[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[The New California Republic]

Or you could engage with us by proving to us how it is a human being, how it is murder, and how it is a child? How about it?

I've done it numerous times, you can search my posts and read them. I'm done getting angry over this thread, everytime I engage on here I get so angry that I just want to hit some of you, and that's not good for my spiritual health.

Did a quick trawl and couldn't find them. So my offer stands.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Or you could engage with us by proving to us how it is a human being, how it is murder, and how it is a child? How about it?

I've done it numerous times, you can search my posts and read them. I'm done getting angry over this thread, everytime I engage on here I get so angry that I just want to hit some of you, and that's not good for my spiritual health.

Nah, you’ve not proven a single thing. You have stated your opinion on multiple occasions, but it has little practical basis.

[Hakons]

It's because we think fetuses are human beings and many of us can't stand the smug superiority complex that some of you people have when advocating the murder of children by their own parents, such a disgusting crime that has no parallel.

>> pro-life
>> complaining about the opposition's smugness

W E W

Read this thread, mate. In my last post I explained why pro-life posters don't like this thread very much, and one guy literally responded with "it's because pro-lifers don't understand definitions." There are certainly smug pro-life people, but it's not very apparent here.

[The New California Republic]

>> pro-life
>> complaining about the opposition's smugness

W E W

Read this thread, mate. In my last post I explained why pro-life posters don't like this thread very much, and one guy literally responded with "it's because pro-lifers don't understand definitions." There are certainly smug pro-life people, but it's not very apparent here.

And the lack of understanding definitions was proved quite poetically might I add.

[Hakons]

Read this thread, mate. In my last post I explained why pro-life posters don't like this thread very much, and one guy literally responded with "it's because pro-lifers don't understand definitions." There are certainly smug pro-life people, but it's not very apparent here.

And the lack of understanding definitions was proved quite poetically might I add.

Resorting to your own post as evidence is just a blatant example of circular reasoning. UMN posted his view of life, you denied it, and then for whatever reason just now cited this as somehow being evidence. "Pro-lifers are bad with definitions because they don't agree with my definition" is one of the worst ways one could argue, regardless of what the actual definition is. Your conduct right here is why pro-lifers find this thread hostile and toxic.

[The Vladivostok Confederacy]

Abortion is a complicated topic for me to discuss. Making it illegal it overall would just make things very complicated for women - as illegal abortions are much more dangerous and that is something we should avoid. I think maybe the best course of action is to either leave it as it is or maybe disincentivize it just a little?

[The New California Republic]

And the lack of understanding definitions was proved quite poetically might I add.

Resorting to your own post as evidence is just a blatant example of circular reasoning.

I was referring to UMN's post actually, where he started incorrectly using words like "human being", "murder", and "child" when replying to a post about many pro-lifers not knowing the definitions of words. It was ironic to say the least.

UMN posted his view of life, you denied it, and then for whatever reason just now cited this as somehow being evidence.

Except he didn't do that. He gave an argument that made mincemeat out of the definitions of some words.

"Pro-lifers are bad with definitions because they don't agree with my definition" is one of the worst ways one could argue, regardless of what the actual definition is.

Except it isn't just my definition of those words.

Your conduct right here is why pro-lifers find this thread hostile and toxic.

It wasn't me that threw a hissy fit and said they wanted to hit people when it was shown that they were garbling the definitions of words after all...

[The New California Republic]

I think maybe the best course of action is to either leave it as it is or maybe disincentivize it just a little?

Honey or vinegar, taking the poll as the basis of a question.

[Gormwood]

Oh boy. Supreme Court bait.

Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Receive Life in Prison.

On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a “fetal heartbeat” bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country—not just because it would impose severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.

[Hakons]

Oh boy. Supreme Court bait.

Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Receive Life in Prison.

On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a “fetal heartbeat” bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country—not just because it would impose severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.

I'm pro-life, so I support fetal heartbeat bills, but a life sentence? The option for the DEATH penalty???

[The New California Republic]

I'm pro-life, so I support fetal heartbeat bills [...]

Even though the presence of a heartbeat in the fetus is meaningless for all intents and purposes?

[Gormwood]

Oh boy. Supreme Court bait.

Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Receive Life in Prison.

I'm pro-life, so I support fetal heartbeat bills, but a life sentence? The option for the DEATH penalty???

The law is designed to be struck down so they can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court to try and overturn Roe.

[Hakons]

Resorting to your own post as evidence is just a blatant example of circular reasoning.

