Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservatives’ Sway

lpast said:

It happens all the time its UNDERREPORTED by the liberal press...abortion is over used and abused in this country because women are encouraged to abort because theres so many people making millions of taxpayer bucks off it.

Click to expand...

OK. Still not murder.

CaptainCourtesy said:

1) It is an appeal to emotion. It's not murder, no matter how you slice it. I am uninterested if that is how you see it. It is presenting a logical fallacy and I will confront anyone I see who uses it. I've done it before to Chuz Life and Hicup. You want to use the word "kill", and you will have no problem with me. Murder is incorrect.

2) I use the term "anti-choice" specifically when I see someone posting the term "pro-abortion". They are both idiot terms and do not reflect how each side presents themselves. Someone in this thread used the term. I will back off from continuing to use MY idiot term as a response until I see it again.

Click to expand...

Slicing the unborn is one form of murder, yes. But typically the unborn baby is murdered using a saline injection, or later, gruesomely dismembered.

And just think, the slain child was not only not accused of a crime, he didn't get a trial.

Since the unborn child is 100% human it is incorrect to claim he was not murdered when his death is the result of deliberate action to kill him.

Mayor Snorkum said:

Slicing the unborn is one form of murder, yes. But typically the unborn baby is murdered using a saline injection, or later, gruesomely dismembered.

And just think, the slain child was not only not accused of a crime, he didn't get a trial.

Since the unborn child is 100% human it is incorrect to claim he was not murdered when his death is the result of deliberate action to kill him.

Click to expand...

Its hard for me to understand Captain Courtesy saying its not murder...when if you left the fetus alone in a few weeks it would be bubbly little baby boy or girl...

CaptainCourtesy said:

1) It is an appeal to emotion. It's not murder, no matter how you slice it. I am uninterested if that is how you see it. It is presenting a logical fallacy and I will confront anyone I see who uses it. I've done it before to Chuz Life and Hicup. You want to use the word "kill", and you will have no problem with me. Murder is incorrect.

Click to expand...

I don't use the word "murder" because that's a legal definition that vary's from state to state and my views are not so fluid. Could you elaborate on what exactly you find so "uninteresting"? I hoping you don't mean it the way it sounds.

2) I use the term "anti-choice" specifically when I see someone posting the term "pro-abortion". They are both idiot terms and do not reflect how each side presents themselves. Someone in this thread used the term. I will back off from continuing to use MY idiot term as a response until I see it again.

Click to expand...

I've asked this before, if abortion is a right, then why is being called "pro-abortion" such a bad thing, especially if you really don't believe a life is destroyed? Aren't rights good things?

Mayor Snorkum said:

Slicing the unborn is one form of murder, yes. But typically the unborn baby is murdered using a saline injection, or later, gruesomely dismembered.

And just think, the slain child was not only not accused of a crime, he didn't get a trial.

Since the unborn child is 100% human it is incorrect to claim he was not murdered when his death is the result of deliberate action to kill him.

Click to expand...

Nope. Not murder. Go look up the term in the dictionary and then come back and thank CaptainCourtesy for correcting you.

lpast said:

Its hard for me to understand Captain Courtesy saying its not murder...when if you left the fetus alone in a few weeks it would be bubbly little baby boy or girl...

Click to expand...

Murder is a legal term denoting a crime. Abortion is not a crime. If you want to call it "killing" be my guest. You will have no argument from me with that term.

ludahai said:

I am going to bail from this thread for now, but I just want the record to show that I did not use the term "pro-abortion"...

Click to expand...

I didn't think you had, either.

I’m pro choice but against any kind of federal funding for abortions. I also think Planned Parenthood can get the money it needs to do what it does without fed money.

If the OP considers me a terrorist for such views, it speaks volumes about the OP.


The Democrats, shortly after the Tucson shooting, called for more civil, less vitriolic discussions/debates but they refuse to hold themselves to the same standard they seek to impose upon others.

Just because I don’t want the government paying for crap people should be responsible enough to take care of on their own that makes me a terrorist now?

