If A Person Is Pro-Life.....

[Busyman™]

and believes a human comes into being at the moment of conception then the only reasonable circumstance for an abortion would be to save the mother's life.

To say that there are other extenuating circumstances is bunkum.

Rape? So you, Joe Pro-Lifer, condone the killing of a child due to an unwanted participant of the mother?

Incest? So kill the child because of possible birth defects or embarrassment?

Birth defects? See above. So kill the child because it will be inconvenient to manage?

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

[bigboab]

and believes a human comes into being at the moment of conception then the only reasonable circumstance for an abortion would be to save the mother's life.

To say that there are other extenuating circumstances is bunkum.

Rape? So you, Joe Pro-Lifer, condone the killing of a child due to an unwanted participant of the mother?

Incest? So kill the child because of possible birth defects or embarrassment?

Birth defects? See above. So kill the child because it will be inconvenient to manage?

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

I am sorry but you are confusing me Busy. I was of the understanding that Pro-Lifers were against abortion under any circumstances. Maybe I am just picking you up wrong.:(

[rjfan]

I envision a future where abortion is extended to After Birth. The scenerio is thus: The child is delivered...the mother sees her newborn boy/girl and then depending on whether or not the child is favorable she(the mother) gets to keep or "abort".

I must somewhat echo what the old man said, Busy...Im assuming by your phrase of "killing the child" you are pro-life.
this is a very good thread....let us continue.

[bigboab]

I envision a future where abortion is extended to After Birth. The scenerio is thus: The child is delivered...the mother sees her newborn boy/girl and then depending on whether or not the child is favorable she(the mother) gets to keep or "abort".

I must somewhat echoe what the old man said Busy...Im assuming by your phrase of "killing the child" you are pro-life.
this is a very good thread....let us continue.

To 'Abort' after birth would definately be murder though I am led to believe in discussions with people older than me,(:shifty:) that back in the time when most births were at home, a lot of 'murder' was committed by Mid-wives. If the baby was very badly deformed then the Mid-Wife did not resuscitate it.:(

[rjfan]

I was just making a very vulgar example. Its only a sick view into an exaggerated example of something I am not in agreement with.

[Busyman™]

and believes a human comes into being at the moment of conception then the only reasonable circumstance for an abortion would be to save the mother's life.

To say that there are other extenuating circumstances is bunkum.

Rape? So you, Joe Pro-Lifer, condone the killing of a child due to an unwanted participant of the mother?

Incest? So kill the child because of possible birth defects or embarrassment?

Birth defects? See above. So kill the child because it will be inconvenient to manage?

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

I am sorry but you are confusing me Busy. I was of the understanding that Pro-Lifers were against abortion under any circumstances. Maybe I am just picking you up wrong.:(

There are some pro-lifers that would say abortions are ok "under extenuating circumstances". I have heard this absent of saving the life of the mother.

Is there anyone here who feels the same way? I would understand if those remain silent.

[vidcc]

The criteria for rape is a bit specific


BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

the man himself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX9NAiw38kk)


A religious virgin can understandably have an abortion if she is raped...... Any other raped woman probably enjoyed it so wouldn't qualify.:dry:

But then if she was given emergency contraception (or at least offered it) even if it "was against the doctor's moral values" this could be avoided

[Busyman™]

The criteria for rape is a bit specific


BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

the man himself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX9NAiw38kk)


A religious virgin can understandably have an abortion if she is raped...... Any other raped woman probably enjoyed it so wouldn't qualify.:dry:

But then if she was given emergency contraception (or at least offered it) even if it "was against the doctor's moral values" this could be avoided

He is full of sheeeeiiiitt!

I do like what he says at the very end about when he grew up. I really do.

However you can't force people to do that.

edit: I have to also agree with you last about the morning after pill. Isn't that available now?

edit: EPT Security (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G22alHrblZc&mode=related&search=):lol:

[vidcc]

edit: I have to also agree with you last about the morning after pill. Isn't that available now?

It will be soon, however that still doesn't mean that a woman can have access to it unless the pharmacist agrees.
She still has to get it over the counter, it is not on the public "self serve shelves" so we still have the problem where a pharmacist can impose his personal values and refuse to give the woman her pills.

[j2k4]

and believes a human comes into being at the moment of conception then the only reasonable circumstance for an abortion would be to save the mother's life.

To say that there are other extenuating circumstances is bunkum.

Rape? So you, Joe Pro-Lifer, condone the killing of a child due to an unwanted participant of the mother?

Incest? So kill the child because of possible birth defects or embarrassment?

Birth defects? See above. So kill the child because it will be inconvenient to manage?

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

Why do you believe "saving the mother" to be a reason/the only reason mitigating the pro-life mindset?

You just derailed your own attempt at a "logic-lesson".

Try again, please, and remember not to shoot yourself in the foot this time.

[100%]

The other day i was at the supermarket. They have gambling machines there.
A mother is playing one of the machines when i walk in. The child is atleat 5yrs and is sitting in her carriage sucking on some soda drink completly at ease.
I buy my stuff and on my way out the mother and child are still in exactly the same position.

[JPaul]

One day I was driving to the shops and passed a primary school. It was about lunchtime and there were a lot of children playing in the yard. I returned home via the same route about 20 minutes later.

[bigboab]

The other day i was at the supermarket. They have gambling machines there.
A mother is playing one of the machines when i walk in. The child is atleat 5yrs and is sitting in her carriage sucking on some soda drink completly at ease.
I buy my stuff and on my way out the mother and child are still in exactly the same position.

Sorry, your point is, with regard to this thread?

I think I will stop reading posts. I am just getting befuddled. Old age does not come alone.:(

[100%]

My point is that the mother should have been aborted.

