Is Abortion Murder?

[pjdude1219]

Though we don't want to harm women, we also recognize the life within, and its importance, too. I would rather see money go towards prenatal care.

oh how very precocious. the path to hell is paved in good intentions. so even if you truly believe that your objective isn't to hurt women, which i don't believe in a heart beat given the fact i've seen enough of your views that you seem to view them as nothing more than baby factories, what you want is at the end irrelevant. by pushing your quite frankly borderline misogynistic views onto women you are harming them. you don't get to ignore responsibility and accountability for the end results of what you want just because it wasn't what you thought would happen.

Because in doing so I just might save a life. If I can convince someone to hold on to the life they carry, I've stopped an unnecessary death.

once again showing you don't give 2 shits about the women, her rights and agency just don't matter to you, the fetus is the only thing in your mind that has rights the women is just a thing.

 

[Tiassa]

The only thing that separates a late term fetus and a preterm child outside the womb is its location.

This continued specific disdain for the reality of a woman's human rights is pretty much indicative.

The hatred is palpable, and utterly disgusting. I don't know why the hell you keep trying this insultingly stupid, abjectly useless argument.

A woman is a human being, not a mere place.

 

[billvon]

Why do you feel the need to impose your beliefs and opinions on other people?

He's not. Making a statement is not " impos[ing] your beliefs and opinions on other people." It's free speech, and he is as free to make it as other people are to ignore it.

 

[pjdude1219]

He's not. Making a statement is not " impos[ing] your beliefs and opinions on other people." It's free speech, and he is as free to make it as other people are to ignore it.

Um actually thats what exactly he is advocating. your confusing his inability to actually force his views upon others as a lack of desire. he has made it rather clear if he could he'd force his view point and turn women into the baby factories he views them as. I'm not a fan of assuming malevolence but assuming benevolence as you are is just as wrong. to claim he is just making statements is false. he has shown a clear bitterness and anger at people refusing to live the way he feels they should. if this wasn't clear look at how multiple people had to smack him down over him claiming persecution over having to suffer the consequences of his homophobia.

the post your compalining about was in regards to him stating he would go to a clinic and harass its clientele.

 

[billvon]

Um actually thats what exactly he is advocating

"Anyway, some day I might actually go to a clinic and make a statement on the matter." - That is the statement we are discussing. I support his right to do that, just as I would expect him to support my right to go to the demonstrations I go to.

 

[spidergoat]

He's not. Making a statement is not " impos[ing] your beliefs and opinions on other people." It's free speech, and he is as free to make it as other people are to ignore it.

He thinks abortion is murder. Who would be content just speaking out against murder?

 

[pjdude1219]

"Anyway, some day I might actually go to a clinic and make a statement on the matter." - That is the statement we are discussing. I support his right to do that, just as I would expect him to support my right to go to the demonstrations I go to.

your deliberately missing the point. You claimed he wasn't trying to impose his beliefs on anyone else just making statements. whether its his right or not is not really the point which you damn well know. he is specifically advocating taking an action that quite frankly in any other context we would all acknowledge is abusive to try and compel people to his view point. your misrepresenting his intentions to defend his intended actions and goals not his speech. yeah if he wants to continue making homophobic and misogynistic statements fine thats his right to do so as it is our right to mock him for such things. but he clearly wishes to push for his religious beliefs to be law which your conveniently ignoring.

 

[Tiassa]

He thinks abortion is murder. Who would be content just speaking out against murder?

Just to reiterate↑: I think it also complicates things when one side of a dispute constantly requires redefinition of words in order to find merit for their argument. You know, like trying to erase the difference between fertilization and conception.

 

[billvon]

Um actually thats what exactly he is advocating. your confusing his inability to actually force his views upon others as a lack of desire.

No, I am not speaking to his desire to "force his views" on others at all. I support his right to demonstrate. I also support his right to try to convince people he knows to not get an abortion (or to get an abortion, if he feels that's right.) I support the same rights for all people even if I disagree with them - and even if you believe they have evil ulterior motives. (Although I'd support your right to demonstrate against him.)

