Not to go all debate-like, but if Bush is reelected and prevents me from aborting a goddamn crotchdropping, it will be dead later, Andrea Yates style. So, no, he's not. Because a fetus is not a full person. Partial person!
The difference is, we condemn that act of violence against -animals-. You, on the otherhand, not only will not condemn acts of violence against unborn humans, but condone it.
Obviously you missed the sarcasm in my previous comment.
I don't approve of murder. Not at all. However, abortion != murder. I don't think partial-birth abortion is a great idea, but would not have a problem if the mother's life is threatened. Her life takes precedence.
Seriously... You condemn me in your mind for being: a dyke; genderqueer; not Christian; pro-choice; a switch who usually tops (D/S); into BDSM in general; polyamorous; occasionally a transvestite; childfree. I might as well just chalk you up to a wacko religious nut.
And now for the sarcasm part of the comment: My strap-on is bigger than your dick.
Anti-choice people tend to throw around terms like "fetus" or "unborn child". They way they talk suggests that from the moment of conception, the pregnancy is a tiny little human with arms and legs and a brain. This is, well, not true.
For about the first three months of pregnancy (the time when abortion ought to be done if it's done at all), the potential human is not a fetus, but an embryo. It's a small glob of cells without any discernible organs, which cannot survive on its own. Wether a fetus is human or not might be debatable, but an embryo is definitely not.
I also have some issues with saying "X is murder", because it suggests that there's one single standart for what "murder" is and how it should be dealt with. A woman who defends herself from being raped and kills her attacker and a woman who poisons her husband to get the insurance money have both killed a human being, but you can't say they are both guilty of murder and should be dealt with in the same way.
One "I take exception to that," and one explaination.
First, unless you wish me to start refering to the pro-choice crowd as "pro-abortion," "anti-life," "pro-death," "pro-infantcide," or simply "pro-murder," I would ask that you not refer to us as "anti-choice." Our issue isn't around depriving the woman of a choice, but about protecting an innocent life. Whether you agree that it's a life or not is immaterial to the fact that you are misrepresenting us.
Second, murder is understood to be the taking of an innocent life. The woman who poisons her husband to get the money has done so. The woman who kills her would-be rapist has taken a life, true, but hardly an innocent one. Instead, I believe she should be awarded half the money that would have been spent on the rapists's trial and incarceration for services rendered to society.
This is not meant to be personal though it might sound like it. I'm using a situation to demonstrate a point.
I find it ironic that someone who owns at least one gun and would quite happily shoot a burglar dead, is intent on defending the life of every barely formed ball of human cells on the planet.
And to take it further, why is it OK to kill hundreds or even thousands of people in a war, but it is not OK to terminate the existence of something that cannot even live independently, to prevent the potential mother and child from having a lifetime of misery.
Why are (generally speaking) those who tend to advocate violence also those who are "anti-choice"? Is it just that they want everyone to be like them, no matter the cost? It makes me sad for us.
And an afterthought on the "get it adopted" people. Will YOU personally be volunteering to adopt all those babies? Or even one of them?
Three guns, actually. A Rugar GP-100 chambered in .357, a Glock 19, and a Sig Sauer P226 Navy (both chambered in 9x19). And, despite my rhetoric and joking around, I certainly wouldn't be quite happy to shoot a burglar. I am prepared to do so, should it be necessary, but I'd rather he decide to go somewhere else after seeing down the barrel of my Rugar
( ... )
Sadly, even if there were a shortage of parents, I doubt the adoption agency would release a child to a 20 year old male who lives in a dorm. And, as much as I wish it weren't so, I would agree with them.
I remember back in a previous discussion on this subject, you said something along the lines of, "we don't have the right to choose who lives or dies
( ... )
Comments 51
Reply
So, no, he's not.
Because a fetus is not a full person.
Partial person!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I don't approve of murder. Not at all.
However, abortion != murder.
I don't think partial-birth abortion is a great idea, but would not have a problem if the mother's life is threatened. Her life takes precedence.
Reply
You condemn me in your mind for being:
a dyke; genderqueer; not Christian; pro-choice; a switch who usually tops (D/S); into BDSM in general; polyamorous; occasionally a transvestite; childfree.
I might as well just chalk you up to a wacko religious nut.
And now for the sarcasm part of the comment:
My strap-on is bigger than your dick.
Reply
For about the first three months of pregnancy (the time when abortion ought to be done if it's done at all), the potential human is not a fetus, but an embryo. It's a small glob of cells without any discernible organs, which cannot survive on its own. Wether a fetus is human or not might be debatable, but an embryo is definitely not.
I also have some issues with saying "X is murder", because it suggests that there's one single standart for what "murder" is and how it should be dealt with. A woman who defends herself from being raped and kills her attacker and a woman who poisons her husband to get the insurance money have both killed a human being, but you can't say they are both guilty of murder and should be dealt with in the same way.
Reply
First, unless you wish me to start refering to the pro-choice crowd as "pro-abortion," "anti-life," "pro-death," "pro-infantcide," or simply "pro-murder," I would ask that you not refer to us as "anti-choice." Our issue isn't around depriving the woman of a choice, but about protecting an innocent life. Whether you agree that it's a life or not is immaterial to the fact that you are misrepresenting us.
Second, murder is understood to be the taking of an innocent life. The woman who poisons her husband to get the money has done so. The woman who kills her would-be rapist has taken a life, true, but hardly an innocent one. Instead, I believe she should be awarded half the money that would have been spent on the rapists's trial and incarceration for services rendered to society.
Reply
I find it ironic that someone who owns at least one gun and would quite happily shoot a burglar dead, is intent on defending the life of every barely formed ball of human cells on the planet.
And to take it further, why is it OK to kill hundreds or even thousands of people in a war, but it is not OK to terminate the existence of something that cannot even live independently, to prevent the potential mother and child from having a lifetime of misery.
Why are (generally speaking) those who tend to advocate violence also those who are "anti-choice"? Is it just that they want everyone to be like them, no matter the cost? It makes me sad for us.
And an afterthought on the "get it adopted" people. Will YOU personally be volunteering to adopt all those babies? Or even one of them?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment