Twelve Myths About Abortion

U.S. Independent American Party ^ | Dr. Phil Stringer

[rdb3]

Please rephrase the question.

It didn't make sense.

[MissouriRepublican]

It seems that you have based your whole arguement on the idea that children are their parents property. I think responsiblity would be a more appropriate term. Is that how you really think of it? Just destroying your own property like just tossing an old coat in the dumpster? My parents do not own me as yours do not own you. Nor did they 'own' me when I was under the age of 18.

Not anit-abortionists, (I am anti-abortion),

Why exactly are you anti- abortion if you actually believe unborn children are unconcious or 'sleeping' as you say and void of all rights until birth?

but pro-government-enforcement of anti-abortion morality folks .........

Pro-government-enforcement of anti-abortion (pro-life) morality folks.....thats me, proudly .

[Judith Anne]

Made sense to me.

[jf55510]

I read the first 2 and can't read anymore. The fact that people actually think it is alright murder these babies disgusts me.

[Dr. Octagon]

Good for you. Babies begin their lives at conception. That is where the lifecycle begins. If the lifecycle did not begin at conception, there would be nothing to abort/stop.

By the way, I want to extend a lot of credit to pro-life women, who could protect their own babies but ignore the death-by-dismemberment of other babies. It takes class to rise above the NIMBY-only attitude of those who say, "Well, I would not personally have one, but..."

To all the pro-life men, NEVER let the pro-aborts tell you this is a woman's issue and you have no rights. If that were true, fatherhood would mean nothing. If THAT were true, manhood would mean nothing. Which, coincidentally, IS the feminazi point of view...

Fathers have a natural right to protect the lives of the babies they pro-create, from conception forward. That right MUST be enshrined in law.

[rdb3]

Your "Autonomist" link has some sick stuff, my man.

[MHGinTN]

BG, with snotrag's first comment #1, it was evident that it supports the holocaust of slaughtering preborn individual human beings, snuffing at a whim the lifetime of individual humans ... to the sub-species from which snotrag arises, birth is what confers something more than just a blob of cells ... the dullard appears unaware that children (not tissue blobs that magically transfor on sudden exposure to light or air or whatever the snotrag wishes to designate) are born at varying gestational ages, that preborn children have been proven able to learn and express preferences. The entire range of activities now better understood and studied regarding the preborn has apparantly elude the snotrag in its desire to support serial killing of the unborn as an enlightened means of societal engineering. I have no use for fools/agitprops like snotrag or its butt buddy, pcl. It saddens me to see you waste so much energy and care with these self-aggrandizing death cultists.

[rdb3]

Then paraphrase it, if you don't mind.

[Brad’s Gramma]

If the lifecycle did not begin at conception, there would be nothing to abort/stop.

It's SO SIMPLE!!!!!! And yet....

[Dr. Octagon]

Good call. No one can claim to be against abortion, and then say it should be legal.

It's like saying, "I'm against slavery personally, but I don't believe that the government should end slavery!"

Such a position is psuedo-intellectual psuedo-libertarianism: it ignores the rights of babies/slaves in favor of the "liberties" of aborters/slaveowners. Same old elitism...

[Judith Anne]

First, a review to be sure we're talking about the same thing:

To: Mighty Pen

Reproductive freedom deals with the subject of conception. Once you have conceived a child, you have already reproduced yourself.

I have yet to hear any right wing extremist Republicans, surely the most hateful people on the planet, propose banning, cutting funding for, or restricting THE RIGHT TO REPRODUCE.

Have you?

rdb3, is that the post you don't understand?

[Dr. Octagon]

So simple, and yet, a challenge to the death-power of pro-aborts.

When right and wrong are abandoned, all that's left is the question of who has power. That is tyranny; the same formula that some have pushed across many years...

[rdb3]

Yes.

I don't see the point of the question, or what it is attempting to ask.

[Dr. Octagon]

Agree. Tell me that inhuman blackheart PCL hasn't invaded this thread yet!

[Brad’s Gramma]

I'm outta here. Carry on!!!!

[Dr. Octagon]

I agree. By the by, most Pregnancy Crisis Centers are staffed by volunteers (and some low-paid staff). Planned Parenthood, those baby-butchers, have some highly paid operatives who do what they do for profit; plus, Planned Parenthood is paid for by your hard-earned tax dollars to the tune of over 100 million dollars every year!

[HiTech RedNeck]

snotrag's

LOLOLOL

Let's blow our nose. *HONK* That's better. Hey it would show more respect for Hank than Hank does for the "clump of cells"! Hey Hank go read an aspirin bottle sometime; it warns about harm to the "unborn CHILD." If an aspirin bottle can be that smart, why not Mr. Kerchief?

[Dr. Octagon]

Clearly, the aspirin bottle has a higher I.Q.

[over3Owithabrain]

Your rebuttal is loaded with logical flaws - for one, it technically doesn't matter if one "cares about" an individual after the life is saved. For instance, if I tackle a sniper as he was about to shoot down an old lady, does it make my life-saving act invalid if I never see or hear of her again? Therefore, the attempt to invalidate a pro-lifer's concern for preserving the life of the unborn child, by making the assumption that they really don't care about the child after it is born, is not only highly presumptous but also illogical. Secondly, to claim Christians are violating some sacred barrier of church and state by wanting this particular sin to be outlawed, as it was for the majority of our nation's existence, is spurious. Blasphemy against the Spirit is not defined in any particular criminal act, but many sins are, and they are considered illegal in our country as well as sinful. Do you want stealing, lying under oath, trespassing, etc. made legal too, on the basis that condemnation and punishment of these acts are a matter for the Church only and not the State? Lastly, I'll leave you with this to ponder - you say it is dangerous to make a decision on what is "NOT known". Let's assume then, that science has yet to define absolutely when life begins (although every new discovery points closer and closer to conception rather than birth). Which side would you rather err on - putting an abrupt end to a fetus which may well be a human life; or, allowing that fetus to develop naturally into a human child? If we find out years from now that life unquestionably begins at conception, we will look back in horror on the holocaust we tolerated. If science proves life begins sometime after conception, be it weeks or even months, all we are guilty of is letting nature take its course without our interference.

[HiTech RedNeck]

"blasphemy against the Spirit"

Probably the most consistent view of the bible is that this sin is synonymous with the ultimate refusal to accept the Holy Spirit's call to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Even murders can be forgiven; but not this.

OK, back to our scheduled righteous rants. (It's getting late, I'm getting punchy.)