Do the republicans really want to starve old people as Pelosi says? Do Republicans really want to deny medical care to women as Reid says?

Get real!

X Factor said:

I don't use the word "murder" because that's a legal definition that vary's from state to state and my views are not so fluid. Could you elaborate on what exactly you find so "uninteresting"? I hoping you don't mean it the way it sounds.

Click to expand...

I'm glad that you do not use the term, as it is inaccurate. What I find uninteresting is why someone would choose to use an incorrect term. It's incorrect. Only reason I can think of is to appeal to emotion. I find THAT uninteresting. You want to call it "killing" and your views will have my attention.

I've asked this before, if abortion is a right, then why is being called "pro-abortion" such a bad thing, especially if you really don't believe a life is destroyed? Aren't rights good things?

Click to expand...

It is incorrect terminology in referring to a position. I am pro-choice. That does not mean I advocate abortion. I advocate choice.

It would be the same as saying that you are anti-choice. Your position removes choice from the pregnancy, correct? See how silly the argument is?

CaptainCourtesy said:

I'm not talking about acts that are actually illegal. These WOULD be considered murders, as they are being done during the 3rd trimester, something that I believe is illegal. I'm talking about abortions that are legal. They are not murder.

Click to expand...

Third trimester abortions may be illegal to perform but they're not defined as murder either. Most states define person as someone who was born and is alive.

Kali said:

But the thing is the woman does not want the child! So if money for poor women seeking abortions are not funded what do you think will happen?

Click to expand...

Other services or this service will happen in a different form or nothing at all. I suspect that services will exist however. Afterall, it would still be legal.

Do we really wanna go back to the days of cheap back alley abortions, women killing themselves and the fetus by drinking Drano? Do you wish to live in that kind of world?

Click to expand...

So the person that is trying to harm another kills herself in the process? Hmm...interesting. Well since the baby was going to die either way, this is really all about the woman according to your post. In reality though, its about more than just those two parties. You should of focused on the damage the end of her life would bring to others around her instead of just focusing on her. Sadly, you didn't do that. Still, reality is hard and life moves on. I see no reason to be tolerant of anything here.

This is nothing more than folks trying to cut funding based on morals and not looking at the big picture.

Click to expand...

What is funding PP? Is that not just funding something based on morals? Sure it is, and when you think about it you will find that either way its someones morals that wins.

The big picture is the life of the child and what we are to do to protect it. The woman and her feelings are the threat.

Not to mention a sneaky way to see if this would go over well and test the waters to try to overthrow a womans right to an abortion.

Click to expand...

Government created rights aren't rights really. I guess I would say they are more like protected practices of people. Could it be a right? Well, if it wasn't harming anything else, yes, it could. However, that is why pro-choicers are saying the fetus is nothing(at all or for awhile), and that a brain and/or being born is all that is important(depending on who it is) Still, since the genetics are there, the argument has no feet, and to the most part I think they know it. Making it basically just another government created right and not an actual right at all. I guess what I'm saying is I'm not feeling your argument.

I am on to this sneak tactic and the folks are not gonna go along with it buster.

Click to expand...

I want to cut PP funding because of abortions. Where is the sneaky ninja? Seems to me to a samurai in the middle of the room and not a ninja at all. Wait...he is dressed like a ninja. What a crappy ninja just standing out in the middle of the room like that.

I know I said I will bail from this thread... and I will... I need to get some adequate sleep to prepare for tomorrow's race... but murder has many definitions in addition to the stictly legal one...

dictionary.com

mur·der   /ˈmɜrdər/ Show Spelled
[mur-der] Show IPA

–noun
1. Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang . something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object)
4. Law . to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.

Click to expand...

I consider definition #5 to be applicable to this situation even absent the fact that this is a violation of God's law...