[bigboab]

Is there not the slight posibility that you meant to post that in the lounge thread about gambling?:)

Maybe there was no abort button on the machine she was playing.

[100%]

I read somewhere, on this web thing, a text by a social helper person
who was resigning,
in which he described the attrocities he had experienced through his job
based on the failure of the parents whom had no relation to "pro life" other than themselves and therefore did not give a shit about their children
and damaged them to such extents that
he resigned.

[Biggles]

I envision a future where abortion is extended to After Birth. The scenerio is thus: The child is delivered...the mother sees her newborn boy/girl and then depending on whether or not the child is favorable she(the mother) gets to keep or "abort".

I must somewhat echo what the old man said, Busy...Im assuming by your phrase of "killing the child" you are pro-life.
this is a very good thread....let us continue.

I thought post natal abortion was already carried out in states like Texas.:dabs:

[JPaul]

I envision a future where abortion is extended to After Birth. The scenerio is thus: The child is delivered...the mother sees her newborn boy/girl and then depending on whether or not the child is favorable she(the mother) gets to keep or "abort".

I must somewhat echo what the old man said, Busy...Im assuming by your phrase of "killing the child" you are pro-life.
this is a very good thread....let us continue.

I hoped post natal abortion was legal in states like Texas.:dabs:

Fixed

[bigboab]

I envision a future where abortion is extended to After Birth. The scenerio is thus: The child is delivered...the mother sees her newborn boy/girl and then depending on whether or not the child is favorable she(the mother) gets to keep or "abort".

I must somewhat echo what the old man said, Busy...Im assuming by your phrase of "killing the child" you are pro-life.
this is a very good thread....let us continue.

I thought post natal abortion was already carried out in states like Texas.:dabs:

They missed one.:( Sorry J2, I could not resist.:)

[Biggles]

I hoped post natal abortion was legal in states like Texas.:dabs:

Fixed

Ta muchly

I knew there was a broken bit somewhere in there :unsure:

[100%]

If you guys need a fix go around the corner.

Before the birth of my son, i was sure if in the eccolog film it showed that he was handicapped etc, wwe agreed on an abortion.
When we did the actual examination, i really to this day do not know what i would do.
He is walking now and learning faster than i can think.

[JPaul]

If you guys need a fix go around the corner.

Before the birth of my son, i was sure if in the eccolog film it showed that he was handicapped etc, wwe agreed on an abortion.
When we did the actual examination, i really to this day do not know what i would do.
He is walking now and learning faster than i can think.

I'm taking from that you are happy not to have chosen to kill your unborn child.

Maybe I've picked you up wrong tho'.

[Busyman™]

and believes a human comes into being at the moment of conception then the only reasonable circumstance for an abortion would be to save the mother's life.

To say that there are other extenuating circumstances is bunkum.

Rape? So you, Joe Pro-Lifer, condone the killing of a child due to an unwanted participant of the mother?

Incest? So kill the child because of possible birth defects or embarrassment?

Birth defects? See above. So kill the child because it will be inconvenient to manage?

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

Why do you believe "saving the mother" to be a reason/the only reason mitigating the pro-life mindset?

'Cause it still keeps with pro-life.:ermm:

[j2k4]

Why do you believe "saving the mother" to be a reason/the only reason mitigating the pro-life mindset?

'Cause it still keeps with pro-life.:ermm:

But not Pro new-life, which is the issue.

Apples and oranges.

Your supposition avoids any moral connotation whatsoever by defaulting to a formulaic solution:

If Mom's health is at risk, abortion is a guilt-free option.

If you are attempting to hook a sucker with a logical argument, you have to play by the rules.

[Busyman™]

'Cause it still keeps with pro-life.:ermm:

But not Pro new-life, which is the issue.

Apples and oranges.

Your supposition avoids any moral connotation whatsoever by defaulting to a formulaic solution:

If Mom's health is at risk, abortion is a guilt-free option.

If you are attempting to hook a sucker with a logical argument, you have to play by the rules.

Eh? No you made pro new-life the issue.

You made this "hook" up. I am playing by the rules. Saving the mother's life is considered acceptable.

I'd love to get your take on it though. Do you consider abortion wrong under any and all circumstances, no exceptions?

Also I said nothing of the mom's health. I said her life (and not livelihood either). Health is to broad.

Nice try though, spindoctor.

[j2k4]

But not Pro new-life, which is the issue.

Apples and oranges.

Your supposition avoids any moral connotation whatsoever by defaulting to a formulaic solution:

If Mom's health is at risk, abortion is a guilt-free option.

If you are attempting to hook a sucker with a logical argument, you have to play by the rules.

Eh? No you made pro new-life the issue.

You made this "hook" up. I am playing by the rules. Saving the mother's life is considered acceptable.

I'd love to get your take on it though. Do you consider abortion wrong under any and all circumstances, no exceptions?

Also I said nothing of the mom's health. I said her life (and not livelihood either). Health is to broad.

Nice try though, spindoctor.


No spin, home-boy.

Here's how it works:

The term Pro-life, as generally used, entertains the few exceptions you have noted, but that is not how you presented it; you were attempting to use it in the logical, theoretical sense so as to create a hook for argument-don't pretend you intended otherwise, it won't wash.

As a practitioner of the Pro-life point-of view, I submit to you that for someone such as myself (and all others who truly grasp the issue) to countenance abortion even under such limited circumstances is a morally rending concession to that circumstance.

It is the flaw in our stance when viewed through the lens of logic, but it is our emotional weakness which demands it.

Reason counters, nonetheless, with it's imperative to limit these circumstances, not broaden them.

You feel, however, that this concession precludes or short-circuits any further argument against abortion.

You are quite simply wrong in this.

Certain members here have alluded to the efficacy of aborting prospectively defective pregnancies.