I was referring to UMN's post actually, where he started incorrectly using words like "human being", "murder", and "child" when replying to a post about many pro-lifers not knowing the definitions of words. It was ironic to say the least.

No, you directly linked to your own post. Perhaps you meant to link to UMN's? This is what you linked to:

It's because we think fetuses are human beings and many of us can't stand the smug superiority complex that some of you people have when advocating the murder of children by their own parents, such a disgusting crime that has no parallel.

It isn't a human being, it isn't murder, and the fetus is not a child. Thank you very much for proving my point.

This does nothing to prove your point, because you only linked to another post of you making a dogmatic assertion. The entire argument from UMN is that they are human beings and that killing them is murder. I suppose you can criticize him for calling fetuses children, baby ect..., but that's really a semantics argument. No mother refers to her unborn baby as a fetus. "Did you feel the fetus kick?"

UMN posted his view of life, you denied it, and then for whatever reason just now cited this as somehow being evidence.

Except he didn't do that. He gave an argument that made mincemeat out of the definitions of some words.

Once again, only to you. If anything, the debate over abortion is about definitions, and I think it's rather apparent to everyone that your condescension towards people that argue for different definitions is unwarranted and has to stop.

"Pro-lifers are bad with definitions because they don't agree with my definition" is one of the worst ways one could argue, regardless of what the actual definition is.

Except it isn't just my definition of those words.

You're just making the same argument over and over and pretending it isn't the same dogmatic claim. We understand that you have different definitions than us, but don't pretend yours are automatically correct and better than outs.

Your conduct right here is why pro-lifers find this thread hostile and toxic.

It wasn't me that threw a hissy fit and said they wanted to hit people when it was shown that they were garbling the definitions of words after all... [/quote]

For the fourth time now, your claim that UMN/pro-lifers garble definitions relies purely on your own dogmatism. Repeatedly referencing your own argument and your own posts four times in a row just makes your argument a farce. UMN is expressing his severe frustration when interacting with pro-choicers, especially you, in this thread. We see the moral proposition of abortion as clear and obvious (albeit you do as well), and when you and others so rapaciously descend on every post we make, it obviously is going to frustrate us, make us angry, and cause us to leave.

Truth be told, there is no room for discussion here. This thread is for various degrees of pro-choice opinions, occasionally taking time to descend upon a pro-life poster for a page or two. This isn't an abortion discussion thread, it is the pro-choice discussion thread.

[Jebslund]

Oh boy. Supreme Court bait.

Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Receive Life in Prison.

I'm pro-life, so I support fetal heartbeat bills, but a life sentence? The option for the DEATH penalty???

Those are the penalties for murder, yes. So you don't actually stand by your belief that abortion is murder? That for a mother to kill her child is the ultimate evil? Or are you perhaps starting to realise that banning abortion, especially by calling it murder, is the greater of two evils here?

[Hakons]

I'm pro-life, so I support fetal heartbeat bills [...]

Even though the presence of a heartbeat in the fetus is meaningless for all intents and purposes?

It's a pragmatic step, yes. Life starts at conception, but if the legality of it makes the heart beat a stronger case for standing judicial review (though it shouldn't have to), then I will take it.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm pro-life, so I support fetal heartbeat bills, but a life sentence? The option for the DEATH penalty???

Those are the penalties for murder, yes. So you don't actually stand by your belief that abortion is murder? That for a mother to kill her child is the ultimate evil? Or are you perhaps starting to realise that banning abortion, especially by calling it murder, is the greater of two evils here?

Both positions are held simultaneously. That's the fun option.

[Gormwood]

Those are the penalties for murder, yes. So you don't actually stand by your belief that abortion is murder? That for a mother to kill her child is the ultimate evil? Or are you perhaps starting to realise that banning abortion, especially by calling it murder, is the greater of two evils here?

Both positions are held simultaneously. That's the fun option.

Miscarriage Is Capital Murder. /s

[Hakons]

I'm pro-life, so I support fetal heartbeat bills, but a life sentence? The option for the DEATH penalty???

Those are the penalties for murder, yes. So you don't actually stand by your belief that abortion is murder? That for a mother to kill her child is the ultimate evil? Or are you perhaps starting to realise that banning abortion, especially by calling it murder, is the greater of two evils here?

One can ban abortion without sending mothers to prison. A mother who procures an abortion is complicit in the act, but it is the abortionist who kills the unborn child. For example, an abortion bill could penalize abortionists, but not mothers.