CaptainCourtesy said:

You might want to try to look at the big picture, here. Actions have consequences, consequences that affect more than just the individual. More unwanted children means more possible abuse... or more need for social services... or more individuals with monetary issues... or more issues with health care, etc... This is not just an issue of what one's parents can manage. If one's parents cannot manage, which does occur, society as a whole is impacted, both in local and global ways. It is far more complex than a simple answer. Those who want to outlaw abortion need to present some sort of plan for managing the amount of unwanted children that will then be presented. Without a plan addressing that issue, those who want abortion ended are not really addressing the problem at all. All they are doing is trying to legislate their own morality, having zero consideration on the global impact.

So, to answer your question, precisely, give us your SPECIFIC plan of how society should then deal with all the unwanted children that a policy of no abortions will yeild.

Click to expand...

Yours is the perfect example of how the so-called "nanny-state" is popetuated. Conservatives are anti-abortion believing life from conception is worth preserving. A very noble cause indeed! But they also argue against those segments of our society who bring babies into this world and can't afford to take care of them. So, instead of providing for the "financial insecurity side" of the issue (poverty), they instead argue on the moral side of the issue (abortions and the federal unfunding of same). Only problem is how can someone who's poor, uneducated and lowly skilled find the resources necessary to care for themselves let alone a child?

Their very argument is the poor are lazy and irresponsible, but in the best way some know how they are taking responsibility for their indiscrection, their irresponsibility. I, too, disapprove of men and women who act so irresponsibly, especially when both are consenting adults, and lay with one another to produce a child out of wedlock then use abortion as their preferred method of birth control. However, as much as I support the woman's right to an abortion in cases of rape and incest, I also respect the right of a woman and her male partner to make decissions that are right for them or for the sake of either the mother's or unborn child's health or either's life.

Sometimes, the choices we make have serious or significant consequences. We all know that. But sometimes the seriousness of a given situation leads to difficult choices. I would rather those involved have choices that both is right for them (that persuit of happiness because what equates to happiness to one may not equate to happiness for another), and also eleviates an "undue burden on the State (nation)" than to perpetuation the problem of "perpectual co-dependency".

Think it through, folks. Not all solutions to life's most difficult problems are so cut and dry.

X Factor said:

I don't use the word "murder" because that's a legal definition that vary's from state to state and my views are not so fluid. Could you elaborate on what exactly you find so "uninteresting"? I hoping you don't mean it the way it sounds.

I've asked this before, if abortion is a right, then why is being called "pro-abortion" such a bad thing, especially if you really don't believe a life is destroyed? Aren't rights good things?

Click to expand...

I'll take this one X.

Let's say, for instance, that I am in favor of the legalization of marijuana. That does not make me pro-weed (which in my opinion denotes the opinion that smoking marijuana is a good thing). Let's say that I am in favor of free speech. It doesn't mean I am pro-Westboro-Baptist craziness. See the distinction?

X Factor said:

Third trimester abortions may be illegal to perform but they're not defined as murder either. Most states define person as someone who was born and is alive.

Click to expand...

That's true. However, I can see how the term "murder" could actually be used in those cases because of their illegality. Technically, it would be incorrect, but it's not so far away that it could not be argued. The legality is the key... that is a definitive component of the term. That is why I always attack it when pro-lifer's use it.

Kali said:

But the thing is the woman does not want the child!

Click to expand...

Then her correct choice was to not have sex. Having sex carries with it the acceptance of the risk of getting pregnant.

Since the baby is a human being, it cannot be morally killed just because it's mother is a fool.

It's really as simple as that. Mayor Snorkum is perfectly pro-choice. The choice is between using the words "yes" or "no" when the sperm donor approaches, requesting to make a deposit. Neither choice justifies killing a human being afterwards.

So if money for poor women seeking abortions are not funded what do you think will happen?

Click to expand...

There will be less sex in the 'hood, once word gets around that those baby things are a real pain in the ass and they even cost money to care for.

Believe it or not, and your Very Liberal "lean" indicates you lack knowledge of basic market economics, making something cost more leads to the consumption of less of it.

Do we really wanna go back to the days of cheap back alley abortions, women killing themselves and the fetus by drinking Drano? Do you wish to live in that kind of world?

Click to expand...

You mean as the alternative to killing three million babies a year?

Yes, that's a preferable alternative. Maybe if people like Madonna and Angelina Jolie would stop adopting babies in Africa and start "giving back" to the communites that were stupid enough to buy her records, things could see a little improvement in the US?

This is nothing more than folks trying to cut funding based on morals and not looking at the big picture.

Click to expand...

Morality is a fine reason. You just completed a post using nothing but moralistic arguments.

The BIG PICTURE is that the United States is broke, the Constitution does not permit funding for medical procedures or any other welfare-type transference, and that de-funding Planned Parenthood does not in any way make the murder of unborn babies illegal. All it means is that the moral taxpayer will not be required to see his hard earned tax dollars being spent on a particularly offensive purpose.

Is there any particular reason you don't believe the prochoicers in America couldn't contribute their own money to the goal of killing unborn babies as a charity? That would be tax deductible, and completely exempt from any effort by the Pro-Life people to curtail.

Not to mention a sneaky way to see if this would go over well and test the waters to try to overthrow a womans right to an abortion. I am on to this sneak tactic and the folks are not gonna go along with it buster.

Click to expand...

Women do not have a right to murder children, be they born and breathing, or not.

Kali said:

But the thing is the woman does not want the child! So if money for poor women seeking abortions are not funded what do you think will happen? Do we really wanna go back to the days of cheap back alley abortions, women killing themselves and the fetus by drinking Drano? Do you wish to live in that kind of world?

This is nothing more than folks trying to cut funding based on morals and not looking at the big picture. Not to mention a sneaky way to see if this would go over well and test the waters to try to overthrow a womans right to an abortion. I am on to this sneak tactic and the folks are not gonna go along with it buster.

Click to expand...

I would wish to live in a world where people are not given free range to kill babies. Abortion should be put in its rightful place in the criminal justice system: in legislation regarding homicide.

CaptainCourtesy said:

You might want to try to look at the big picture, here. Actions have consequences, consequences that affect more than just the individual. More unwanted children means more possible abuse... or more need for social services... or more individuals with monetary issues... or more issues with health care, etc... This is not just an issue of what one's parents can manage. If one's parents cannot manage, which does occur, society as a whole is impacted, both in local and global ways. It is far more complex than a simple answer. Those who want to outlaw abortion need to present some sort of plan for managing the amount of unwanted children that will then be presented. Without a plan addressing that issue, those who want abortion ended are not really addressing the problem at all. All they are doing is trying to legislate their own morality, having zero consideration on the global impact.

So, to answer your question, precisely, give us your SPECIFIC plan of how society should then deal with all the unwanted children that a policy of no abortions will yeild.

Click to expand...

I love how people say abortion is not about convenience and then give an entire litany of justifications rooted solely in the idea that babies are inconvenient. Abortion is a scourge on mankind of our own design and the tolerance for it is an indication of rampant depravity in our society. We are not talking about smoking pot or paying for a blowjob. These are human lives being taken and no humane civilization should allow it. How we deal with the potential fallout of abolishing this evil is another matter to be considered after the fact.

CaptainCourtesy said:

1) It is an appeal to emotion. It's not murder, no matter how you slice it. I am uninterested if that is how you see it. It is presenting a logical fallacy and I will confront anyone I see who uses it. I've done it before to Chuz Life and Hicup. You want to use the word "kill", and you will have no problem with me. Murder is incorrect.

Click to expand...

Murder does not only refer to unlawful killing. Of course, whether you consider it unlawful depends. I for one think Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional ruling that made poor legal arguments. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is the court of last resort and no other body is allowed to offset their abuses so an illegal ruling stands as though it were legal.

ludahai said:

I know I said I will bail from this thread... and I will... I need to get some adequate sleep to prepare for tomorrow's race... but murder has many definitions in addition to the stictly legal one...

dictionary.com


I consider definition #5 to be applicable to this situation even absent the fact that this is a violation of God's law...

