ARCHVE: Attention all sick pro-aborts

[Projill]

Originally posted by Knight
What a sick person you are.

In your professional opinion, Dr.? Listen, suffering through a miscarriage and then receiving no sympathy from Christians about it because one is a liberal tends to make one a bit harder to shock.

I can tell you the picture still shocks me!

Now that doesn't shock me.

 

[Projill]

Originally posted by Knight
Prokill writes...That is a lame argument. Rape is illegal yet rape still occurs should we legalize rape since having rape be illegal has not ended rape?

So what are you saying? You don't want to end abortion, you just look to punish those who provide it or the women who seek it?

 

[me again]

Regarding Abortion...

Regarding Abortion...

• Posted by Evangelion
  I don't impose my choice on other people. I think they should make up their own minds.

Is that for murder too, or just abortion? If a man wants to murder another man, should we allow him to make up his own mind?



Just curious.

 

[me again]

Question for Freak:

Question for Freak:

• Posted by Freak:
  Evangelion, What is wrong with you? You are a sick individual. You are pro-baby killing. It is simple as that!

Freak,

Are you saying that so that Evangelion will turn a deaf ear to you or are you trying to point out his error?



Just curious.

 

[Atheist_Divine]

Sheesh, I go away for a while to revise for my exams, go online to a few less busy forums...only to see Jefferson got there before me and posted the same message in several of them! Including II, which was a little surprising.

Anyhow, I didn't watch your commercial - these things tend to crash my computer. Most things crash my computer.

And I didn't find Knight's photo shocking either - I agree with Projil, after seeing Jefferson's avatar over and over those things no longer shock me in the least.

~AD~

 

[Evangelion]

Knight -

How incredibly mindless you are.

Ad hominem.

When you murder someone you impose YOUR WILL ON THEM!!!!

I know. What's your point?

It is inevitable that a "will" will get forced upon someone one way or the other.

Agreed. What's your point?

IF........

A. Abortion is illegal - the will of the government gets forced on the mother so that she must choose another option besides abortion.

Agreed.

B. Abortion is legal - the will of the mother and the pro-aborts gets forced upon the helpless baby.

Agreed. And in my case, this would only occur if the mother's life was in danger.

The truth is, you have no problem enforcing your "will" upon other people as long as its the innocent baby.

That's really cute, Knight. I just love your emotivism. I had already qualified my statement - now you're trying to turn it into a loose generalisation, which won't work. I had said

Because I don't impose my choice on other people.

I think they should make up their own minds.

See that? My choice, not my will. In other words, I wouldn't force other adults to make the same choice. Anyone can see that I was referring to my personal decision in the matter, which applies only to those who are capable of making decisions. Unborn infants are (by definition) excluded.

Now, let me ask you two simple questions - would you refuse to abort a child, even if the death of the child would save the life of the mother? Or would you choose the life of the child over the life of the mother?

Either way, you're imposing your will on someone, so you have no grounds on which to misrepresent me as a happy murderer just because I would prefer to save the mother's life, at the expense of the child's.

I really wish you people would address my argument specifically, instead of turning it into something that I had never written.

 

[Evangelion]

Jes -

You have said before you would like the US gov't to impose your will on me and remove the guns I have for self-defense purposes.

But I qualified that statement, Jes. I did not say all guns - I referred specifically to military-grade hardware.

Should people make up their minds about the illegality of robbery, rape, or murder? Should those actions not be illegal?

No. Whatever gave you the impression that I believe this?

Like Knight, you have totally ignored the context of my remarks, and chosen to misrepresent what I have written by resorting to a fallacy of equivocation.

That is very disappointing, Jes. When I explain my views to someone, I don't mind if they disagree - but I do mind if they distort what I have written because they'd prefer to attack a weaker position which I do not actually hold, instead of addressing my real position.

 

[Evangelion]

Freak -

What is wrong with you? You are a sick individual. You are pro-baby killing. It is simple as that!

This is slander, and I will not stand for it. My position has been carefully explained on many occasions. I defy anyone to claim (in all honesty) that my decision to abort a child before the third trimester for the sole purpose of saving the mother's life, amounts to "pro-baby killing."

It's this kind of dishonesty which really makes me sick.

 

[Freak]

Leave it God's hands, Evangelion. You're not God so don't give someone the opportunity to make a decision to kill a baby.

 

[Evangelion]

If my wife and baby were dying, and it was clear that intervention could save at least one of them, I would choose to save my wife.

This does not make me an advocate of "baby-killing", as you all know perfectly well.

 

[jes1994]

Evangelion,

You said in post #68176 just before the one I quoted (in its entirety) that you were pro-choice. In that post you also said that you would only agree to an abortion in a situation usually referred to as the life of the mother exception.

Because you used the word "agree" and did not say anything about the legality of the procedure in that statement, and because pro-choice usually means that a person believes that the abortion procedure should be legal in many situations, I concluded that you think the procedure should be legal in many situations.

If I am incorrect on what your legal views on the abortion procedure are, please let me know where I am making a mistake and I will do my best to correct the situation. I'm not trying to misrepresent your views. Other people here might be doing so, but I can't control what they post.

... I qualified that statement, Jes. I did not say all guns - I referred specifically to military-grade hardware.

I did not say "all guns" either. I said guns for self-defense. Your country has made the act of a citizen using a gun for self defense illegal, and you have recommended that the USA follow Australia's lead on this matter. Am I correctly understanding your position on this issue?

That is very disappointing, Jes.

I'm not intending to disappoint you. Your statements led me to believe that you held a particular position regarding the legality of a medical procedure, and I was attempting to discuss that legal position with you. How about if you lay out your position and then we'll discuss it? Or if you would prefer, I can lay out my position and we can discuss it. Your call. Part of me is seeing a misunderstanding of a term, and part of me is seeing a true difference of opinion. What can I do in my postings to alleviate this?

 

[Evangelion]

Jes -

You said in post #68176 just before the one I quoted (in its entirety) that you were pro-choice.

Correct.

In that post you also said that you would only agree to an abortion in a situation usually referred to as the life of the mother exception.

Correct.

Because you used the word "agree" and did not say anything about the legality of the procedure in that statement, and because pro-choice usually means that a person believes that the abortion procedure should be legal in many situations, I concluded that you think the procedure should be legal in many situations.

Yes, I believe that it should be legal, but I personally believe that it should not be carried out unless the life of the mother could be saved by the termination of the child's, before the third trimester.

If I am incorrect on what your legal views on the abortion procedure are, please let me know where I am making a mistake and I will do my best to correct the situation. I'm not trying to misrepresent your views. Other people here might be doing so, but I can't control what they post.

OK, the only thing I really took offence at, was this:

Should people make up their minds about the illegality of robbery, rape, or murder? Should those actions not be illegal?

To me, this is a false equivocation. I had never said that people should be allowed to make up their own minds about everything - I had said that they should be allowed to make up their own minds about the abortion issue. In other words, they should be free to make a choice about abortion, on the basis of their own situation and their own personal world view.

Quote:
... I qualified that statement, Jes. I did not say all guns - I referred specifically to military-grade hardware.

I did not say "all guns" either. I said guns for self-defense. Your country has made the act of a citizen using a gun for self defense illegal, and you have recommended that the USA follow Australia's lead on this matter. Am I correctly understanding your position on this issue?

Not quite. Australia has not made the use of guns for self defence illegal - it has simply made the carrying of guns for self defence illegal. In other words, it is illegal to bear arms in public, for the purpose of self defence. It is, however, legal to bear arms in public if the purpose is hunting or target shooting. Australian law also states that in the event of a burglary, the owner of the house can defend himself "with reasonable force." If, therefore, the situation is life-threatening, the use of a firearm is permissable.

I'm not intending to disappoint you. Your statements led me to believe that you held a particular position regarding the legality of a medical procedure, and I was attempting to discuss that legal position with you. How about if you lay out your position and then we'll discuss it? Or if you would prefer, I can lay out my position and we can discuss it. Your call. Part of me is seeing a misunderstanding of a term, and part of me is seeing a true difference of opinion. What can I do in my postings to alleviate this?

I hope I've cleared things up. Let me know if you need more detail.

 

[jes1994]

Evangelion,

My point on the guns, and the other question that you took offense at, was to find out if you supported the idea that in some situations government should make certain actions illegal. I hope that we agree on that statement, and just have a disagreement about what situations in particular government should step in for.

In other words, they should be free to make a choice about abortion, on the basis of their own situation and their own personal world view.

Yes, I believe that it should be legal, but I personally believe that it should not be carried out unless the life of the mother could be saved by the termination of the child's, before the third trimester.

Why is the third trimester the dividing line?

 

[Evangelion]

Jes -

My point on the guns, and the other question that you took offense at, was to find out if you supported the idea that in some situations government should make certain actions illegal. I hope that we agree on that statement, and just have a disagreement about what situations in particular government should step in for.

Yes. :up: Thanks for clarifying.

Why is the third trimester the dividing line?

Because by this stage, the fetus is usually viable.

 

[jes1994]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Jes -

Because by this stage, the fetus is usually viable.

So, viability of the fetus should be the criteria for whether or not gov't should step in to make abortion illegal, right?


------------

I do apologize if this sounds like I'm going slow on this. I just don't want to misconstrue your statements if I can avoid doing so.

 

[Evangelion]

Do you mean "illegal beyond the third trimester", or "illegal without exception"?

 

[jes1994]

Evangelion,

Do you mean "illegal beyond the third trimester", or "illegal without exception"?

I mean illegal in situations where the continuation of the pregnancy will not cause unreasonable risk to the life of the mother.

In a nutshell, I'm looking for where the trimester distinction originates from. I trying to get beyond trimesters and into the underlying philosophy that results in the trimester distinction.

 

[Evangelion]

Jes -

I mean illegal in situations where the continuation of the pregnancy will not cause unreasonable risk to the life of the mother.

This is subject to the moral code under which the government operates - which is itself subject to change. As Christians, it is out of our hands.

In a nutshell, I'm looking for where the trimester distinction originates from. I trying to get beyond trimesters and into the underlying philosophy that results in the trimester distinction.

The trimester distinction (interestingly enough) is one to which your own government subscribes. If I remember correctly, third trimester abortions are not classified as "elective surgery" by the US government - you have to show medical proof of their necessity before you're allowed to go through with the procedure.

I think the idea behind this, is that if the fetus is viable, abortion should not be considered at all.

 

[jes1994]

Evangelion,

This is subject to the moral code under which the government operates - which is itself subject to change. As Christians, it is out of our hands.

As Christians, are we still permitted to have opinions about the moral code?

I think the idea behind this, is that if the fetus is viable, abortion should not be considered at all.

I'm not looking for "should not be considered". I'm asking for legality.

So, without references to trimesters, can you state your position in terms of viability and legality?

 

[Freak]

Evangelion,

Please bring some clarity to the issue.