Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Racist Pro-Life Billboard

Page 3 of 10 [ 147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

27 Feb 2011, 7:23 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

And at what point is it a person then? Is it when they are first born, or a toddler, how about it is okay to "abort them" until they turn 13? At what point does murder become wrong in your view.


Abortion rights are not a right to kill-
they are the free exercisement of pre-existing autonomical rights that in this particular instance result in the death of a fetus.

As has already been mentioned (and you conveniently ignored) even if the fetus IS a person,
a person does not have a right to use the body of another against that person's will.


Inuyasha wrote:
So you think a mother's conveinence is more important than a child's life...

Nothing is more laughably ignorant than a MALE implying that pregnancy and childbirth are mere "inconveniences".


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 27 Feb 2011, 7:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

27 Feb 2011, 7:25 pm

Quote:
according to this logic, every sperm cell is a human. should we persecute men who masturbate then? according to you, they are committing genocide on a massive scale.


:lmao:


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

27 Feb 2011, 7:27 pm

Tensu wrote:
I'm not saying you don't own your uterus. I'm saying killing people is wrong. If you don't want children, don't have sex. YOU have a choice. The child has no choice. YOUR position is like slavery, not mine.


If a woman CHOOSES to have sex, it is because her body is her own.
If a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is likewise BECAUSE HER BODY IS HER OWN.
Physical autonomy is not de facto surrendered when a woman chooses to have sex,
or else abortion would not exist.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

27 Feb 2011, 7:42 pm

Bethie wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:

And at what point is it a person then? Is it when they are first born, or a toddler, how about it is okay to "abort them" until they turn 13? At what point does murder become wrong in your view.


Abortion rights are not a right to kill-
they are the free exercisement of pre-existing autonomical rights that in this particular instance result in the death of a fetus.

As has already been mentioned (and you conveniently ignored) even if the fetus IS a person,
a person does not have de facto rights to use the body of another against that person's will.


And the said person did not ask to be put in a situation where they are dependent on an irresponsible individual either. That doesn't mean you have the right to kill them.


Bethie wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
So you think a mother's conveinence is more important than a child's life...

Nothing is more laughably ignorant than a MALE implying that pregnancy and childbirth are mere "inconveniences".


:roll:

I would return that there are few things more hypocritical than a pro-abortion femanist that is against the death penalty but is for abortions.

I blame both the man and the woman for the irresponsible behavior. Maybe some day medical science can put the child in an artificial womb if you don't want the child, how about you donate money for development of that rather than letting people dismember children in the womb, or stab an infant in the head with scissors after they have been born alive.

Seriously what have they done to deserve that kind of barbarity?



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

27 Feb 2011, 8:01 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
And the said person did not ask to be put in a situation where they are dependent on an irresponsible individual either.

That doesn't mean there's a "right" to use the body of another against their will.
Inuyasha wrote:
That doesn't mean you have the right to kill them.

Abortion is not a right to kill,
as has been addressed previously.
Inuyasha wrote:
I would return that there are few things more hypocritical than a pro-abortion femanist that is against the death penalty but is for abortions.

I'm a feminist- a pro-choice one, though I am not against the death penalty, so that's yet ANOTHER red herring on your part.
Inuyasha wrote:
I blame both the man and the woman for the irresponsible behavior. Maybe some day medical science can put the child in an artificial womb if you don't want the child, how about you donate money for development of that

Because I have no ethical problems with abortion.
Inuyasha wrote:
rather than letting people dismember children in the womb, or stab an infant in the head with scissors after they have been born alive.

Sweetheart, the vast majority of abortions consist of a woman taking a pill and having a heavy period. I'm sorry you've been so wholly taken in by the hysterics of anti-choice propaganda.
Inuyasha wrote:
Seriously what have they done to deserve that kind of barbarity?

When most abortions occur, there is not even a brain with which to perceive pain.



If you're interested in debate, that's one thing,
but parroting your own misconceptions as fact over and over and over ad nauseum and ignoring people when they ADDRESS YOUR POINTS will earn you nothing but well-deserved derision.

Before you can assert that a fetus has a "right" to exist in the body of a woman against her will,
you must first put forth an argument that dismantles that woman's autonomical rights,
as I asked you to do before.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

27 Feb 2011, 8:04 pm

Bloodheart wrote:
Tensu wrote:
If the parents do not want the child that is what orphanages are for.

You can call it "parental responsibility" if you like, but you are point to a human life (and it is a human life. It is alive and human) and saying "that life is not worth living". You do not have the right to make that decision. You can claim you are supporting the rights of the mother, but you are, in supporting these "rights" denying a human of the most fundamental of rights: the right to live.

and who said anything about killing a plant being the same as killing a human?


If the parents don't want the child they should not have it to begin with. Period.
Orphanages are not always a better option, not everyone is willing to hand their child over to strangers in the hopes that they will be safe and cared for, and for that matter not everyone can hand their children over at all. The same idea applies - if a child cannot be guaranteed a life in which they are cared for and free from suffering then the parents should not have that child.

Speaking of rights - does this [potential] human being not deserve the right to a happy healthy life? Life is not a life if it is one of suffering, a mother has more rights than a collection of cells which may or may not become a life, the mother has every right to her own life and well-being, the mother also has every right to do her job as a parent by ensuring that her child has a happy healthy life.

That IS parental responsibility, are you honestly saying that you would rather have a child suffer or abused, then not have it exist to begin with? You understand this embryo is not a life, it is not thinking or feeling, it is not a baby or a human being, it is a collection of cells the same as a sperm or an egg, abortion is prevention of life - the same way as birth control or emergency contraception. It prevents a life that should not be, it's not ending a life - see difference between life and having a life, to live and living.

Seven requirements of life deem killing a plant as the same as killing a human being.


You are dictating what constitutes a life worth living again. That is a very bad habit and you should quit. You have no business telling other people wether their lives are worth living. I would rather live in an orphanage, or be a starving HIV-positive orphan in africa that won't make it to age 5, than never leave the womb. And if I feel that way, then other people must feel that way too.

as for autonomical rights, I move that since pregnancy is a well-known consequence of sex, the mother gave the child the right to use her uterus when she had sex. Unless you think a woman can consent to sex with a man and then sue him because she didn't consent to him climaxing. Furthermore, while I couldn't find anything on autonomical rights with a quick, half-***ed search (probably because that's not how it's actually spelled... not that I'm one to talk.) I'm assuming the punishment is generally not death. thus abortion could be seen as cruel and unusual punishment. All this in addition to denying the child of his or her most fundamental rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

And I was just mentioning the requirement as proof that the embryo is alive, something which anna-banana was in denial of.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

27 Feb 2011, 8:17 pm

Tensu wrote:
You have no business telling other people wether their lives are worth living.

Kind of like you have no business telling women what their reproductive options should be.
Tensu wrote:
as for autonomical rights, I move that since pregnancy is a well-known consequence of sex, the mother gave the child the right to use her uterus when she had sex.

Then why does abortion exist? If women consent to pregnancy when they consent to sex?
Let's grant that argument for a moment.
Let's say a woman consciously agrees to continue a pregnancy and give birth every time before she has sex (absurd, but let's play hypothetically)
is she not entitled to change her mind whenever she wants, so far as her physical ownership of herself is concerned?
Do women, for instance, not have the right to change their mind about sex during the act?
The answer is yes, of course- consent to sex or pregnancy is not aquiescence to use of one's body indefinitely.
Tensu wrote:
I'm assuming the punishment

What punishment?
Tensu wrote:
is generally not death. thus abortion could be seen as cruel and unusual punishment.

It could if autonomy rights did not exist, if the purpose of abortion was death, and an embryo was being sentenced to being aborted in a court of law. :roll:
Tensu wrote:
All this in addition to denying the child of his or her most fundamental rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

If you truly think this phrase applies to a fetus, I can't help but laugh aloud. Do fetuses form governments under which they are protected from tyranny? Do they chase personal endeavors of pride or profession? Pure silliness.
Tensu wrote:
And I was just mentioning the requirement as proof that the embryo is alive, something which anna-banana was in denial of.

Quite silly, to deny the embryo is alive. What's also silly is the notion that it's in any way relevant.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Bloodheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,194
Location: Newcastle, England.

27 Feb 2011, 8:22 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
And at what point is it a person then? Is it when they are first born, or a toddler, how about it is okay to "abort them" until they turn 13? At what point does murder become wrong in your view.

My view is when there is brainwave activity starting up and/or heartbeat we have something more than a simple collection of cells. So yeah we are talking about murdering innocent children.


Murder is always wrong, but it is only a person when they are born, a person in their own right.
A collection of cells is not a person - it doesn't have brainwave activity or a heartbeat.

Inuyasha wrote:
So you think a mother's conveinence is more important than a child's life.

It's nothing to do with 'convenience' it's about human life - a woman's rights come before the rights of a collection of cells, and it's the mothers responsibility not to have a child when she is not capable of raising that child - abortion is as much about protecting children as it is about women's choice, if not more so.


_________________
Bloodheart

Good-looking girls break hearts, and goodhearted girls mend them.


Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

27 Feb 2011, 8:29 pm

the whole autonomical rights angle seemed to imply that the child was violating the mother's right by existing. That's why I talking about the whole punishment thing.

You keep bringing up women's rights in this discussion. Well about half of the children aborted are female. Where are their rights? This isn't a men vs. women issue. It's a human rights issue. I'd feel the same way regardless of wether the task of giving birth falls on women, men, or brazillian tapirs. Nobody has the right to kill an innocent human. not even a bad*** semi-aquatic herbivorous mammal from south america.

The age of a person doesn't determine wether or not they get those three fundamental rights or not. It doesn't matter if they are an adult, a teenager, and child, toddler, infant or fetus. Everyone gets those three basic rights. regardless of whether or not they form governments at that age, they should be protected by them. Or do you believe that the government should give any rights to anyone under 18?

You make think life is irrelevant, but many people thing killing humans is wrong.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

27 Feb 2011, 8:31 pm

Bloodheart wrote:
It's nothing to do with 'convenience' it's about human life - a woman's rights come before the rights of a collection of cells, and it's the mothers responsibility not to have a child when she is not capable of raising that child - abortion is as much about protecting children as it is about women's choice, if not more so.


Amen. No one who truly cares for children would have them forced into the world unwanted, often unhealthy or sick due to lack of prenatal care, in all likelihood to live a life of poverty if not outright cruelty in one of the most abusive state care systems in the modern world.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Bloodheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,194
Location: Newcastle, England.

27 Feb 2011, 8:32 pm

Tensu wrote:
You are dictating what constitutes a life worth living again. That is a very bad habit and you should quit. You have no business telling other people wether their lives are worth living. I would rather live in an orphanage, or be a starving HIV-positive orphan in africa that won't make it to age 5, than never leave the womb. And if I feel that way, then other people must feel that way too.

as for autonomical rights, I move that since pregnancy is a well-known consequence of sex, the mother gave the child the right to use her uterus when she had sex. Unless you think a woman can consent to sex with a man and then sue him because she didn't consent to him climaxing. Furthermore, while I couldn't find anything on autonomical rights with a quick, half-***ed search (probably because that's not how it's actually spelled... not that I'm one to talk.) I'm assuming the punishment is generally not death. thus abortion could be seen as cruel and unusual punishment. All this in addition to denying the child of his or her most fundamental rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

And I was just mentioning the requirement as proof that the embryo is alive, something which anna-banana was in denial of.


I am not telling other people whether their lives are worth living, and frankly I don't care what YOU would prefer - just because you and others feel this way doesn't mean we all have to feel the same way.

No, a mother only gives a child the right to 'use' her uterus when she chooses to have a child - this is again why birth control, emergency contraception and abortion exists.

Embryo is alive, that does not make it a child, a human being, a person, or a life.


_________________
Bloodheart

Good-looking girls break hearts, and goodhearted girls mend them.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

27 Feb 2011, 8:35 pm

Bethie wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And the said person did not ask to be put in a situation where they are dependent on an irresponsible individual either.

That doesn't mean there's a "right" to use the body of another against their will.


Do you think that child has any choice in which womb he or she ends up developing in?

Bethie wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
That doesn't mean you have the right to kill them.

Abortion is not a right to kill,
as has been addressed previously.


Actually it is because you are taking a life in cold blood.

Bethie wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I would return that there are few things more hypocritical than a pro-abortion femanist that is against the death penalty but is for abortions.

I'm a feminist- a pro-choice one, though I am not against the death penalty, so that's yet ANOTHER red herring on your part.


Okay so you're okay with infanticide then, glad to know you aren't also a hypocrit.

Bethie wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I blame both the man and the woman for the irresponsible behavior. Maybe some day medical science can put the child in an artificial womb if you don't want the child, how about you donate money for development of that

Because I have no ethical problems with abortion.


Yeah, well I sure hope you never have kids cause I would hate to think what their lives might be like to have a mother that would do them in over conveinence.

Bethie wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:
rather than letting people dismember children in the womb, or stab an infant in the head with scissors after they have been born alive.

Sweetheart, the vast majority of abortions consist of a woman taking a pill and having a heavy period. I'm sorry you've been so wholly taken in by the hysterics of anti-choice propaganda.


:roll:

The morning after pill is not considered abortion.

Bethie wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Seriously what have they done to deserve that kind of barbarity?

When most abortions occur, there is not even a brain with which to perceive pain.


False, they actually do have a brain, cause the brain starts functioning fairly early.

Bethie wrote:
If you're interested in debate, that's one thing, but parroting your own misconceptions as fact over and over and over ad nauseum and ignoring people when they ADDRESS YOUR POINTS will earn you nothing but well-deserved derision.


Day 21, Week 3: The heart begins to beat.
http://www.pregnancy.org/article/overvi ... evelopment

Hmm, so there is a heartbeat in less than a month after conception.

Day 40: Brain waves can be detected and recorded.
http://www.pregnancy.org/article/overvi ... evelopment

That's a little over a month isn't it. So we have brain activity 40 days after conception.



Bloodheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,194
Location: Newcastle, England.

27 Feb 2011, 8:40 pm

Tensu wrote:
the whole autonomical rights angle seemed to imply that the child was violating the mother's right by existing. That's why I talking about the whole punishment thing.

You keep bringing up women's rights in this discussion. Well about half of the children aborted are female. Where are their rights? This isn't a men vs. women issue. It's a human rights issue. I'd feel the same way regardless of wether the task of giving birth falls on women, men, or brazillian tapirs. Nobody has the right to kill an innocent human. not even a bad*** semi-aquatic herbivorous mammal from south america.

The age of a person doesn't determine wether or not they get those three fundamental rights or not. It doesn't matter if they are an adult, a teenager, and child, toddler, infant or fetus. Everyone gets those three basic rights. regardless of whether or not they form governments at that age, they should be protected by them. Or do you believe that the government should give any rights to anyone under 18?

You make think life is irrelevant, but many people thing killing humans is wrong.


Children aren't aborted Tensu.
Humans aren't killed.
People aren't killed.

The rights of the woman are priority because it is the women who have to undergo the physical aspects of pregnancy and birth, women are primary care givers, women are often solely responsible for financial aspects of raising a child, and it is the woman who is ACTUALLY a person, a human being that has rights over a bunch of cells or an embryo that is not yet living. Human rights apply to humans, people are in charge of their reproductive rights as such it's up to them whether or not they have children, and parental responsibility deems the parents are in charge of what is best for their child which includes whether or not they have children to begin with.


_________________
Bloodheart

Good-looking girls break hearts, and goodhearted girls mend them.


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

27 Feb 2011, 8:41 pm

Bloodheart wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And at what point is it a person then? Is it when they are first born, or a toddler, how about it is okay to "abort them" until they turn 13? At what point does murder become wrong in your view.

My view is when there is brainwave activity starting up and/or heartbeat we have something more than a simple collection of cells. So yeah we are talking about murdering innocent children.


Murder is always wrong, but it is only a person when they are born, a person in their own right.
A collection of cells is not a person - it doesn't have brainwave activity or a heartbeat.
Actually there is evidence of brain wave activity and the fetus respires so I'd consider it a person.

Bloodheart wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
So you think a mother's conveinence is more important than a child's life.

It's nothing to do with 'convenience' it's about human life - a woman's rights come before the rights of a collection of cells, and it's the mothers responsibility not to have a child when she is not capable of raising that child - abortion is as much about protecting children as it is about women's choice, if not more so.
I don't believe whatever hardships the child might face justifies denying it the right to live because people have been through incredible s**t and still manage to be highly resilient. Likewise there are people who have everything yet b***h and moan. It's the mother's responsibility to live with her decision rather than evade it.

Bethie wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Apparently,
in the minds of the mostly white, overly religious anti-choice crowd,
the way to appeal to African Americans is to imply black women should be forced to continue pregnancies against their will.

Convoluted logic, as always.

Note the use of the cute little girl in pink,
and referring to the uterus as a "womb".


:roll:

Sorry if we think the murder of innocent children for the sake of conveinence is wrong. Most abortions are because 2 individuals decided to be irresponsible and don't want to deal with the consequences. That is directed to both the guy and the girl.


What do ya know? More emotional rhetoric! :lol:


Sorry if you consider facts to just be emotional rhetoric.


Don't be silly, you've put forth no facts-
Murder is unlawful killing of one person by another with malice aforethought,
one's "innocence" doesn't negate another's autonomy,
and implying women procure abortions for cavalier reasons is a blatant ad hominem,
not to mention inaccurate.

If you're going to make a rational argument,
you must first dismantle autonomical rights.

We'll wait.
I agree with Inuyasha except for calling it murder. You're right about the definition of murder and malicious intent doesn't apply to abortion. If I wanted to call abortion anything it would be negligent manslaughter.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

27 Feb 2011, 8:41 pm

Tensu wrote:
the whole autonomical rights angle seemed to imply that the child was violating the mother's right by existing. That's why I talking about the whole punishment thing.

Of course not. A non-sentient entity can hardly purposely violate rights- but the individuals and politicians who would have women and girls sentenced to involuntary pregnancy and childbirth can and do.
Tensu wrote:
You keep bringing up women's rights in this discussion. Well about half of the children aborted are female. Where are their rights?

No, actually, I keep bringing up autonomical rights, which belong to both women AND men.
The sex of the fetus doesn't change that it's dependent on someone's body.
Tensu wrote:
This isn't a men vs. women issue. It's a human rights issue.

Indeed it is- the question of whether individuals have ownership of their physical selves,
or the populace is to be subject to state-mandated reproduction in clear violation of anti-slavery laws.
Tensu wrote:
I'd feel the same way regardless of wether the task of giving birth falls on women, men, or brazillian tapirs. Nobody has the right to kill an innocent human.

Abortion is not a right to kill. Pay attention.
Tensu wrote:
The age of a person doesn't determine wether or not they get those three fundamental rights or not. It doesn't matter if they are an adult, a teenager, and child, toddler, infant or fetus. Everyone gets those three basic rights. regardless of whether or not they form governments at that age, they should be protected by them.

Except for women who are pregnant, eh? The Constitution applies to blastocysts but not pregnant females, I suppose.
Tensu wrote:
Or do you believe that the government should give any rights to anyone under 18?

Not a right to life, if said life is physiologically-dependent on someone else. :D
Tensu wrote:
You make think life is irrelevant, but many people thing killing humans is wrong.

Just as many people would scoff at the idea that someone has a "right" to use the body of another.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 27 Feb 2011, 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

27 Feb 2011, 8:44 pm

Last call for a deductive proof that refutes autonomy.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.