Click to expand...

That's parsing definitions. Definition #1 is the definition most commonly used and applicable... which is why using the term is an appeal to emotion. And I reject God's Law as applying, legally, in this situation. That is a moral argument.

lpast said:

Its hard for me to understand Captain Courtesy saying its not murder...when if you left the fetus alone in a few weeks it would be bubbly little baby boy or girl...

Click to expand...

The word "bubbly" brings up all KINDS of strange imagery the Mayor would prefer to keep in the Champagne bottle.....but the Mayor has kids of his own.

CaptainCourtesy said:

That's true. However, I can see how the term "murder" could actually be used in those cases because of their illegality. Technically, it would be incorrect, but it's not so far away that it could not be argued. The legality is the key... that is a definitive component of the term. That is why I always attack it when pro-lifer's use it.

Click to expand...

So you would agree that capital punishment, no matter how it's practiced in whatever country, is not murder?

CaptainCourtesy said:

Murder is a legal term denoting a crime. Abortion is not a crime. If you want to call it "killing" be my guest. You will have no argument from me with that term.

Click to expand...

No.

"Murder" is a legal term only in a courtroom. It existed in language before law. Since the Mayor has moved to a new residence, his thirty pound Dictionary of Words That Internet Dictionaries Won't Look Up is packed in a box somewhere. However, the word "murder" has more definitions than just the legal, including, off the top of the Mayor's head, a "murder" of crows. Murder means the killing of a human with deliberate intent. As you might see, this is somewhat different than the legal meaning of the word "oops".

Demon of Light said:

I love how people say abortion is not about convenience and then give an entire litany of justifications rooted solely in the idea that babies are inconvenient.

Click to expand...

Point out where I said that abortion is not about convienience and then get back to me.

Abortion is a scourge on mankind of our own design and the tolerance for it is an indication of rampant depravity in our society. We are not talking about smoking pot or paying for a blowjob. These are human lives being taken and no humane civilization should allow it. How we deal with the potential fallout of abolishing this evil is another matter to be considered after the fact.

Click to expand...

Wrong. That is the irresponsible course. Setting something in motion without a plan of how to deal with it is like building a house without a foundation. This is classic from some pro-lifers. You want to end abortion, but you have no plan... nor desire to deal with what that means. With no plan, there is no reason to consider ending abortion from how I see it.

Murder does not only refer to unlawful killing. Of course, whether you consider it unlawful depends. I for one think Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional ruling that made poor legal arguments. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is the court of last resort and no other body is allowed to offset their abuses so an illegal ruling stands as though it were legal.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Abortion is legal, currently. Therefore, it is not murder as defined, legally.

X Factor said:

So you would agree that capital punishment, no matter how it's practiced in whatever country, is not murder?

Click to expand...

Under the legal terms of THAT country, yes. Now, remember, we are talking legal here. That does not mean that I would not think that the acts were not morally reprehensible.

The pro-choice voices in this thread correctly responding to the OP's useof the "terrorist card" renews my hope for humanity. Thanks.

CaptainCourtesy said:

You might want to try to look at the big picture, here. Actions have consequences, consequences that affect more than just the individual. More unwanted children means more possible abuse... or more need for social services... or more individuals with monetary issues... or more issues with health care, etc... This is not just an issue of what one's parents can manage. If one's parents cannot manage, which does occur, society as a whole is impacted, both in local and global ways. It is far more complex than a simple answer. Those who want to outlaw abortion need to present some sort of plan for managing the amount of unwanted children that will then be presented. Without a plan addressing that issue, those who want abortion ended are not really addressing the problem at all. All they are doing is trying to legislate their own morality, having zero consideration on the global impact.

So, to answer your question, precisely, give us your SPECIFIC plan of how society should then deal with all the unwanted children that a policy of no abortions will yeild.

Click to expand...

Do nothing. Sorry, you wanted more? Well my lean should tell you I wouldn't do what you wanted.

Protecting life is protecting rights. I have no interest in doing more.