Operation Rescue (Kansas)

[nicname]

I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion.  Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.

I believe it to be a human life. That is my reason to have an opinion of what other people should do.

Lots of people have weird beliefs.  Not a reason to impose theories stemming from those beliefs on people*.

*humans that have been birf'd.

I guess I am supposed to apologize because my beliefs are weird? Also, it would seem to me that you are the one that is trying to impose your theories on me by belittling what I believe.

No, just trying to understand how somebody could 1) believe that and 2) even if they do, would feel entitled to or even care about what somebody else with their own belief system is doing.

I really don't get why anyone is arguing about beliefs of when cells become people or whatever.  It seems very definable.  A person is a person once they're born. I can understand why people would take issue with killing birf'd babies (it should be much less of an issue than with older children or adults) but until there's actually a quantifiable person in our world, whether a woman proceeds with birf'n whatever's inside the woman (or man, shoutout to fitz!) really shouldn't be of anyone's concern, unless the issue people have with it is something about souls or spirituality or whatever.  If that's what it really comes down to, people should just be honest about it and say they're against abortion because of religion, not some rationalization of a calendar.   

What I can see being of concern to strangers is potential moms who intend to birf the kid doing things during pregnancy (drugs, booze, going to juggalo gatherings, etc.) that will harm the potential child that will then be in the world at a disadvantage, or really anything that would come at a cost to society.

This is an analogy,right?

I don't think so.

 

[Trim]

I mean, what's more ?  A new mom who realizes she probably isn't going to make the cast of Teen Mom 4 and dumping a newborn in a dumpster, or a mom of a 10-year-old deciding motherhood is wack and offing the kid?  Both pretty bad, but killing somebody who the world has interacted with to me seems worse than the belated abortion of a baby that the isn't really part of the world at large yet.  Obviously, killing a good adult in his (or her!) prime would be worst.  Kind of like a bell curve.

[michigancat]

MEN, WE'RE GOING INTO THIS WAR WITHOUT THE INTENTION OF KILLING ANYONE.

[Dugout DickStone]

I think Trim is saying who the eff do people think they are telling someone what and what not to do with their bodies while at the same time you don't have to suffer the consequences of your opinions/laws?

And if you really believe it is your right/duty to dictate what other people do with their body you had better get off your ass and end all wars as well as giving every extra cent you possess to the poor/starving.  <--- I added that part.

[HeinBallz]

I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.

How do you not see the hypocrisy here?   Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society. 

Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency.  You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.

So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?

If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."

I don't want to get too far off topic - but I'm saying there is indeed such a thing as casualties of war.  People write these off as necessary for the campaign.  Drone strikes don't just take out an individual, they take out city blocks.  Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, & children have been killed in the middle east by American policy over the last 20 years - people that were just guilty of living close to a target.  Throw in unjust wars & fighting for financial gain, and you've got a whole other can of worms when talking about unnecessary death.

If we're approaching abortion as inherently wrong based solely on the reasoning that killing human life out of convenience is wrong... well then, we need an entire paradigm shift in all facets of how we interact within society and the world.  Anything less would be hypocrisy.

Is abortion inadvertent or intentional? Is killing innocent people in a war inadvertent or intentional?

That's like asking if putting a turtle on his back is inadvertently killing it... If you know the end result is death - you are intentionally doing it. If you drop a bomb on a city block and you know the end result is innocent people dieing, how could it be anything but intentional?  Even then, you're suggesting that your original target is justifiably needing to be killed.   I don't think that's always the case in a lot of the wars we've been part of.

[Dugout DickStone]

I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.

How do you not see the hypocrisy here?   Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society. 

Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency.  You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.

So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?

If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."

I don't want to get too far off topic - but I'm saying there is indeed such a thing as casualties of war.  People write these off as necessary for the campaign.  Drone strikes don't just take out an individual, they take out city blocks.  Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, & children have been killed in the middle east by American policy over the last 20 years - people that were just guilty of living close to a target.  Throw in unjust wars & fighting for financial gain, and you've got a whole other can of worms when talking about unnecessary death.

If we're approaching abortion as inherently wrong based solely on the reasoning that killing human life out of convenience is wrong... well then, we need an entire paradigm shift in all facets of how we interact within society and the world.  Anything less would be hypocrisy.

Is abortion inadvertent or intentional? Is killing innocent people in a war inadvertent or intentional?

That's like asking if putting a turtle on his back is inadvertently killing it... If you know the end result is death - you are intentionally doing it. If you drop a bomb on a city block and you know the end result is innocent people dieing, how could it be anything but intentional?  Even then, you're suggesting that your original target is justifiably needing to be killed.   I don't think that's always the case in a lot of the wars we've been part of.

We (the US) hasn't fought a war without intentionally killing innocent people in a LONG time, if ever.  We are still droning the crap out of the Taliban and their families with the hopes that they get sick of seeing their families splattered all over the road, drop the IEDs and get back to cultivating poppies for our drugs.  We have always hoped to inflict maximum suffering to gain capitulation.

[Trim]

I think Trim is saying who the eff do people think they are telling someone what and what not to do with their bodies while at the same time you don't have to suffer the consequences of your opinions/laws?

Somewhat, but with snarky comments thrown in throughout.  Mainly, I can understand why one wouldn't want to abort their own potential child, but I can't understand why anyone would care about what some other person with their own unique situation does with their potential child.  Like if somebody is in a situation where they're contemplating an abortion (and they're not fun, so it's almost certainly a situation where the abort'r has a good idea that having that child will not be a good thing) what is the harm in them having the abortion?  I can't think of any, unless like I said earlier, it's about souls or religion.

[Dugout DickStone]

I think Trim is saying who the eff do people think they are telling someone what and what not to do with their bodies while at the same time you don't have to suffer the consequences of your opinions/laws?

Somewhat, but with snarky comments thrown in throughout.  Mainly, I can understand why one wouldn't want to abort their own potential child, but I can't understand why anyone would care about what some other person with their own unique situation does with their potential child.  Like if somebody is in a situation where they're contemplating an abortion (and they're not fun, so it's almost certainly a situation where the abort'r has a good idea that having that child will not be a good thing) what is the harm in them having the abortion?  I can't think of any, unless like I said earlier, it's about souls or religion.

It's about control.

[HeinBallz]

I think Trim is saying who the eff do people think they are telling someone what and what not to do with their bodies while at the same time you don't have to suffer the consequences of your opinions/laws?

Somewhat, but with snarky comments thrown in throughout.  Mainly, I can understand why one wouldn't want to abort their own potential child, but I can't understand why anyone would care about what some other person with their own unique situation does with their potential child.  Like if somebody is in a situation where they're contemplating an abortion (and they're not fun, so it's almost certainly a situation where the abort'r has a good idea that having that child will not be a good thing) what is the harm in them having the abortion?  I can't think of any, unless like I said earlier, it's about souls or religion.

It's about control.

So it is a government issue...  and no moral reasoning is welcome in this argument.

[SkinnyBenny]

My grandmother had three children and five miscarriages throughout her life. At any point has she considered herself to be a mother of 8? Would anyone consider her to be a mother of 8? Did she have funerals for the five miscarriages or grieve as much about them as she did when her son had a heart attack at 45?  Of course the answer to all of these is no.  Because a person is more than a fetus.

The health, stability, and well-being of a 10 year-old rape victim who walks the Earth and already has to live with being the victim of a horrible crime is FAR more important and worth FAR more than the "life" that some of you want to force her to carry inside her for nine months and then care for for 18 years. To suggest that they are equal is completely rough ridin' ludicrous, as is suggesting there's no gray area. Of course there's a gray area, but there's one area that's absolutely, undeniably black and white as a human: 10 year-old rape victims.  A person is more than a fetus. "But the issue here is that those of us who believe life begins at conception think they're equal." Well, if you think they're equal then you're a moron.

And by the way (and admittedly this probably doesn't apply to any EMAWs here, but it definitely does to the GPC and Ksf pro-lifers):

If you say you're against abortion but  aren't actively campaigning to do everything you possibly can to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place (making birth control free and easy to obtain for anyone who wants it, promoting comprehensive sex ed in public schools, etc.), then you aren't really against abortion. You're against consequence-free pre-marital sex. You just want a punishment.

