Abortion is Murder

[hunter s.durden]

I secceeded from the US long ago.

Let us know how that works out for you on April 14th.

It works out fine. Remember: I don't work.


As for everything else you've said, this is something I can't talk to you about, as you apparently believe that every Pro-lifer is a religious kook, out to steal your right to vacuum out fetus jelly. MAybe you missed my point in all of this, or maybe You can't be bothered with the possibility that maybe someone is trying to do something good (which I understand.) Probably both.

Agreed.
One point I failed to get across was that the Pro-lifers and usually just that.
Pro-life, not anti-choice.

Please explain the difference.

Intent.

[AFK]

Becuase, hello, that's what Pro-Choice means, having a choice.

Hold Up.

Pro-Choice does not mean having a choice. Pro-choice is a term used to make their cause sound just and good. They are Pro-abortion. If they were pro-choice, they would let me choose to get a machine gun and a 2 pound bag of PCP. Pro-abortion sounds ugly.

Other side: Pro-Lifers are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion. They generally don't think twice about murdering prisoners or bombing orphanages in Brown places.

If your going to be open-minded, by open minded to the fact that the scum-fuckers on both sides of this argument are using language to cloud the issue.

I'm really focusing on this from a fundamental point of view, which is informed by my own personal opinion of course.  Obviously, both sides can bastardize their slogans Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.  However, fundamentally, Pro-Choice should be just that, Pro-Choice.  That means one has the right to their choice.  Obviously, if they start casting that opinion upon others, if they try to overly influence a young pregnant woman to get an abortion, then they've gone beyond the fundamentals of their position.  

But me personally, I believe in choice, for me personally.  Although, I'm really in a point of my life where it really isn't much of an issue.  I mean, if my wife said she was pregnant tomorrow, it would be a no-brainer that we're gonna go forward with it.  But I equally respect someone else in that same position who decides not to.  It's not my business, and that's the way it should be.  

[hunter s.durden]

 However, fundamentally, Pro-Choice should be just that, Pro-Choice.  That means one has the right to their choice.

So all Pro-choicers should be Libertarians or Anarchists.

Don't infringe on a corporation's right to dump toxic waste in the rivers, and use their revenues to buy 8-year-old  Fillipino lady-boy hooker. They CHOOSE to do that, who are you to stop them?

[AFK]

 However, fundamentally, Pro-Choice should be just that, Pro-Choice.  That means one has the right to their choice.

So all Pro-choicers should be Libertarians or Anarchists.

Don't infringe on a corporation's right to dump toxic waste in the rivers, and use their revenues to buy 8-year-old  Fillipino lady-boy hooker. They CHOOSE to do that, who are you to stop them?

Okay, number one, there are laws and regulations governing waters and having sex slaves in this country.  As well the laws in place support a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. 

Number two, I would argue that, at least dumping toxic waste into the river, has the potential to have an unavoidable impact on others compared to the abortion.  I stress the "unavoidable" because I've been in these debates before and the arguement I always here is that the taking away of innocent life impacts all.  I would argue that if someone is invested in that paradigm then yes, abortion does impact those people.  But that's because they choose to be impacted. 

With the toxic waste in the river, that can affect the food supply through fresh-water fish.  Also, if the water from the river feeds into any acquifers it can potentially impact drinking water.  Sure one can choose not to eat fish, but it's hard to avoid drinking water.

[Cramulus]

  However, fundamentally, Pro-Choice should be just that, Pro-Choice.  That means one has the right to their choice.

So all Pro-choicers should be Libertarians or Anarchists.

Don't infringe on a corporation's right to dump toxic waste in the rivers, and use their revenues to buy 8-year-old  Fillipino lady-boy hooker. They CHOOSE to do that, who are you to stop them?

irrelevant, because most CEOs are men.

It's a women's right to choose.

[Cain]

The question comes down to do fertilized eggs = children?

I think no, unless they're at the stage where they could actually survive outside the womb.  Hunter thinks otherwise, and while I respect his fucktarded position, I think it wrong.  And he thinks the same about mine.

