Quote :

"I know. how dare we have the AUDACITY to protect innocent life. FUCK THAT CHILD for having the gall to be formed by the actions of two other people."

a fetus is not a child!!

6/17/2011 11:10:15 AM

Quote :

"I hope that Alabama enjoys their increased crime rate in ~20 years!"

because every non-aborted child becomes a criminal! wooooooot!

Quote :

"They're also trying to pass a bill that essentially states any woman who has a miscarriage could be tried for homicide if there is any suspicion she tried to do it herself, no matter how early"

I'd hope it would require more than "suspicion," but I see no problem, in general, with that idea. If a man can be prosecuted for harming an unborn child, it only makes sense that a woman doing the same should also be prosecuted.

Quote :

"Seriously? They're going to go after women who've had miscarriages?"

not at all. reading is fundamental.

Quote :

"If passed, it would effectively ban abortion throughout Alabama. "

sensationalism, much? jesus.

Quote :

"Maybe burro's arguments make sense directed to the invisible baby killing advocate in the thread."

you mean, like the people who have no problem murdering fetuses? Exactly.

Quote :

"The rest of us never blamed the fetus for existing. "

No, the rest of you just don't give a fuck that it DOES exist. "Eh, fuck it, it's an inconvenience."

Quote :

"In fact, that's a great idea because of all the problems it will prevent."

Yes, because no child that isn't murdered through abortion will have a decent life. None of them will go on to do anything important.

Quote :

"a fetus is not a child!!"

A DUCK IS NOT AN ANIMAL!!!

6/20/2011 7:20:59 PM

Quote :

"you mean, like the people who have no problem murdering fetuses? Exactly."

I accept your name calling. Apparently I'm a baby killer because I think the woman who is pregnant should have the ability to decide if she wants to abort it or not, throughout whatever part of the pregnancy it is technically feasible before labor itself.

If you would like to call this position "baby killing" instead of "pro-choice", then do it. However, you are an absolutely unconvincing advocate for your position. You need to answer the question of why we should not "murder babies" by allowing women the option to abort.

Your current argument is "because it's murder". Do you see how your current platform now consists of repeating the question?

6/20/2011 7:40:52 PM

Quote :

"not at all. reading is fundamental."

I did read it, did you?

What I said:
"They're going to go after women who've had miscarriages"


What the article said:
"The bill, if passed, might even subject a woman who had a miscarriage to investigation"

How does what the article says indicate in any way that a woman who has a miscarriage could NOT be subject to investigation?

[Edited on June 20, 2011 at 7:46 PM. Reason : ]

6/20/2011 7:44:08 PM

Quote :

"A DUCK IS NOT AN ANIMAL!!!"

I think we broke is brain.

6/21/2011 10:50:29 AM

Quote :

"I accept your name calling. Apparently I'm a baby killer because I think the woman who is pregnant should have the ability to decide if she wants to abort it or not"

and yes, that makes you a baby killer. by definition. I'm glad you finally agree.

Quote :

"You need to answer the question of why we should not "murder babies" by allowing women the option to abort."

Not at all. The burden of proof is on the one who would murder a human life to say why it is acceptable. "It's not worthy" is not a valid argument.

Quote :

"Your current argument is "because it's murder". Do you see how your current platform now consists of repeating the question?"

If that is the case, then why should any murder not be allowed?

Quote :

"I did read it, did you?"

Clearly you did not. You said "They are going to go after women who've had miscarriages." As in, there is no question they will target women simply for having a miscarriage. And then you took a sensationalist statement from someone about the bill as a truthful statement about the bill. The bill doesn't say "anyone who has a miscarriage can be investigated." It says "anyone who has a suspicious miscarriage" can be investigated. Drastic difference. I'm sorry that you are too stupid to see the difference.

6/21/2011 10:53:08 AM

And around we go.

Calling it murder begs the question of the fetus being a person. I don't get to crush a cardboard box and call it murder.

