Thread: Planned Parenthood Bombed

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

OK, same question, but it's the four adults and a thousand newborn babies. Which do you save?

Newborns, and those doctors and nurses had damned well be carrying out as many as I do.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

This is utterly baffling. How can you claim that abortion is "the murder of... tiny human beings" and be pro-choice? There is literally no other context in which people grant others the choice to murder someone. If I wanted to stab a five year old in the heart, you would never dream of saying, "I think it's murder... but I am pro-choice, so go ahead." But for some reason, in this context, you are willing to accept it.

What I think is that, despite all protests to the contrary, you do see the distinction between abortion and murder. As does most of the pro-life community. Anyone who would permit abortion in the cases of rape or incest sees the distinction. Anybody who does not take aggressive action in the face of hundreds of thousands of "murders" committed every year either sees the distinction... or they are moral cowards, no different than the Germans who stood by and let the Holocaust happen. Worse, actually, because Germans could claim not to know.

Now, I personally am glad that pro-lifers are willing to, for the most part, work within our country's legal framework, but given that they believe that a large-scale genocide is occurring here, I don't really understand it. And I would love — and I say this with no sarcasm at all — someone to explain the thought process that justifies such a timid response to what they believe is the wholesale slaughter of innocent babies.

First, I don't get the incest thing. If it's two consenting adults, that are related, I don't see that as any different a circumstance than two non-related people having an abortion. Second, I don't condone abortion in the case of rape, either. I simply have more understanding and sympathy for the woman, in that case. You know, life is dirty and some decisions are really freaking hard and it's crazy to not get that.

Originally Posted by goober

So you value 4 human lives over thousands?
Maybe when it comes right down to it, your definition of human includes the ability to think and feel.
After all, when they pulled the plug on Terry Schiavo, she wasn't human, she was a dead body with a beating heart, that was breathing, but she had died long before that, and ceased being a human being.

No. I value 4 human lives that I know are viable over 1000 that I couldn't do anything for even if I did save them.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

It is legal to kill in war too.

In Germany before and during WWII it was legal to kill whomever they did not like. I believe the mindset of pro-abortion people is the same as the NAZIs back then, "It was legal so it isn't murder." That was so much hogwash back then as abortion is now.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

This is utterly baffling. How can you claim that abortion is "the murder of... tiny human beings" and be pro-choice? There is literally no other context in which people grant others the choice to murder someone. If I wanted to stab a five year old in the heart, you would never dream of saying, "I think it's murder... but I am pro-choice, so go ahead." But for some reason, in this context, you are willing to accept it.

What I think is that, despite all protests to the contrary, you do see the distinction between abortion and murder. As does most of the pro-life community. Anyone who would permit abortion in the cases of rape or incest sees the distinction. Anybody who does not take aggressive action in the face of hundreds of thousands of "murders" committed every year either sees the distinction... or they are moral cowards, no different than the Germans who stood by and let the Holocaust happen. Worse, actually, because Germans could claim not to know.

Now, I personally am glad that pro-lifers are willing to, for the most part, work within our country's legal framework, but given that they believe that a large-scale genocide is occurring here, I don't really understand it. And I would love — and I say this with no sarcasm at all — someone to explain the thought process that justifies such a timid response to what they believe is the wholesale slaughter of innocent babies.

We murder humans all the time and give it another name. Call the human what you want ... child, fetus, human organism, but still you have an individual human. I won't condone abortion ... nor will I tell a woman what to do with her body ... which her body is required for the human organism to grow. If she wants to kill herself ... I won't intervene. If she wants to drug herself into oblivion ... go right ahead. If she doesn't want to carry her unborn ... oh well. Her child needs her body to grow. That's my justification ... as I said we can dream up a 1000 reasons to kill the defenseless ... if you don't like my reasoning ... it's surely open to debate ... but as much as I dislike abortion ... I won't tell someone else what they have to do with their body. And no I don't see a distinction between abortion and murder. What's war? Legalized murder for gain and goals. We have legalized murder for poverty. I don't see the difference between rape either ... its an individuals woman's choice to carry a fetus to term.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

It's an interesting question.

Four adults versus thousands of embryos.

We'd love to hear your answer. Or any pro-lifer's answer.

I save the adults 1st ... that's fairly obvious. They are in no need of a vessel to grow.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

OK, same question, but it's the four adults and a thousand newborn babies. Which do you save?

minus the need for a female vessel to grow ... I save the babies.

This would also beg the question: Why do you have a 1000 frozen embryo's sitting around? More experimentation?

Originally Posted by ArmyCowboy

Next time you deploy to combat, walk up to a civilian, kill him/her, and let me know what happens to you. :rolleyes:

Drop a bomb on them, not one damn thing. Might even get a medal.

Killed in a house by machine gun fire. Oh well, too bad.

Bullets and bombs don't discriminate.

Originally Posted by michael h

We murder humans all the time and give it another name. Call the human what you want ... child, fetus, human organism, but still you have an individual human. I won't condone abortion ... nor will I tell a woman what to do with her body ... which her body is required for the human organism to grow. If she wants to kill herself ... I won't intervene. If she wants to drug herself into oblivion ... go right ahead. If she doesn't want to carry her unborn ... oh well. Her child needs her body to grow. That's my justification ... as I said we can dream up a 1000 reasons to kill the defenseless ... if you don't like my reasoning ... it's surely open to debate ... but as much as I dislike abortion ... I won't tell someone else what they have to do with their body. And no I don't see a distinction between abortion and murder. What's war? Legalized murder for gain and goals. We have legalized murder for poverty. I don't see the difference between rape either ... its an individuals woman's choice to carry a fetus to term.

First of all, thank you for your thoughtful reply. As much as I like spirited debate, I also want to understand other peoples' viewpoints and you have been very helpful in that regard. So thank you.

All that said, "murder" is by definition of a heinous criminal act and it puzzles me that you would grant women the right to murder without (legal) consequence.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Scientists have known the answer for years upon years. It's the philosophers that don't agree because they are looking at person from the "I think therefore I am." standpoint vice the biological standpoint.

Then you should have no problem providing a scientific definition of a human being.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

First of all, thank you for your thoughtful reply. As much as I like spirited debate, I also want to understand other peoples' viewpoints and you have been very helpful in that regard. So thank you.

All that said, "murder" is by definition of a heinous criminal act and it puzzles me that you would grant women the right to murder without (legal) consequence.

I barely understand it myself ... "no consequence". Abortion is a heinous act ... without legal consequence. I can only advocate for a woman to be in control of her body ... which her unborn requires to grow. This of courses leaves the unborn ... not in control of its body ... but needing the "not to be mother's body". I suspect part of my leaning towards the individuals right of body control ... over the unborn, lies in my dissatisfaction of women's treatment in the past and current ... "as 2nd rate humans and fuck bags / sexual objects". "Lesser" beings our mothers, daughters, sisters, ... but that's another topic but it probably pushes my resolve to support choice ... as choice has been taken most from women.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

First, I don't get the incest thing. If it's two consenting adults, that are related, I don't see that as any different a circumstance than two non-related people having an abortion. Second, I don't condone abortion in the case of rape, either. I simply have more understanding and sympathy for the woman, in that case. You know, life is dirty and some decisions are really freaking hard and it's crazy to not get that.

Yes, life is full of tough choices. And you are certainly being intellectually consistent on the rape/incest thing.

But there was another question I had, which is why people who believe that abortion is murder do not take more aggressive action in the face of hundreds of thousands of these "murders" committed every year. Some protests, an occasional assassination of an abortion doctor, a bombing here and there... is that really how you people react to what you consider large scale genocide?

It's strange.