While supporting and nurturing such infants/children/adults is amongst the most difficult things a human can do, as one who spent several years doing it, I can report it is also amongst the most rewarding.

I guess my stance is that the worship and respect of human life is our ultimate duty, and to grant exceptions (even such as we've noted) weakens us and demonstrates our imperfection.

Many people, on the other hand, live their lives so as to avoid such responsibilty or guilt, at any moral cost, believing they deserve better.

To quote Mr. Eastwood's script, "sometimes deserve's got nothing to do with it".

Life is life; if you're going to live it to the fullest, you've got to make room for everyone.

This concludes my participation in this thread.

[Busyman™]

Eh? No you made pro new-life the issue.

You made this "hook" up. I am playing by the rules. Saving the mother's life is considered acceptable.

I'd love to get your take on it though. Do you consider abortion wrong under any and all circumstances, no exceptions?

Also I said nothing of the mom's health. I said her life (and not livelihood either). Health is to broad.

Nice try though, spindoctor.


No spin, home-boy.

Here's how it works:

The term Pro-life, as generally used, entertains the few exceptions you have noted, but that is not how you presented it; you were attempting to use it in the logical, theoretical sense so as to create a hook for argument-don't pretend you intended otherwise, it won't wash.

As a practitioner of the Pro-life point-of view, I submit to you that for someone such as myself (and all others who truly grasp the issue) to countenance abortion even under such limited circumstances is a morally rending concession to that circumstance.

It is the flaw in our stance when viewed through the lens of logic, but it is our emotional weakness which demands it.

Reason counters, nonetheless, with it's imperative to limit these circumstances, not broaden them.

You feel, however, that this concession precludes or short-circuits any further argument against abortion.

You are quite simply wrong in this.

Certain members here have alluded to the efficacy of aborting prospectively defective pregnancies.

While supporting and nurturing such infants/children/adults is amongst the most difficult things a human can do, as one who spent several years doing it, I can report it is also amongst the most rewarding.

I guess my stance is that the worship and respect of human life is our ultimate duty, and to grant exceptions (even such as we've noted) weakens us and demonstrates our imperfection.

Many people, on the other hand, live their lives so as to avoid such responsibilty or guilt, at any moral cost, believing they deserve better.

To quote Mr. Eastwood's script, "sometimes deserve's got nothing to do with it".

Life is life; if you're going to live it to the fullest, you've got to make room for everyone.

This concludes my participation in this thread.

I bet it does.

What's with the home-boy shit?

So do you consider abortion wrong under any and all circumstances, no exceptions?

Through all your round about speak you missed the a simple yes or no answer. I take it by your "emotional weakness which demands it" that the answer is NO.

You consider abortion ok under certain circumstances. You consider certain choices in killing a child ok while eschewing others and this goes beyond the mother's life being saved.

I gotcha.

Btw, I presented in a logical sense since the pro-life movement presents it in the same way. You say a child is a child at the moment of conception.. Kaput. End of story.

You use this as the rationale against abortion by saying they are killing a child. Then there are folks who put their emotional tag on it (like the fella from vid's post) to make abortion okay. Their "emotional weakness" "demands it".

Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

[JPaul]

You really need to learn what the word extenuate means before using it.

Oh and your persistent non sequiturs make my logic gland ache.

If someone accepts that there may be extenuating circumstances for an action, it does not logically follow that they then think it is right.

I have noted this trend in your posts, everything must have a yes or no answer. When you grow up you will see that people can also see shades of gray. That they can see how other people may feel that, under certain circumstances, an action can be justified. That does not mean one agrees, merely that one understands the other person's position. Or that one accepts that in those circumstances the action is ... oh never mind.

[Busyman™]

To any pro-lifer, don't fanny about with what is justifiable.

On one hand killing a child is wrong. On the next, it's ok if the mom was raped.

In both cases you kill a child.

Bill Napoli is clearly a hypocrite. The female in question has no more right to an abortion than a female that simply says they are not ready to take care of a child....since it's about not killing a child and all.

[MCHeshPants420]

I have noted this trend in your posts, everything must have a yes or no answer.

I think of it as binary arguing, I look at it as the fatal flaw in trying to argue anything in a completely logical way.

[JPaul]

I have noted this trend in your posts, everything must have a yes or no answer.

I think of it as binary arguing, I look at it as the fatal flaw in trying to argue anything in a completely logical way.

No, binary argument has it's uses.

However it generally involves an 8 year old and whether or not it's their bedtime.

[Busyman™]

I think of it as binary arguing, I look at it as the fatal flaw in trying to argue anything in a completely logical way.

People tend to talk around points when it's suits them, Cheese.

The question was "do you consider abortion wrong under any and all circumstances, no exceptions?"

In the context of the sentence, "wrong" could be "unjustified" but many focus on small things like that to fanny about with their answers.

However, when one takes an action, they consider it the right thing to do at the time. The question wasn't simply "do you consider abortion wrong?"

So there was a yes and no answer to that question. The question had the "shades of grey" built into it.:ermm:

[JPaul]

To any pro-lifer, don't fanny about with what is justifiable.

On one hand killing a child is wrong. On the next, it's ok if the mom was raped.

In both cases you kill a child.

Bill Napoli is clearly a hypocrite. The female in question has no more right to an abortion than a female that simply says they are not ready to take care of a child....since it's about not killing a child and all.

Which part don't you understand, killing a child is always wrong.

[JPaul]

I think of it as binary arguing, I look at it as the fatal flaw in trying to argue anything in a completely logical way.

People tend to talk around points when it's suits them, Cheese.

The question was "do you consider abortion wrong under any and all circumstances, no exceptions?"

In the context of the sentence, "wrong" could be "unjustified" but many focus on small things like that to fanny about with their answers.