Quote :

"The bill doesn't say "anyone who has a miscarriage can be investigated." It says "anyone who has a suspicious miscarriage" can be investigated. Drastic difference. I'm sorry that you are too stupid to see the difference."

LOL, you think police "suspicion" is a legitimate block on who can be investigated for something? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 11:23 AM. Reason : .]

6/21/2011 11:22:36 AM

because an unborn child is clearly analogous to a cardboard box.

Quote :

"LOL, you think police "suspicion" is a legitimate block on who can be investigated for something? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

of course not, but saying that they will investigate anyone who has a miscarriage is also a reach. i seriously doubt there would be even 100 investigations a year. probably not even 10. there's far more pressing matters, like making sure kids aren't huffing cat piss

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 11:25 AM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 11:23:52 AM

Quote :

"I'd be curious to know if burro is also against in vitro fertilization given his intransigence."

6/21/2011 11:27:26 AM

^^, no but why don't you go ahead and define a person and explain how an unborn fetus matches that definition so we can agree on the terms? That's what an honest conversation is like, but if you want to continue stamping your feet and crying murder it's your prerogative.

6/21/2011 11:30:57 AM

it's a human, and it's alive. nough said

6/21/2011 11:34:24 AM

"a human" and "alive" are pretty ambiguous terms. Is a braindead human alive? Are they still a person? If a human is decapitated, but the rest of their body is kept functioning mechanically are they a person? If not, why not? What exactly does it take to be considered "a human", and what exactly do you mean by "alive"? Does every part of the person need to be living? Or is there a particular part that needs to be living?

6/21/2011 11:41:18 AM

Quote :

"As in, there is no question they will target women simply for having a miscarriage"

That's not at all what I said. I said they would go after women with miscarriages.

Quote :

"The bill doesn't say "anyone who has a miscarriage can be investigated.""

I never said it did.

Quote :

"It says "anyone who has a suspicious miscarriage" can be investigated. Drastic difference."

Yes there is a drastic difference between the two, but both involve "them going after women with miscarriages", which is exactly what I said. Please read.

6/21/2011 11:44:23 AM

Quote :

""a human" and "alive" are pretty ambiguous terms."

not really.

Quote :

"Is a braindead human alive?"

yep.

Quote :

"If a human is decapitated, but the rest of their body is kept functioning mechanically are they a person? "

because a fetus is analogous to Krang. but hey, keep up with the absurd analogies

Quote :

"I said they would go after women with miscarriages."

with the obvious implication that they would go after damned near all of them. you know what you said. stop being obtuse.

Quote :

"I never said it did."

you effectively did. now shut the fuck up. heeeeeeeeeeeere comes the semantics. you know you can count on it when Kris is shown to be a fucktard

6/21/2011 11:58:52 AM

Quote :

"with the obvious implication that they would go after damned near all of them"

Where is this implication? It's not my fault you read what you want to hear rather than what people actually write.

Quote :

"you know what you said"

I know what I've said, in fact, you've made me restate it several times. I said "they're going after women with miscarriages", they are going after women with miscarriages. It's not my fault you don't bother to read.

Quote :

"you effectively did."

How so? I stated that they are going after women with miscarriages, you've admitted that's what they are doing. I don't know where you got the idea that this would somehow imply that they are going after EVERY woman who has a miscarriage, but I certainly never said anything like that.

6/21/2011 1:03:33 PM

Quote :

"it's a human, and it's alive. nough said"

Nope, not enough said. You're tried to walk the "slippery slope" many times here, so let me walk it for you.

I am pro-euthanasia of unwanted pets in public kennel adoption facilities. To the extent that the funding is not there to keep taking care of them, or even just to the point that voters don't want to pay any more for the facilities, we should kill the animals starting with the most hopeless first.

And hey, this sucks, because I KNOW those animals think, they can feel, and they can bond with humans and other animals. I've even had personal experiences with pets that tears at my heart strings.