I'm not a fan of assuming malevolence

Then don't.

 

[Capracus]

The longer a pregnancy goes, the more valid your position becomes. The only thing that separates a late term fetus and a preterm child outside the womb is its location.

Which is of course exactly the Court decision in Roe vs Wade.

Unfortunately some of us have a hard time accepting this reality, and cling to the notion that a woman’s rights should trump those of a fetus at any stage of development.

This continued specific disdain for the reality of a woman's human rights is pretty much indicative.

The hatred is palpable, and utterly disgusting. I don't know why the hell you keep trying this insultingly stupid, abjectly useless argument.

A woman is a human being, not a mere place.

It’s you who can’t deal with the reality that woman rights are limited by our society when they are considered in conflict with the rights of other human beings, inside or outside the womb. Your advocacy of unconditional rights for women during pregnancy is extreme, and not consistent with the will of the vast majority of your fellow citizens.

Remember, it’s your policy that relegates the value of a human being to its physical location.

He thinks abortion is murder. Who would be content just speaking out against murder?

Most of us value our socioeconomic welfare more than our ideological convictions. I’m sure Bowser, like the rest of us, is more than willing to give lip service to a cause, but much less willing to significantly sacrifice his social standing, income, freedom and life in defense of it.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

There is nothing "fanatical" about the Democratic Party

this is the first thing i read, so i will address it first:
this is your perception. politics, like philosophy, is subjective to the individual, and thus can be viewed differently given the same circumstances or situation depending upon the individual

You stated it as an equivalence, which conceals the actual problem we face with the degradation of the Republican Party and - of key significance - the political media.

The Democratic Party is still functioning, by fits and starts in between media assaults, as a normal political Party. The Republican Party has been collapsed at the foundation and set on fire, is a wreck incapable of supporting functional government.

I don't think it conceals it. subjectivity again... politics, like philosophy, is subjective to the individual, and thus can be viewed differently given the same circumstances or situation depending upon the individual
I am sure the REPUB say the same thing about the DEM's...

Fanaticism is not a "both sides" problem. And it's not "the government" that is culling diversity from itself.

i disagree... this is most visible when hot topic's like this are around, be it Abortion or Gun Control;
there is fanaticism on both sides, but each side only see's the fanaticism of the other side.
as i am (what i consider) outside of the influences of politics because i choose to remain apart and selectively address key issues, not party lines, i feel that i am able to see the fanaticism better... but that is IMHO, mind you... which is why i feel that i can see the fanaticism of DEM's and REPUB's equally

like i said, i don't like politics and find REP and DEMO, TEA, SOC... all repulsive, party wise...
not individuals.
it is much like a religion in that, the "party line" is like "god did it", but individuals are usually willing to acknowledge things like "science says" and accept reality.

The apathy of the public has been engineered, planned and exacerbated, by identifiable people doing things we have record of. So has the racial bigotry of the public, the ignorance of the public, and the confusion of the public. The active agents of this engineering are to blame for what they have been doing, not their victims.

the sword swings both ways, IMHO... just like our overexposure to violence breeds apathy towards violence, that doesn't excuse the individual for being apathetic. change, especially in an individual, must be personally accepted. just like you cannot change your spouse: they must want to change themselves.

There is nothing "fanatical" about the Democratic Party.

again - this is your perception. politics, like philosophy, is subjective to the individual, and thus can be viewed differently given the same circumstances or situation depending upon the individual

The fact that many Sen/Reps - especially Republican ones - act and vote against their constituents's best interests without being turned out of office is of course a matter of journalism and communication - the cooption of US political media by a few wealthy men has proved effective in protecting them, these days ...

