Obama marks Roe vs. Wade anniversary

[hazmat]

you can quit paying, and you can drink n drive in your private property; maybe theres an exception for property open to the general public.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Well, I think everyone should be allowed to quit making payments on their houses and cars. Nobody force them to buy them, and it’s darn inconvenient making those payments. How dare the banks force me to make payments!

I also think people should be allowed to get off for driving drunk. Nobody forced them to drink, and it is darn inconvenient being detained by the police. How dare the police force me to stay in jail or pay a fine!

In fact, I think it pretty darn unfair that anybody forces me to accept the consequences of my actions. I’m with you hazmat, anything we want to do is fair game!

Well, to be fair he is from California and his views are reflected by his states behavior in so many ways.

 

[SteveGC]

Steve and Hazmat: Oy! It’s faze NOT phase. How long you two be this country?

lol. Well, I “be this country” since I be born. Can’t figure why I can’t be gettin’ that word right

stevegc: i havent dodged any question; youre just not understanding. but im patient, so i will walk you through this: “i gave my opinion that you should be able to remove anything from your body at any time. its my view that you should have control of what goes on in your body, even it it kills.” you ask why im ok with her killing a child because its in her body… clearly, im ok with it because she wants it out of her body–thats it.

you finally change your line of questioning–which you probably shouldve done in the first place: “What is it about the termination (killing) of a human life that does not phase you in your position?” it simply doesnt; just like forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term doesnt bother people who would ban abortion.

You think you’re answering the question, but you’re not. If you ask me why I like the color green, what is it about green that I like so much, I can tell you that “I just like green”, or “because I like green” and claim that I somehow did not dodge the question, but the fact of the matter is I did. I did not give you anything your question intended to receive. The why is not answered at all.

Let’s try this, are you this cavalier in your thoughts about murder in general? Do you ever grieve anyone murdered? Would you prohibit a murderer from murdering? If so, can I assume you also grieve the murdered child in the womb? And if so, why exactly is the grief you would have over the murdered child allayed by your staunch support of a woman’s right to kill it, to the point where there is absolutely no motivation in your heart to prohibit her from doing it?

Non-acceptable answer = “It just is” / “I just do”, or anything similar

 

[Suudy]

you can quit paying, and you can drink n drive in your private property; maybe theres an exception for property open to the general public.

Really? What will happen to me if I quit paying my mortgage or car payment? Is there any consequence?

Or let’s add another.

Well, I think everyone should be allowed to kill their spouse. Nobody force them to get married, and it can be darn inconvenient to be married. How dare they be forced to keep their spouse alive! Especially when that annoying pre-nuptial agreement is in place.

 

[hazmat]

steve: no, youre taking what i said out of context: your original question–the one i said id answered–was addressed (first paragraph). if youre talking about my saying “it simply doesnt,” likening that to “i just like green,” then youre referring to another question, which i didnt say id already answered (second paragraph).

no, not as cavalier with murder in general; but maybe still cavalier to you. yes, i have grieved over persons murdered. assuming that i consider it murder, yes, i would prohibit a murderer from murdering. no, i dont grieve over every person (born, adult, etc.) murdered, so its unlikely that i would grieve for an unborn child “murdered” in the womb. your last question presupposes grief i dont experience for those “murdered” by abortion.

 

[SteveGC]

steve: no, youre taking what i said out of context: your original question–the one i said id answered–was addressed (first paragraph). if youre talking about my saying “it simply doesnt,” likening that to “i just like green,” then youre referring to another question, which i didnt say id already answered (second paragraph).

I’ll concede your point for the sake of staying on target here, atleast as much as is possible.

no, not as cavalier with murder in general; but maybe still cavalier to you. yes, i have grieved over persons murdered. assuming that i consider it murder, yes, i would prohibit a murderer from murdering. no, i dont grieve over every person (born, adult, etc.) murdered, so its unlikely that i would grieve for an unborn child “murdered” in the womb. your last question presupposes grief i dont experience for those “murdered” by abortion.

Can we address your thoughts about why killing a human in the womb is not murder, and killing a human outside the womb is? Without resorting to legalisms and definitions of citizenship as prescribed by this country, can you explain just your basic morality surrounding the difference in justification of killing a human 1 second before it’s born as contrasted with a lack of justification of killing that human 1 second after it emerges from the birth canal?

This presupposes you have some set of guiding morals upon which you judge the rightness and wrongness of an act. We can make that presupposition, yes?

 

[hazmat]

for the sake of staying on target–yeah, right. lol. you said “The why is not answered at all,” but its in the first paragraph you quoted:

stevegc: i havent dodged any question; youre just not understanding. but im patient, so i will walk you through this: “i gave my opinion that you should be able to remove anything from your body at any time. its my view that you should have control of what goes on in your body, even it it kills.” you ask why im ok with her killing a child because its in her body… clearly, im ok with it because she wants it out of her body–thats it.

why? → "because she wants it out of her body."

what else was there… right… you took me out of context when i said “something,” and offered a halfassed concession there too. you also said this lie: “you deem independent survivability as the litmus test for passing from an easily disposable “thing” to a worthily protected ‘one’.” and this: “I’ll even grant you the notion that most women have no clue that they are terminating an actual human…” based on nothing id said. way to stay on target there.

you clearly have trouble keeping track of whats being said, and you dont even have the decency to admit when youre wrong. im not going to waste my time going back n forth with you unless you commit to correcting your behavior.

 

[SteveGC]

for the sake of staying on target–yeah, right. lol. you said “The why is not answered at all,” but its in the first paragraph you quoted: why? → "because she wants it out of her body."

what else was there… right… you took me out of context when i said “something,” and offered a halfassed concession there too.

Umm, no. I did not take you out of context. I simply revealed to you that the original poster of that objection was emphasizing the “thing” part of “something”. You posited that the opposite of “something” is “nothing” (Post 94), and I simply said, in clarification of the other posters objection, that the opposite referred to is “someone”. Hardly out of context, and hardly halfassed.

you also said this lie: “you deem independent survivability as the litmus test for passing from an easily disposable “thing” to a worthily protected ‘one’.” and this: “I’ll even grant you the notion that most women have no clue that they are terminating an actual human…” based on nothing id said. way to stay on target there.

Neither of those were lies. The first was simply an observation based on my interpretation on your post (also 94). Perhaps it was a wrong interpretation, but a lie it was not. Your second claim of lying is utterly laughable, hazmat. It was hyperbole, for crying out loud. It was used purposefully to emphasize and drive home my point that the focus of my dialogue with you was not to debate the termination of a child from the mother’s point of view, but rather from your own point of view, your own sense of morality. I based it on the fact that you seemed to be avoiding sharing what you personally felt about terminating a child’s life.

you clearly have trouble keeping track of whats being said, and you dont even have the decency to admit when youre wrong. im not going to waste my time going back n forth with you unless you commit to correcting your behavior.

Yeah, OK. Not sure what I’m “wrong” about, but since we’ve atleast clarified that I’m not the liar you just claimed me to be, I’m sure we can dispense with the accusations, and press on toward clarity, eh?

Care to now return to the discussion? We’ve left off with the ball in your court in my post #146, as follows:

Can we address your thoughts about why killing a human in the womb is not murder, and killing a human outside the womb is? Without resorting to legalisms and definitions of citizenship as prescribed by this country, can you explain just your basic morality surrounding the difference in justification of killing a human 1 second before it’s born as contrasted with a lack of justification of killing that human 1 second after it emerges from the birth canal?

This presupposes you have some set of guiding morals upon which you judge the rightness and wrongness of an act. We can make that presupposition, yes?

 

[hazmat]

and as expected, you deny n make excuses. as i said, im not going to waste my time on you. theres no use in an exchange with someone who cant follow whats being said, and is dishonest to top it off.

 

[ishii]

Umm, no. I did not take you out of context. I simply revealed to you that the original poster of that objection was emphasizing the “thing” part of “something”. You posited that the opposite of “something” is “nothing” (Post 94), and I simply said, in clarification of the other posters objection, that the opposite referred to is “someone”. Hardly out of context, and hardly halfassed.

All good points, SteveGC. But in the end, all the abortionists can do is say " I will not answer, I will not answer!" - like Barbara Boxer in response to Rick Santorum’s questions. There is no defense ultimately of the pro-abortion position. Just relativism. The thinking of a pro-abortionist is not dissimilar to the thinking of a Pol Pot, Mao, or a Stalin. Anything goes. As Mother Teresa said, If a mother can kill her unborn child, then I can kill you and you can kill me. But I appreciate the effort you make to engage the posters who sometimes come to our thread to challenge our faith. If anything, its worth it to ensure that lurkers aren’t sucked in by the simple arguments of the pro-abortionists.

Ishii

 

[SteveGC]

and as expected, you deny n make excuses. as i said, im not going to waste my time on you. theres no use in an exchange with someone who cant follow whats being said, and is dishonest to top it off.

Oh OK, hazmat.

So, tell me. Who exactly ARE you going to go waste your time with? Someone who follows precisely what you say at all times, never misinterpreting an ounce of your intended thoughts and words, despite your tip-toeing around some pretty point-blank questions? despite this being an online forum where participants have to read written words, decipher meaning among several posts, among several simultaneous conversations? Will you go waste your time with someone who never uses hyperbole to make a point? Someone who never asks questions about your moral backbone?

So what if I’ve been a bit unsuccessful in following you. Guess what? Not many on here have followed your thought process. I’d wager you won’t find nary a lurker here who can successfully summarize your points and accurately offer you the gist of your position. I wonder why that is? And I wonder why you would expect me to rise above the rest of them and clearly see your mind?

Do I deny I’m a liar? Absolutely. Any objective un-biased observer here (regardless of belief) will tell you that you are way off base in your accusation, friend. And I find it most intriguing indeed that your most offensive and off-putting posts to me have come when we’ve finally arrived at the point where I’m asking you clear and direct questions about your moral stance. Most interesting indeed that you’re looking to find any excuse you can to avoid answering these most recent questions.

When you want to dispense with the childishness, my previous post awaits a response.

thanks ishii.

 

[hazmat]

But in the end, all the abortionists can do is say " I will not answer, I will not answer!"
Ishii

im upfront about my views on abortion, ishii. i dont deny that the fetus is a living human person. i even said id be ok with abortion involving a fully grown adult in the womb. but feel free to stick your fingers in your ears, and pretend i have anything to hide despite those facts.

 

[jilly4ski]

im upfront about my views on abortion, ishii. i dont deny that the fetus is a living human person. i even said id be ok with abortion involving a fully grown adult in the womb. but feel free to stick your fingers in your ears, and pretend i have anything to hide despite those facts.

But you have yet to answer why it is ok to kill the fetus or 30 year old man before they are removed from the uterus, which is what abortion entails, and what you have continuously avoided or refused to answer.

 

[hazmat]

i already said its because you should be able to remove anything from your body at any time. thats been my position from the beginning. obviously, i place having control over what goes on in your body over whatever life is inside.

 

[jilly4ski]

i already said its because you should be able to remove anything from your body at any time. thats been my position from the beginning. obviously, i place having control over what goes on in your body over whatever life is inside.

Remove does not equal ‘do whatever you want’ with the stuff inside your body. (Especially since it is not you doing it but someone else you have hired to do it. So your answer is still a non answer.

 

[hazmat]

yes, it does; you stop carrying the fetus in your body–cant do that if its still in your body. and im not talking about someone performing an abortion against your will; control is still yours. you didnt think that reply through very well.

 

[jilly4ski]

yes, it does; you stop carrying the fetus in your body–cant do that if its still in your body. and im not talking about someone performing an abortion against your will; control is still yours. you didnt think that reply through very well.

???
Removal does not equal do whatever you want. Removal does not equal, kill it first and then remove it. So which is it? Do you advocate removal of anything that is in your body, or do you advocate do whatever you want with your body? Those are two different standards.

 

[hazmat]

i responded to that the first time you brought it up:

jilly: if its viable, and killing the fetus isnt necessary to terminate pregnancy, then the motive would just be to kill. viable fetuses aside, if it will certainly die after extraction, it serves no good purpose to ensure it dies later rather than sooner.

 

[jilly4ski]

i responded to that the first time you brought it up:

It indeed, isn’t necessary, yet it is legal and the way it is done. Yet you say abortion is fine, to first kill a viable fetus and then remove it.

 

[hazmat]

necessary to terminate pregnancy; im not saying abortion is necessary. if its not viable, i say its fine to kill it and then remove it because it will die regardless of what order you do things in. if its easier to remove it after killing it, theres no point in removing it beforehand as it dies either way.