A fetus is not even conscious like the poor dogs are. The only thing that makes them different is the fact that they can grow into a human given everything they need. If the woman carrying the fetus in her body is not willing to keep doing so, then it's her choice. Otherwise, you are demanding that she go through the process to give life to the fetus, which she is not willing to do. Once it's born, the baby can be removed, and someone else can care for it. But to the extent that the only one capable of maintaining life is not willing to do so, then terminating the life is their innate right.

6/21/2011 1:19:17 PM

Aaronburro has stated that a braindead human is still a person, so you're not going to appeal to the human mind being the determining factor of personhood. He thinks that there is some magical essence imbued in every human that must have been put there at conception that makes them human, independent of their physical brain.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 2:19 PM. Reason : brains]

6/21/2011 2:19:26 PM

Quote :

"Where is this implication? It's not my fault you read what you want to hear rather than what people actually write."

all over the sensationalist drivel of "they will go after women who have miscarriages".

Quote :

"A fetus is not even conscious like the poor dogs are. "

and yet, it's still human. DOH!

Quote :

"Aaronburro has stated that a braindead human is still a person,"

what would you say a braindead person is? is he a dog? a cat? a unicorn? I'm looking at something pretty basic, because doing otherwise has, throughout history led to atrocities. "Oh, that guy isn't a REAL human, cause he's black." You'll forgive me if I stay away from that section of history and say "human and alive gets this specific set of rights". And, really, it's a pretty limited set of rights, namely the right not to be murdered.

6/21/2011 2:36:08 PM

A braindead person is human tissue. A Post-human.
A fetus is human tissue. A pre-human.

Without the physiology for the human mind, it isn't a person. Personhood is dependent on the mind, which is dependent on the functioning human brain.

LOL, you compared me saying what is essentially a corpse isn't a person to someone saying a black person isn't a real person and complain about my ridiculous analogies!

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM. Reason : lol]

6/21/2011 2:40:16 PM

Quote :

"and yet, it's still human. DOH!"

I already admitted to being a human killer by your definition.

6/21/2011 2:41:27 PM

Quote :

"Without the physiology for the human mind, it isn't a person. Personhood is dependent on the mind, which is dependent on the functioning human brain. "

at which point we can also say horrible things like "personhood is dependent upon being white".

Quote :

"LOL, you compared me saying what is essentially a corpse isn't a person to someone saying a black person isn't a real person and complain about my ridiculous analogies!"

There's no analogy being made. Rather, rationale is provided for why my position is as it is

6/21/2011 2:54:48 PM

I'm curious how you go from "it's not human if it doesn't have a human mind" to "it's not human if it's black".

6/21/2011 3:07:27 PM

Quote :

"all over the sensationalist drivel of "they will go after women who have miscarriages"."

But that statement is CORRECT. THEY WILL GO AFTER WOMEN WHO HAVE MISCARRIAGES.

6/21/2011 5:19:04 PM

Quote :

"The burden of proof is on the one who would murder a human life to say why it is acceptable."

You have yet to prove that killing a fetus is murder. By definition, the killing of a fetus is not murder. The term "murder" is a legal definition. Currently it is legal to kill a fetus, therefore, how can it be murder when murder is defined as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Quote :

"Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)."

You're the one who is speaking out of your ass by saying that something is murder when it clearly is not. Then, when someone does not agree with you, you tell us to defend our position, when you have an erroneous position to begin with.

Quote :

"and yes, that makes you a baby killer. by definition. I'm glad you finally agree."

Currently, by definition, if it is unborn then it is a fetus and not a baby. By definition he is a fetus killer.

Quote :

"If that is the case, then why should any murder not be allowed?"

Murder isn't allowed. By definition it is illegal. If the killing of something is allowed, it is not murder.

Quote :

"of course not, but saying that they will investigate anyone who has a miscarriage is also a reach."

Speaking of taking the sensationalist stance. He never said that they will investigate anyone who has a miscarriage, he said they can investigate anyone who has a miscarriage.

