And here we have the usual semantic bull(*)(*)(*)(*). "When is a door not a door? Ah yes, when it is ajar." You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change what you're doing. And you know that. You're not stupid. George Carlin had an entire bit on people like you who change the wording of things to try to fool people into believing you're changing act. Like changing "crippled" to "differently abled." Sorry to inform you, but it doesn't make them walk any better.
In the realm of psychology, we call this projection. Where the accuser accuses someone else of their own wrong doing. As I have already demonstrated, you're the only one shifting words around in order to alter the perception of what we are debating. Unifier, I don't honestly blame you for this doing this since you have an incredibly weak argument and need every dirty trick to help strengthen you. However, in this circumstance, I will not tolerate you to use such a crutch and must call you out on it. Or, in Chuz Life's case, the definition he would use to describe your tactic is equivocating. I am sure Mr.Life would be glad to explain to you at length the lesson I taught him in that. Sometimes, people need to be humbled for their own sake.
It's a life, it can't be anything but a life. To negate its existence as a life, we would have to say that women are not impregnated. The pro-abortion argument is completely and utterly illogical, but despite the illogical fallacy of it, the pro-abortionist will believe in his/her supremacy up until reform is actually presented or never. Much the same way as Slavery was. Slavery and Abortion are precisely the same where a minority were treated as unhuman and where laws didn't protect them. Where those of us are pro-life can cling our hats to, is that the Supreme Court once supported, then denounced its support for slavery. If history repeats itself, in the next few decades we'll make enough of a push to significantly reduce abortion on a national scale.
Your paragraph is a microcosm of nearly every pro-"life" argument I've seen on this forum; incoherent, ignorant and idealistic. - Incoherent because in one sentence, you condemn it to be "utterly illogical" and then suddenly submit to it being logical with your double negative. - Ignorant because you think anyone here is disputing whether a fetus is alive or not. - Idealistic because you believe those who support abortion only harbor a feeling of supremacy due to it's legality and not because of it's own moral superiority. My hat is off to you for capturing the very essence of your movement with so few words.
This is completely hilarious, are you sure you're not talking to yourself? Secondly, you seem to have trouble comprehending the english language. I said "illogical", that means it LACKS logic. I said that the pro-abortionist will in spite of its lack of logic continue to support it. That didn't give it merit of logic or legitimacy, it acknowledged that YOU gave it legitimacy. That's like saying a murderer will murder people, but that doesn't mean I agree with or even comprehend his sense of logic or values. It's even more laughable that you charge me with ignorance on the account of whether anyone's disputing whether the fetus is alive or not. Is that not what the pro-abortionist is essentially disputing? The pro-abortionist claims that the fetus or the zygote is effectively not a human,therefore the mother who carries it has the right to execute it(abort it). Is this not what your claim is? Or does abortion do something entirely different from what we think it does? Do enlighten us to this supposed lack of knowledge we've had since Abortion's inception. Finally, I can't believe you made the claim that abortion holds "moral superiority", in spite of everything we've already covered but from someone who couldn't even read my post I guess there should be no surprise. For this in particular, I'll gladly use links. http://dictionary.sensagent.com/moral%20superiority/en-en/ So, where is Abortion, or better said, Pro-Choice morally superior to pro-life? The ability to be a demi-god over the rights to live or die, on the account of one's own economic convenience. We'll allow for rape, incest, etc. But there's thousands of studies confirming the statistical irrelevancy of those categories with which liberals love to make a moral argument about. So, go on, without those convenient excuses, make a claim for your moral supremacy you think you have. The Pro-life side doesn't need to make a claim for its moral supremacy, it has already been established. I'd like to make a friendly remark about your nick name and the irony of your segment right here: Babylon refers to the fallen city, the naked women under drunken fire. You, who supports a fallacy are precisely indeed the representation of Babylon.
