Members citizenralph Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 I understand that the DNA is there, but it cannot live outside of the mother so whether or not it is "living" remains questionable. Really though... My mind isn't going to be changed in this regard.Freedom is choice. If the definition of "living" is self sustainability, as you describe, then the law should allow for the killing of children to the age of at least 5, and for those of us with older children that could easily extend to 25. If the argument is only at the point can a being survive outside the womb it can be described as living, then I would argue conception is the point we would consider it living. People have been conceived outside the womb for some time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members citizenralph Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 Good question. Why do you suppose they were so concerned that they chose to close the event to all forms of recording? I have no idea, but it's been my experience that there's generally a reason when people choose to do things behind closed doors. The very choice generates suspicion in my mind. Publicity. To stir up the lefty nutballs. Mission accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 I don't think I've ever met anyone who was "pro-abortion", so I think "pro-choice" is accurate. "Pro-life" does not, in my opinion, accurately define the other position, and I agree that "anti-abortion" is accurate. Could you please explain how the label "pro-life" is inaccurate??? - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 If the definition of "living" is self sustainability, as you describe, then the law should allow for the killing of children to the age of at least 5, and for those of us with older children that could easily extend to 25. If the argument is only at the point can a being survive outside the womb it can be described as living, then I would argue conception is the point we would consider it living. People have been conceived outside the womb for some time now. The definition of "living" is not dieing. Conception is not the same as living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vanlatte Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 The definition of "living" is not dieing. Conception is not the same as living.Jury is still out on that one. You can exist and not really live....In fact I am not afraid of dieing, I am afraid of not living./thread derail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members citizenralph Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 The definition of "living" is not dieing. Conception is not the same as living. I just re-read the second part of my post. Congrats to you if it made any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 I just re-read the second part of my post. Congrats to you if it made any sense. It makes perfect sense if you believe that life begins with conception. I don't. Yes, there have been plenty of eggs and sperm collisions outside of the womb but those embryos must still be put inside a human before they can be born and live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 That's simply because our dark ages level of science hasn't figured out a way to finish that job properly yet. When science does that, men will no longer be necessary in society as anything other than sperm donors and a paycheck.Lifting stuff, opening pickle jars, mowing lawns, splitting logs... There will be plenty of stuff for men to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted November 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted November 10, 2009 How does wanting the baby/fetus to have "life" outside of the mother's womb not make the definition "Pro-Life" accurate? If one believes abortion is an acceptable means of getting rid of a problem, then the definition "Pro-Abortion" certainly fits. Everybody knows these people. Life comes in many forms. The so-called pro-life movement is not pro-life for all forms of life. For most, it is at best indifferent. Even for human beings, the pro-life movement does not address any aspects of life other than that of the fetus in the womb. It does not address any other sources of "anti-life". For instance, it is not anti-war. It is not against the death penalty. It ignores the tens of thousands of people killed each year in auto accidents. In short, it is not pro-life, it is anti-abortion. Thud, I have never, to my knowledge, met anyone who thinks that an abortion is a good thing unto itself. At most, people see it as the least bad outcome to a difficult situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 Could you please explain how the label "pro-life" is inaccurate??? - georgestrings It makes the bad guys sound like they are good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 Actually, that's as true as it gets. People will stop at nothing to make their own liberal pro-abortion beliefs seem rosey compared to what they really are. Goes along the same lines as the "illegal alien/undocumented worker" talk talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 That doesn't refute in any way the meaning of "Pro-Abortion." The use of that "bad outcome" in and of itself is a proactive stance on the issue. Again, I'm not "pro-abortion". I would never be party to an abortion if it were my child. I am "pro-freedom". Freedom is choice, therefore I'm "pro-choice"... On damn near everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 Life comes in many forms. The so-called pro-life movement is not pro-life for all forms of life. For most, it is at best indifferent. Even for human beings, the pro-life movement does not address any aspects of life other than that of the fetus in the womb. It does not address any other sources of "anti-life". For instance, it is not anti-war. It is not against the death penalty. It ignores the tens of thousands of people killed each year in auto accidents. In short, it is not pro-life, it is anti-abortion.Thud, I have never, to my knowledge, met anyone who thinks that an abortion is a good thing unto