you have acne, the pimples are not a body part.
The wart on my arm is not a body part. It is a growth on my skin. The skin is a body part; the wart is not.
Explain to me how something that has 100% human DNA and is clearly alive is not a human life.
It's really very simple, einstein. If I'm in the kitchen slicing up veggies, and I slice off the tip of my finger, the severed fingertip has 100% human DNA and is clearly alive. However, it is not "a human life"
I'm surprised you need to have this explained you, over and over. I doubt you'll understand it this time either. You'll probably just change your argument again
Also, would you mind explaining how a fetus is not a person?
Sure. A "person" is defined by the law as a human that has been born. Before it's born, it's a "fetus"; After it's born, it's a "person"
Oh, that's quite simple, really. Get sterilized or don't screw.
And another rightwinger states his desire for a Big Govt nanny that tells other people what to do. | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/14/2009 10:51:49 AM | For all of you who are using the DNA argument, as in the embryo has unique DNA so is it not part of the mother, so that is why it is its own life, get off it. You are incorrect in this regard:
Every single oocyte (egg before fertilization) in a woman's body has unique DNA, and 46 chromosomes. It doesn't go down to 23 chromosomes until it completes meiosis ll, which occurs after fertilization has begun. By your above DNA argument, that makes every single oocyte a human life worthy of the same rights as born people. How are you going to save the life of every oocyte (unfertilized egg)? | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/14/2009 7:34:28 PM | It still shocks me to no end how certain people have no regard for the sanctity of life or as some people call it, the POTENTIAL of life. The unborn human is now demoted to a tumor, a parasite, or an appendage? No wonder the world has gone down the crapper.
A quote from Mother Teresa:
"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign." (Mother Theresa -- Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94, p. A14)
Funny how this post is talking about LATE TERM ABORTIONS and the most common defense is "It's in order to save the life of the mother." At my work, we perform tons of C-sections for 21 weekers and up in order to SAVE the life of the mother who has become eclamptic and will surely lose her life unless the infant is delivered. If the child was wanted, then a C-section would be performed. If the child is unwanted then an abortion will be performed. Either way, an infant is delivered to save the mother, the only difference is one is dead and one is alive. | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/14/2009 10:41:23 PM | Well, I'm done here. I've argued my points with fair reason and even temper, but I'm low on ammo and you're having none of it. I do think it's funny that lil ol' me can take on, what, four of you though? And the argument still comes out as a wash. Don't think so? How many minds did you change? 
Thanks for wasting your time with me folks. It's been informative. | |
|
JWG86
| | Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 618 | |
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/14/2009 11:53:59 PM | Someone getting an abortion and someone else getting uptight about it. Another perfect example of someone wanting to influence someone's decision over an action that has no implications what-so-ever for them. You might as well lobby to force all people to donate a dollar a day to feed some kid in Africa, or get upset that when I was a child my mother don't overnight air my left-over brussel-sprouts to some small border-town in Mexico.
_________
You want a REAL twisted argument? Lets wrap our minds around THIS for all of you religous people...
A baby, before it reaches the age of accountability, is without sin, correct? This means that if this baby were to die, it would be found blameless before God, and accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven and eternal life. Right? I will assume that you agree--
Ergo, if someone who belived this were to murder a baby before it reached the age of accountability, they would have 100% without a doubt INSURED! That individual's place in heaven. What gift could possibly outweigh ensuring someone's place in heaven for them? What sacrifice could possibly outweigh giving up your own life (*as I am sure you would get life in prison MINIMUM for that action, which we can all agree is misguided and heinous*), to do so? What nobler action indeed!
________
In the end, I think we would all be best served by keeping our personal beliefs to ourselves instead of trying to legislate and force others about when considering something that has no bearing on ourselves what-so-ever. Lets stop trying to play God and presume to know His mind and assign our own beliefs to someone's lifestyle choices and assume that God just so happens to be on board with our little agendas.
Opinions are good. Forcing someone to adhere to your own mores---maybe not so. What sounds logical to us, may sound just as absurd, sick, twisted and flawed as the scenario above to someone else, and vice versa. | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/15/2009 12:42:49 PM | TheCoffeeSan wrote:
Get sterilized or don't screw
Isn't this falling into the "No unauthorized sex" school of thought?
babydoll127 wrote:
A quote from Mother Teresa
That automatically injects religion into this debate. Since religion must be based on acceptance without proof, religion itself cannot be used as proof of anything. She's stating a whole lot of opinion, which obviously is going to have a heavily religious influence.
babydoll127 wrote:
At my work, we perform tons of C-sections for 21 weekers and up in order to SAVE the life of the mother who has become eclamptic and will surely lose her life unless the infant is delivered. If the child was wanted, then a C-section would be performed. If the child is unwanted then an abortion will be performed.
