It’s an EXPRESSION. I have no words for dumb replies like yours. It’s a pro-life SLOGAN.
It’s a fucking typo you arrogant nitwit.
I guess you are. As your arguments as systematically dismantled your defense becomes more and more ridiculous and obvious word games. You specifically chose those mundane choices as an example to bolster your argument. That’s a huge fail. I correctly pointed out that real life means people make difficult choices that that they are well aware do not have qualitatively similar results. So, clearly, your definition of what choice generally means is obviously false. There would be no point in you making the argument and using those examples if you were aware they don’t apply at all. In fact they don’t, but you tried to use them anyway, and failed.
Now you’ve tried to argue that it’s about how choice is used in the abortion issue. You could have done that without making the false argument about the meaning of choice , but no matter. You failed in that argument as well. You cannot speak to what people assume about the choice of abortion without being a mind reader, and you’re not one.
Choices not existing in a vacuum is a valid point , but does nothing to support your pro abortion argument.
This is false and why your choice does not exist in a vacuum point doesn’t support your pro abortion argument. Because you’re not a mind reader you don’t get declare how people are weighing the choice. You also don’t get to do that simply because you look at things one way, and they see them differently. Fir example, when you say this
the answer is individuals don’t get to declare something is or isn’t murder based on a personal opinion. Our legal system does. Among the individuals who don’t get to declare what is or isn’t murder , is you and every other anti abortionist who uses the term murder , or baby killer. People are not discounting the consequences or looking at them as qualitatively the same simply because they happen to disagree with your assessment. We are simply supporting the woman’s choice about her own body as being primary in considering the consequences. This is demonstrated by supporting the choice of no abortion. In fact plenty of pro choice supporters might even prefer the no abortion choice , but still feel it’s the woman’s choice to make. Your pro abortion argument, or assertion, call it what you will, is wrong.
Wrong, your argument assumes your conclusions are already correct, but according to current law, you’re wrong, and you yourself pointed out that individuals don’t get to make those declarations on their own and expect them to carry weight.
For one thing, in many cases it is not a fetus being aborted, and it’s not a him or a her. The perceptions I’m clearly speaking of are your personal perceptions of the “rights” of that life vs the rights of the woman to her own body. That’s your opinion, and nothing more. I’m also speaking of your ludicrous assertions about how pro choice supporters are viewing the choice. What you seem to be saying, is that if they don’t agree with your opinions on the matter, they must be seeing it in the way you described. That’s obviously incorrect.
Stop claiming you know what other people think. You don’t. The very fact that viability is an issue disproves your earlier claim
that pro choice supporters see the choices as qualitatively equal. The potential of human life is recognized from day one, but the question remains, does that potential life have rights compared to the woman’s rights, and when. The fact that is is looked at that way shows that the value of human life is being weighed.
And it’s over simplified nonsense that bares no resemblance to reality, every time. Choices often have some negative and some positive consequences , and we weigh those in making choices. People have the liberty to make certain choices, that may have a negative impact on others.
I think it’s because it’s ignorant and wrong, as I’ve demonstrated. Claiming that just labeling something the opposite without regard for the true meaning of the words, is ignorant abuse of how language works, and you’re smart enough to know it.
Right, that’s not at all why it’s incorrect. It’s incorrect because of how language works and for the reasons I’ve spelled out rather clearly. You can continue to make your false assertion, you just can’t support it with anything resembling logic.
and this habit of yours
You frame questions that are either irrelevant or assume your personal opinion on the matter is correct, and then complain that people are avoiding them as if it’s some sign you’re capturing the discussion. It isn’t. If you’re going to demand an answer, or claim posters are purposely avoiding questions, please explain the point you’re trying to make, or why that question is relevant. Personally I find a lot of your posts to be irrelevant and that’s why I pass over it.
No, but shouldn’t you? After all, what happened to all that talk about how everyone is entitled to their own beliefs? How no one should have the “religious” beliefs of another imposed upon them? Or does that only apply to those instances you can personally stomach?
This is precisely why the pro-choice position isn’t to be taken seriously.