A Little experiment; I believe in taking things at face value...The important thing is the statement... I advocated for the lynching of blacks all of the above are your words, when read as quoted they mean something very different to what you actually said .. that is what pro-lifers do, and that is what is deceitful, if Sanger was as bad as you say, why do pro-lifers feel the need to misquote, quote out of context and basically lie about what she said and wrote? You comment on her quote the "most merciful thing a family could do to a sibling is to kill it", is again taken completely out of context (and quoted incorrectly), when read with the rest of the article it is obvious that she is being ironic, not prescriptive, when you read the entire item where she cites statistics that show how many children die within the first year due to poverty causing malnutrition. This is the typical misquote taken out of context that pro-lifers use/ so now you decide that taking things at face value "is a joke", because based on the "face value" of her own words she was very much pro-life as far as abortion was concerned.- - http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=232534.xml another person who pretty much puts some of the pro-lifers stance into prospective is Dr. Hirsch with the following - the above statement requires evidence to support it, and regardless of that a woman should still have the right to control her reproductive decisions. Then we will have to agree to disagree on what she (& PP) actually provided. tell you what when a man conceives, carries and births then and only then can they make the decisions on a woman's womb, you want equality on pregnancy then find a way to get pregnant, perhaps a woman should have equal rights on whether a man gets a vasectomy. women were treated as nothing more than chattel, she only received income from the man that he deemed necessary, she had no re-course against rape within marriage, she was discriminated against in the workplace with lower wages and harassment .. and you say they were equal what really pisses pro-lifers off is the fact that women are now more in control of their own lives, they don't need a man to support them any more and that scares the hell out of some men. If you believe the above then all I have to say is the following - "On average, full-time working women earn just 80 cents for every dollar a man earns. This significant gap is more than a statistic -- it has real life consequences. When women, who make up nearly half the workforce, bring home less money each day, it means they have less for the everyday needs of their families, and over a lifetime of work, far less savings for retirement." http://www.harvardindependent.com/2...kplace-education-does-not-equal-success-1201/ when it has the same effect on a man's body then I agree, until then it is purely in the domain of the woman. That is only one definition of science - how about another one - - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/science I would say that Eugenics meets the criteria of that definition. That is purely your opinion with nothing to back it up. .
Fair enough, I will from now on then quote your words as I see fit whether they are in context or not is irrelevant to reflecting your views .. let us see how long it is before you claim I am misquoting or misrepresenting what you say.
You redundantly wrote illogical fallacy. An illogical fallacy makes as much sense as an untruthful lie; it's redundant, and applied with the rule of a double negative, you are actually saying we are logical. What you were attempting to say was "the logical fallacy" or just use illogical or fallacy separately. The word illogical and fallacy are practically synonymous in meaning. You are asking me if anyone is disputing whether the fetus is alive or not? You tell me. Here, you are asking me to guide you to better understand my own movement yet earlier you ignorantly claim that there is dispute over whether the unborn is alive. I don't know if you are either naturally ignorant or being idealistic in wanting to pretend this is something we actually believe. Whether the fetus is human or not is irrelevant and not even a personal claim of mine. My claim would be that a human fetus doesn't require such rights because abortion could not violate it in any way or form since it lacks an ability to know that it is alive and also lacks any sense of pain. Whether the human fetus is a human or a person is fairly irrelevant. We don't have rights just because we won the species lottery. I would love to enlighten you. The biggest identity problem with the pro-"life" movement today is that you don't oppose abortion nor are for saving human life either. In fact, you protesting abortion has absolutely nothing to do with abortion at all. The pro-"life" movement is effectively one big kneejerk reaction to the concept that women can now choose not to be mothers. You are what we'd call a useful idiot to your cause. The Soviet Union had useful idiots here in the West; the educated, liberal elite who endorsed communism yet had not real idea about how it worked in practice. You too serve as a useful idiot for a gang of pedophiles who live in Rome; you are uneducated, your knowledge of the abortion debate is fairly superficial and your movement wants to keep you this way. Much like you, I use to be a pro-"life" tool until further investigation; the people you condemn as "pro-abortionists" are the only ones who are responsible for saving human life. Laws which have liberalized abortion are responsible for saving far more human lives by reducing the rate of maternal morbidity than laws which prohibit abortion that fail to have any affect in reducing abortion. Today, 20,000,000 criminal abortions go completely ignored by your movement...much like abortion was ignored by the pro-"life" movement until the threat of legalization. As a result, a conservative estimate of 70,000 women die yearly from unsafe abortions and millions more are permanently maimed by them. At what expense are we doing this at? To protect fetal life? Why? If the majority of abortions are killing an organism which isn't conscious, lacks emotions and cannot feel pain, why would it be immoral to destroy it at preserving the life of an organism which has emotions, feels pain and is conscious? In conclusion, it seems immoral to me to propose a law which not only fails to reduce the rate of abortions, but only succeeds in killing and maiming scores of other people. And, to do this at the expense of attempting to preserve a life that could not be harmed by it's own death. So the moral superiority is on our side. Now, when your kind is done hijacking the term pro-"life", you need to give it back to us. It would be the honorable thing to do...assuming you find quality in such a trait. You're a moral abomination and make a mockery of "life."
