My abortion rant

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Liquesence

So if a person is against abortion, they have to be a pacifist or else they're a hypocrite.


So once, again, a pro-abortionist is placing demands/qualifications on anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

Or rather, once again an anti-abortionist "pro-lifer" is being a hypocrite.

Only select lives matter. Got it. #selectlivesmatter

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Liquesence

So if a person is against abortion, they have to be a pacifist or else they're a hypocrite.


So once, again, a pro-abortionist is placing demands/qualifications on anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

Or rather, once again an anti-abortionist "pro-lifer" is being a hypocrite.

Only select lives matter. Got it. #selectlivesmatter

Could the difference be intent?

If a drone is sent to kill "enemies" of the US, it is not intended to kill innocents.

If a women gets and abortion.......

By the way you do have a point, not a super solid one, but there is a weak point there.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: IAMTAT

Tearing apart innocent babies in the womb

Nice hyperbole.

Abortion is literally the intentional tearing apart of babies in the womb.

You disagree with that?

I do.

More often than not, they aren't "babies."

Like I said, nice hyperbole.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: IAMTAT

Tearing apart innocent babies in the womb

Nice hyperbole.

Abortion is literally the intentional tearing apart of babies in the womb.

You disagree with that?

By this same logic masturbation into a handkerchief is literally the brutal mass murder of thousands of potential babies.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: IAMTAT

Tearing apart innocent babies in the womb

Nice hyperbole.

Abortion is literally the intentional tearing apart of babies in the womb.

You disagree with that?

I do.

More often than not, they aren't "babies."

Like I said, nice hyperbole.

"More often than not, they aren't "babies."
So you agree that sometimes they ARE babies.

Got it.
"Only select lives matter. #selectlivesmatter"

a reply to: seasonal

Could the difference be intent?

If a drone is sent to kill "enemies" of the US, it is not intended to kill innocents.

If a women gets and abortion.......

By the way you do have a point, not a super solid one, but there is a weak point there.

This is not utilitarianism.

Intent doesn't matter. It's what actually happens, especially if you support and condone the actions and the results of the actions.

One can hide behind collateral damage for the greater good and "intent", but it's still the support of innocent people being killed, even if inadvertently.

It's a pretty good point, because it points out hypocrisy.

a reply to: DBCowboy

No plan on getting into a long debate.

It is the pregnant woman's decision.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: IAMTAT

Tearing apart innocent babies in the womb

Nice hyperbole.

Abortion is literally the intentional tearing apart of babies in the womb.

You disagree with that?

I do.

More often than not, they aren't "babies."

Like I said, nice hyperbole.

"More often than not, they aren't "babies."
So you agree that sometimes they ARE babies.

Got it.
"Only select lives matter. #selectlivesmatter"

Yeah, when late term abortions are necessary (albeit rarely) for medical and health reasons. Otherwise, they aren't "babies."

I can differentiate. Can you?

a reply to: Liquesence

Intent does matter.

A women gets an abortion and knows 100% what the outcome is.

A drone strike is not intended to kill all at a wedding party or hit a hospital.

Intent is also considered when people break the law (not that this is what we are talking about).

But if you see it another way, that's OK, but we disagree.

a reply to: Liquesence

So unless you've served in the military, you have no right to comment on military actions.

See how that works?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Liquesence

So unless you've served in the military, you have no right to comment on military actions.

So...I have no right to speech? Funny, I thought you were for free speech.

See how that works?

Actually, I don't.

stupid stupid humans.

Is the morning after pill an abortion?

Seriously?

Has ATS not done this subject to death, it always leads to emotional exchanges and fails to take into consideration the most important factor...the person having the abortion.

Everyone has an opinion whether for or against, yet abortion isn't a onesize fits all approach, there is no definitive right, nor wrong, it is personal and as we are all different, so to do our views.

Besides the fact this thread is a rant, I really fail to see what is achieved by wheeling out the subject again, I note there is the 12 year old consent issue, though to be quite bunt, it really isn't anyone's business beside the person physically affected by the issue.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and perspective, however it always feels as though one side is trying to convince the other that they are right and seeks to defend their view and attack the others, sure that's just normal service, though I reiterate there is not one person on this thread who has the right nor a definitive answer to abortion and that is exactly how it should stay.

Ultimately whether agreed by others or not, the logical conclusion to the argument is the only person whose view counts regards abortion is the person who is physically impacted, just as cosmetic surgery is personal to the actual person undergoing the procedure.

Yes, yes, cosmetic surgery is a little different to abortion, yet they are both highly personal decisions and I don't think the debate contributes anything to our progression as a species.

a reply to: seasonal

I guess we have to disagree.

Because if you support an action that results in the deaths of innocent people there is little difference, regardless of intent, especially if you know the actions are likely to cause additional damage or death to people not involved.

Here is how Ben Shapiro confronts it. It is a good video to watch.

a reply to: Liquesence

You're putting limitations on what any of us can say, yet you say you're for free speech.

hmpf.

a reply to: Liquesence

Respect

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Liquesence

Respect

That's nice!! It seems to be in short supply around here lately...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Liquesence

You're putting limitations on what any of us can say, yet you say you're for free speech.

hmpf.

To be fair, free speech hell yes, everyone should exercise it, however what good is free speech if we don't practice free speech responsibly?

In essence free speech comes with an awesome responsibility.