I had to intentionally stop here for a reason... there is much truth in what you say here...EXCEPT...when you put the following

by selling the rubes on the notion that "both sides" are to blame and all this bad stuff that keeps happening is everybody's fault.

considering the voting record of each REP and SEN is public info and accessible on the internet now, there is no real excuse for ignorance, is there?
also note: the media really do have a powerful stranglehold on the nation in many areas... that doesn't mean they are to blame for everything. it only makes them complicit in the act, IMHO

 

[Bells]

He's not. Making a statement is not " impos[ing] your beliefs and opinions on other people." It's free speech, and he is as free to make it as other people are to ignore it.

You've seen how he reacts when he doesn't get his way here. I doubt it would be a case of his just speaking his beliefs.

 

[Tiassa]

You've seen how he reacts when he doesn't get his way here. I doubt it would be a case of his just speaking his beliefs.

It's also a question of deliberate insensitivity, insofar as it would seem naïve to think one could walk into such a politically charged, and even lethally dangerous situation, for the purpose of being extraneously insulting and condescending, and then ... what?

This isn't a provocation like the "pint of creme de menthe", where the provocateur risks being arrested or beaten simply for being gay and not keeping it in the closet. This is a provocation in the context of a situation where terrorism is rife.

I think the best thing that could happen would be a flurry of internet posts about how rude the people were when he freely spoke his mind, having security escort him away and all that. That is to say, the other potential results only go downhill from there.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You've seen how he reacts when he doesn't get his way here. I doubt it would be a case of his just speaking his beliefs.

It's also a question of deliberate insensitivity, insofar as it would seem naïve to think one could walk into such a politically charged, and even lethally dangerous situation, for the purpose of being extraneously insulting and condescending, and then ... what?

This isn't a provocation like the "pint of creme de menthe", where the provocateur risks being arrested or beaten simply for being gay and not keeping it in the closet. This is a provocation in the context of a situation where terrorism is rife.

I think the best thing that could happen would be a flurry of internet posts about how rude the people were when he freely spoke his mind, having security escort him away and all that. That is to say, the other potential results only go downhill from there.

Yeah, but is he being dishonest if he truly feels that way?

:EDIT:

I guess what I'm trying to say is like that there's a difference between being deliberately stupid and being actually stupid.

 

[pjdude1219]

No, I am not speaking to his desire to "force his views" on others at all. I support his right to demonstrate. I also support his right to try to convince people he knows to not get an abortion (or to get an abortion, if he feels that's right.) I support the same rights for all people even if I disagree with them - and even if you believe they have evil ulterior motives. (Although I'd support your right to demonstrate against him.)

what ever lies you require to feel at piece with defending theocracy. what ever you may think your defending your defending someone who demands the right to impose his beliefs on others. i'm a firm believer in free speech and demonstration. right up until you start abusing people which is what your defending his desire to go out and be able top browbeat people into moving away from decisions they want to make. hard choices they shouldn't be attacked over simply because someone mistook his religious texts for a law book.

Then don't.

i'm not. his malicious intent was well proven by his own homophobic and misogynistic posts. that you would choose to ignore that in favor of making your self feel better about yourself getting on high horse because you think you have some fucking moral high ground cause you don't want to admit your defending some whose flat out stated he doesn't believe women have any rights to their body in regards children.

 

[Tiassa]

Yeah, but is he being dishonest if he truly feels that way?

Depends on the level of dishonesty. Look, I get the sentiment and aesthetics because it looks just like a cute little panda bear when it's that tiny, and so on ... er ... ah ... right.

But the thing is that much of these sentiments require, in translation to action, certain redefinitions. Like this idea about murder. It requires redefinition in the same way fertilization-assigned personhood does. Murder is a fairly specific term.

And if that's how he feels, that's how he feels. What he carries inside himself is his own to reconcile. But if he is going to act, go get in someone else's business based on that aesthetic? The question of dishonesty in requiring redefinition becomes functionally relevant.

I don't recall your age, which is only important at the moment because there was once a mass protest action in which anti-abortion advocates surrounded clinics and hounded and assaulted patiens and staff; as long as this behavior was considered making a statement, it seemed obvious enough to let it continue. Once it was observably, undeniably intimidation―which was, in fact, always the point, except aesthetics and identity politics made it really hard for many people to believe it was really happening, because, after all, it made their sympathies look really, really bad―the situation changed. Indeed, last year the Supreme Court took off the restraints that arose in the wake of those mass actions, and despite the escalation to open murder.

The thing is that even if he's just going down there to make a statement and appeal to some woman, who the hell says he has any say in her decision?

This is a situation when genuine mass intimidation and actual terrorism are really, truly in play. It's not advisable to go picking fights for the sake of redefining a word in order to justify going out to pick fights.

Edit note: Typographical error; see #519 below; something about a missing o goes here. [10 Sep 2015; 1930 PDT]​

 

[Bowser]

what ever lies you require to feel at piece with defending theocracy. what ever you may think your defending your defending someone who demands the right to impose his beliefs on others. i'm a firm believer in free speech and demonstration. right up until you start abusing people which is what your defending his desire to go out and be able top browbeat people into moving away from decisions they want to make. hard choices they shouldn't be attacked over simply because someone mistook his religious texts for a law book.

I don't need the Bible to justify my views on this issue, life is sacred. As far as protesting abortion, I was thinking of holding a sign near the clinic. I have no intention of bombing the facility or shooting the providers. And I certainly won't be twisting anyone's arm. Also, yes, it is my right to be there and voice my opinion.


{QUOTE]i'm not. his malicious intent was well proven by his own homophobic and misogynistic posts. that you would choose to ignore that in favor of making your self feel better about yourself getting on high horse because you think you have some fucking moral high ground cause you don't want to admit your defending some whose flat out stated he doesn't believe women have any rights to their body in regards children.[/QUOTE]

If talking on the issues is malicious, then we're all pretty vicious. I think your problem is that you can't tolerate the views of others as long as they don't jive with your own

 

[Daecon]

What would the sign say?

I'm guessing it'd be a little more emotive than "Adoption is an option"?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Depends on the level of dishonesty. Look, I get the sentiment and aesthetics because it looks just like a cute little panda bear when it's that tiny, and so on ... er ... ah ... right.

But the thing is that much of these sentiments require, in translation to action, certain redefinitions. Like this idea about murder. It requires redefinition in the same way fertilization-assigned personhood does. Murder is a fairly specific term.

And if that's how he feels, that's how he feels. What he carries inside himself is his own to reconcile. But if he is going to act, go get in someone else's business based on that aesthetic? The question of dishonesty in requiring redefinition becomes functionally relevant.

I don't recall your age, which is only important at the moment because there was once a mass protest action in which anti-abortion advocates surrounded clinics and hounded and assaulted patiens and staff; as long as this behavior was considered making a statement, it seemed obvious enough to let it continue. Once it was observably, undeniably intimidation―which was, in fact, always the point, except aesthetics and identity politics made it really hard for many people to believe it was really happening, because, after all, it made their sympathies lok really, really bad―the situation changed. Indeed, last year the Supreme Court took off the restraints that arose in the wake of those mass actions, and despite the escalation to open murder.

The thing is that even if he's just going down there to make a statement and appeal to some woman, who the hell says he has any say in her decision?

This is a situation when genuine mass intimidation and actual terrorism are really, truly in play. It's not advisable to go picking fights for the sake of redefining a word in order to justify going out to pick fights.

I did edit my post very close to the time you posted that.

He also didn't answer my question:

Bowser, do you think the time a sperm enters an egg, God has just made a new soul, or something?

Which is completely concise. His reaction or inaction to it is an attempt to better understand him. I also don't feel physically or mentally threatened by him. Or that he can get near me in any way. Hence, I feel a freedom to ask such things.

I will say Roe v. Wade was before I was born.

 

[Kristoffer]

What would the sign say?

I'm guessing it'd be a little more emotive than "Adoption is an option"?