I call BS - as I did before. 21 weeks? You're delivering live children who survive from 21 weeks? You'd better call someone, then, because so far the world's records are 21 weeks 5 days, and 21 weeks 6 days. Unless you're deliberately NOT mentioning gestational age vs fetal age, which is approximately a 2 week difference, and are thus trying to mislead people in this debate.
TheCoffeeSan wrote:
Well, I'm done here. I've argued my points with fair reason and even temper
I'll certainly agree with you on this - you've most definitely been even-tempered about this, and frankly, that's quite refreshing coming from a generally pro-life/anti-abortion/pick-your-favorite-term-here side. I don't think your reasoning is sound, but I guess that's where we're just never going to see each others' sides.
J in SD wrote:
You know what they call abortions in Prague?
Cancelled Czechs!
Man, I absolutely LOVE bad puns!! | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/15/2009 12:53:44 PM |
Isn't this falling into the "No unauthorized sex" school of thought?
rightwingers want a nanny govt to tell people when and how they can have sex. They support small govt, except when they don't.
That's because the rightwing radicals have no principles and no moral center. They oppose "big govt" when it regulates big business, but they have no problem with "big govt" telling people how to have sex | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/15/2009 4:39:47 PM |
Isn't this falling into the "No unauthorized sex" school of thought?
I certainly don't advocate mandatory sterilization of anyone, nor do I think that big government is going to do anything positive at all. If you don't wish to "breed", you know how to stop that from happening without any government intervention at all. You don't have to bring an undeveloped child into your sex life. If you'd rather run the risks of using a lesser protective method (ie. Condoms, 87-98% success rate) then I, for one, believe that the child's life should be protected from being adversely affected by saline or toxic drugs. I find this to be especially true considering that the child has no voice or choice in the matter.
Supposing that I am wrong on this one, and fetuses are equivalent to nothing more than a cancer, I still prefer to err on the side of not taking a human life, developed or otherwise.
How's that for not having any principles or moral center? | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/15/2009 4:49:14 PM |
I still prefer to err on the side of not taking a human life, developed or otherwise.
Well, let me congratulate you then for being the first to reserve top spot on the adoption list for fetuses carried to term against the woman's will if a total ban ever comes into effect. | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/15/2009 5:05:48 PM | A total ban will not happen, because as a society we have learned to be more tolerant of people's personal rights and choices. In Canada, there isn't any press given to pro-life groups, they are such a minority that people don't give them the time of day, nor does the media. Our pro-lifers up here are usually not a fanatical as others I've researched around the world. Canada is more liberal than many nations, even with our Conservative government, abortion is not even an issue up here.
Luckily in Canada, the majority believe a personal choice such as pregnancy/child birth are left to individual, without big bad government telling me what I can and can't do to my body. | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/15/2009 5:25:20 PM |
How's that for not having any principles or moral center?
Let's see
Backing away from your original remarks...check
misstating the facts, again......check
complete denial....check
refusal to admit mistakes
I'd say you get a lot of credit for consistency | |
|
| Abortion Doctor Finially Killed...
Posted: 7/15/2009 6:33:02 PM | Well, to be fair, I can see where CoffeeSan is coming from, I just think that his conclusions are wrong.
He sees it as taking a human life - I see it as avoiding suffering, since the fetus cannot feel pain or suffer in any way prior to a certain neural development point (which I keep forgetting exactly when, but I think is around 22-23 weeks gestational age). An unwanted child (including those the parent might want but knows they can't care for, etc) would go through suffering due to the stresses suffered by the parent, potential resentment, psychological issues, etc. though these sorts of things are extremely difficult to gauge in any precise numerical way. (yeah, I'm oversimplifying because I'm trying to summarize in 2 sentences)
So, he sees a human life being taken, I see suffering being avoided in its entirety.
On the other hand, CoffeeSan, you seem pretty reasonable - I don't recall if you've touched on this earlier, but what's your thoughts on something like, say, a fetus with anencephaly, assuming that there's no unusual risk to the mother for carrying to term? | |
|
|
|
|
Page
25
of
32 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
|
|
Home
login 