However, when one takes an action, they consider it the right thing to do at the time. The question wasn't simply "do you consider abortion wrong?"

So there was a yes and no answer to that question. The question had the "shades of grey" built into it.:ermm:


:lol:

[j2k4]

So there was a yes and no answer to that question. The question had the "shades of grey" built into it.:ermm:

Then let me ask you this:
























Do you still beat your "wifey"?

Yes or no, please.

[JPaul]

So there was a yes and no answer to that question. The question had the "shades of grey" built into it.:ermm:

Then let me ask you this:
























Do you still beat your "wifey"?

Yes or no, please.


I wasn't aware of this.

Please explain.

[Busyman™]

So there was a yes and no answer to that question. The question had the "shades of grey" built into it.:ermm:

Then let me ask you this:
























Do you still beat your "wifey"?

Yes or no, please.

Yes. I answered your question.

The difference between my question and yours was that mine covered everything. You just didn't have the cojones to answer.

Funny too since that question had an easy answer.:ermm:

You do understand the difference between

Do you consider abortion wrong under any and all circumstances, no exceptions?

and

Do you consider abortion wrong?

don't you?

I'll help. The first accounts for shades of grey. The last doesn't.

That's for any 5 year olds that don't get it.

Also if your hangup was with the word "wrong" then substitute "unjustified" to make it more palatable. However, if you say that a certain circumstance makes abortion "justified" then look up the top meaning of the word.

Sentence context is a motherfucker.:crazy:

[JPaul]

Then let me ask you this:
























Do you still beat your "wifey"?

Yes or no, please.

Yes. I answered your question.

The difference between my question and yours was that mine covered everything. You just didn't have the cojones to answer.

Funny too since that question had an easy answer.:ermm:

You do understand the difference between

Do you consider abortion wrong under any and all circumstances, no exceptions?

and

Do you consider abortion wrong?

don't you?

I'll help. The first accounts for shades of grey. The last doesn't.

That's for any 5 year olds that don't get it.

Also if your hangup was with the word "wrong" then substitute "unjustified" to make it more palatable. However, if you say that a certain circumstance makes abortion "justified" then look up the top meaning of the word.

Sentence context is a motherfucker.:crazy:

I'm confused here, are you saying that you beat your partner and the mother of your child. Or am I totally misreading this thread now.

[Busyman™]

Oh and j2, since you wanna go off-topic

Are you still a racist redneck that is part of a militia and lives on a compound?

Yes or No.

[JPaul]

Oh and j2, since you wanna go off-topic

Are you still a racist redneck that is part of a militia and lives on a compound?

Yes or No.

Who's the one who can't answer a simple yes or no question?

I'm obviously still missing something.

Do you beat your "wifey" or not. I find it difficult to believe that j2 would just randomly post that and your answer did tend to support it. So what's it to be.

It's obvious from your posts that you are a prick, I think everyone can see that. You would also fit the profile of a bully. So is that what you are in real life, I had hoped it was just a part you were playing.

[j2k4]

Oh and j2, since you wanna go off-topic

Are you still a supremely intelligent individual whose personal integrity is above reproach, who regularly spanks stupid board members for their unrelenting idiocy and who also lives on a compound?

Yes or No.

Yes-indubitably.

[Busyman]

Oh and j2, since you wanna go off-topic

Are you still a racist redneck that is part of a militia and lives on a compound?

Yes or No.

Yes-indubitably.

I thought so.

I love it. All of this 'cause I asked an unambiguous question. You then counter with an obvious ambiguous question to prove a point. (see below about spanking stupid board members:lol:)

That's not the mark of a supremely intelligent individual whose personal integrity is above reproach, who regularly spanks stupid board members for their unrelenting idiocy.

You doling out pwnage? CaptainObviously not.:ermm: Maybe talk a person indirectly, over the river and through woods with a possible clue as to what you meant somewhere in there.

All you could do is resort to some of off-topic, personal attack out of the blue. It's obvious you are the prick and bully. (see above about personal intergrity above reproach)

Check your ego.

[JPaul]

So he is a wife beater

Hoi Mod, can I suggest the Lounge for this, I think it at best unlikely that it will ever get back to the troll laden topic it started as.

I suppose it has achieved something tho' if only that busyman ended up outing himself as a women beating thug.

[Busyman]

I beat her regularly...at backgammon. That's ambiguous questions for you.

And hoi mods, if you noticed it is j2 and JPaul doing the trolling.

All I was doing was defending himself.

There was no cause for j2 to ask such a question. It sure didn't go along with my initial question and it didn't go along with any history on the board.:idunno:

This is what happens egotistical members are proven wrong. They resort to being pricks and bullies.

Their perception of themselves and perceived high standing allows no wiggle room.

Notice who started the trolling in this topic. The topic surely wasn't directed at those members.

[JPaul]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

It's all there for people to read.

Your first post, the one which opened the thread ends with


If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

[Busyman]

This guy

the man himself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX9NAiw38kk)

is full of shit.

Since his whole basis against abortion is that it is killing a child.

I made an assertion and (rather easily) backed it up.

If it is that the woman would harm the unborn child what of a woman that doesn't claim religious status?

[JPaul]

What are you talking about now. Your first post in it's entirety was



If A Person Is Pro-Life.....

and believes a human comes into being at the moment of conception then the only reasonable circumstance for an abortion would be to save the mother's life.

To say that there are other extenuating circumstances is bunkum.

Rape? So you, Joe Pro-Lifer, condone the killing of a child due to an unwanted participant of the mother?

Incest? So kill the child because of possible birth defects or embarrassment?

Birth defects? See above. So kill the child because it will be inconvenient to manage?

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.


Nothing about some guy that vidcc pointed to later.

Bear in mind that some people are actually reading this and can see you squirming about, changing what you are saying because it was, without question, you who was the troll.

[Busyman]

I have seen folks like Bill Napoli that want to make laws like that and such in news. He is one of many.

It's what prompted the thread.:dabs:

Who'd have thunk that a trolling first post would have resulted in claims of trolling 4 pages later after regular participation?

I wonder how that happened? Maybe the topic was laid out nicely and the ego wasn't checked so you have to resort to bullying and when that doesn't work simply cry foul. Perhaps no one thought of it as trolling 'till it was convenient.

I don't have to squirm since I have logic on my side. Cries of bully and then complaining to the mods (pages later I might add) is squirming.

Who was it that couldn't answer an unambiguous question and then resorted to a personal attack with an ambiguous one.

There are claims that some on here are fair-minded and such but then they ignore obvious crap for their own evil ways.

[JPaul]

To any pro-lifer, don't fanny about with what is justifiable.

On one hand killing a child is wrong. On the next, it's ok if the mom was raped.

In both cases you kill a child.

Bill Napoli is clearly a hypocrite. The female in question has no more right to an abortion than a female that simply says they are not ready to take care of a child....since it's about not killing a child and all.

Which part don't you understand, killing a child is always wrong.

Again, which part is difficult to understand.

Oh and who complained to a mod, I certainly didn't. I just pointed out that the thread had gone so far away from it's original, trolling start that it was unlikely to go back on topic.

You don't have logic on your side. Try to understand this time. Non sequiturs are what is known as logical fallacy. You put forward arguments and then draw a conclusion which is not supported by the arguments. I explained that much earlier in the thread and as you didn't read it then I see little point in explaining it again.

You repeatedly post the most dreadful nonsense, claiming that it is using logic. You think that just because you use the word logic that you are being logical. It simply isn't true.

[Busyman]

1. Killing a child is not always wrong.

2. It's amazing you don't understand sentence context so I indulged with #1.

3. Also when one commits to an action, they think it is the right thing to do at the time.

Bill Napoli can think abortion is wrong to the high heavens but he thinks in his example that allowing the female an abortion is the right thing to do in that circumstance.

You can fanny around with wording all you want. He thinks in that case an abortion is just.

I say that he is full of shit to allow his example an abortion and not someone that doesn't claim religious status and is a virgin.

What part didn't you understand?:dabs:

Your claim of a non sequitur is a non sequitur.:blink: You talking down to me doesn't make you correct. What I am saying is quite easy to follow along.

[ilw]

j2 how come you live on a compound?

[JPaul]

I couldn't care less about Bill Napoli that's not what you asked about.




If A Person Is Pro-Life.....

and believes a human comes into being at the moment of conception then the only reasonable circumstance for an abortion would be to save the mother's life.

To say that there are other extenuating circumstances is bunkum.

Rape? So you, Joe Pro-Lifer, condone the killing of a child due to an unwanted participant of the mother?

Incest? So kill the child because of possible birth defects or embarrassment?

Birth defects? See above. So kill the child because it will be inconvenient to manage?

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

Killing a child is always wrong. It may be the lesser of two or more wrongs, however it is always wrong.

You need to see beyond yes / no discussion.

[Busyman]

I couldn't care less about Bill Napoli that's not what you asked about.




If A Person Is Pro-Life.....

and believes a human comes into being at the moment of conception then the only reasonable circumstance for an abortion would be to save the mother's life.

To say that there are other extenuating circumstances is bunkum.

Rape? So you, Joe Pro-Lifer, condone the killing of a child due to an unwanted participant of the mother?

Incest? So kill the child because of possible birth defects or embarrassment?

Birth defects? See above. So kill the child because it will be inconvenient to manage?

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

Killing a child is always wrong. It may be the lesser of two or more wrongs, however it is always wrong.

You need to see beyond yes / no discussion.

I disagree. I am sure most others would as well (quite easily).

Killing a child is not wrong 'cause you say so.

Also if you believe I need to see beyond yes/no discussion why do you then say killing a child is always wrong. You don't account for the shades of grey that you say I didn't previously account for.

(when I actually did):blink:

[JPaul]

Answer me this then, when is it not wrong to kill a child.

[Busyman]

Answer me this then, when is it not wrong to kill a child.

Self defense

When should abortion be justified besides saving the mama?

[JPaul]

Answer me this then, when is it not wrong to kill a child.

Self defense



That doesn't make it not wrong. What you are saying is that it is justified in those circumstances. It's not the same thing

It's the same as for your second point. It's wrong to kill the child, however under the circumstances that may be the lesser wrong.

Never mind I went through that earlier as well.

[Busyman]

Self defense



That doesn't make it not wrong. What you are saying is that it is justified in those circumstances. It's not the same thing

It's the same as for your second point. It's wrong to kill the child, however under the circumstances that may be the lesser wrong.

Never mind I went through that earlier as well.

Sure it does.

Thank you for using the word "justified".

You proved my point. (good question btw)

I noticed that I answer questions straight out and you and j2 avoid them. Amazing.

I will stop answering dumb questions and personal attacks though (I even answered j2's).

[JPaul]

How did I prove your point :lol:

You really do live in a fantasy world. If anything you are supporting the position which you say is shit.

You are saying that there are circumstances which justify actions which would normally be wrong. For example killing a child when it's self defence.Thus acknowledging the arguments used by the very groups you decry.

Can't you even see that.

[Busyman]

How did I prove your point :lol:

You really do live in a fantasy world. If anything you are supporting the position which you say is shit.

You are saying that there are circumstances which justify actions which would normally be wrong. For example killing a child when it's self defence.Thus acknowledging the arguments used by the very groups you decry.

Can't you even see that.


You really need to learn what the word
justified
means before using it.

Anyone notice my question wasn't answered? (I figured it wouldn't be answered but just pointing it out)
It's that ego thing again.

