Which is exactly where the anti-abortion position lies. It’s not based in logic or reason, but irrationality and emotion.
Chad - 06:11am on 11/08/2006
Actually, the legal case against a “right” to an abortion is quite reasoned.
Put simply, there is no right to an abortion anywhere in the constitution. It is a state’s rights issue, and the citizens of each state should be able to determine the way forward on the issue just as the citizens of South Dakota did last night.
Rob - 06:11am on 11/08/2006
Yes, Chad; it’s completely rational to kill babies as a form of birth control. Yeah.
Typical lying leftie spin. People who want to save lives are irrational and emotional, and those who want to kill are rational and level-headed. That makes a lot of sense. People kill and do violence out of fear.
robert108 - 06:11am on 11/08/2006
Which is exactly where the anti-abortion position lies. It’s not based in logic or reason, but irrationality and emotion.
I tested that theory of yours, and I determined it’s wrong. I read the Constitution, and did not see a “right” to abortion listed in there. But, according to you, this decision could have been reached based on “emtion.”
So, I spent all night reading Ayn Rand and thus eliminating all forms of human emotion from my system. I read the Constitution again, and you know what? There’s STILL no right to an abortion in it.
Dave_Comet - 06:11am on 11/08/2006
“killing babies” and “saving lives”
Like I said, these are terms designed to evoke emotion, at the expense of honesty. At best, they are misleading; at worst, out-right lies.
For me, regardless of personal beliefs, it all boils down to whether or not you want the gonverment controlling that aspect of your life.
Chad - 06:11am on 11/08/2006
“killing babies” and “saving lives”
They are simply true; every abortion kills a baby, and every abortion prevented saves a life; what part of that don’t you understand, Chad.
In your upside-down world, then, abortion “saves lives” and preventing abortion “kills babies”?
I object to the govt having any say at all in abortion; it should receive no govt funding or support; it should be a personal and local decision. Or maybe you don’t want the govt “controlling your life” by forbidding you to rob banks or commit murder? What’s right is right, and what’s wrong is wrong, and no amount of leftie lying will change that. If you don’t want children, don’t have vaginal intercourse; if you choose to do that, live with the consequences; don’t resort to killing to relieve you of the responsibility for what you did.
robert108 - 07:11am on 11/08/2006
Like I said, these are terms designed to evoke emotion, at the expense of honesty. At best, they are misleading; at worst, out-right lies.
I agree with you there. The whole point of the debate is whether these are “lives” or “babies” in the first place. Anti-abortion rights activists are trying to win the debate through definition.
Dave_Comet - 07:11am on 11/08/2006
Let’s see; one abortion equals one death. That which was alive is now dead. Isn’t that the whole point of abortion? “Winning the debate through definition” is precisely what the pro-abortion folks have been doing; they are trying to redefine a baby as a “fetus”, which is part of the necessary dehumanizing process to prepare for killing a human being. At least be honest enough to use the term “human fetus”. The real definition is up to the mother; if she wants it, it’s a “baby”. If she doesn’t, it’s a “fetus”. Who is doing the defining?
robert108 - 07:11am on 11/08/2006
Hey Dave, is this really the term you want to use:
Anti-abortion rights
Given that you yourself have condeded that there is no right to an abortion in the constitution and that Roe should be overturned so that the states can decide this matter for themselves.
Also:
trying to win the debate through definition.
Well, so is the pro-abortion crowd. They’re trying to define a life in the womb as something other than a life. Which, of course, just isn’t true. If you stomp on a chicken’s egg and kill the chick inside it, you’ve killed. If you pull a child half-way out of the mother’s womb in order to crush its skull, you’ve killed. You have ended life.
There’s no getting around that. You pro-abortion ghouls could at least be honest about what it is you support.
Rob - 07:11am on 11/08/2006
Rob: Of course that’s the term I want to use. I’d call myself an anti-abortion rights activist, because I don’t think there is a right to an abortion in the Constitution. I think the most accurate terms for the two sides are anti-abortion rights and pro-abortion rights.
Also, I would add that “ending life” is of no conern for the ~98% of Americans who eat meat every day, so the ethical objection to abortion must be based on something more serious than this.
I approve of your wording.
Which is exactly where the anti-abortion position lies. It’s not based in logic or reason, but irrationality and emotion.
Actually, the legal case against a “right” to an abortion is quite reasoned.
Put simply, there is no right to an abortion anywhere in the constitution. It is a state’s rights issue, and the citizens of each state should be able to determine the way forward on the issue just as the citizens of South Dakota did last night.
Yes, Chad; it’s completely rational to kill babies as a form of birth control. Yeah.
Typical lying leftie spin. People who want to save lives are irrational and emotional, and those who want to kill are rational and level-headed. That makes a lot of sense. People kill and do violence out of fear.
So, I spent all night reading Ayn Rand and thus eliminating all forms of human emotion from my system. I read the Constitution again, and you know what? There’s STILL no right to an abortion in it.
“killing babies” and “saving lives”
Like I said, these are terms designed to evoke emotion, at the expense of honesty. At best, they are misleading; at worst, out-right lies.
For me, regardless of personal beliefs, it all boils down to whether or not you want the gonverment controlling that aspect of your life.
They are simply true; every abortion kills a baby, and every abortion prevented saves a life; what part of that don’t you understand, Chad.
In your upside-down world, then, abortion “saves lives” and preventing abortion “kills babies”?
I object to the govt having any say at all in abortion; it should receive no govt funding or support; it should be a personal and local decision. Or maybe you don’t want the govt “controlling your life” by forbidding you to rob banks or commit murder? What’s right is right, and what’s wrong is wrong, and no amount of leftie lying will change that. If you don’t want children, don’t have vaginal intercourse; if you choose to do that, live with the consequences; don’t resort to killing to relieve you of the responsibility for what you did.
Let’s see; one abortion equals one death. That which was alive is now dead. Isn’t that the whole point of abortion? “Winning the debate through definition” is precisely what the pro-abortion folks have been doing; they are trying to redefine a baby as a “fetus”, which is part of the necessary dehumanizing process to prepare for killing a human being. At least be honest enough to use the term “human fetus”. The real definition is up to the mother; if she wants it, it’s a “baby”. If she doesn’t, it’s a “fetus”. Who is doing the defining?
Hey Dave, is this really the term you want to use:
Given that you yourself have condeded that there is no right to an abortion in the constitution and that Roe should be overturned so that the states can decide this matter for themselves.
Also:
Well, so is the pro-abortion crowd. They’re trying to define a life in the womb as something other than a life. Which, of course, just isn’t true. If you stomp on a chicken’s egg and kill the chick inside it, you’ve killed. If you pull a child half-way out of the mother’s womb in order to crush its skull, you’ve killed. You have ended life.
There’s no getting around that. You pro-abortion ghouls could at least be honest about what it is you support.
Rob: Of course that’s the term I want to use. I’d call myself an anti-abortion rights activist, because I don’t think there is a right to an abortion in the Constitution. I think the most accurate terms for the two sides are anti-abortion rights and pro-abortion rights.
Also, I would add that “ending life” is of no conern for the ~98% of Americans who eat meat every day, so the ethical objection to abortion must be based on something more serious than this.