Quote :

"it's a human, and it's alive. nough said"

As are convicts. As are brain dead humans. Yet both are killed without any legal ramifications for the killer.

6/21/2011 10:22:30 PM

Quote :

"I'd hope it would require more than "suspicion," but I see no problem, in general, with that idea. If a man can be prosecuted for harming an unborn child, it only makes sense that a woman doing the same should also be prosecuted."

Any doctor who was suspicious could report her. This could be whether he thought she took a coathanger to her cervix or took some medications which caused the child to abort, or didn't know she was pregnant yet and had a glass of wine. Or, better yet, what if she was beat?


The main problem is, I would be willing to bet many women these days don't try to give themselves an abortion if they really want one. However, many women have miscarriages (approximately 50% of pregnancies are lost in miscarriage) and they can be caused by many factors. How the F are you going to be able to prove it? It's a waste of money, and it's going to psychologically harm many people.

6/21/2011 11:44:33 PM

aaronburro, is the following one human being or two? When you answer this, tell me what characteristics made you decide that.



[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 12:21 AM. Reason : took away pronoun that shows my conclusion]

6/22/2011 12:20:13 AM

^ That is clearly 1.5 humans.

6/22/2011 9:45:45 PM

LOL, "clearly", but I'd like to hear aaronburro's decision. He had time to respond to me in political threads but has avoided this question for some reason.

6/23/2011 9:24:55 AM

Never has a thread been as petty as this one.

6/23/2011 10:55:55 AM

Ok, since aaron has been inactive, any other pro-lifers that think that a human being begins at conception, feel free to answer the question above and let me know your reasoning behind it.

6/25/2011 2:13:38 PM

I don't see where you're going there disco_stu...

identical twins are from a single egg/sperm fusing, just a "glitch" in the embryo development results in 2 human embryos from the single egg/sperm.

Those 2 headed people are the result of another glitch in embryo development, just like the identical twins, and are thus 2 people, just like twins are. It could easily be argued on this basis that life begins at conception. They are just 2 embryos that didn't separate fully.

The fact of the matter, as i've said countless times before, is that abortion isn't a scientific issue. You could have God himself come down and dictate that life begins at conception, or that life begins at the 3rd trimester, and it would have literally ZERO bearing on abortion argument in modern society. Discussions like this would then shift from the superficial scientific discussions to perhaps less superficial philosophical discussions.

Abortion is legal because of the philosophy that a woman can control her body, because a doctor shouldn't be punished for performing a medical procedure, because a doctor shouldn't have to second guess herself if calling for an abortion will save a mother's life, and because of a woman's right to choose whether she wants to be a mother or not. It represents everything that America is symbolic of: freedom, promiscuity, and selfishly motivated killing

The people who believe it should be illegal are mostly buying into church propaganda that aims to keep their followers from buying into progressive values that are closely associated with womens' rights (but aren't inherently pro-choice), and might feel actual moral abhorrence that a child that could be alive isn't, because of a direct, specific choice. They want America to be represented by Jesus, xenophobia, and social repression

Or, they might simply have the philosophy that every life deserves to live, regardless of how it comes into being (these are the hippies though who are usually anti-death penalty and anti-war).

6/25/2011 3:00:38 PM

Actually I have been wanting to bring up conjoined twins for a while. What about the instances where you have conjoined twins (one of which is extremely non functional) that share vital organs and will not survive unless the non functional one is removed. The non functional conjoined twin is just as "alive" (using burro's rubric) as a fetus but you don't see people crying for the functional twin to die to avoid "murder".

6/25/2011 6:04:29 PM

Burro is most likely wrong, true.

6/25/2011 7:52:56 PM

Quote :

"Those 2 headed people are the result of another glitch in embryo development, just like the identical twins, and are thus 2 people, just like twins are. It could easily be argued on this basis that life begins at conception. They are just 2 embryos that didn't separate fully."

I'm not talking about life, I'm talking about personhood. It's not arguable that a blastocyst isn't alive. It clearly is. The point is whether it is a person and therefore killing it is murder.

Aaronburro seems to think that unique DNA makes a person. I'm interested to know if he thinks what is essentially just a head on another person (but having exactly the same DNA) is a unique individual and why.

6/27/2011 9:37:00 AM

Quote :

"Aaronburro seems to think that unique DNA makes a person."

Just like how identical twins only get one vote between the two of them?

6/27/2011 9:51:19 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

Quote :

"Rennie Gibbs is accused of murder, but the crime she is alleged to have committed does not sound like an ordinary killing. Yet she faces life in prison in Mississippi over the death of her unborn child. Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence."

What? Law enforcement would never use this to further the war on drugs!

Quote :

"Amanda Kimbrough is one of the women who have been ensnared as a result of the law being applied in a wholly different way. During her pregnancy her foetus was diagnosed with possible Down's syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion. The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth. Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with "chemical endangerment" of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy – a claim she has denied. "That shocked me, it really did," Kimbrough said. "I had lost a child, that was enough." She now awaits an appeal ruling from the higher courts in Alabama, which if she loses will see her begin a 10-year sentence behind bars. "I'm just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids," she said. "They say I'm a criminal, how do I answer that? I'm a good mother.""

Good for the children? Way to protect the innocent.

Quote :

"South Carolina was one of the first states to introduce such a foetal homicide law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has found only one case of a South Carolina man who assaulted a pregnant woman having been charged under its terms, and his conviction was eventually overturned. Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy."

aaronburro, just like all pro-life people, doesn't want to protect the unborn. It's just control. As long as there are criminal cops arresting people under the same ideological flag then they feel happy about themselves. Because they feel in control.

[Edited on June 28, 2011 at 1:57 PM. Reason : /b]

6/28/2011 1:57:08 PM

Seems like there's been...



....a miscarriage of justice

YYEEEAAAAA

6/28/2011 3:06:15 PM

Quote :

"Any doctor who was suspicious could report her"

oh look, jumping to conclusions! putting words in my mouth! wtg!

Quote :

"You have yet to prove that killing a fetus is murder. "

And you have yet to prove that it is NOT. Murder is not only a legal term. You understand the idea of what murder is without resorting to a court to tell you. If the US passed a law that said it was A-OK to string a black man up in a tree, would that then cease to be murder? Of course not.

Quote :

"By definition he is a fetus killer."

which is murder. I'm glad we agree.

Quote :

"If the killing of something is allowed, it is not murder."

If the US passed a law that said it was A-OK to string a black man up in a tree, would that then cease to be murder? Of course not.

Quote :

"Speaking of taking the sensationalist stance. He never said that they will investigate anyone who has a miscarriage, he said they can investigate anyone who has a miscarriage. "

Fear-mongering is still sensationalism. I'm sorry that you don't see it.

Quote :

"aaronburro, is the following one human being or two? When you answer this, tell me what characteristics made you decide that."

ITT, disco_st brings in absurd analogies to try and talk about the basics of the mainstream. makes great sense.

Quote :

"Abortion is legal because of the philosophy that a woman can control her body"

because a living being with different DNA is clearly "the mother's body"

Quote :

"because a doctor shouldn't be punished for performing a medical procedure"

yes, someone shouldn't be punished for murdering another human being.

Quote :

"because a doctor shouldn't have to second guess herself if calling for an abortion will save a mother's life"

because that's clearly why ALL abortions are performed. because that's clearly why the vast majority of abortions are performed.

Quote :

"and because of a woman's right to choose whether she wants to be a mother or not"

because that choice clearly isn't available well before the decision of murdering a human comes into play.

Quote :

"They want America to be represented by Jesus, xenophobia, and social repression"

oh look, ad hominem! wtg!

Quote :

"aaronburro, just like all pro-life people, doesn't want to protect the unborn. It's just control."

whatever helps you sleep at night, knowing that you support the murder of the innocent and defenseless.

6/30/2011 8:36:25 PM

Quote :

"whatever helps you sleep at night, knowing that you support the murder of the innocent and defenseless."

I have more trouble when I think about teenage pregnancies in this nation and the hardship those will cause.

6/30/2011 8:42:08 PM

yep. a bad thing will happen that will happen regardless. so the solution is CLEARLY to murder the innocent

6/30/2011 8:48:04 PM

Sounds like something you could get behind

6/30/2011 8:59:07 PM

ass, just answer the question. one person or two? It's not about analogies. It's about your definition of person.

6/30/2011 10:51:36 PM

Quote :

"ITT, disco_st brings in absurd analogies to try and talk about the basics of the mainstream. makes great sense."

Oh, and actual examples of people are absurd analogies? I'm not even sure why I converse with such a dishonest fuck.

7/1/2011 12:35:35 AM

no, comparing the exception with the general is the absurdity. surely someone of such great intellect as you can understand that.

Quote :

"aaronburro, is the following one human being or two? When you answer this, tell me what characteristics made you decide that."

likewise, let's turn it around on you... if we assume that is two people, clearly one is dependent on the other for survival. Based on yours and others criteria, it is perfectly acceptable to remove one of them, because they are dependent on the other and incapable of supporting their own life. I'm glad you now agree with me

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 12:59 AM. Reason : ]

7/1/2011 12:58:14 AM

Quote :

"no, comparing the exception with the general is the absurdity. surely someone of such great intellect as you can understand that."

I'm surprised that on the issue of considering abortion murder you'd be willing to make exceptions and are basing your decisions on the generalities. We're talking about human lives here. Can we afford to make exceptions for the outliers?

Quote :

"likewise, let's turn it around on you... if we assume that is two people, clearly one is dependent on the other for survival. Based on yours and others criteria, it is perfectly acceptable to remove one of them, because they are dependent on the other and incapable of supporting their own life. I'm glad you now agree with me"

Still not answering the question, I see. You're still begging the question however because you're assuming that the being dependent on the mother is a person without proof. My criteria for personhood doesn't include "not be dependent on another and be capable of supporting your own life."

Can I take by your wishy washy admission that you think that that's one person?

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 1:06 AM. Reason : .]

7/1/2011 1:06:01 AM

Quote :

"I'm surprised that on the issue of considering abortion murder you'd be willing to make exceptions and are basing your decisions on the generalities. We're talking about human lives here. Can we afford to make exceptions for the outliers?"

I'm not following your statement here. sorry. I don't see much "exceptional" in the claim that killing a person is murder.

Quote :

"My criteria for personhood doesn't include "not be dependent on another and be capable of supporting your own life.""

Others most certainly have done so.

Quote :

"Can I take by your wishy washy admission that you think that that's one person?"

You have no problem putting words in my mouth, so knock yourself out.

7/1/2011 1:09:56 AM

Well I'm forced to when you won't answer a question which has a total of two possible simple number answers.

7/1/2011 1:12:06 AM

yep. now, start asking me more absurd questions about extremes to compare to the basics og the general case. it really gets me hot and bothered

7/1/2011 1:24:09 AM

Quote :

"I'm not even sure why I converse with such a dishonest fuck."

I don't think he's smart enough to be dishonest. He's simply a dying breed of moron. Posters like him will be kept in some sort of archive or nature preserve in the future

7/1/2011 6:36:47 AM

Quote :

"Murder is not only a legal term."

You can't just re-define words to fit your stance.

Quote :

"You understand the idea of what murder is without resorting to a court to tell you. If the US passed a law that said it was A-OK to string a black man up in a tree, would that then cease to be murder?"

So now you're trying to define murder as the immoral killing of someone? Where can I find that definition? If the law said it is A-OK to string the black man up in a tree, then it's not murder... By definition, it is not murder.

The law allows for doctors to remove the feeding tube of people who are brain dead to kill them. Yet that isn't murder. The death penalty is the state-sponsored killing of someone. However, the guy is not murdered by any definition of the word.

7/1/2011 7:32:47 AM