Jump to content
IGNORED

MS GOP have gone off the deep end.


muffynbear

Recommended Posts

The fact that Amy lied for whatever reason is pretty shabby. Anyway some one needs to get her an extinguisher, her pants appear to be on fire.

just because you found a link doesn't mean I read it. anyway, why would I lie about something so silly? I did freely admit to reading something similar, so its not like I was trying to claim an outstandingly original idea. it is an obvious example..... how shocking that someone else thought of it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

But WHY are you pro-life? Do you think a fetus is a person and if so, why don't you want to treat it as one?

Guess she isn't going to answer this or Gizmole's question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just because you found a link doesn't mean I read it. anyway, why would I lie about something so silly? I did freely admit to reading something similar, so its not like I was trying to claim an outstandingly original idea. it is an obvious example..... how shocking that someone else thought of it as well.

It isn't a very good argument though. It depends on the strawman that prochoicers believe the fetus is neither human nor alive. I think that everyone admits these things, so I'm not certain what the point is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just because you found a link doesn't mean I read it. anyway, why would I lie about something so silly? I did freely admit to reading something similar, so its not like I was trying to claim an outstandingly original idea. it is an obvious example..... how shocking that someone else thought of it as well.

I call shenanigans!!!

1. You'd lie because you're trying to argue the pro-life side without being upfront about your opinions

2. It is not an obvious example. Hell, I couldn't even figure out what the hell you were talking about. No one with half a brain would equate a fetus with an eagle egg. Unless you're a RTL wackadoodle.

Shenanigans!!!!!

:banana-linedance:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a fetus is a potential person who is alive and an abortion is ending that potential life. But a fetus isn't a person equal to a newborn. It is just a potential human life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess she isn't going to answer this or Gizmole's question.

Obviously dividedstates.com hasn't publish an article on your questions, so Amy has no answer to give you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just because you found a link doesn't mean I read it. anyway, why would I lie about something so silly? I did freely admit to reading something similar, so its not like I was trying to claim an outstandingly original idea. it is an obvious example..... how shocking that someone else thought of it as well.

Thats true amy, technically you didn't need to read the article to steal the analogy, after all you could have been listening to Glenn Beck on 2/28 when he used the exact same example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a fetus is a potential person who is alive and an abortion is ending that potential life. But a fetus isn't a person equal to a newborn. It is just a potential human life.

:greetings-clappingyellow:

ITA. Very well put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are going to go with birds and eggs, most people don't have a problem cracking open an egg, but most people don't really want to go out and kill a baby chick. That is because an egg is a potential baby chicken, not an actual baby chicken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said all animal young are given protected status, nor am I arguing that they should. We don't protect the eagle's nest because it cannot make its own decisions, we protect it because we want more eagles to be born in order to prevent extinction, and we regard the unborn eagle as essentially the same thing as the fully formed eagles.

Perhaps a woman's right to choose wins out since she is a human at an advanced stage of development, and the less fully developed human is dependant on her body for survival. I would just prefer that we stop arguing about whether or not the fetus is alive. If direct action is not taken to prevent it, the fetus will develop into a person. Therefore, the choice is to eliminate a person who is not yet fully formed, but who has begun the process of developing into an entirely separate and complete human being.

A few problems with your analogy:

1. We don't save the nests because we believe they are "essentially the same thing". I assure you, no biologist believes that. We do so for the same reason we save the sperm and eggs of certain species: because they are endangered and we don't want people to fuck with them more than we already have. We are limiting the ability of other people to interfere with the eagle's reproduction. A good analogy would be not allowing your doctor to perform a forced abortion on you.

2. If the eagle kicks the egg out of the nest, there is no penalty for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm heading to bed. I see Amy down there and maybe she will have answered my question by the time I get up in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are going to go with birds and eggs, most people don't have a problem cracking open an egg, but most people don't really want to go out and kill a baby chick. That is because an egg is a potential baby chicken, not an actual baby chicken.

Again. :clap:

And I like what emmie dahl wrote also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what does the presence or absence of a uterus have to do with whether or not we consider developing life to be essentially the same as what it will ultimately develop into if left undisturbed.

We don't. In the case of endangered animals, we prevent other species from making them extinct. Not because the egg is a turtle, but because one species does not have the right to stop the other from reproducing. We also save their eggs and sperm when possible. Surely you are not going to argue that sperm is also a baby?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't. In the case of endangered animals, we prevent other species from making them extinct. Not because the egg is a turtle, but because one species does not have the right to stop the other from reproducing. We also save their eggs and sperm when possible. Surely you are not going to argue that sperm is also a baby?

:obscene-sexualspermmagenta:

(Cause I just never get to use the sperm smilie.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my original post related to this comment only. the question- is it human and/or is it alive. that was my goal in this conversation.

It is human and alive in the same way that cervical cancer and my hair follicles are both human and alive. Not an autonomous creature, but certainly containing human DNA. Are you going to tell me next that I am not allowing to brush my hair or have melanoma removed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats true amy, technically you didn't need to read the article to steal the analogy, after all you could have been listening to Glenn Beck on 2/28 when he used the exact same example.

darn- I've never listened to Glenn Beck.

I might answer questions in the morning- but probably not before. I'm tired. One thing interests me about this thread- most of you seem to feel that I am wrong to take a soft position on abortion if I believe that it is the same thing as killing a human life. That I should, based on my beliefs, want people to be thrown in jail if they have an abortion. However, earlier in the thread, everyone was all upset because someone else felt that abortion was wrong and should be illegal. The argument in that case was that no one person's moral view should determine what another person was allowed to do with her own body. So I am curious- which position do you really prefer? Because I am, somewhat grudgingly, agreeing with you. I have a moral position, but at this point I am reluctant to support making my moral position the "law of the land" for a variety of reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AmyP, I think that it would be most logical to take Santorum's position that the life of the fetus always trumps the mother's if you believe that the mass of cell was a person. However, that really is a horrible position to take, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now don't delete your post or you could possibly be deleting LIFE!!!!!

Puffins lay eggs too :lol:

024.jpg

edited to add I'm attempting to make it smaller...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I'd be happy to give a fetus or embryo honorary human status, if I could figure out a way of doing that without taking the status of fully human away from women. At any time when a fetus is considered equal in value to a fully grown human being, a woman somehow becomes less than human. She is a mere container for the fetus--which according to AmyP, only has to grow "undisturbed" to become a baby. That is such a ridiculous statement that it amazes me.

The fetus isn't just floating there with its own little life support system. It is literally sucking the life out of the woman who is carrying it. I don't mean to make that sound like a monster movie, because when it's a wanted pregnancy, the woman is willing to provide that sustenance. But it is certainly not without cost to her. At every moment of fetal development, the mother is sharing nutrients and even oxygen with the fetus, experiencing discomfort and often damage to her own body. She has to make a strenuous effort to keep the fetus alive. Her body is WORKING. And at the end of the pregnancy, once again it is only through her very hard work and stress to her body, sometimes at the cost of her life, that the fetus can be born and become a human child.

How does this in any way resemble an egg lying in the sand till it hatches? WTF--that analogy is ass. To say all that has to happen is for the fetus to be "undisturbed" is a lie. The woman IS disturbed. She is greatly affected. You can't just wave your hand and make that invisible--but you do. You make the woman invisible, and imagine the fetus is just floating around like a little cloud. That really is a lie.

Besides being a slave to the fetus, denying women the right to choice makes us slaves of any man who wants to get us pregnant. All he needs to do is rape us, and we become his servants for nine months, forced to carry and give birth to his child. People like AmyP and Braggnation also want to deny us birth control--because it's abooortion--another lie they repeat and repeat. So, we'd have no protection at all against being the slaves of any man who wants to force us to bear his children.

