This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Pro-choice advocates allegedly chant "Hail Satan" to drown out "Amazing Grace"

#81OrnitierIXPosted 7/4/2013 2:50:43 AM
I would rather not be born than not be wanted.

Just sayin'.
---
If only I could relieve my hunger by vigorously rubbing my belly...
#82SuibomPosted 7/4/2013 7:05:37 AM
You get all that out of your system, last?

I just re-read all my posts from that topic. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where I insulted you. If I did, my apologies, for it and for locking the topic.

Was it a db thing to do? Sure. I regret doing it. But my opinion that another 400 posts wouldn't have changed anyone's mind there, I still hold it, and even more so now.
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14
#83ThuggernautzPosted 7/4/2013 7:11:58 AM
Do all these pro-life advocates think it's better for a child to be born and then starve to death because of the inability to provide food for it in the case of poverty?

Or for the child to have no other options than crime to stay alive?

Or for a woman to raise a child borne of rape or incest?

All the extra medical issues that come from pregnancy, post-natal depression, post-pregnancy complications?

The cases where pregnancy may result in the death of the mother?

I would argue that all of those are a greater evil than preventing a clump of cells that is neither conscious nor aware from coming to term. Also, where is your objection to God's system, the most prolific abortion provider of all?
#84lastheroPosted 7/4/2013 7:50:39 AM
I regret doing it.


Of course you do - now that you've been called out on your BS. And you don't see how accusing me of 'endorsing fetuscide (SIC)' is a gross misrepresentation of the position I've taken on these matters? Really? When have I ever 'endorsed' abortion?
yo
But my opinion that another 400 posts wouldn't have changed anyone's mind there


If that was your opinion, the proper thing to do would have been to stop replying and leave the topic alone. But you couldn't do that, could you? No, you had to silence all dissent and fix it so that you got the last note in.

And don't pretend, for a second, that you actually care about changing anyone's mind. If you did, you'd actually come up with a solid argument instead of constantly throwing out the same tired appeals and hoping they stick. It's the same tired tactic you always use when we get on this subject, and it's no more effective now than it was when you started.
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#85C_MatPosted 7/4/2013 8:20:58 AM(edited)
Thuggernautz posted...
Do all these pro-life advocates think it's better for a child to be born and then starve to death because of the inability to provide food for it in the case of poverty?


Right, because that happens to kids all the time.

Or for the child to have no other options than crime to stay alive?


Again, how often does this happen?

Or for a woman to raise a child borne of rape or incest?


That's less than 1% of all abortions, how stupid to defend a policy based on something that happens 1% of the time.

All the extra medical issues that come from pregnancy, post-natal depression, post-pregnancy complications?


Abortion leads to death 100% of the time. This seems to be a way way bigger issue than natural inconveniences from pregnancy.

The cases where pregnancy may result in the death of the mother?


Do you not realize how ridiculous all these scenarios you're coming up with are? How often do mothers die in pregnancy in the 21st century?

I would argue that all of those are a greater evil than preventing a clump of cells that is neither conscious nor aware from coming to term.

Regardless of how many cells it has, it's still a human life.

Also, where is your objection to God's system, the most prolific abortion provider of all?

wat
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#86SuibomPosted 7/4/2013 8:20:51 AM
I do care about changing minds. Don't you?

But if you're basing care on effectiveness, I can say the same thing about your level of "care". Because if anything, I've become even more entrenched in my position based on talks with you. No, effectiveness doesn't denote care.

As for endorsing fetuscide, when you advocate for the right to kill a human, that in my opinion is endorsement. You feel the practice is acceptable, and people should have the right to do it. Now you may not be shouting "Hail Satan" in a courthouse, but you're on the same side of the issue as them.

And I regretted closing the topic long before you "called me out on my BS."

How'd your ATTN: Suibom topic turn out anyways? Did I get that "$&#% good stomping" I deserved in it? Or do you have more stomping to do? It seems you're not over it yet. That can't be healthy. That was like six months ago.
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14
#87JonWood007Posted 7/4/2013 8:22:57 AM
Followed the constitution? What in the world does the constitution have to say about abortion? The "right to privacy" is fiction - you can't find it in the constitution. The Supreme Court has "extended" due process to include the right to privacy, but you cannot find anything about that in the 14th amendment; the Court has essentially given itself legislative capacity without any consequences.