[EMAWican]

I think Trim is saying who the eff do people think they are telling someone what and what not to do with their bodies while at the same time you don't have to suffer the consequences of your opinions/laws?

Somewhat, but with snarky comments thrown in throughout.  Mainly, I can understand why one wouldn't want to abort their own potential child, but I can't understand why anyone would care about what some other person with their own unique situation does with their potential child.  Like if somebody is in a situation where they're contemplating an abortion (and they're not fun, so it's almost certainly a situation where the abort'r has a good idea that having that child will not be a good thing) what is the harm in them having the abortion?  I can't think of any, unless like I said earlier, it's about souls or religion.

Keep in mind that over half of the abortions performed in America are not on first-timers, and I wouldn't call those unique situations.  I would think that they would learn the first time... 

[Rage Against the McKee]

My grandmother had three children and five miscarriages throughout her life. At any point has she considered herself to be a mother of 8? Would anyone consider her to be a mother of 8? Did she have funerals for the five miscarriages or grieve as much about them as she did when her son had a heart attack at 45?  Of course the answer to all of these is no.  Because a person is more than a fetus.

The health, stability, and well-being of a 10 year-old rape victim who walks the Earth and already has to live with being the victim of a horrible crime is FAR more important and worth FAR more than the "life" that some of you want to force her to carry inside her for nine months and then care for for 18 years. To suggest that they are equal is completely rough ridin' ludicrous, as is suggesting there's no gray area. Of course there's a gray area, but there's one area that's absolutely, undeniably black and white as a human: 10 year-old rape victims.  A person is more than a fetus. "But the issue here is that those of us who believe life begins at conception think they're equal." Well, if you think they're equal then you're a moron.

And by the way (and admittedly this probably doesn't apply to any EMAWs here, but it definitely does to the GPC and Ksf pro-lifers):

If you say you're against abortion but  aren't actively campaigning to do everything you possibly can to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place (making birth control free and easy to obtain for anyone who wants it, promoting comprehensive sex ed in public schools, etc.), then you aren't really against abortion. You're against consequence-free pre-marital sex. You just want a punishment.

I have actually had somebody argue with me that the HPV vaccination is a bad idea because the only people who get HPV are whores who sleep around.

[Trim]

I think Trim is saying who the eff do people think they are telling someone what and what not to do with their bodies while at the same time you don't have to suffer the consequences of your opinions/laws?

Somewhat, but with snarky comments thrown in throughout.  Mainly, I can understand why one wouldn't want to abort their own potential child, but I can't understand why anyone would care about what some other person with their own unique situation does with their potential child.  Like if somebody is in a situation where they're contemplating an abortion (and they're not fun, so it's almost certainly a situation where the abort'r has a good idea that having that child will not be a good thing) what is the harm in them having the abortion?  I can't think of any, unless like I said earlier, it's about souls or religion.

Keep in mind that over half of the abortions performed in America are not on first-timers, and I wouldn't call those unique situations.  I would think that they would learn the first time... 

I'd say it's unique from dobber's happy family having a kid.  At the dobber household, you've got a family that's psyched up about their potential addition to the family, and in your example, you've got a girl who, while maybe having exercised poor judgment earlier, I would argue is now showing some maturity in making an informed decision about her and her potential child's future.  Two very unique situations.

[EMAWican]

To me, the fact that there is apparently three major stances on abortion now is mind-blowing in itself.  Remember when is used to be for or against (except in extreme cases of rape, incest, etc.)?  Now people are actually trying to make the unequivocal "no" abortion.   

[felix rex]

Lot of anti-lifers and anti-choicers in this thread.

[nicname]

I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.

How do you not see the hypocrisy here?   Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society. 

Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency.  You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.

So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?

If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."

I don't want to get too far off topic - but I'm saying there is indeed such a thing as casualties of war.  People write these off as necessary for the campaign.  Drone strikes don't just take out an individual, they take out city blocks.  Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, & children have been killed in the middle east by American policy over the last 20 years - people that were just guilty of living close to a target.  Throw in unjust wars & fighting for financial gain, and you've got a whole other can of worms when talking about unnecessary death.

