Well I guess that partially answers my question. Would you, as a German citizen opposed to Jewish extermination in WWII resorted to violence to prevent it? And do you view blastocysts, embryos and fetuses to be qualitatively equivalent to Holocaust victims? In light of your comments above, can you see violence as an option for you in your opposition to what you perceive as mass murder?
Is Abortion Murder?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
i don't think it is anywhere near the same thing:
you cannot equate abortion with the Holocaust... an abortion is not a racially motivated torture , nor is it forced to work while confined to the womb to meet unrealistic expectations. i've never seen an abortion "labor camp" ... you couldn't get the rolls of barbed wire and guards into the womb with the fetus.
[hyperbole, sarcasm]
how many of those innocent fetus were armed?
How many were killed due to racially motivated hatred?
how many were forced to work under appalling conditions?
if you are going to pick an analogy, shouldn't there be at least some similarities? the only similarity you are comparing is the death toll.... under those same guidelines, lets look at the difference between religious motivated deaths and non-religious motivated deaths!
if you look at the appallingly high number of religious motivated deaths, shouldn't we then consider religion to be the deadliest thing on the planet?
religion killed off far more people than any war (and is the cause for far too many of them), series of abortions, or any other reason in history... but it isn't banned....
shouldn't you be picketing CHURCHES because of the death toll and graveyards they are a direct cause of?
Why aren't you?
and yet you also allow churches to be built daily all over the world. too
WHY is that?
why aren't you in your local schools, or picketing around any local church (especially christian ones) trying to get religion banned for its historical atrocities???
Capracus:
I get the impression that your real agenda here is a eugenic one. You want to control who has the right to have a child.
Again, I need to ask you: in the ideal Capracus world, who would decide who gets to breed?
No, I have never displayed a bumper sticker with the name of a candidate or cause. I regularly discuss politics with women, but I would never presume to tell them how they should vote. You, in contrast, apparently think it's just fine to exert pressure on a woman to vote the way you want her to. I think you may need to adjust your attitude and realise that women aren't inferior to you or subordinate to you.
Who will do the certification? The government? A panel approved by you and your friends?
I get the impression that your real agenda here is a eugenic one. You want to control who has the right to have a child.
So prior to pregnancy, you're quite happy to impose burdens on women, including the requirement that they pee on a stick once a week. Do you know how much each one of those sticks costs? Who do you expect to pay for the sticks? And this is before we even get to the time and effort involved.
I'm right, aren't I? You're a eugenicist.
Again, I need to ask you: in the ideal Capracus world, who would decide who gets to breed?
Bowser said:
Something about redefinition goes here
You know, though, I did notice your bit about throwing money at the issue, and think back to the LACP compromise proposition, when you didn't have a straightforward answer. Back then, your honesty was admirable; it is a difficult issue, all things considered.
However, I also notice that you're more willing to be accommodating in a context that completely ignores the fact of a woman's human rights. Would you please explain the difference?
I think that when discussing any topic, political or not, that being a strong advocate for your position is a benefit for all parties involved. I urge men, I urge women, and in return they urge me back. I’m curious as to why an element of undue pressure is presumed in the exchange? The only resulting pressure ideally would result from the strength of the arguments brought to the table.
Should we chastise these people for daring to urge?
Bill Clinton urges young voters away from 'resentment
Hillary Clinton urges voters to elect Grimes
In Aurora, Bill Clinton urges voters to reject GOP referendum
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Clinton+urges+voters
Since governments are usually charged with maintaining social welfare I would assume the government to be a logical choice.
I want there to be a regulatory system in place to assure that those who have an interest in becoming parents are technically and materially equipped to do so. To some extent social service departments already serve this function, but only when they become aware of a given degree of deficiency.
Like women don’t frequent stores on a weekly basis? And urination is going to occur regardless of the presence of the stick.
