Ron Paul and Abortion " My thoughts" Please contribute

reply to post by windword


Yes you know this because your me, or your secretly recording me, or your God.

Your none of these, So for you to say that is hogwash and just an insult to your own intelligence.

reply to post by yoyoyoyo


This is what I know. You claimed to have had an abortion in your OP. You did not, you said so. I also know:

Abortion is not evil
Abortion is not a Pagan ritual
Abortion is not murder
Women don't "like" to kill their children

I also know that all your ranting isn't going to change that.

Originally posted by yoyoyoyo
reply to post by froglegs79

 

But my friend it is black and white, The gray is just what you think.

Think about it...


Your ending a life, there is no gray in there.

So the mother in the situation i presented should let her self die to save the unborn and leave her family behind? I am trying to understand the logic you are following. If all life is precious, why should the mother have to die?

reply to post by yoyoyoyo


So, you are a man. Nothing more need be said.

I am a woman. I disagree with you.

This is the 21st century.

Women. Have. Rights.

And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it .

reply to post by windword


I never told you personally I did not have an abortion. Your a liar, trying to call me a liar.

reply to post by froglegs79


Why should the unborn baby have to die? If the mother is a real mother she would give her life for her child.

What good is this life, but not only to pro create and create good and happiness. When it's your time it's your time.

You can push death down the road, but it will come.

reply to post by disgustingfatbody


Ok 21st century and we're just as barbaric... Women's right's...

What about the unborn women? I guess they don't matter to these pro-choicer's such as yourself...

I'll BBL and reply more.

Thank's everyone for having an active discussion , We are having to think about it and we should.

Think.

Originally posted by yoyoyoyo
reply to post by froglegs79

 

Why should the unborn baby have to die? If the mother is a real mother she would give her life for her child.

What good is this life, but not only to pro create and create good and happiness. When it's your time it's your time.

You can push death down the road, but it will come.

So you would let your partner die if she was the woman in the situation i presented? Please remember that she has a younger than 1 year old already.

And before you ask or assume, this is not about me personally, just a hypothetical question.

If there is absolutely nothing wrong with abortion, if it's not murder and a fetus is just a clump of cells with no value at all...

....then why bother with contraceptives in the first place?

Originally posted by Bone75
If there is absolutely nothing wrong with abortion, if it's not murder and a fetus is just a clump of cells with no value at all...

....then why bother with contraceptives in the first place?

Because abortion is an invasive procedure.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by yoyoyoyo

 

Abortion is not evil
..
Abortion is not murder
..

In your opinion. Your argument is flawed. You call the unborn a collection of cells. They are human cells, and they are alive, and according to you are an invasive demonic parasite in essence a complete living entity separate to its host whom they are dependent. As a baby is also dependent on its parent until after its infancy and arguably till adulthood.

Recently the argument you have used here, has been used by boo-ethicists to advocate killing of children up to three. These people claim that the same logic applies. Unless you are a biologist, im sure they know more about biology than we all do, so you either agree with them or you don't.

Your argument that its just an animal or a collection of cells is superfluous. Its alive, its human, taking a human life by premeditated means is murder.

Your statements are just re-iterated opinions that suit your needs. As previously stated, the baby your daughter murdered did not rape her, its father did. Your pride in murdering your grandchild is atrocious, and your arrogance is almost sociopathic.

I also know that all your ranting isn't going to change that.

edit on 10-4-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

Your one to talk here, first you use left/right arguments when your logic fails, then you start trying to use sex arguments to decry male opinions about 50 million murders. Id love for you to re-consider your stance on the subject

Your other attempted argument about population.. here is something interesting you may not have ever considered.



Your idea's are a manipulation of the masses playing on your selfish nature.

As this thread is on Ron Paul and abortion
Here is a video of him on Leno talking about it.
He states he is personally pro-life, but supports a woman's right to choose.

www.hulu.com...

reply to post by Achey


I'm sure that you think your argument is brilliant and very clever. It's not. You really make little sense. Personal attacks don't provide evidence that fetal tissue is more than a cluster of dividing cells and deserves considerable rights over its host.

Ad hominem attacks, insults and biased judgmental slurs make you sound like a middle school "mean girl" trying to bully her critics into silence, because you have no intelligent or compassionate thing to say.

Please provide scientific evidence for your claims, links quotes etc.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Achey

 

Ad hominem attacks, insults and biased judgmental slurs make you sound like a middle school "mean girl" trying to bully her critics into silence, because you have no intelligent or compassionate thing to say.

SNIP SNIP

reply to post by windword


He actually made a lot of sense, you on the other hand, that's another story.

Although I do value your opinion as a human being. I can't say I agree with you.

Human life starts when the male sperm meet's the female egg. That's the start of a human life.

To argue it is playing semantics and only hurt's those that can't see through the semantics.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Achey

 

Please provide scientific evidence for your claims, links quotes etc.

Have a read..