Oh, I see, so if a "child" is conceived through rape or incest than it is okay to play "demi-god over the rights to live or die of one's own economic convenience." Yet, if you are conceived through consentual intercourse, then you are magically protected. I see! Very consistent. You REALLY think pro-"lifers" care if you get raped and need an abortion? They don't. It is actually a song.
Have you encountered any instances where someone asserted that a fetus is not alive or that it exists? It is a fetus that you are referring to in this instance is it not? In what way? You have not offered any evidence or reasoning to support such an assertion. How is a fetus treated as "unhuman" whatever that means? That would be a good outcome if achieved, but what methods do you think will achieve those goals?
How is it treated as inhuman? http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/
Why oh why do you insist on posting links to things that have, for the most, been proven to be fake .. for instance the Malachi picture. so yet again we have pro-lifers using items that they twist to adhere to their agenda. Pro-lifers do themselves no favours when they have to resort to faked pictures and misrepresentation of peoples words, it is far to easy to show the dishonest nature of what they claim as real.
Yes, that was the question I asked. I wonder, why you are asking the same thing as a reply to my question? Care to make a proper answer? As for the photographs, I fail to see the relevance other than perpetuating lies. Why do you feel the need to do so?
Thought I'd resurrect this thread as it seems the misrepresentations, out of context quotes and lies about Sanger have surfaced yet again.
11 year olds are not babies ? Pleasure is good. What is wrong with promoting pleasure? What is with these control freaks who can not stand the idea that others are having sex.
Do you really think all rape victims want to abort their baby? http://suewidemark.com/aborrape.htm PS:Men have killed women for aborting their baby.
No, not all women want to abort their rapist's kid but they should always have the CHOICE. Not sure what your comment about men killing women who aborted their baby has to do with anything. Yes, it's still her body, she did not give up her rights when she became pregnant. Yes, if a man "father's a child" that means it's been born and he has rights to it.
Just wanted to say: Good job on the OP. Well presented and a thorough job of debunking throughout the thread. Thanks.
I see you didn't read the post of mine you quoted: Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post No, not all women want to abort their rapist's kid but they should always have the CHOICE. Not sure what your comment about men killing women who aborted their baby has to do with anything. Yes, it's still her body, she did not give up her rights when she became pregnant. Yes, if a man "father's a child" that means it's been born and he has rights to it.""""""" It is not a "child". Just saying, "it's a child" means nothing, proves nothing , changes nothing.....Try looking up in medical or legal dictionaries, or in law, the definition of fetus, child...educate yourself ... I suggest you try learning about abortion here. Do a search for person or personhood. Or go to the Debate Forum and debate whether a zygote/fetus is a person or not...(go prepared!)
I suggest you read this: https://www.au.org/church-state/nov...lletin/missouri-law-says-personhood-begins-at ..and if a fetus is not a person;Why are there laws on the books to charge for double murder if a woman with a baby is killed? http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx in 38 states no less. Go ahead and try to spin the dichotomy,but it is what it is.
It has to do with consent. The killer took away the woman's CHOICE, ...sound familiar? He did not have her consent. The UVVA laws covering these acts exempt abortion. No spin necessary, just knowing the law. And here's the post of mine you quoted but ignored....for convenience sake Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post I see you didn't read the post of mine you quoted: Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post No, not all women want to abort their rapist's kid but they should always have the CHOICE. Not sure what your comment about men killing women who aborted their baby has to do with anything. Yes, it's still her body, she did not give up her rights when she became pregnant. Yes, if a man "father's a child" that means it's been born and he has rights to it.""""""" It is not a "child". Just saying, "it's a child" means nothing, proves nothing , changes nothing.....Try looking up in medical or legal dictionaries, or in law, the definition of fetus, child...educate yourself ... I suggest you try learning about abortion here. Do a search for person or personhood. Or go to the Debate Forum and debate whether a zygote/fetus is a person or not...(go prepared!)
Do you think your link proves something? Do you think because some Missouri state legislators made a religious belief into law that makes it true? If fetuses were really persons, why would we need special homicide laws for them? We already have laws against murder. It's not what you think it is.