There's also clear paradox between a bill wanting to preserve life by applying the death penalty. I don't support the death penalty.

[Conserative Morality]

One can ban abortion without sending mothers to prison. A mother who procures an abortion is complicit in the act, but it is the abortionist who kills the unborn child. For example, an abortion bill could penalize abortionists, but not mothers.

And if the mother is the 'abortionist'?

[Hakons]

One can ban abortion without sending mothers to prison. A mother who procures an abortion is complicit in the act, but it is the abortionist who kills the unborn child. For example, an abortion bill could penalize abortionists, but not mothers.

And if the mother is the 'abortionist'?

Then that is clearer cause for punishment, though definitely not a death sentence.

[Gormwood]

One can ban abortion without sending mothers to prison. A mother who procures an abortion is complicit in the act, but it is the abortionist who kills the unborn child. For example, an abortion bill could penalize abortionists, but not mothers.

And if the mother is the 'abortionist'?

Death by complications, or death by lethal injection. Great choices for women.

[Conserative Morality]

Then that is clearer cause for punishment, though definitely not a death sentence.

Why? What makes a mother who orders an abortion less guilty than the one who carries it out?

[Conserative Morality]

If a mother intentionally takes care of her body poorly during a pregnancy in the hope of causing the fetus to die, should the mother be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter, if a fetus is a human life?

[Jebslund]

It isn't a human being, it isn't murder, and the fetus is not a child. Thank you very much for proving my point.

This does nothing to prove your point, because you only linked to another post of you making a dogmatic assertion. The entire argument from UMN is that they are human beings and that killing them is murder. I suppose you can criticize him for calling fetuses children, baby ect..., but that's really a semantics argument. No mother refers to her unborn baby as a fetus. "Did you feel the fetus kick?"

No layperson refers to a worker bee as a female, either, but does that change the fact that worker bees are all female, contrary to the common layperson having a grating habit of referring to them as "he"?

What about Scarlet Fever? Is the scientific, proper term for it not streptococcus pyogenes just because nobody outside the scientific/medical community ever refers to it as such?

And I don't think I've ever heard anyone but a doctor or a biology teacher refer to the kneecap as the patella. A 24-hour-flu, likewise, is not a strain of flu, and does not describe any one disease, but, rather, food poisoning, itself an umbrella term for several foodbourne illnesses that nobody uses the proper names for. Does that mean that they're properly called "24-hour flu"? Or can we accept that what the layperson calls something isn't always accurate?

[The New California Republic]

No, you directly linked to your own post.

Yes I did, to show the end of the quote chain with surrounding context.

This does nothing to prove your point, because you only linked to another post of you making a dogmatic assertion. The entire argument from UMN is that they are human beings and that killing them is murder. I suppose you can criticize him for calling fetuses children, baby ect..., but that's really a semantics argument. No mother refers to her unborn baby as a fetus. "Did you feel the fetus kick?"

It isn't dogmatic at all. It has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread that some pro-life people have a strong tendency to garble the definitions of words, and not backing up said garblings with the slightest bit of evidence whatsoever.

Once again, only to you.

Not only to me at all, but by the actual definitions of words.

If anything, the debate over abortion is about definitions, and I think it's rather apparent to everyone that your condescension towards people that argue for different definitions is unwarranted and has to stop.

It isn't condescension at all, it is exasperation at some pro-life people repeatedly garbling the definitions of words.

You're just making the same argument over and over and pretending it isn't the same dogmatic claim. We understand that you have different definitions than us, but don't pretend yours are automatically correct and better than outs.

I'm not pretending, as I and others have repeatedly given justification as to why our definitions are correct and the ones thrown about by some pro-life people are wrong.

For the fourth time now, your claim that UMN/pro-lifers garble definitions relies purely on your own dogmatism.

Nope. It relies on definitions that have been repeatedly given by myself and others in this thread.

We see the moral proposition of abortion as clear and obvious (albeit you do as well), and when you and others so rapaciously descend on every post we make, it obviously is going to frustrate us, make us angry, and cause us to leave.

UMN didn't even try to back up their definitions with sources; that's the crucial difference.

Truth be told, there is no room for discussion here. This thread is for various degrees of pro-choice opinions, occasionally taking time to descend upon a pro-life poster for a page or two. This isn't an abortion discussion thread, it is the pro-choice discussion thread.

At least try to argue why the definitions of "human being, "murder", and "child" as used by pro-life people are correct, instead of running away from this debate.