See what I mean (meta-arguments post, universalized positions)?

[East Coast Hustle]

  However, fundamentally, Pro-Choice should be just that, Pro-Choice.  That means one has the right to their choice.

So all Pro-choicers should be Libertarians or Anarchists.

Don't infringe on a corporation's right to dump toxic waste in the rivers, and use their revenues to buy 8-year-old  Fillipino lady-boy hooker. They CHOOSE to do that, who are you to stop them?

shit, I missed out on all the good stuff when I was incorporated.

[hunter s.durden]

Number two, I would argue that, at least dumping toxic waste into the river, has the potential to have an unavoidable impact on others compared to the abortion.

Point successfully missed again.

I thought the argument was about choice, not the potential impact those choices have.

In the mind of a pro-lifer, the choice of abortion murders a living baby. (Taking it a step further, some say "That baby, could've grown up to cure cancer, or invent Playstation 4." I won't go there, as "if's and but's" can get outta hand.)

I think no, unless they're at the stage where they could actually survive outside the womb.  Hunter thinks otherwise, and while I respect his fucktarded position, I think it wrong.  And he thinks the same about mine.

If you've stayed tuned, you would've noted I don't actually know or care what that thing is. That thing about murder was an attention grabber to lead to a bigger point.

[Cain]

Well excuse me for not reading every single post in the forum.  Some us occasionally have to study.

[hunter s.durden]

The anti-abortion cause? Look, I don't really know if that little thing is alive, but isn't there something good and pure about someone who is trying to prevent murder? I'm not talking about the fanatics and the bombers, but the sign holders and the rally starters. When someone does it for a death row inmate or a whale they are applauded for their sacrifice, but someone stopping baby murder is an evil fanatic? Doesn't make sense to me. I've seen stupider causes than saving babies.

It's in the OP, college boy.

[AFK]

Number two, I would argue that, at least dumping toxic waste into the river, has the potential to have an unavoidable impact on others compared to the abortion.

Point successfully missed again.

I thought the argument was about choice, not the potential impact those choices have.

In the mind of a pro-lifer, the choice of abortion murders a living baby. (Taking it a step further, some say "That baby, could've grown up to cure cancer, or invent Playstation 4." I won't go there, as "if's and but's" can get outta hand.)

Yes, but the latter is always attached to the former, inextricably.  If it were purely about choice, just plain choice, with no considerations of consequences, morality, etc., then there would be no public debate.  It would be as benign as the choice of whether or not to continue that subscription to Sports Illustrated.  

But of course, humans place such a high value on human life that it is what it is.  Society frowns upon having a casual or indifferent attitude about the ceasing of a human life.  Whether it be in the earliest stages of egghood and fetushood, or pulling the plug on a terminally ill and suffering cancer patient.  

A woman should have dominion over her body, and what happens inside of it.  Humanity will never be unanimous 100% on what to classify or call developing humanity in the womb.  It's a fetus, it's a person, it's a zygote, it's a this, it's a that...  Those who are against abortion should continue to have their opinions, and state them.  But action, in my opinion, should be limited to what happens within one's own household and body.

[Cain]

Doesn't negate my above point.  Read it again.  If its  not murder then these people have no reason to try and force their position on others, in which case these people are fanatical morons.  No difference between them and the people who try and make women wear the niqab in public.

[East Coast Hustle]

you're feeling awfully absolute today, huh?

[Cain]

Look, if you're going to bring that argument over here, just don't bother.

Cain,
starting to get sick of this shit

[East Coast Hustle]

look, you can get pissy if you want, but all it does is suggest that you (who are usually so eloquent when arguing a position) don't have any way to back up your point.

Read your post again. by that logic, everyone who votes in an election is trying to force their position on others and is therefor a fanatical moron.

in fact, you seem to be forcing your position on others, your position being that anyone who forces their position on others is a fanatical moron.

I'm not really trying to bust your balls, just pointing out that you are undercutting your own argument.