If we're approaching abortion as inherently wrong based solely on the reasoning that killing human life out of convenience is wrong... well then, we need an entire paradigm shift in all facets of how we interact within society and the world.  Anything less would be hypocrisy.

Is abortion inadvertent or intentional? Is killing innocent people in a war inadvertent or intentional?

That's like asking if putting a turtle on his back is inadvertently killing it... If you know the end result is death - you are intentionally doing it. If you drop a bomb on a city block and you know the end result is innocent people dieing, how could it be anything but intentional?  Even then, you're suggesting that your original target is justifiably needing to be killed.   I don't think that's always the case in a lot of the wars we've been part of.

We (the US) hasn't fought a war without intentionally killing innocent people in a LONG time, if ever.  We are still droning the crap out of the Taliban and their families with the hopes that they get sick of seeing their families splattered all over the road, drop the IEDs and get back to cultivating poppies for our drugs.  We have always hoped to inflict maximum suffering to gain capitulation.

I don't think that's any sort of mystery.  I, for one, am not condoning it either.

[SkinnyBenny]

Keep in mind that over half of the abortions performed in America are not on first-timers, and I wouldn't call those unique situations.  I would think that they would learn the first time...

And these are the people you want to be parents???

[felix rex]

We (the US) hasn't fought a war without intentionally killing innocent people in a LONG time, if ever.  We are still droning the crap out of the Taliban and their families with the hopes that they get sick of seeing their families splattered all over the road, drop the IEDs and get back to cultivating poppies for our drugs.  We have always hoped to inflict maximum suffering to gain capitulation.

As a contributing author to that policy, let me clarify that we never meant for it to be examined ethically.

[DQ12]

codename: dominate

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.

How do you not see the hypocrisy here?   Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society. 

Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency.  You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.

They can also become president, even if they have no relationship with their father and sent off to live with grandparents.

[EMAWican]

Keep in mind that over half of the abortions performed in America are not on first-timers, and I wouldn't call those unique situations.  I would think that they would learn the first time...

And these are the people you want to be parents???

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Let's not throw out accusations all willy-nilly (no stereotype).  I'm a proponent of the concept that if the woman is capable of making an informed decision about her and her child's future, then she should be capable of identifying other options.  In our convenience-based society, abortion is nothing more than a solution to the need for convenience.  That's the reason why around half of the abortions are not on first-timers; convenience.  It just wasn't convenient for the parent(s) to have the child.

My sister and her husband adopted a child that was "unwanted, unloved, unprovided for, uneducated", but the mother decided against abortion.  From my position, the joy that one child has now, and brings to those around him provides adequate valuation to lessening the availability to abortion.

I'm sure there are other examples, but I have a close friend whose parents split while he was at med school.  His mother told him after that event that he was basically lucky to be alive-she wanted to have an abortion when she became pregnant with him, but his father wouldn't allow it.  It tore her up for 30+ years.  This is the same kid who saves lives every month now (lives from wanted, loved, provided for, etc. homes) in the ER.  How can you quantify his benefit to society?  I realize that we can play the "if game" never-ending, but my sister adopting solidified my viewpoint.  BTW I'm not trying to square off with anyone here. 
   

[SkinnyBenny]

I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.

How do you not see the hypocrisy here?   Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society. 

Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency.  You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.

They can also become president, even if they have no relationship with their father and sent off to live with grandparents.

Which do you think happens more often? Be honest.

[Rage Against the McKee]

This is the same kid who saves lives every month now (lives from wanted, loved, provided for, etc. homes) in the ER.  How can you quantify his benefit to society?     

meh

[felix rex]

I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.

How do you not see the hypocrisy here?   Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society. 

Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency.  You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.

They can also become president, even if they have no relationship with their father and sent off to live with grandparents.

Which do you think happens more often? Be honest.

hey little guy. Sure you have a chance at life. Buuuut it's not statistically relevant. So, chin up! You won't even feel this.

[slobber]

I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.

How do you not see the hypocrisy here?   Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society. 

Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency.  You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.

They can also become president, even if they have no relationship with their father and sent off to live with grandparents.

Which do you think happens more often? Be honest.

hey little guy. Sure you have a chance at life. Buuuut it's not statistically relevant. So, chin up! You won't even feel this.

If we are playing statics, then we are all mumped.