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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Again no pwnage since I didn't.

The post is not lengthy.

I was more meaning this

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I was more meaning this

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I was more meaning this

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

See my last.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Wait, what?

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Amen.
(I'm pro life)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoooooters

Amen.
(I'm pro life)

---

Ummm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoooooters

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

---

:nono:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

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?