You do realize so many of our rights come from legal interpretations of the constitution right? The constitution lists our rights, and the courts interpret them. You may see Roe v Wade as judicial activism, and perhaps to a degree it was, but at the same time, some people see the constitution as a living document: one whose words must be constantly reinterpreted and applied to the times. And considering how hard it is to get amendments passed, sometimes we may need the rights that are there interpreted. Do women technically have full personhood rights in the constitution? No, and every attempt to pass the ERA is met with opposition. Rights for women often come from such judicial interpretations. Yes, the right to abortion may seem like a bit of a stretch just looking at the words, as a conservative justice may, but also remember that in addition to the words in the constitution, there's two centuries of legal precedents based on those words as well. Keep in mind there were numerous court cases leading up to Roe v. Wade. Griswold v. Connecticut for one.


"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.""


While true, I don't think that abortion laws really pass the lemon test, which is another mechanism the courts have made in interpreting the first amendment. Are they really secular in purpose? Do they really not advance religion? As I've said numerous times thoughout this topic, the secular case for abortion is weak. It rests on a philosophical distinction of a fertilized egg being as much of a person as you and me, and a categorical imperative on human life that doesn't even make a whole lot of sense when you take religion out of it. So what if it's human in a technical sense? The real question is what's the harm? Without saying something along the lines of "well God says all humans have inalienable rights", you don't have much of an argument. What most people arguing a secular point of view are doing is dressing up religious views as secular...and doing a darn poor job at it, since it's quite clear what assumptions their arguments are based on when dissected. Once again, I never said you can't make a case for pro life from a secular point of view, I said that you can't make a strong one, certainly not as strong as the pro choice side, which has the utilitarian high ground and takes so many variables into the equation and solves them.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#88JonWood007Posted 7/4/2013 8:28:40 AM(edited)
The pro life side doesn't do this, it's myopic, and fixated on labelling such undeveloped beings as life equal to a born human being. It doesn't take into consideration the complexity of legislating the issue from a legal standpoint, and how laws are often inadequate or too restrictive, it doesn't take into consideration the mother's wants and needs, and based on the responses above, often appears patronizing to them, it doesn't tackle the overpopulation threat looming on the horizon, and at least religious versions contribute to the problem of abortion to begin with by encouraging methods that lead to higher unwanted pregnancy rates and more abortions. Yeah, the secular case for pro life isn't that strong at all, trust me.

It's simple, if you don't like abortions, don't have one. You're free to do that. But don't tell others they can't because you don't like it. I agree with you, you can't restrict the views of the religious based on the constitution. However, we also should not base our country's policy on their opinions when it takes away other peoples' rights.

And as for your no separation of church and state crap, first of all, the founding fathers were people too. And imperfect people at that. They owned slaves. They were pretty upstanding fellows for the time, but we shouldnt treat their words with god like reverence, we should question them, and ignore them when they don't make sense. As I stated above, in addition to the constitution, we have two centuries of legal precedents to interpret their words. Many men and women in the supreme court have interpreted the constitution over time, and that is what shapes the interpretations today. They may not make sense to a lay person, but trust me, if you understand the legal precedents, read the court cases, etc. they make a lot more sense. Our rights evolve this way. A court rules that the government cant restrict contraception use, and it follows from there they can't restrict abortion before viability. It's a logical progression that makes sense if you understand the underlying interpretations. I suggest you do your research on this matter.

I know you have another paragraph, but I'd just repeat myself in explaining this again. So see above. 2 centuries of legal precedents and interpretations, yada yada, do research.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#89JonWood007Posted 7/4/2013 9:23:37 AM
But if you're basing care on effectiveness, I can say the same thing about your level of "care". Because if anything, I've become even more entrenched in my position based on talks with you. No, effectiveness doesn't denote care.


Sorry, I missed this as you posted 3 mins before my post.

You're basically showing how your position is based on emotional appeals. So you "care", that's nice. I care too. I care about women's rights. I care about their needs. The thing is, I can actually empathize with a woman. I can't empathize with something that from its own point of view does not exist. The earlier an abortion happens, the more of a nonissue it is to me.


As for endorsing fetuscide, when you advocate for the right to kill a human, that in my opinion is endorsement. You feel the practice is acceptable, and people should have the right to do it. Now you may not be shouting "Hail Satan" in a courthouse, but you're on the same side of the issue as them.


As another poster mentioned, skin is human. We're killing something with the intellectual abilities of a potato, or bacteria, that is, nonexistent. If you let it grow, it will become a human, but it's not human yet.

And if you're gonna mudsling, then I'm just gonna call you a misogynist who thinks women should have to "pay" for their sex and their perceived immorality. It may not be true, but hey, you're on the same side as them, m i rite? See? I can strawman too.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#90SuibomPosted 7/4/2013 9:29:12 AM
Jon, I was actually referring to what last wrote about me. He said he felt I must not care about convincing anyone. Otherwise, my argument would be better. But effectiveness doesn't mean care or lack of.

Last cares about his position, but he is ineffective in convincing me. So by his logic, should I say that he doesn't care about his position? Of course not.

That's all I was talking about.
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14