Want to know why you're getting hostility, Braggnation? Because you want to make me a slave. And you think you're so cute and harmless that I shouldn't be angry about that, I should be nice to you. Childish thinking is not acceptable when it causes harm to other adult women.

As for you, AmyP, could we just call a moratorium on analogies that compare women to cows, pigs, birds, turtles, and other animals? I'm a human being. That's the point. I'M a human being. Perhaps the burden should be on you to show how I would get to continue to be a human being if every fertilized egg is more important than I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AmyP, I think that it would be most logical to take Santorum's position that the life of the fetus always trumps the mother's if you believe that the mass of cell was a person. However, that really is a horrible position to take, isn't it?

do you really think it is most logical? I think that any situation that requires you to choose one person over another is difficult. I'm not sure there is such a clear moral position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you really think it is most logical? I think that any situation that requires you to choose one person over another is difficult. I'm not sure there is such a clear moral position.

If you were being honest about what you believe and why then yes, it would be most logical for you to take.

There is a clear moral position: a woman body belongs to her at all times and her life and wellbeing trumps that of a potential human life which can only exist with her permission.

Now scurry back to your bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you really think it is most logical? I think that any situation that requires you to choose one person over another is difficult. I'm not sure there is such a clear moral position.

If someone really believes that the fetus is a person at conception and should be saved, than Santorum has the most logical stance.

I think that he is wrong. Further, his stance is cruel, antiwoman and demeaning. The reason that all these damn animal comparisons to women keep cropping up is because that is what his type of thinking turns women into..bipedal incubators without any ability to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I'd be happy to give a fetus or embryo honorary human status, if I could figure out a way of doing that without taking the status of fully human away from women. At any time when a fetus is considered equal in value to a fully grown human being, a woman somehow becomes less than human. She is a mere container for the fetus--which according to AmyP, only has to grow "undisturbed" to become a baby. That is such a ridiculous statement that it amazes me.

The fetus isn't just floating there with its own little life support system. It is literally sucking the life out of the woman who is carrying it. I don't mean to make that sound like a monster movie, because when it's a wanted pregnancy, the woman is willing to provide that sustenance. But it is certainly not without cost to her. At every moment of fetal development, the mother is sharing nutrients and even oxygen with the fetus, experiencing discomfort and often damage to her own body. She has to make a strenuous effort to keep the fetus alive. Her body is WORKING. And at the end of the pregnancy, once again it is only through her very hard work and stress to her body, sometimes at the cost of her life, that the fetus can be born and become a human child.

How does this in any way resemble an egg lying in the sand till it hatches? WTF--that analogy is ass. To say all that has to happen is for the fetus to be "undisturbed" is a lie. The woman IS disturbed. She is greatly affected. You can't just wave your hand and make that invisible--but you do. You make the woman invisible, and imagine the fetus is just floating around like a little cloud. That really is a lie.

Besides being a slave to the fetus, denying women the right to choice makes us slaves of any man who wants to get us pregnant. All he needs to do is rape us, and we become his servants for nine months, forced to carry and give birth to his child. People like AmyP and Braggnation also want to deny us birth control--because it's abooortion--another lie they repeat and repeat. So, we'd have no protection at all against being the slaves of any man who wants to force us to bear his children.

Want to know why you're getting hostility, Braggnation? Because you want to make me a slave. And you think you're so cute and harmless that I shouldn't be angry about that, I should be nice to you. Childish thinking is not acceptable when it causes harm to other adult women.

As for you, AmyP, could we just call a moratorium on analogies that compare women to cows, pigs, birds, turtles, and other animals? I'm a human being. That's the point. I'M a human being. Perhaps the burden should be on you to show how I would get to continue to be a human being if every fertilized egg is more important than I am.

I would never deny you birth control.

pregnancy does take a toll on a womans body, but as long as she eats drinks and stays alive, the pregnancy will march right along without active input from her. I think I've heard that a woman on life support has even managed to sustain a pregnancy, or perhaps that was an episode of ER.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.