Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 18
being pro life outside the political arena
Topic Started: Nov 12 2008, 06:24 AM (4,744 Views)
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
kathyk
Nov 14 2008, 12:00 PM
I think the pictures are good. They force people to think.

Maybe they don't want to think about what you did to that child to get the picture.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
M&M's
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Thanks Quirt. I reported it.
My child shows GOOD CHARACTERIZATION in an ongoing game of D&D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kathyk
Nov 14 2008, 12:05 PM
ivorythumper
Nov 14 2008, 12:02 PM
kathyk
Nov 14 2008, 11:44 AM
I think we can all agree that abortion at that late in the pregancy should be outlawed except if the mother's life would be endangered.

So, killing a 4 week old fetus is more reprehensible than abusing a child? I'm thinking you've had very little first hand experience with child abuse. :sad:
We do not all agree on that.

The whole partial birth abortion movement shows that proborts are not willing to yield on anything.

Your beloved Obama would not even allow for the care of living survivors of abortion. That is reprehensible -- do you agree with him on that or not?

And don't presume to tell me what experience I've had with child abuse. You are way out of bounds.
Oh, bull pucky! Who on this board has supported partial birth abortion? How many of those procedures even occcur? What movement? Are you nuts.

As to your last point, that is such a flat out, thoroughly debunked lie, that it doesn't even merit comment.
AFAICT Jeffrey does, and allows abortion up to delivery. I have no idea what Moonbat thinks since it all depends on what chemical reactions are occurring at the moment that determines morality. But that does not matter since the probort lobby has been vociferous in defending abortion at all stages of pregnancy and opposed to bans on partial birth abortion. So you need to address the problem of not having nuanced thinking to the proborts, not the pro life.

As for my last point -- what the hell are you talking about. You are way out of bounds telling me about my experience of child abuse. Just shut up now and walk away before I unleash a storm of invectives on you for your crap.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
As for Obama's record, the bill was thus
Quote:
 
What follows is the complete text of the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082) after it was amended, on March 13, 2003, in the committee chaired by state Senator Barack Obama. The committee then voted 6-4 to kill this bill, with Chairman Obama voting to kill it. The amended bill, as shown below, was virtually identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that was enacted in 2002.

AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows: (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)

Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this Section [the bill] shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.


Obama's argument for his "present" vote, which basically counted as a "no" was thus:
Quote:
 
“Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -– a child, a nine-month-old –- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it –- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

There is nothing hyperbolic in what I stated. An abortion means a rock soild certainty that someone will not be born. There is no "almost" about it even the way you stated it. it is a rock solid certainty that some people aren't born as a result of abortion.


The whole idea is hopeless - perhaps we should oppose the drive to cut down the rate of teenaged pregnancy because it's a rock solid certainty that reducing teenaged pregnancy means some people aren't born as a result. Or perhaps we should not prevent rape because as a result of that prevention it's certain that someone won't be born.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Moonbat
Nov 14 2008, 12:26 PM
Quote:
 

There is nothing hyperbolic in what I stated. An abortion means a rock soild certainty that someone will not be born. There is no "almost" about it even the way you stated it. it is a rock solid certainty that some people aren't born as a result of abortion.


The whole idea is hopeless - perhaps we should oppose the drive to cut down the rate of teenaged pregnancy because it's a rock solid certainty that reducing teenaged pregnancy means some people aren't born as a result. Or perhaps we should not prevent rape because as a result of that prevention it's certain that someone won't be born.
I am attacking your logic, not your conclusions. Using my logic to arrive at different conclusions does nothing to undermine the logic. It is a rock solid certainty that some people are not born as a result of cutting down teen pregnancy but that is not a reason to eschew cutting down teen pregnancy any more than the fact that some people are not born as a result of abortion is a reason to oppose abortion. There are other moral considerations but I was not addressing that.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
ivorythumper
Nov 14 2008, 12:26 PM
As for Obama's record, the bill was thus
Quote:
 
What follows is the complete text of the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082) after it was amended, on March 13, 2003, in the committee chaired by state Senator Barack Obama. The committee then voted 6-4 to kill this bill, with Chairman Obama voting to kill it. The amended bill, as shown below, was virtually identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that was enacted in 2002.

AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows: (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)

Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this Section [the bill] shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.


