I want to say I HATE YOU for not aboting me!

/snark

Who the heck cares about winning? Babies are dying.

Your side will not be happy until there are prepaid abortions for girls when they hit puberty.

Hey, 100% of the time, the baby loses in an abortion. Great odds for the innocent.

On May 9th, 2008 at 5:16 pm, TheOtherSide said:

You guys win.

Let’s overturn Roe v. Wade and go back to when abortion was illegal.

But why stop there? Let’s go back to the founding of this country when abortion was legal.

Or let’s go back Pope Innocent III (c. 1200) when according the church it was not murder if “quickening” had not occured.

What makes you think that anyone here is arguing to “go back to” anything?

Maybe some folks on here are arguing for certain laws regardless of past laws, customs, and norms.

I hate polls and statistics because there are always ways to twist them so they say what you want to say. For example, if I were given the choice “Do you support abortion, or do you support mothers dying painfully due to a blah blah blah…” I’m not sure what I would say, and they’d probably use my silence as a pro-abortion answer. That’s how pollsters work (on both sides). It’s a far-fetched example, but it’s the basic idea.

That said, the problem with abortions in general is that they are used for ’social reasons’ as it has already been said. I’m sure 99% of abortions are because people were doing what they knew they shouldn’t, and don’t want to take responsibility. I speed with full knowledge that if a cop sees me, I’ll be given a ticket. I don’t pull stunts to try to get out of it. People in general just need to Suck. It. Up. (in more ways than the mortgage bit).

Aside from that, there are very few other cases it can possibly be justified. Being adopted along with my three younger siblings, I have to say that I am glad my Birth Mother had the courage and love to let me have life. Being born on January 22, I am even more thankful for this.

By the way, my siblings and I are all 4 years apart, thanks to the lack of babies being born for all the parents who want one.

On May 9th, 2008 at 4:20 pm, lgm said:

We are not going to agree on whether the fetus is or is not a person. Maybe we can agree that people who support abortion, the “pro choice” majority of Americans, believe murder is wrong.

lgm, are you trying to imply that since most abortion supporters believe murder is wrong, that they obviously don’t believe that abortion is murder – and since it’s not murder then the fetus must not be a person?

Weak, very weak. Just because someone doesn’t believe (or refuses to believe) that a certain act is murder, doesn’t mean that it’s not murder. This point has been made many times on this thread.

They may be allowing themselves to use the law as their morality guide. I can give you 10 reasons why that’s a bad idea!

Also, this is semi-related. See Techniques of Neutralization.

Or let’s go back Pope Innocent III (c. 1200) when according the church it was not murder if “quickening” had not occured.

If you want to argue that way, why don’t we just go back to between 1446 and 1406 B.C. when an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life was defined as the punishment for harming a pregnant woman’s baby?

All of us (except a Nazi or two) would oppose abortion if we thought a person was being killed.

There he goes, using “person” again instead of human being. I’m not at all surprised he’s hanging on to “person” with a death grip because it’s a classic case of moving the goalposts.

Pro-abortionists used to argue that the “fetus” was not human. It was “just tissue,” “a clump of cells,” anything but a human being. But as we learned more and more about the development process in the womb, it eventually became impossible to deny that every unborn baby—even at the earliest stages of development—is a distinct and unique human being, possessing unique DNA, it’s own blood type which is often different than the mother’s, its own fingerprints, it’s own circulating system (the heart begins beating at 3 weeks, almost always before the mother even knows she’s pregnant) and their own brainwave patterns.

That’s why the proaborts came up with this squishy “personhood” definition. It’s impossible to define cleanly, therefore, they feel free to define it however they like so that they can get their way. Heck, as we’ve already seen with such atrocities as slavery, Britain’s (and others’) colonial periods and Hitler’s Germany, the abuse and wholesale slaughter of other human beings was considered acceptable because they were “not persons.”

lgm, by your definition of “person,” we would be legally free to kill you if you fell into a coma for any reason. Is it okay with you for us to go ahead and do that?

Or was it just NOT protected by the Constitution?

Fact is you’re half right — back to before Roe v. Wade so each state can make up its own mind.

Let’s overturn Roe v. Wade and go back to when abortion was illegal.

But why stop there? Let’s go back to the founding of this country when abortion was legal.

Or let’s go back Pope Innocent III (c. 1200) when according the church it was not murder if “quickening” had not occured.

All of us (except a Nazi or two) would oppose abortion if we thought a person was being killed.

Have you ever seen a pile of aborted fetuses at the morgue? Try it sometime.
Get a dose of reality.