I don't remember saying anything about pro-life groups irregardless to self-defense. Post a link.

[JPaul]

Have you actually gone mad.

What is that last load of drivel supposed to mean.

[MCHeshPants420]

The ego thing interests me, all things considered. The rest doesn't make sense, this thread was over on post 10.

[JPaul]

The rest doesn't make sense, this thread was over on post 10.

Good point, well presented.

[Snee]

I love the internets.

No, srsly, I mean it.

[bigboab]

I love the internets.

No, srsly, I mean it.

You are not St Martin by any chance, are you?:lol:

[Busyman]

Have you actually gone mad.

What is that last load of drivel supposed to mean.

Justified. Look it up or simply look up the word "just".

I am liking how you know you are wrong but act as if you haven't a clue.

[JPaul]

Why on Earth would I do that, I know what it means.

[Snee]

Just 'cos a man likes raising the dead now and then it don't make him a saint :unsure:

[Busyman]

Why on Earth would I do that, I know what it means.

Oh good, good.

So do you justify an abortion under extenuating circumstances besides saving the life of the mother?

[JPaul]

Just 'cos a man likes raising the dead now and then it don't make him a saint :unsure:

Yes but are you using logic there.

[Busyman]

The ego thing interests me, all things considered. The rest doesn't make sense, this thread was over on post 10.

Yeah that happens when folks say there are mitigating circumstances without clarifying what they are.:idunno:

Some fall noticeably silent and feel cornered, I guess.

[JPaul]

Why on Earth would I do that, I know what it means.

Oh good, good.

So do you justify an abortion under extenuating circumstances besides saving the life of the mother?

I have explained my position with regard to that on numerous occassions, in numerous threads. Threads which I know for a fact you have taken part in.

Either you have read my answers and are just mucking about. Or you haven't in which case why would I bother answering you again when you haven't done me the courtesy of reading it before.

[JPaul]

The ego thing interests me, all things considered. The rest doesn't make sense, this thread was over on post 10.

Yeah that happens when folks say there are mitigating circumstances without clarifying what they are.:idunno:

Some fall noticeably silent and feel cornered, I guess.

You do know that he said j2 pwnd you on the first page.

[Busyman]

Oh good, good.

So do you justify an abortion under extenuating circumstances besides saving the life of the mother?

I have explained my position with regard to that on numerous occassions, in numerous threads. Threads which I know for a fact you have taken part in.

Either you have read my answers and are just mucking about. Or you haven't in which case why would I bother answering you again when you haven't done me the courtesy of reading it before.

Eh? Excuse me for not remembering the intricacies of your mitigating circumstances irregardless to abortion. Did j2 feel the same way too? :idunno:

Was I to do a search for your answer from frigging 3 years (or so) ago?

Besides that, it was a simple question. You bother "mucking about" in every other instance yet clam up when a certain question comes about.

I'd understand if we just talked about the issue.


:blink: :slap: Goodnessgeewilikers. :slap: :blink:

Maybe I will do a search. I bet that those mitigating circumstances that you say you have made, don't exist.:ermm:

[Busyman]

Yeah that happens when folks say there are mitigating circumstances without clarifying what they are.:idunno:

Some fall noticeably silent and feel cornered, I guess.

You do know that he said j2 pwnd you on the first page.

How so? I'm thinking he meant everything went off-topic.

Not unless you are saying j2 confirmed the examples I laid out in the first post so I put my foot in mouth.:blink:

Nah he couldn't have meant that was pwnage, fer shirley.

[JPaul]

Did you read what j2 said.

[JPaul]

Do you read what anyone says.

[JPaul]

It looks more and more as if you don't

[Busyman]

Did you read what j2 said.
I see.

Oh my bad, "shoot myself in the foot".

Damn I do see that this talked about in March. I thought it would have been earlier.

And Damn, vid led off with Bill Napoli.:blink:

I'm at the part j2 is supposedly answering my question.

edit: and somewhere in a long-winded post he actually answered.


I think accomodation for incest and rape must be made

Then the child's life is not paramount when the participant in the sexual act is unwanted. There is an accomodation for the mother to have the child killed because it wasn't wanted.

[Busyman]

It looks more and more as if you don't

Nah I just went on memory. I was slightly off.

Sry.:(

Still no pwnage though.

[JPaul]

Cheese referred to post 10.

Did you read post 10.

One assumes not, as you are now demonstrating that you didn't read j2's other posts.

:lol: you're skimming them aren't you. Then making assumptions about what he probably said.

[Busyman]

Cheese referred to post 10.

Did you read post 10.

One assumes not, as you are now demonstrating that you didn't read j2's other posts.

:lol: you're skimming them aren't you. Then making assumptions about what he probably said.

I said "shoot myself in the foot" in post 78.

Again no pwnage since I didn't.

The post is not lengthy.

[JPaul]

I was more meaning this


edit: and somewhere in a long-winded post he actually answered.



Originally Posted by j2k4
I think accomodation for incest and rape must be made


You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

[MCHeshPants420]

I was more meaning this


edit: and somewhere in a long-winded post he actually answered.




You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

Post 36 this thread as well. :dabs:

[Busyman]

I was more meaning this


edit: and somewhere in a long-winded post he actually answered.




You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

Hmmm, the post was from March, J. Furthermore, that answer was hidden within over half a page of his post. It was a needle in a needlestack.

Your stance is a little more ambiguous. I use stance lightly.

You say that you can see "instances where there is an argument".:blink:

Either way a child's life is deemed less important due to rape and that is hypocritical.

It is placing the importance of the mother in a non-life threatening situation, over the child.

[JPaul]

I was more meaning this




You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

Post 36 this thread as well. :dabs:

Sorry I'm going to have to wait for busy to tell me what you meant by that. After the last debacle caused by post 61.

