13-Year-Old Girl Gets Publicly Shouted Down When She Compares Abortion To Slavery

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Mac-7, Jun 12, 2019.

  1. James Evans

    James Evans Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2018
    Messages:
    2,038
    Likes Received:
    846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And I could show you the picture of a cuddly kitten to help your emotions override your judgement.

    [​IMG]

    It's horrible how people trea…….wait this is an abortion thread......
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  2. Doug1943

    Doug1943 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We naturally feel 'sympathy' -- 'same-suffering' -- for creatures that we can identify with. (Of course, not everyone feels 'sympathy' for others: there are various pathologies, biological in nature, which mean that some people are born with only limited amounts of this capacity, or none at all.)

    This sympathy is, however, subject to social influences, which are directed above all to the survival of the group. In the state of nature, the imperative to survive means that sympathy for rival human tribes, or animals, is suppressed. Only as society evolves can our 'sympathy' begin to extend beyond our tribe -- even to other species. (People from advanced nations who travel in Third World countries are often shocked by the way animals are treated there. But this was normal for us, as well, not so long ago.) The legal requirement that prisoners of war be treated humanely is also a recent development, and one that is seldom honored when conflict is tribal (even in advanced countries, as witness the former Yugoslavia.)

    A sperm-just-embedded-in-an-egg is so different from us, that only people who are rigidly following the logical consequences of their religion would consider it a person. But give that sperm-and-egg a few months to develop, and it looks so much like us that only someone rigidly following the logical consequences of their philosophical reasoning, like the philosopher Peter Singer [Sally: take him back!] would consider treating it in the same way most of us would treat a sperm-embedded-in-an-egg. We permit the morning-after pill, but not a 270-mornings-after pill.

    The problem with the abortion question is that there is no clear line that separates the sperm-in-an-egg from a baby. All legal lines -- x weeks -- have an arbitrary quality.

    There is no really satisfactory way around this at the moment. We must hope that advances in biological technology will eventually permit women to conceive when they want to, and not otherwise, without a lot of clumsy apparatus, or the requirement to remember to take a pill, with possibly bad medical effects, daily.

    This debate tends to bring out the worst in everyone: pro-abortion people have to harden their hearts, or avert their gaze, from the gruesome photographs of borderline cases where little creatures which look a lot like us are having their spines snapped. Anti-abortion people often seem to have used up all their sympathy for little ones on fetuses, with none left for the two-year-old and her mother desperate to escape the gang-ridden hell of Honduras.

    But it does provide a wonderful opportunity for what the psychologists call 'selective attention'.
     
  3. Raffishragabash

    Raffishragabash Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,977
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Is that your morse code for finally, admitting, slave-owners are the same thing as women seeking abortions?
     
  4. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    :) Whacka whacka honk honk :)



    :) In your mind it may ! :) But your confusion is not my concern :)


    Did you know that Morse code is dots and dashes...
     
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    kazenatsu:Why do pro-choicers keep bringing it up in the general abortion debate then?


    WHAT !!!?
    OMGAWD that is exactly what Republicans, righties, Anti-Choicers want to do !!

    They want women to have NO option but to gestate !

    You just said it here "if it's soon enough after the rape"...there, that is taking away the woman's option..right there you did it giving her only one "option" which isn't an option when their are no choices...



    Anti-Choicers idea of Forcing a woman to gestate her rapist's kid is WHY PRO-CHOICERS KEEP BRINGING UP RAPE.

    YOU ASKED ….NOW DO YOU KNOW WHY?


    To protect raped women from being raped again by another entity that wants to FORCE her, CONTROL her, ENSLAVE her, CAUSE her PAIN JUST LIKE THE RAPIST DID.



    You ask why Pro-Choicers bring up rape?

    Well, first Pro-Choicers wouldn't have to bring up anything if Anti-Choicers weren't so hell bent on taking away women's rights.
     
  6. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not anti choice

    Women can choose to not have sex with losers and deadbeats

    But I am pro life when it involves an innocent unborn child
     
  7. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    notme said:
    yes...

    the GOP thinks a person in prison will make enough money to support a child he made through rape,

    and supports the idea that the victim of the rape should financially tied up to him as well. Next thing you know, the GOP demands that he gets to visit his child to threaten the mother again with rape.""""""






    FoxHastings: The poster NEVER said "" most women get pregnant through rape" AS YOU CLAIMED.

    So, AGAIN, Anti-Choicers have to make things up to ever have anything resembling a coherent argument.









    You didn't address the post you quoted. Repeating your position is not addressing the post....and does not refute a word of it.
     
  8. Raffishragabash

    Raffishragabash Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,977
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83

    Good.

    Because your concern, should be focused on how that 13-yr-old in the video hath capsized your entire abortion premise.
     
  9. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No, she hasn't.....

    Women still have the right to their own body like everyone else and this girl never explained why that should change.
     
  10. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Ya, it looks exactly like an adult 26 year old...