Pro-life campaigners have welcomed publication of an article arguing killing newborns should be "permissible", saying it showed there was no moral difference between abortion and infanticide.
..
The authors, ethicists Dr Alberto Giubilini and Dr Francesca Minerva, argued: "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a foetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a foetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

Source

reply to post by Achey

Have a read..

This article justifying killing newborns applies only if late-term abortions until birth are permissible. Read their argument, they say that nothing except location changes during birth etc. And indeed they are correct in their conclusion, and thats why late-term abortion needs to be banned (and usualy is banned), as it is really no different than infanticide.

But most of pro-choice people support ban on late-term abortions (unless required to save the mother), so this is a strawman from your side.

The relevant topic here is early-term abortion.

Its alive, its human, taking a human life by premeditated means is murder.

No, because it is not murder or wrong before God gives the human a soul. That happens in 5th month of pregnancy.

reply to post by windword


In some countries, they rape girls and then force them to get married to their rapists! If this argument, however, was only about rape victims, there would not be much of an argument. It's about whether we should continue down the same road expecting different results, and we all know that it's insanity to continue mankind this way. We need conservation of life first, and we need prevention rather than cure for unplanned/unwanted children. Abortion isn't the cure, it's the disease in our society. If we cannot or will not evolve our thinking into the prevention of a lifestyle we are not prepared to live, then we are idiots. And Madam, that is me saying that women are thus idiots, because they can't take the proper precautions in the first place. Leading children down the garden path, is what mothers do best, they swear that children need to enjoy been children for as long as possible, until said children are with-child, then they want to react. I have a son, and I do suppose it's easier raising a boy, but at his wedding last month, I said "he was once my baby, and then he was my boy, and later my moody teenager, but he was never my man, for we raise our boys to be men for others. And in so doing we, we raise them with integrity and utter respect for women and their contemporaries. Knowing that this is what my son is today, makes me a proud Mom for having achieved my goal in parenting." That is all your goal as a parent should be, is to be able to stand one day and proudly say, I raised that young person, and I did a good job, because he might not be a rocket scientists, but he lives with love and respect for his fellow man. And yes, tell them they can have as many relationships as they want, they can indulge and experiment, but no glove no love must be the mantra you instil.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Achey

 

Have a read..

This article justifying killing newborns applies only if late-term abortions until birth are permissible. Read their argument, they say that nothing except location changes during birth etc. And indeed they are correct in their conclusion, and thats why late-term abortion needs to be banned (and usualy is banned), as it is really no different than infanticide.

But most of pro-choice people support ban on late-term abortions (unless required to save the mother), so this is a strawman from your side.

The relevant topic here is early-term abortion.

Its alive, its human, taking a human life by premeditated means is murder.

No, because it is not murder or wrong before God gives the human a soul. That happens in 5th month of pregnancy.

edit on 11/4/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/4/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

I did not mention god, we are talking about provable facts and logic based on the facts we are certain of. The onus is on the one making the change to provide evidence. There is no way you can prove anything to do with a soul so that argument relating to faith is completely invalid.

The article refers to a medical journal that equates zygotes to fetus to infant as the same non human and suggests none have any rights to life, which i sickeningly read when this was first published a few months ago (i cant find the original link i read it from but it does exist as referred to on the source supplied). My argument is as follows.

after conception

a: The 'cells' (as you like to refer to them) are alive
b: Cells are human
c: By the time women realize they are pregnant, made a decision and arranged the procedure, the baby is 4-7 weeks or there abouts
d: An abortion results in the planned death of these human 'cells'

These are facts, and from this the obvious conclusion is that a murder is occurring because there is a premeditated termination of a human life.

What your talking about Cells?

Likely Case for your argument (4 weeks) assuming your the sort to take a pregnancy test the day your due

4 weeks : The brain, backbone, and spinal cord and nerves will sprout -- develops in the top layer. Some of these cells will further specialise, sprouting outward to cover the body with skin, hair and nails. The heart and the circulatory system begin to appear in the middle layer. The third layer starts to house the lungs, intestines, and beginnings of the urinary system. In the meantime, the early version of the placenta, the chorionic villi, and the umbilical cord, which delivers nourishment and oxygen to your baby, are already working.

More Likely Case for your argument (7 weeks)

7 weeks : In theory your baby is still an embryo because it has the remains of a small tail, which will disappear in the next few weeks. But that's the only thing that's getting smaller. The heart and brain are becoming more complicated, the eyelid folds are forming, the tip of the nose is present, and the arms now bend at the elbows and curve slightly over the heart.



Here is a link showing what you are advocating

Do Not Click this unless you are PRO ABORTION

As the daughter of a woman who did not want her children I find the pro-life argument devoid of logic.

My mother made it very clear to us from a young age that if she'd had a choice we'd have been aborted.

I would prefer to have been suctioned before birth rather than to have suffered years of physical and psychological abuse at the hands of a child-hater.

I chose not to have children to break the cycle. My brother was not so successful.

Pro-life is pro-ignorance.