Obama's argument for his "present" vote, which basically counted as a "no" was thus:
Quote:
 
“Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -– a child, a nine-month-old –- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it –- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”
Sounds like a plausible explanation to me. That you don't recognize that piece of carp legislation was nothing more than a backdoor ploy by the anti-abortion movement to make all abortion illegal shows how dense you can be, and if you do recognize it, then how intellectually dishonest you are (I suspect the latter). BTW, you realized, didn't you, Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support." http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
ivorythumper
Nov 14 2008, 12:23 PM
kathyk
Nov 14 2008, 12:05 PM
ivorythumper
Nov 14 2008, 12:02 PM
kathyk
Nov 14 2008, 11:44 AM
I think we can all agree that abortion at that late in the pregancy should be outlawed except if the mother's life would be endangered.

So, killing a 4 week old fetus is more reprehensible than abusing a child? I'm thinking you've had very little first hand experience with child abuse. :sad:
We do not all agree on that.

The whole partial birth abortion movement shows that proborts are not willing to yield on anything.

Your beloved Obama would not even allow for the care of living survivors of abortion. That is reprehensible -- do you agree with him on that or not?

And don't presume to tell me what experience I've had with child abuse. You are way out of bounds.
Oh, bull pucky! Who on this board has supported partial birth abortion? How many of those procedures even occcur? What movement? Are you nuts.

As to your last point, that is such a flat out, thoroughly debunked lie, that it doesn't even merit comment.
AFAICT Jeffrey does, and allows abortion up to delivery. I have no idea what Moonbat thinks since it all depends on what chemical reactions are occurring at the moment that determines morality. But that does not matter since the probort lobby has been vociferous in defending abortion at all stages of pregnancy and opposed to bans on partial birth abortion. So you need to address the problem of not having nuanced thinking to the proborts, not the pro life.

As for my last point -- what the hell are you talking about. You are way out of bounds telling me about my experience of child abuse. Just shut up now and walk away before I unleash a storm of invectives on you for your crap.
No, I won't shut up. And especially not because you tell me to. You whose MO on this board is to degrade and ridicule others should be able to take a little bit of your own medicine now and again. You made the pretty disgusting (IMO) argument that pedophilia and child abuse are preferable to abortion, without even qualifying how early the abortion took place (of course that is of no import to black and white, dogmatic thinkers - life is life is life when it's utero - when it's outside, well it's on its own). You then said that abused children can get over it. To me that shows a remarkable insensitivity to the victims of child abuse.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Nov 14 2008, 12:11 PM
QuirtEvans
Nov 14 2008, 11:28 AM
JBryan
Nov 14 2008, 10:17 AM
QuirtEvans
Nov 14 2008, 09:46 AM
JBryan
Nov 14 2008, 08:39 AM
Quote:
 
The person that comes about from that other pregnancy would not exist were it not for the termination.


I'm sorry but I don't see how that follows necessarily unless you have a one child policy or whatever number is one over the number the couple already has. There certainly are people who are not here because of abortion. Your attempt at inversion falls short of that certainty.
It's not a certainty, but it's a reasonable probability.

Would every family stop having children? No, of course not. Would some? I think that's a fairly safe assumption. It's a lot of work to deal with a Down's syndrome child.
The difference is that an abortion means the certainty of someone not being born. The concept of people being born because of abortion is highly speculative bordering on the absurd.
Highly speculative bordering on the absurd? There you go again. I think it's almost a rock-solid certainty that some people aren't born as a result of abortion, and that your hyerbolic overreaction proves that you know it, but just don't want to admit it.
There is nothing hyperbolic in what I stated. An abortion means a rock soild certainty that someone will not be born. There is no "almost" about it even the way you stated it. it is a rock solid certainty that some people aren't born as a result of abortion. That there are people born as a result of abortion is speculative to the point of being absurd.
It's that final sentence that is hyperbolically ridiculous.

Oh, and yes, even your statement is a bit speculative. Some fetuses that are not aborted die before birth, you know. And, one might guess, the sort of person who would have an abortion might be more likely to fail to take the sort of pre-natal care that would improve the odds.

You can ignore reality, if you like, but, when you spread the odds across millions or billions of people, there are gonna be some who fit my supposedly speculative statement.

You might even know one. I might, too.

It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I am attacking your logic, not your conclusions.