You said it summed up your beliefs. That makes it more than a mere “slogan.”
How do you know that? When you choose to kill someone it becomes my business.
Why is that decision so excruciating seeing as you are ending the life of a clump of tissue or a non-human person? That’s what the pro-choicers on here have been arguing.
How about the term “pro-support abortion as a choice then?”
My belief is that abortion stops a beating heart because virtually all abortions are done after the heart begins beating.
It’s an expression. Stop trying to make it more than that. I know you’ve got nothing else in your repertoire of stupidity.
They are only pro-choice for stuff they personally believe in. If they don’t thnik it’s true than they are pro-nothing.
They always have to be right about everything even when they’ve been proven wrong. I find pro-choice people to be the most judgmental of all. I don’t know if that is true in the real world or if we have a disproportionate number of pro-choice lunatics on here.
You grant that I can judge a fetus is a person, but the implication is that you don’t understand why that belief morally obligates me to interfere with you killing a person?
Can I use the same argument to immunize myself from interference in my killing of superficially human instances that I’ve defined as non-persons?
Very well said!!!
Why yes you could. According to her as long as you say someone is not a person go ahead and kill them.
Your belief is nothing more than an expression that shouldn’t be taken literally. Got it.
If we disregard your previous belief that it becomes a human being after six weeks, does the egg become a human being at conception, or after it has been implanted, because you have claimed both in this thread.
If someone wants to believe a newborn is a not a person… let them. What harm does it do? If they want their belief reflected in law, let them try to change the law.
I don’t see why this is a big deal. I suppose arguably if you disagree with existing law, it is being “imposed” on you, and if you got the law changed to reflect your beliefs and not someone else’s, the law would then be “imposing” on them.
There’s nothing specific to abortion about this - I would guess it applies to any subject where people disagree about a given law and its application.
At this point, I thought it obvious that classylady’s beliefs change to whatever contradicts the person asking her about her beliefs. That way, they’re always wrong about her beliefs and she gets to feel good about how she’s clearly being misunderstood. Then the person asks about these changed beliefs, and the beliefs change yet again.
Classic trollery.
It was never my belief that it becomes a human after the heart stops beating. It’s an E X P R E S S I O N not to be taken literally.
You can’t seem to follow anything can you?
An egg never becomes a human at conception. Read what you wrote.
The only troll here is you my dear.
You’re not serious right? Lets say a baby’s mother doesn’t think her newborn is a person. Lets say the newborn is crying and she can’t stop it. In her mind she can shake it or hit it because after all it’s not a person.
Wow.
You are correct-I used 'conception" instead of “fertilization”. With that mis-step corrected, what is your answer?
I’m fine with the term you suggested - at least it’s more accurate than pro-abortion.
As for why it’s a very difficult decision, I can only speak for myself and those people I know who are pro-choice, but:
-
As noted above, it’s a potential life. Most people recognize that, even us lunatic pro-choicers. Even if said potential life is already guaranteed to fail or if the woman was ending a pregnancy because she truly couldn’t care for the baby the way she felt she should, few people would celebrate such a thing. I hardly expect you to care about this, though. Regardless, most women who have abortions don’t make the choice lightly. To say otherwise is laughable.
-
It can be a very painful process. After all, it is a medical intervension. I had surgery because my pregnancy had ruptured a fallopian tube and I was starting to bleed internally. Because it was laparoscopic, it took me two weeks to recover; had it been a c-section incision, it would’ve taken 6 months. A friend of mine terminated a pregnancy because the baby had Trisomy 18, a condition where the baby is severely deformed and doesn’t generally live beyond one year, but usually lives only weeks after birth. On top of the sadness she felt having to make that decision (her pregnancy was wanted), terminating it was extremely painful and required many weeks of recuperation.
You still haven’t answered my question earlier. Because you stated that women who don’t want to get pregnant should not have sex, is it reasonable for a wife to refuse to have sex with her husband ever again if that could result in a pregnancy?
In the United States, over half of abortions are performed on married women, after all.