Retail cost of a pregnancy stick is $1.00
http://www.dollartree.com/Pregnancy-Tests-One-Step/p7347/index.pro
Would you trust a dollar store pregnancy test?
http://blogs.babycenter.com/mom_stories/01302014-would-you-trust-a-dollar-store-pregnancy-test/
Eugenics is concerned with controlling the biological makeup of a population; I’m primarily concerned with its conditioned behavior. What ever the form of reversible sterilization or contraception, it would be applied universally, much like a policy of vaccination. When individuals could demonstrate technical competency and a specified level of environmental quality, they would be granted a permit to breed.
Essentially the same government that decides who gets behind the wheel of a car. The whole point of the policy is to make the act of breeding a qualified privilege instead of an unqualified right. Kind of the same argument that is made for gun control.
Let's say I'm a 15 year old high school dropout nympho that cannot satisfy her insatiable lust. And even though the government does supply free contraceptives, I get pregnant every other day cause I'm living the American Dream. My only job is prostitution, but sometimes I don't wait around -and this is how I didn't get caught till I was like 25.
How would you stop me in your country? Do I have to show papers to police every time I look pregnant? Would you put me in jail for life, or sentence me to death? If I'm not financially sound and had 26 children, how would that effect your judgement? Would you force me to have my tubes tied? Would you ban me from having sex? Would you have forced me to abort every time or something, if I don't have a permit? What?
Oh and BTW your political stance just sounds like one huge confirmation bias mentality.
:EDIT:
Oh and one more thing: If you want to influence the behavior of people, you have look at the environment they live in and making it really oppressively dumb is not the way.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
You didn't read his earlier posts?
You'd be on the table, with your tubes tied at the first hint of your first period.
I originally had it, since I'm not a U.S. citizen, I'm an illegal alien 15 year old high school dropout nympho that cannot satisfy her insatiable lust. That crossed the border with the sole purpose of having sex. A rogue sex addict making babies. But that would have been too weird and too stupid. Then I forgot about that part in his post.
JBrentonK
but... i am willing to bet an entire year of my pay that you also kill life regularly... without a second thought. if you use the your definition and state that it is murder, then you must also consider yourself a murderer for:
taking Antibiotics
mowing the lawn
surgery (any)
killing flies
using soap
squashing spiders
being hygenic
hiring the Orkin man (any pest control will do)
putting out roach, rat or mouse traps
eating anything - because everything, and i mean everything, you eat was once alive, whether you're a vegetarian or not, or you bought it at the grocer or killed it yourself: you are complicit in it's murder for your personal sustenance, thus equally guilty in the murder
so, what will you now do to yourself for being complicit in murder? that's right: nothing
because you will try to "justify" your murder with your own personal beliefs.
this is a point thought i made already...
"History will look back to see the one-child policy as one of the most glaring policy mistakes that China has made in its modern history." http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/30/asia/china-one-child-policy-undo/
Who would have thought to say something like that?
But we're not talking about a one child policy are we? We're talking something far more dumb.
I think it's much worse since the fetus is helpless within it's own environment. Much like the Jews, homosexuals, physically and mentally impaired during Nazi control, the embryo is consider less than human, which makes it a legitimate target for extermination.
Once again, it's the value that our culture assigns to their lives that shows similarity. The total disregard and wholesale destruction of life is what we should consider
I have no information regarding any churches in my culture that are currently killing individuals; whereas, there are plenty of abortion clinics doing just that.
When a church actively cultivates a culture of death...sure.
Oh, "historical atrocities... I suppose I could travel to Germany and protest the holocaust, but it would probably be received with mutual agreement. Pointless.
It is a sticky point that deserves recognition. If the question didn't, in actuality, involve two lives, it would be an easy one to answer.
It must be kind of hard on you, knowing as you do that you have no more regard for a human embryo or early fetus than anyone else, but believing that you should.bowser said:
You do have information regarding churches in your culture who routinely allow - even support, finance, etc - flushing living human embryos down the toilet and incinerating them as medical waste.bowser said:
In any other circumstance I would be fully devoted to the cause for a woman's independence. I have two independent women at home--smart, hardworking, and opinionated.
How do you feel about fertility clinics?
:EDIT:
More specifically "in vitro fertilization".
:EDIT:
More specifically "in vitro fertilization".
Last edited: