Nystyle709 wrote:

Is he the only child? If he is....I'm SURE he would love a little brother or sister. Why can't you raise my kid and yours together?

Somebody being dependent for sustenance doesn't make them less of a human. Babies won't live without being fed either so I guess infanticide is okay.

Certain drugs, with recent bills there will be limits on certain surgeries. I don't think we can choose to donate necessary organs before we're dead.

Who in the bleep forces a grown woman to get an abortion? A controlling person! Yes it does happen, all the time. Not to mention many women are not given accurate info about abortion from the clinic, hence they don't make an informed choice. So yes, it does happen, and it isn't reaching into the stratosphere. It's just the dark side folks pretend not to see.

The problem isn't with me.

*feels touched. *writes story about it

Why? gee

Nystyle709 wrote:

Yeah, why? Why won't you take care of my baby?

Notice I said necessary organs, necessary to us. ie hearts, etc. If I wanna give my heart to somebody, I can't just have them cut it out. You know full well I don't mean kidneys(although even now, I can give only one, what if I wanna give two?). The things the government will prohibit us from doing soon are different than that.

The reason you ban it is cause it's wrongful killing. The fact that forcing DOES happen is just another proof of how "Pro-Choice" is an illusion.

So are you saying that in order to be outraged that somebody else was killed cause they were unwanted, you have to be willing to take them in? So in other words, if some screwball mayor decides he wants to have the police start executing the homeless in the streets, you have no right bein outraged unless you are willing to take each and everyone in yourself? Andrea Yates, do I have a right to be mad at her for drowning her kids without being willing to invite them all in? Sorry, the logic just isn't there on that one. The senseless murder of another human being should be offensive to all, regardless of whether or not you are willing to take them all in yourself. Sorry, that logic just fails. And as for where the problem REALLY lies, I'd say it's not with me. It's the fact that you don't want me raising your kid.

No way! I don't share my writing with just anybody. Plus, you really don't wanna read it.

Another playmate eh? You're almost tempting me girl. *writes another story about this

Question for you: If a white supremacist town wants to evict all it's Minority residents, without compensating them for their property(under the guise of Whites being the only ones who are really humans), and also threatening to shoot dead all those who don't go willingly, would you be upset if that was allowed to go on in America, and would you be willing to let the entire minority population of said town stay in your house?

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Aren't we ALL just clumps of cells? The idea that a baby and bacteria are the same things is ridiculous. But I guess rationalizing that it can't be a human is how one justifies doing it. That's what the Nazi's did with Jews. It's what bigots did to blacks. Now it's what we do to unborn babies who aren't wanted. Of course it's a baby. Bacteria you wash off your hands is not a human being. A baby in the womb is, and it is by every valid definition. It's just the hard facts of how it is. We can call it a clump of cells of that makes us feel better. It's always easier to kill somebody when you've reasoned that they either deserve it or just don't deserve to live anymore.

So when is the magic moment when it goes from "clump of cells" to baby? I've always wondered that, and I always get different answers. There must be a magic moment afterall.

And I don't support the idea of killing children because they are unwanted. Once you create them, they are there. I suppose we could apply that logic to born people too, killing the ones society doesn't want. Oh wait, we've done that in history already. Nevermind then.

I'm inclined to agree. A baby doesn't magically become a baby from a clump of cells when it goes down the birth canal. If you cut open the stomach of a woman who is 7 months pregnant, you are going to find a BODY in there, not a 'clump of cells'. AND, I've always said if the baby is far enough along that if it HAS to survive outside of the womb, it CAN, how can that not qualify as a person? Oh sure, some people say 'well depending on how far along they are, they'd have to be kept on machines to stay alive'. Only temporarily, then they can go home after a while. But does that mean if a person has to be on oxygen 24/7, it's okay to kill them since they can't survive without machines?

Supernova wrote:

I'm inclined to agree. A baby doesn't magically become a baby from a clump of cells when it goes down the birth canal. If you cut open the stomach of a woman who is 7 months pregnant, you are going to find a BODY in there, not a 'clump of cells'. AND, I've always said if the baby is far enough along that if it HAS to survive outside of the womb, it CAN, how can that not qualify as a person? Oh sure, some people say 'well depending on how far along they are, they'd have to be kept on machines to stay alive'. Only temporarily, then they can go home after a while. But does that mean if a person has to be on oxygen 24/7, it's okay to kill them since they can't survive without machines?

Yep, yep, a lot of the things people use to define when a baby is a "person" would also disqualify many born people from being people. It's another reason why I feel it quite a dangerous and slippery slope to go around declaring that they aren't human.

Or alive either...there was a story of a baby that lived for TWO DAYS after an abortion, then died. Okay, if it's not alive when it's aborted, how does it LIVE after it's been aborted? AND, how can something that was never alive die?

Supernova wrote:

Or alive either...there was a story of a baby that lived for TWO DAYS after an abortion, then died. Okay, if it's not alive when it's aborted, how does it LIVE after it's been aborted? AND, how can something that was never alive die?

There is a story about a girl who survived an abortion(obviously a specific kind of one) and is still alive. Of course the abortion deformed her, but she is alive and is a living testimony. I agree with all of your points. And as technology increases, we're seeing more and more proof about how babies are very much human at even younger and younger ages.

And here's something else to think about. All research says the same thing, that unborn babies do have dreams...do dead people dream? No, then how does something that's not alive yet?

AND, a long time back about...17 or 18 years, there was a commercial on TV about a woman who was aborted but she survived and she was a normal looking woman, and it makes you think, how does something that's not alive, survive an abortion and go on to become a living human which can grow up?

Supernova wrote:

And here's something else to think about. All research says the same thing, that unborn babies do have dreams...do dead people dream? No, then how does something that's not alive yet?

AND, a long time back about...17 or 18 years, there was a commercial on TV about a woman who was aborted but she survived and she was a normal looking woman, and it makes you think, how does something that's not alive, survive an abortion and go on to become a living human which can grow up?

Interesting. No the dead don't dream. If you believe in an afterlife, there is that but that would hardly be classified as a dream.

Yep, I agree. I fail to see the logic behind it saying it isn't alive/a person.

And I don't agree with the idea that unborn babies can't feel pain either, so it wouldn't feel anything during an abortion. If there was a grown person who couldn't move and couldn't speak so made no sign of being in pain while being cut into pieces, which is how some abortions are performed, does that PROVE that they can't feel pain? No it doesn't. Or how about having a large pair of forceps on you to twist and tear you apart until your bones are broken and your spine is severed? Does that sound painless, anybody? Not to me. Or how about being given a poison that burns off your outer skin? Oh yeah that sounds VERY humane to me. Or how about the partial birth abortions where they pull the baby out and JAM SCISSORS INTO THE SKULL? Since it's all very humane, why don't they deliver death penalties on people like that?

Supernova wrote:

And I don't agree with the idea that unborn babies can't feel pain either, so it wouldn't feel anything during an abortion. If there was a grown person who couldn't move and couldn't speak so made no sign of being in pain while being cut into pieces, which is how some abortions are performed, does that PROVE that they can't feel pain? No it doesn't. Or how about having a large pair of forceps on you to twist and tear you apart until your bones are broken and your spine is severed? Does that sound painless, anybody? Not to me. Or how about being given a poison that burns off your outer skin? Oh yeah that sounds VERY humane to me. Or how about the partial birth abortions where they pull the baby out and JAM SCISSORS INTO THE SKULL? Since it's all very humane, why don't they deliver death penalties on people like that?

How can you really PROVE that anybody feels pain? I mean if somebody ignores the screams of agonies and pleas to stop(chalking it all up to involuntary reflexes, an extreme example but not totally incomprehensible a possibility), they could argue that any person doesn't feel pain. So I agree, the idea that unborn babies don't feel pain is fairly ludicrous, not that it would make abortion any less heinous if true. Murdering somebody quickly and peacefully in their sleep so they won't feel it doesn't really make it right.

Yes, the way they perform abortions is pretty darn brutal. I have yet to ever hear a valid justification for partial birth abortion. But hey, sometimes we even deliver babies and lock them in closets with "Do not feed" signs on them. Anything to get rid of the unwanted people. Why don't they execute people like that? Because we'd never hear the end of it from the leftist groups, many of whom are passionately supportive of abortion. It's indeed quite a sad state, and to make it sadder, it's all legal.

And the real kick in the head of it all is very few of these women who go into these procedures, I'm guessing, ever had a gun to their head and were told to sleep with a guy. Oh sure, it's a part of life, it's also a part of biology, the reproductive part...vaginal sex with a fertile man is likely to = pregnancy. If you can't handle being pregnant, there are ways to go about that.

And I think back to Salt-N-Pepa's song Let's Talk About Sex, the line 'protect yourself, or don't have sex anymore', well you have that same choice when you don't want to get pregnant. Sure it may not be fair because you want to have a good time and have a good orgasm with somebody, but whoever said life was fair? It'll feel good at the time also for a diabetic to drink an ice cream shake that has 266 grams of sugar (there really is a shake with that much sugar in it if you can believe it) but there's going to be a big price to pay for them indulging in that good time..

Supernova wrote:

And the real kick in the head of it all is very few of these women who go into these procedures, I'm guessing, ever had a gun to their head and were told to sleep with a guy. Oh sure, it's a part of life, it's also a part of biology, the reproductive part...vaginal sex with a fertile man is likely to = pregnancy. If you can't handle being pregnant, there are ways to go about that.

And I think back to Salt-N-Pepa's song Let's Talk About Sex, the line 'protect yourself, or don't have sex anymore', well you have that same choice when you don't want to get pregnant. Sure it may not be fair because you want to have a good time and have a good orgasm with somebody, but whoever said life was fair? It'll feel good at the time also for a diabetic to drink an ice cream shake that has 266 grams of sugar (there really is a shake with that much sugar in it if you can believe it) but there's going to be a big price to pay for them indulging in that good time..

Yes, most abortions are the result of consensual sex. I think even sadder is that a surprisingly high number of women probably wouldn't go through with it if given a simple ultrasound of their baby, or if given all the facts about how it's done. IMO, not all women who do it do it totally selfishly. A lot are lied to, or pressured into it by the babydaddy's.

There would be a big price to pay for indulging in that latter good time even if you aren't diabetic.(You couldn't pay me to go near that) I agree, good times have prices. In the case of pregnancy, that price is that you just created a new human life, and it's unfair to that life to snuff it out just cause it's inconvenient.

I'm pro-choice, but I do think that after her second abortion she needs to get taxed more. The way I see it, if you have more than one non medical abortion, you're using it as birth control and need to be in some way sanctioned for it.

Kral wrote:

I'm 100% pro-choice. Not "pro-abortion"...pro-choice! If I became pregnant, I'd keep it most likely but no one is going to make that choice but me. I agree with the other pro-choicers here who asked "what are you [pro-lifers] going to do to help out with the baby's well being after it's born?" Are you gonna buy diapers or formula for my baby when I'm in a tight financial situation, or are you gonna instead go preach to the next pregnant woman about abortion being murder?

The problem with your logic is that financial burdens don't justify killing somebody. The concept is just fatally flawed. Somebody has to buy you diapers and formula to tell you not to kill your kid? The logic is just weird, paying somebody to not kill their kid.(Oh right, it's not a kid unless you want it) It's kind of like holding your kid up for random: "Take care of him for me or I kill him." Let's see how that works with other age groups. "Are you going to support my older mother who needs a nursing home? If not, don't tell me not to shoot her up with morphine." "My teenage kid had an accident and is disabled and I can't take care of him. Unless you're offering to pay the medical bills, I'm having him killed." "My bum son eats a lot and refuses to get off his butt and get a job, and he's 26. Unless you're going to fork over money for him, I'm killing him." In the end, there is no difference, aside from the fact that the law pretty much doesn't tolerate the last three(yet).

Nystyle709 wrote:

LOL, conservative dramatism. Like I said before.....you can't compare something with no sentience to an actual live, in the flesh, breathing being. Point blank. You can't slice that.

What if a person doesn't want a mess and just wants them to surgically remove the heart without the need for that? Especially due to the fact that putting a bullet in your head just might kill the organs too. They don't typically take the organs of somebody who is stone cold dead, just brain dead.

Again, animals are not people, and it amazes me that people actually try to compare the two. If you don't think animals aren't different than people, than I want Fido to start having to pay taxes.

So if somebody decides the best decision for them is to drown their child, I have to be willing to take it in in order to have any outrage?

But it is murder, cause the embryos are merely tiny people. Anybody with eyes can see that.

So you'll kill him instead? Well, better that the libs stop reproducing. Let them kill themselves off. Besides, I know you never seriously wanted me raising your kid anyway(but the little imaginary life of your kid and little Joey was quite funny). Besides, I love how libs accuse you of being "close-minded" when you disagree with them. lol So darn hypocritical. The people saying it's impossible that a child is alive before it's born(based on the proof "Come on, how could it be alive?") are accusing others of being close-minded. lol No chance the left wing whackos are the close-minded ones?

Maybe it's fairly a liberal novel. Not everyone who doesn't like killing unborn babies is a right wing whackjob.(Anybody with a conscious, I'd say, would be on the same boat)

Nah, I wouldn't care what race he/she is. I'd welcome diversity with open arms. I'm sure everyone else in the house would too. See, we don't discriminate against you just cause you are different, or because you are smaller or because society doesn't want you. BTW, if you are worried about prejudice, the abortion industry is where the prejudice lies. That's a whole different area of the issue right there, how abortion has become a racist thing.

Liberal ignorance of facts: Yes I can compare because an embryo is by every valid definition, a human life. It's not some bacteria with no sentience, that's just the lie people tell themselves to hide from the guilt of killing it. There's no science backing it up at all, just leftist notions that make no sense. All of the comparisons I've made are valid, but nobody can ever answer them beyond the "but it's different with abortion" cop-out, cause there is no answer to them without admitting the ridiculous notion that abortion doesn't kill a human. Of course, it would be nice to hear somebody actually answer the comparisons with a real answer, of course then their arguments might dry up a bit.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

What if a person doesn't want a mess and just wants them to surgically remove the heart without the need for that? Especially due to the fact that putting a bullet in your head just might kill the organs too. They don't typically take the organs of somebody who is stone cold dead, just brain dead.

Again, animals are not people, and it amazes me that people actually try to compare the two. If you don't think animals aren't different than people, than I want Fido to start having to pay taxes.

So if somebody decides the best decision for them is to drown their child, I have to be willing to take it in in order to have any outrage?

But it is murder, cause the embryos are merely tiny people. Anybody with eyes can see that.

So you'll kill him instead? Well, better that the libs stop reproducing. Let them kill themselves off. Besides, I know you never seriously wanted me raising your kid anyway(but the little imaginary life of your kid and little Joey was quite funny). Besides, I love how libs accuse you of being "close-minded" when you disagree with them. lol So darn hypocritical. The people saying it's impossible that a child is alive before it's born(based on the proof "Come on, how could it be alive?") are accusing others of being close-minded. lol No chance the left wing whackos are the close-minded ones?

Maybe it's fairly a liberal novel. Not everyone who doesn't like killing unborn babies is a right wing whackjob.(Anybody with a conscious, I'd say, would be on the same boat)

Nah, I wouldn't care what race he/she is. I'd welcome diversity with open arms. I'm sure everyone else in the house would too. See, we don't discriminate against you just cause you are different, or because you are smaller or because society doesn't want you. BTW, if you are worried about prejudice, the abortion industry is where the prejudice lies. That's a whole different area of the issue right there, how abortion has become a racist thing.

Liberal ignorance of facts: Yes I can compare because an embryo is by every valid definition, a human life. It's not some bacteria with no sentience, that's just the lie people tell themselves to hide from the guilt of killing it. There's no science backing it up at all, just leftist notions that make no sense. All of the comparisons I've made are valid, but nobody can ever answer them beyond the "but it's different with abortion" cop-out, cause there is no answer to them without admitting the ridiculous notion that abortion doesn't kill a human. Of course, it would be nice to hear somebody actually answer the comparisons with a real answer, of course then their arguments might dry up a bit.