[Busyman]

I was more meaning this




You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

Post 36 this thread as well. :dabs:

You mean where he asks j2 to explain?:unsure:

[Busyman]

Post 36 this thread as well. :dabs:

Sorry I'm going to have to wait for busy to tell me what you meant by that. After the last debacle caused by post 61.

Or what I thought he meant by that.....

[JPaul]

I was more meaning this




You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

Hmmm, the post was from March, J. Furthermore, that answer was hidden within over half a page of his post. It was a needle in a needlestack.

Your stance is a little more ambiguous. I use stance lightly.

You say that you can see "instances where there is an argument".:blink:

Either way a child's life is deemed less important due to rape and that is hypocritical.

It is placing the importance of the mother in a non-life threatening situation, over the child.


FFS how many times, just because I can see there is an argument doesn't mean I agree with it.

I can see the argument for torture as well and can even understand why some people would find it acceptable in certain circumstances, that doesn't mean I agree with them

I never, ever place the child's life as being anything other than of paramount importance. However there are instances where there are other considerations. To me that only involves another human life and does not include matters of convenience or cosmetics.

[MCHeshPants420]

I was more meaning this




You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

Hmmm, the post was from March, J. Furthermore, that answer was hidden within over half a page of his post. It was a needle in a needlestack.

Your stance is a little more ambiguous. I use stance lightly.

You say that you can see "instances where there is an argument".:blink:

Either way a child's life is deemed less important due to rape and that is hypocritical.

It is placing the importance of the mother in a non-life threatening situation, over the child.

So you're ignoring the psychological impact a "rape child" could have which could be potentially life threatening?

[JPaul]

See my last.

[Busyman]

Hmmm, the post was from March, J. Furthermore, that answer was hidden within over half a page of his post. It was a needle in a needlestack.

Your stance is a little more ambiguous. I use stance lightly.

You say that you can see "instances where there is an argument".:blink:

Either way a child's life is deemed less important due to rape and that is hypocritical.

It is placing the importance of the mother in a non-life threatening situation, over the child.

So you're ignoring the psychological impact a "rape child" could have which could be potentially life threatening?

No.

[Busyman]

Hmmm, the post was from March, J. Furthermore, that answer was hidden within over half a page of his post. It was a needle in a needlestack.

Your stance is a little more ambiguous. I use stance lightly.

You say that you can see "instances where there is an argument".:blink:

Either way a child's life is deemed less important due to rape and that is hypocritical.

It is placing the importance of the mother in a non-life threatening situation, over the child.


FFS how many times, just because I can see there is an argument doesn't mean I agree with it.

I can see the argument for torture as well and can even understand why some people would find it acceptable in certain circumstances, that doesn't mean I agree with them

I never, ever place the child's life as being anything other than of paramount importance. However there are instances where there are other considerations. To me that only involves another human life and does not include matters of convenience or cosmetics.

Sorry my last 2 sentences are directed towards j2's comments, not yours.

You and j2 have different views on the matter.

[JPaul]

FFS how many times, just because I can see there is an argument doesn't mean I agree with it.

I can see the argument for torture as well and can even understand why some people would find it acceptable in certain circumstances, that doesn't mean I agree with them

I never, ever place the child's life as being anything other than of paramount importance. However there are instances where there are other considerations. To me that only involves another human life and does not include matters of convenience or cosmetics.

Sorry my last 2 sentences are directed towards j2's comments, not yours.

You and j2 have different views on the matter.


I'm sure you will see how it looked to the reader.

[MCHeshPants420]

So you're ignoring the psychological impact a "rape child" could have which could be potentially life threatening?

No.

So a pro-lifer isn't being hypocritical if they suggest it is acceptable to them that a rape victim can have an abortion?

[Busyman™]

No.

So a pro-lifer isn't being hypocritical if they suggest it is acceptable to them that a rape victim can have an abortion?

No.

[Snee]

Wait, what?

[peat moss]

Speaking from experience I'm pro choice but does n't make it any easier when one goes thru it . I'm constantly reminded of the choice my ex and I made so many years ago just by reading this thread . Mistake oh hell ya, would of ,could of , should of doesnt make me feel any better . I would of been a good father much earlier .

The mom has so many rights that a father can't compete , were just a tool in many ways . It caused the breakup of my first marriage because I had no say in what mattered and to be truthful I gave up too easily .

[Hoooooters]

and believes a human comes into being at the moment of conception then the only reasonable circumstance for an abortion would be to save the mother's life.

To say that there are other extenuating circumstances is bunkum.

Rape? So you, Joe Pro-Lifer, condone the killing of a child due to an unwanted participant of the mother?

Incest? So kill the child because of possible birth defects or embarrassment?

Birth defects? See above. So kill the child because it will be inconvenient to manage?

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

Amen.
(I'm pro life)

[Virtualbody1234]

Amen.
(I'm pro life)

Ummm.

Why do you take so much shit dude, just start killing mofos.
:nono:

[j2k4]

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

I sense here an opportunity to reiterate my first (indeed, my only) point:

You present a pretext with optional and circumstantial qualifiers.

You then state that the only legitimate case for abortion is to save the life of the mother, ignoring the fact your definition of what others deem an appropriately rigid pro-life stance would preclude even that, it being but another "extenuating" circumstance.

You've played "gotcha" with yourself, and you accomplished that goal with your starter post.

We've merely been attempting to save you a bit of embarrasment.

Perhaps you ought to give us your rationale for preferring to save the mother's life, and then demonstrate how you parse that seamlessly into your version of everybody else's flawed pro-life stance.

[Busyman™]

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

I sense here an opportunity to reiterate my first (indeed, my only) point: beat a dead horse.