But all I said was that there are people who do not exist but would exist had a decisions to terminate been made. Likewise there are people today who do exist but would not had decisions to terminate not been made - for example suppose a couple have a child after a previous termination abortion, clearly there are examples of that, it's a statistical certainty that that particular child would not exist had it's parents not gone through with a termination.

Quote:
 

It is a rock solid certainty that some people are not born as a result of cutting down teen pregnancy but that is not a reason to eschew cutting down teen pregnancy any more than the fact that some people are not born as a result of abortion is a reason to oppose abortion.


I agree completely, and i'm suprised that given that agreement you took issue with me rather than Larry who made the exact opposite claim.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

No, I won't shut up. And especially not because you tell me to. You whose MO on this board is to degrade and ridicule others should be able to take a little bit of your own medicine now and again. You made the pretty disgusting (IMO) argument that pedophilia and child abuse are preferable to abortion, without even qualifying how early the abortion took place (of course that is of no import to black and white, dogmatic thinkers - life is life is life when it's utero - when it's outside, well it's on its own). You then said that abused children can get over it. To me that shows a remarkable insensitivity to the victims of child abuse.


I think you might have the wrong end of the stick on that last one and that he meant that abused children can, in principle, recover, whereas an abortion is implicitly permanent. (I don't agree with him in the slightest but i don't think he was intending to detract from the severity of child abuse).
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kathyk
Nov 14 2008, 01:33 PM
No, I won't shut up. And especially not because you tell me to. You whose MO on this board is to degrade and ridicule others should be able to take a little bit of your own medicine now and again. You made the pretty disgusting (IMO) argument that pedophilia and child abuse are preferable to abortion, without even qualifying how early the abortion took place (of course that is of no import to black and white, dogmatic thinkers - life is life is life when it's utero - when it's outside, well it's on its own). You then said that abused children can get over it. To me that shows a remarkable insensitivity to the victims of child abuse.
So don't shut up. Keep screeching.

You don't know the first thing about anyone's history with child abuse so knock off your nonsense that you think I've had very little first hand experience with child abuse. You don't know anything about my experience Kathy, and you are being a complete jerk.

I am really sorry if your dad or your uncle or some other family member abused you. That should never happen to anyone.

But if you can't even figure out the subtext of what I've been trying to allude to politely, then you have no high ground here for your sanctimonious lecturing about giving people their own medicine.

Once again I have to conclude that you must be rude to your kids to teach them to be kind. Do you hit them to teach them to be nice to one another? How well does that work, Kathy?

You seem dense to the fact that that saying one bad thing is worse than another bad thing is not the same as saying either is "preferable". Both are REALLY REALLY bad things. You can't be that dense, especially after its been explained to you that you are misinterpreting it.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Nov 14 2008, 02:01 PM
Quote:
 

No, I won't shut up. And especially not because you tell me to. You whose MO on this board is to degrade and ridicule others should be able to take a little bit of your own medicine now and again. You made the pretty disgusting (IMO) argument that pedophilia and child abuse are preferable to abortion, without even qualifying how early the abortion took place (of course that is of no import to black and white, dogmatic thinkers - life is life is life when it's utero - when it's outside, well it's on its own). You then said that abused children can get over it. To me that shows a remarkable insensitivity to the victims of child abuse.


I think you might have the wrong end of the stick on that last one and that he meant that abused children can, in principle, recover, whereas an abortion is implicitly permanent. (I don't agree with him in the slightest but i don't think he was intending to detract from the severity of child abuse).
Thank you, Moonbat.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Quote:
 
(of course that is of no import to black and white, dogmatic thinkers - life is life is life when it's utero - when it's outside, well it's on its own).


Where on earth did you ever get that from what I wrote???? I have a feeling you are having a conversation with yourself on this -- working out your own demons -- and not with me since I have never said anything of the sort.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
kathyk
Nov 14 2008, 11:25 AM
To spell it out for you: Sometimes one must make the choice of the lesser of two evils. To take it a step further, it should not be your decision to make for another woman except perhaps your for your own wife.
What the hell? Having a child is an evil? Killing a fetus is less of an evil than having the child?

How about killing a three month old infant because it's too hard for the mother to cope? Is that a legitimate regrettable choice for the mother, too?