. All I'm going to do is keep repeating myself and you're going to do the same. So I'm done......for real. The last thing I will say, in which you obviously don't seem to get, is pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It's an OPTION. One of the foundations in the US Constitution was to separate church from state. You don't impose your morality on me and the government doesn't have the right to either. You 'think' life begins at conception, I say it doesn't. I'm 100% positive you don't remember being conceived anymore than you remember gestating in your mother's womb. You have capital punishment in which the government legally has the right to kill another human being, which you have no problem with, but you have a problem with abortion which is the "killing" (your words not mine) of a human embryo (not a being)? Killing is killing (I'm going off your argument here) whether it's an "innocent" life or a serial killer. Whether it's an animal or a bacteria. If there is the option for capital punishment, why can't there be an option for abortion? Roe vs Wade was enacted because you had so many women getting illegal abortions and dying from them. Most abortions that are done are safe and are done within the first trimester of a pregnancy. You are terminating a pregnancy, a physical state that a woman's body is in, a state that a woman has to endure, a state that a woman has the right to decide if she wants to endure. If a woman gets an abortion, she's going to go on living so I don't understand why you're saying she's killing a life, lol . This is the definition of life darling:

Main Entry: ¹life
Pronunciation: \ˈlīf\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural lives \ˈlīvz\
Etymology: Middle English lif, from Old English līf; akin to Old English libban to live — more at live
Date: before 12th century

1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b : one or more aspects of the process of living
3 : biography 1
4 : spiritual existence transcending physical death
5 a : the period from birth to death b : a specific phase of earthly existence c : the period from an event until death d : a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's life
6 : a way or manner of living
7 : livelihood
8 : a vital or living being; specifically : person lives were lost in the disaster>
9 : an animating and shaping force or principle
10 : spirit, animation dancing>
11 : the form or pattern of something existing in reality
12 : the period of duration, usefulness, or popularity of something
13 : the period of existence (as of a subatomic particle) — compare half-life
14 : a property (as resilience or elasticity) of an inanimate substance or object resembling the animate quality of a living being
15 : living beings (as of a particular kind or environment)
16 a : human activities b : animate activity and movement c : the activities of a given sphere, area, or time
17 : one providing interest and vigor party>
18 : an opportunity for continued viability
19 capitalized Christian Science : god 1b
20 : something resembling animate life

And this is from Webster's dictionary. Want to dispute that, I'd suggest you take it up with the proper people. Now I'm off to go shopping. It's my birthday!!!!

^^^^Pro-Choice DOES mean Pro-Abortion because it's NEVER USED to defend ANY OTHER CHOICE other than one to have an abortion.

Those definitions seem to me to indicate that an unborn child is alive, not to mention the Science behind it being not alive is ridiculous. So your definition proves my point(especially the first def), thank you!

And as for your comment about a woman going on living after an abortion, it's just so darn blind to the point, it's not even funny. Serial killers go on living after killing too.

Nystyle709 wrote:

. Seems to you? You are helpless. You are even going to twist the words of the definition in the dictionary to fit you're own argument. I'm done for real. Bye!

I get the argument, I just feel it's about as ridiculous as saying "I am personally against hate crimes and would never commit one myself, but who am I to force my view on other people?"

I don't have to twist the definition. It clear as day supports the view that the human child is alive in the womb.(It's not as if it is dead, and to claim it inanimate would be just ridiculous. ) And of course, the baby meets the definition of being human quite easily. The idea that it is anything less than a human is absurd. It's a human being and abortion(assuming it's successful) kills a human being. It's just the science of the issue that people ignore cause, well, it's just more convenient to label them not humans. Just like it was more convenient to call slaves 3/5 of a person back in the 1800's, now we consider unborn babies somehow less than human. Yes, it's not much different. I can compare it because both involve the degrading of people who meet the definition, but whom society has decided that it doesn't want to be considered human.

You are done? Thanks!