itself. At most, people see it as the least bad outcome to a difficult situation. You are painting with a very broad brush. There are MANY people who are certainly both pro-life and anti-death penalty. Probably as many as are pro death penalty. An example would be any Catholic that follows his/her religion's doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 You are party to any abortion that occurs, as am I. Not my child, not my problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted November 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted November 10, 2009 That's interesting, considering that the death penalty is reserved for those who have premeditated the act of taking another life. It is thought of as a deterrent to others who may have thoughts of taking another life. That's as pro-life as it gets. Twist away to make yourself feel better, though. I didn't realize that driving an automobile was part of a movement? Unless you're on the horse & buggy train. That doesn't refute in any way the meaning of "Pro-Abortion." The use of that "bad outcome" in and of itself is a proactive stance on the issue. You maintain that killing is pro-life?I can't think of anything else that needs be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vanlatte Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 Thud, I have never, to my knowledge, met anyone who thinks that an abortion is a good thing unto itself. At most, people see it as the least bad outcome to a difficult situation. This has been my experience as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted November 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted November 10, 2009 You are painting with a very broad brush. There are MANY people who are certainly both pro-life and anti-death penalty. Probably as many as are pro death penalty. An example would be any Catholic that follows his/her religion's doctrine. I don't doubt it. But the pro-life movement itself is not anti-war, nor anti-death penalty. It is not pro-life, it is anti-abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 Just like watching Hitler send the neighbors to camp. "It's not my problem" is not justification for a change in the definition of a term. You really think that's even a comparison? Someone else doing something to my neighbor means there may be a chance of someone else doing something to me. I mean seriously, if my neighbor gets a tattoo do I really care? Does it mean that I'm going to also get a tattoo? If my neighbor smokes weed in their garage does it mean that I'm going to start smoking weed in my garage? Of course it doesn't. They can do whatever they want to themselves, man... Whatever they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted November 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted November 10, 2009 Over generalize much? Sheesh, you forgot to mention knocking old ladies over too. "Pro-life" is a very general statement for what is, in fact, a very specific stance against abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 Actually, that's as true as it gets. People will stop at nothing to make their own liberal pro-abortion beliefs seem rosey compared to what they really are.Or, people will stop at nothing to label their opponents as pro-abortion, when they're actually pro-choice. Edit: I think "pro-life" is an appropriate label for the other side. I guess "pro-fetus" would be a bit more accurate, but "life" is the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vanlatte Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 "Pro-life" is a very general statement for what is, in fact, a very specific stance against abortion.I guess it all comes down to silly labels. Anti-abortion actually is a more appropriate term but it was probably softened by taking out the negative component (Anti) and replacing it with a more postive one (Pro)Labels are dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 Life comes in many forms. The so-called pro-life movement is not pro-life for all forms of life. For most, it is at best indifferent. Even for human beings, the pro-life movement does not address any aspects of life other than that of the fetus in the womb. It does not address any other sources of "anti-life". For instance, it is not anti-war. It is not against the death penalty. It ignores the tens of thousands of people killed each year in auto accidents. In short, it is not pro-life, it is anti-abortion.Thud, I have never, to my knowledge, met anyone who thinks that an abortion is a good thing unto itself. At most, people see it as the least bad outcome to a difficult situation. Nice pile of bull{censored} to support a weak position - by attempting to save lives by taking a stand against abortion, there is no way you can avoid calling them "pro-life", IMO... Just because they don't actively try to save every life on the planet, that doesn't mean they're not pro-life... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 Labels are dumb. Expiration date labels are quite helpful. :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vanlatte Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 Or, people will stop at nothing to label their opponents as pro- abortion, when they're actually pro- choice. Edit: I think "pro-life" is an appropriate label for the other side. I guess "pro-fetus" would be a bit more accurate, but "life" is the issue. But what is almost always swept under the rug is, not all "Pro Life" people are anti choice. It's not that polarized; most Pro Life advocates will also advocate choices. Giving up unplanned babies for adoption for example.Of course that makes the Rabid, foaming at the mouth Neo Con ANTI-CHOICE crowd too much like a compassionate human being so we won't want to hear any of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted November 10, 2009 Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 Actually, that's as true as it gets. People will stop at nothing to make their own liberal pro-abortion beliefs seem rosey compared to what they really are. Yup... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.