    But let's call it a "baby" since Anti-Choicers think every stage in humans is a "baby".
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  11. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I fully addressed your point about rapists

    Unborn humans are guilty of no crime and have a right to life
     
  12. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    notme said:
    yes...

    the GOP thinks a person in prison will make enough money to support a child he made through rape,

    and supports the idea that the victim of the rape should financially tied up to him as well. Next thing you know, the GOP demands that he gets to visit his child to threaten the mother again with rape.""""""



    FoxHastings: The poster NEVER said "" most women get pregnant through rape" AS YOU CLAIMED.

    So, AGAIN, Anti-Choicers have to make things up to ever have anything resembling a coherent argument.




    You didn't address the post you quoted. Repeating your position is not addressing the post....and does not refute a word of it.






    No, you didn't. You just repeated your mantra :
    """I am not anti choice

    Women can choose to not have sex with losers and deadbeats

    But I am pro life when it involves an innocent unborn child"""
     
  13. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unborn children have a right to live

    Everything else is extraineous to that fact
     
  14. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FreshAir said:
    because republicans are trying to force rape victims to have their rapists babies and that is wrong, do you agree?




    """Then they can always adopt, if keeping the baby would be too much to bear"""

    So you do believe Republicans are trying to force rape victims to have their rapists babies and approve.
     
  15. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No, they don't. They have no rights.


    But women do whether you like it or not.
     
  16. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Why is that abortion OK but not OK if the woman had consensual sex?
     
  17. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As with every single abortion debate since computers were made...this entire thing comes down to a very simple and obvious conclusion. Those in opposition feel they should be entitled to controlling another citizens body and do not think it violates the other persons freedoms or rights. Those arguing the opposite do not feel that is appropriate or in any way conducive to what our country and Constitution stand for.
     
  18. Raffishragabash

    Raffishragabash Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,977
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    She did explain it, when she compelled you to accept it that you cannot legislate biology and anatomy. The female body was strategically created with the ability to give, birth, long long before the idea of laws came about. Abortion laws, specifically. So we should not be allowed to use Earhtly laws, to transcend what was an order of nature long before those laws were thought of. It's illogical.

    So it is beyond, bizarre, that you seek to pretend that the law comes before the act. It is not your choice, that you were intentionally sent here to Earth within a human body designed to give birth to other humans. So it should not be your choice to decide which humans get to live or die when they are in your body.

    Our creator (whether you believe it to be Godly or just Evolution) did not put us here, to be selfish, so I think we should be compelled to do unto fetus what our parents did unto us. Our parents did not abort us when they got pregnant, therefore we should not be allowed to abort pregnancies today. Fair is fair.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  19. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    YOUR "creator" has NOTHING to do with laws.

    Using the "creator", something I consider imaginary, is not using reason.

    You are ONLY correct when you say, " you cannot legislate biology and anatomy.".. so stay the H away from women's biology and anatomy.


    To denigrate women by saying they have no right to their own body, a right YOU enjoy, is appalling.


    Even if there was a "creator" I hardly think it would make YOU it's spokesperson...


    HILARIOUS how you claim the "creator" didn't put us here to be selfish yet ALL humans ARE selfish....and as yet, it isn't a crime....even for women.

    Sad that you think of women as nothing but broodstock.

     
    tecoyah likes this.
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :) Then why did he create MISCARRIAGES ????


    Translated: "I can't refute any of your points" :)
     
  21. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No Moderator would agree with your flamebait accusations as they are completely unfounded. What we have here is called debate and if your sensitivities are not up to the task then do not engage. You are attempting to defend an uuntenable position which is obviously uncomfortable and difficult but if you must whine and complain about doing so, you have quite simply lost the debate by default. Basically, you come off as the angry loser and have yet to put forward even minimally compelling argument....God and Faith are not useful in useful debate as they are opinion with nothing else to offer.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  22. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The right to kill innocent buman beings was given to women by a liberal activist supreme court

    And they only have it as long as the unelected demigods say they do
     
  23. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No, the Supreme Court did not give women the right to kill human beings , innocent or not.

    AND you have NEVER proven they did.

    (and the SC that ruled on RvW was mostly conservative;))

    If you are referring to the Supreme Court, YES, they will defend the Constitution when it's attacked by those who want to take away bodily autonomy.
     
  24. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes it did when it overturned Roe v Wade
     
  25. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    No, the Supreme Court did not give women the right to kill human beings , innocent or not.

    AND you have NEVER proven they did.

    (and the SC that ruled on RvW was mostly conservative;))



    If you are referring to the Supreme Court, YES, they will defend the Constitution when it's attacked by those who want to take away bodily autonomy.






    Can't address my post and can't prove that RvW gave women the right to kill anyone.

    If you think you are so right then why don't you show the part of the ruling that says "women can kill human beings"""?????

    If you can't do that then, of course, you are wrong.
     

Share This Page