You present a pretext with optional and circumstantial qualifiers.

You then state that the only legitimate case for abortion is to save the life of the mother, ignoring the fact your definition of what others deem an appropriately rigid pro-life stance would preclude even that, it being but another "extenuating" circumstance.

You've played "gotcha" with yourself, and you accomplished that goal with your starter post.

We've merely been attempting to save you a bit of embarrasment.

Perhaps you ought to give us your rationale for preferring to save the mother's life, and then demonstrate how you parse that seamlessly into your version of everybody else's flawed pro-life stance.

Who are us and we? You are not plural. There is no calvary.

I'm not embarassed at all. Unlike yourself, I make sense.

1. The pro-life stance is that a baby is human being at the moment of conception.

2. Killing this human being and not protecting it due to an unwanted participant derails the stance (#1). Your contention is that it's ok to kill the baby if the mother doesn't want it.

I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

[j2k4]

1. The pro-life stance is that a baby is human being at the moment of conception.

Wrong in my case, and in the majority of others as well.

2. Killing this human being and not protecting it due to an unwanted participant derails the stance (#1).

Wrong again.

Your contention is that it's ok to kill the baby if the mother doesn't want it.

I have never so contended, and my belief is diametrically opposed to the idea.

Where do you come up with this shit?

I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

Simplicity is for you not a consideration, though I seriously doubt you could make it any more idiotic.

[vidcc]

I think what's been lost in all the name calling here is the need for an explanation of the disconnect which allows exceptions in a moral issue.
If we take the two extremes:

No termination once conception has taken place, even in cases of rape or the mothers health. This includes emergency contraception.

Termination allowed under any circumstance.

Both of these extremes are rare approaches to the issue so most people are somewhere in between.
In this thread the answer needed is if one believes that abortion is murder then why do certain events like rape or incest deserve an uncomfortable pass? The resulting "life" would after all be just as innocent as any other.
What is it about these "exceptions" that outweighs ones belief that abortion is murder so to speak.

[Busyman™]

I think what's been lost in all the name calling here is the need for an explanation of the disconnect which allows exceptions in a moral issue.
If we take the two extremes:

No termination once conception has taken place, even in cases of rape or the mothers health. This includes emergency contraception.

Termination allowed under any circumstance.

Both of these extremes are rare approaches to the issue so most people are somewhere in between.
In this thread the answer needed is if one believes that abortion is murder then why do certain events like rape or incest deserve an uncomfortable pass? The resulting "life" would after all be just as innocent as any other.
What is it about these "exceptions" that outweighs ones belief that abortion is murder so to speak.

The argument simply seems to be only the reason for the abortion.

j2 looks at one being not the fault of the mother (rape) so she gets a pass versus...

the mother being irresponsible so doesn't get a pass.

It doesn't seem like there's a case for the child's right to life in the first case but it does in the second.:blink:

The moral judgement of the mother by others either dooms the child or saves it.

[JPaul]

If we take the two extremes:

No termination once conception has taken place, even in cases of rape or the mothers health. This includes emergency contraception.

Termination allowed under any circumstance.

Both of these extremes are rare approaches to the issue so most people are somewhere in between.
In this thread the answer needed is if one believes that abortion is murder then why do certain events like rape or incest deserve an uncomfortable pass? The resulting "life" would after all be just as innocent as any other.
What is it about these "exceptions" that outweighs ones belief that abortion is murder so to speak.


Good post.

[j2k4]

If we take the two extremes:

No termination once conception has taken place, even in cases of rape or the mothers health. This includes emergency contraception.

Termination allowed under any circumstance.

Both of these extremes are rare approaches to the issue so most people are somewhere in between.
In this thread the answer needed is if one believes that abortion is murder then why do certain events like rape or incest deserve an uncomfortable pass? The resulting "life" would after all be just as innocent as any other.
What is it about these "exceptions" that outweighs ones belief that abortion is murder so to speak.


Good post.

Yeah.

I can't wait for Busyman to tell him how unresponsive he is.

[vidcc]

It's not a question I can answer as my view is that it's a personal thing. I would not personally choose abortion, but it is not my right to make that choice for others. I don't think it is governments place to make the choice. That said reasonable restrictions like late term limits would probably be acceptable to even the most pro choice person, provided there were exceptions for health of the mother.
There are no black and white reasons why someone has an abortion and often the people that go through it are by default considered evil without the slightest knowledge of the reason they decided to terminate.
Sometimes the choice to terminate is not really a choice.

[Skweeky]

To me it's all fairly simply;

There are people who use the abortion options as a contraception option, which, I think is wrong.
There are people who have terminations for various reasons; they don't know how to cope, fear, rape, incest, handicaps, life threatening situations, forced into it etc etc...
And in those cases, they should be allowed to chose a termination.

However, who am I to judge other people's values?

I don't ever belief that there is anyone out there (except for the obvious psychopath here and there) that would do anything they consider 'bad' or 'evil' voluntarily.

I have some personal experience here as well.At the time I was forced to have a termination by my then boyfriend.

Do I regret it?
Yes, I regret the fact that, in a way, I killed a part of me.
On the other hand, I don't really.
I had no means to raise a child on my own and would not have been able to build the life I have now and thus provide a much better, safer and healthier environment for the children I hope to have soon.


There is no black or white answer possible in cases like these because everyone has different moral values. I believe it is a very sensitive subject for some people and I don't think it is fair to pass judgement on anyone.

[Busyman™]

Good post.

Yeah.

I can't wait for Busyman to tell him how unresponsive he is.

Do you mean cos the question at the end of vid's post wasn't answered?:blink:

A person in Skweeky's situation would not have the choice of abortion but a rape victim would.

Is that right?

Not allowing abortions is to protect the unborn child, right?

Why does a rape case leave a child unprotected?