There are choices. Women have choices. The number one choice is whether or not to have sex to begin with (and Do Not take this conversation off target about rape victims, that is a different topic and should be discussed seperately. I'm talking about abortion as birth control). The second choice is birth control. The third choice is keeping and raising the baby or adoption if she does become pregnant. Taking an unborn life must not be an option. Plain and simple. There are other choices.

You want more explicit sex ed classes? Fine. They will not work to the extent we need as long as abortion is a choice that's on the table.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
kathyk
Nov 14 2008, 11:58 AM
I think the pictures are good. They force people to think. IT's clearly illustrates that he is incapable of nuanced thinking.
Oh, there we go, the old "Nuanced Thinking" ploy. When did it become right to condemn those that have and hold to moral convictions? Just because some have the strength of character to hold to what's right and fight for it, rather than take the easy way out by concocting in their own minds a faulty logic path that will allow them to justify whatever they want? That is just plain wrong.

Rather than face the problems society has and try to fix them, we take the path of least resistance. Overpopulation in areas? Food shortages? To financially difficult to raise children? Too many young men and women incapable of accepting the consequences and responsibility of their actions? That's too much work. Let's just kill off 50 million unborn children.

The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

When did it become right to condemn those that have and hold to moral convictions


You appear quite happy to condemn those who hold moral convictions different from your own.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
Moonbat
Nov 14 2008, 03:18 PM
Quote:
 

When did it become right to condemn those that have and hold to moral convictions


You appear quite happy to condemn those who hold moral convictions different from your own.
Wrong. I'm not happy at all at having to attack somebody's position. I won't dignify those positions, however, by calling them moral convictions, when by their own unwitting acknowledgement they are amoral convictions. When arguing for a conviction on the basis that it's the lesser of two evils, one is acknowledging that they are promoting an evil. Therefore, it can not be a moral conviction, and I will not recognize it as such.

I also disagree with the calling of it a conviction, as a conviction is an ideal held strongly, clearly, and firmly. A conviction can not be colored by "nuanced thinking" as nuances shift.

The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
ivorythumper
Nov 14 2008, 02:24 PM
kathyk
Nov 14 2008, 01:33 PM
No, I won't shut up. And especially not because you tell me to. You whose MO on this board is to degrade and ridicule others should be able to take a little bit of your own medicine now and again. You made the pretty disgusting (IMO) argument that pedophilia and child abuse are preferable to abortion, without even qualifying how early the abortion took place (of course that is of no import to black and white, dogmatic thinkers - life is life is life when it's utero - when it's outside, well it's on its own). You then said that abused children can get over it. To me that shows a remarkable insensitivity to the victims of child abuse.
So don't shut up. Keep screeching.

You don't know the first thing about anyone's history with child abuse so knock off your nonsense that you think I've had very little first hand experience with child abuse. You don't know anything about my experience Kathy, and you are being a complete jerk.

I am really sorry if your dad or your uncle or some other family member abused you. That should never happen to anyone.

But if you can't even figure out the subtext of what I've been trying to allude to politely, then you have no high ground here for your sanctimonious lecturing about giving people their own medicine.

Once again I have to conclude that you must be rude to your kids to teach them to be kind. Do you hit them to teach them to be nice to one another? How well does that work, Kathy?

You seem dense to the fact that that saying one bad thing is worse than another bad thing is not the same as saying either is "preferable". Both are REALLY REALLY bad things. You can't be that dense, especially after its been explained to you that you are misinterpreting it.
You really should look in a mirror. I can't tell you how many times you have offended me with your personal, obsessively argumentative attacks, and I see you do it to others all the time. Your post here is case in point, making slanderous remarks about my family, about whom you know nothing and your silly remarks (which seems to be a recurrent theme of yours) about my parenting skills.

My remark to you may have jarred you, but it was apropo to your rather shocking opinion that the abortion of a weeks old zygote is preferable to child abuse and pedophilia. It really does make wonder if you have ever paid much attention to the huge, huge problem of child abuse.

If you want people to play nice with you, you should learn to do the same.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Luke's Dad
Nov 14 2008, 02:45 PM
kathyk
Nov 14 2008, 11:25 AM
To spell it out for you: Sometimes one must make the choice of the lesser of two evils. To take it a step further, it should not be your decision to make for another woman except perhaps your for your own wife.
What the hell? Having a child is an evil? Killing a fetus is less of an evil than having the child?

How about killing a three month old infant because it's too hard for the mother to cope? Is that a legitimate regrettable choice for the mother, too?

There are choices. Women have choices. The number one choice is whether or not to have sex to begin with (and Do Not take this conversation off target about rape victims, that is a different topic and should be discussed seperately. I'm talking about abortion as birth control). The second choice is birth control. The third choice is keeping and raising the baby or adoption if she does become pregnant. Taking an unborn life must not be an option. Plain and simple. There are other choices.

You want more explicit sex ed classes? Fine. They will not work to the extent we need as long as abortion is a choice that's on the table.
Yes, LD, for many women it is most definitely an evil, in the sense that it can present an unbearable burden.

And of course killing a three month old infant is wrong or a one minute old infant.

Indeed there are choices. And God willing, the choice to have a legal and safe abortion before the viability of the fetus will remain an option - a choice of the lesser of evils. Much better that than the option of desperate women losing their own lives in back allies with coat hangers up their uteri, which everyone knows will happen again if abortion is ever criminalized.

I also don't believe for a minute that criminalizing abortion would have an appreciable effect on people's sexual activity. I have never met a person who thought of abortion as means of birth control. It is almost always a choice made out of desperation.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kathyk
Nov 14 2008, 03:45 PM
You really should look in a mirror. I can't tell you how many times you have offended me with your personal, obsessively argumentative attacks, and I see you do it to others all the time. Your post here is case in point, making slanderous remarks about my family, about whom you know nothing.

My remark to you may have jarred you, but it was apropo to your rather shocking opinion that the abortion of a weeks old fetus is preferable to child abuse and pedophilia. It really does make wonder if you have ever paid much attention to the huge, huge problem of child abuse.

If you want people to play nice with you, you should learn to do the same.
You started this with your bullsh!t argument that I was saying child abuse was preferable to abortion and then your bullsh!t that this indicates rigid and dogmatic thinking.

Quote:
 
One thing that just hit me, especially in context of IT's statement that childhood abuse is preferable to abortion, is that the absolute pro-lifers are incredibly rigid in their thinking. This black and white thinking is also illustrated by IT's seeming inability to comprehend the fact that pro-choice folks can abhor abortion and at the same time oppose criminalizing it. There's no room whatsoever for nuance in the thinking of the hard line pro-lifers.


You cannot be that stupid to think that this is a binary choice: oh if we don't abort the child WILL be abused, or if you are against abortion than you are in favor of child abuse. Maybe you can be that stupid since that is what you keep coming back despite the fact that once you raised this absurd argument I corrected it.

And corrected it.

And corrected it.

So your hypocritical bullsh!t about playing nice doesn't carry any sway for me, Kathy -- you launched into this with mischaracterizations of my views and personal attacks.

If you think innocent human life can be killed on demand in certain circumstances, just say so. It wouldn't particularly shock me that you think that is morally permissible, and at least we could have an honest discussion about that rather than your hiding behind poster children for the abused.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Some of this thread literally makes me sick. I can't begin to describe the grief in my heart as I read some of it.

Posted Image


Some of you here might remember this earlier post of mine, from last July.

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/topic/377397/1/#new



"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
No, IT, you started it with your remark that it's preferable. I was responding to you. Do I need to do a chronological redux for you?

Edit: Never mind, I have.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
ivorythumper
Nov 14 2008, 10:10 AM
kathyk
Nov 14 2008, 07:36 AM
ivorythumper
Nov 12 2008, 04:05 PM
What is asinine? I think abortion is much worse than kiddie porn or child abuse.
Wow. This explains a lot.
What does it explain? The it is a graver injustice to deprive someone of life than to abuse them. Both are evil, but at least the victim can go on living and healing from their trauma in the latter two cases.
Just to remind you of who first drew the comparison between abortion and child abuse.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kathyk
Nov 14 2008, 04:10 PM
No, IT, you started it with your remark that it's preferable. I was responding to you. Do I need to do a chronological redux for you?
You are using redux in some weird way. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

But yes -- show me where I ever said it was preferable. To prefer one thing over the other implies that there is choice between the two. There is no binary choice here, Kathy, other than to say it is impossible to further abuse a child you have already killed by abortion.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 18