Discussion in 'Bill Archer's Guestbook' started by Bill Archer, Sep 13, 2003.
I'm not a big Anti-Abortion guy. I figure that, while it's tragic, and badly misused, that it's too late to turn back the clock.
But that piece of "tissue" above is a little person.
That piece of tissue is probably also already to old to be aborted in most, if not all, states of the Union, especially considering that the article doesn't indicate how old the fetus in that is in the first place.
The BBC ran the same story (I'll try and find the link) and said the released pictures were all between 12 and 20 weeks.
Rip him out of there with a suction hose.
As much as I would love this to bring a pang of reality to those on the pro-choice side I doubt it will. They fear actual debate on this subject to death as science keeps showing their arguments to be wrong. Science will keep on advancing, and we will see more that the "fetus" is a person. And they'll still keep reciting, "The Government has no place in a womans womb." as all their other arguments crumble.
That is not quite where I thought Hang stood on abortion. Am I remembering correctly?
(As for "troll" comment, blame on a a "few" Guinness. Sorry Hang)
Hey man, its political views. If I took personally every time someone disagreed with my political views I'd have no friends. I'm way to "conservative" on some issues like abortion and too liberal on some others. No worries. At least it was good beer.
Anyhow, I am very much against abortion personally. I am pro life pretty much acrosss the spectrum (anti death penalty also). This has caused many arguments among friends on both sides.
I can come across very condescending talking about abortion and have pissed off quite a few people about it. But it disgusts me that abortion is a last resort birth control now. People in the year 2003 regardless of social, economic, or whatever class know the consequences of unprotected sex. They know a possible consequence is a child. But with abortion legal and the life being called a "fetus" any guilt is removed. It's time for adults to take responsibility for adult decisions.
I don't know the answer to remedy it at all to be honest. I am unsure that education is the answer because as I said people already whould know what the consequences are. I believe outlaing abortion would send it underground and make it more dangerous. I don't mean to sound defeatist. But I do think abortion is now part of our culture now, and that people do view it as birth control more than anything else. It makes me sick, and i wish I knew a way to remedy it.
And yeah, since i am in mostly conservative company in this forum, the Democrats stance on abortion makes me sick. I find it a gutless decision to hold on to a vocal minority that doesn't give them enough leeway at the polls. It's about time they hang their hat elsewhere.
Which is pretty much second trimester. Most abrtions are performed in the first.
Well, out of 20 million abortions a year, let's say "most" in this case is 75%.
That means that it makes you feel much better that we're only murdering 5 million of her:
And how about the maybe 1 million or so that are OLDER than this?
Are you volunteering to hold the tube when they stuff it into her skull and suck out her brains?
I'm not sure, but is there a way to make a really big "rolleyes" smilie here? Jeebus, Bill, you're whining worse than a hippy on the Politics board.
The one set of stats I could find so far went more like this:
Voluntary 1st Trimester: 91%
Voluntary 2nd Trimester: <9%
Voluntary 3rd Trimester: 0.01%
So out of you're 20 million number from above (source?), that would make less than 2 million second trimester, and about 2,000 voluntarily in the third trimester, which I believe is not legal in most states, and which I don't necessarily endorse in the first place. But that's a great straw man there, Bill.
Also, you still haven't mentioned the actual age of the fetus in that shot. At least you haven't pulled out a pic of a miscarriage and claimed it was an aborted fetus.
EDIT: According to the website for Planned Parenthood of Indiana (http://www.ppin.org/education/AB_Fact_Sheet_03.pdf), there were 1,312,990 legal abortions in the US. A little less than 20 million, don't ya think?
I was guessing at numbers. In any case, in the 30+ years since it's been legal, I'm still low, right?
With all due respect, you're still not addressing the point:
How many is OK?
And since Pro-Abortion activists refuse to even consider banning partial-birth abortions, it's safe to say that a bunch of babies a heck of a lot OLDER than the pictured PERSON get their brains sucked down a sink every year.
Like I said, how many?
Over that period of time, you'd be correct. The number has been going down in the US, BTW.
How many? As many as people want within current legal means. I'm not nearly "pro-choice" (I hate that term. The whole "woman's right to choose" concept makes it sound like fathers have no right to make any decisions in the reproduction process, although I'm sure there are feminists who would like that very much) as much as I am
"pro-abortion". Too many people having too many kids they can't afford or shouldn't be having in the first place. Give them the option of doing everyone a favor, I say.
I know that most lefties that debate the "pro-choice" position say there's no such thing, that it's just a loaded term made up by the anti-choice types, kind of like "neo-con". What's your definition?
Considering that that picture is probably closer to 24 weeks than the 12-20 that you mentioned before, I'd say you're wrong. That would make it a third-trimester induced abortion, which is more like 150 in one year. Plus, like I said, I'm not a big proponent TTA's anyway.
Banning TTA's is different than in the first trimester, I realize that and so do a lot of other Pro-choice/pro-abortion types, so don't go Pat Robertson on me Bill, it's not an honest arguement.
OK, Margaret Sanger, I understand that world would be much better off if those darn poor people would just stop having babies. What an elitist piece of crap! You would have fit in well in Krakow in 1940.
Seriously, the arguement you use is almost identical to the "justification" that the soldiers in th3 3rd Reich used to eliminate the unwanted from their ranks.
The math arguement is ludicrous. One is too many. At this point, 30 years out from RvW, we had killed over 30 million. So, it is going down. Good. The ovens started cooling in 1945 as well but that did not make firing them up only 20 hours a day a good thing.
At this point, we (the US) has more innocent blood on our hands than Hitler did. We are encroaching on Stalin as well. We make Idi Amin look like a good guy.
How can any civilized society allow someone to make a "choice" to suck the brains out of a living human being?
Your type sickens me. I would rather have someone who defends ALL abortions or goes against all. Some willy nilly type that has to begrudgingly accept that 3rd TTA are not his cut of tea just doesn't have the stomach for what he believes in. Take me for instance. I have the BALLS to admit that my way might actually make a rape victim give birth. So be it. I would rather stick to my point and live and die by it than waver in the wind.
Did I say poor people, sweet cheeks? Did you get any hay stuck in your fingers building that straw man?
Hey, Bill, since this is your forum, can I tell this fool to go fuck himself?
Is your world that black and white, Kaiser? Is that like saying someone might not like the practice of abortions themselves but are willing to support people having the right to have them?
OK, now you're trolling. You got me, well done.
Did you answer one question? What straw arguement? I set up a legitimate parallel between what you accept and what happened when the center of Germany was populated with fools like you.
Yeak, go ahead and tell me to go fcuk myself. Big deal. You don't need Bill's permission to say that.
Good for you. So far I see no logical arguement coming from your side.
Oh wait, I think I found one. According to you, the townfolk who watched as the ovens got lit up every day were simply for the "right" of those who wanted to be able to kill Jews. I have seen better debating skills judging a JV cross ex debate. Your problem is you can't bring yourself to admit that the lame arguement that you have is based upon the deaths of millions. Oh, wait, that's right, only 10% of those are murdered in their first 3 months of life.
(BTW, stop using the straw man arguement if you don't have the balls to hit the cogent arguement point by point.)
Slither back to from where you came....
The one in which you starting railing against me for being pro-abortion because there are too many poor people, as if it were some form of eugenical social-betterment plan. That straw argument.
Your straw argument asside, you see the difference between allowing somebody to do something "against" "someone" that does not officially exist, versus a government program whose sole purpose to exterminate a certain subsection of the population? If you don't, then it would explain your "balls" for admitting you want rape victims to go through with unwanted births.
Oh, and thanks for going Godwin right off the bat, too. It's made this discussion so much better...
I am guest here, I wouldn't assume such a thing...
You know I was going to walk away from this one. I do not believe in Godwin's Law, especially the part that says that I lose simply because I point out a historical fact.
I personally am a strong believer in R. E. Tards Law. ie, Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics...Even if you win you are still retarded.
With that said, and with the lack of logical discourse, I am out of here.
If you do not know that Margarget Sanger (creator of present day planned parenthood) was for social eugenics, then so be it. Keep up your acceptance of people who suck the brains out of defensless babies. It's your conscience, not mine.
Because you're losing?
When was that?
Hey, I've been trying to do my part. Don't let the door hit 'ya where the good lord split 'ya!
If you do not know that the "Sanger the Eugenicist" argument was a blatant and untrue slander against the concept of birth control by people who were afraid that the wealthy would use contraception at a much higher rate than the poor, than so be it.
Yup, I've most assuredly been trolled...
I refuse to have a battle of the wits with one who is unarmed.
If you can't even get your facts straight on Sanger then we have nothing to say. Arguing with an imbecile that quotes crap from teh 30's instead of true facts that have been researched from the last quarter century is useless. I guess if you want to think I lost, then so be it. As to "trolling", I thought the definition was one who came into a post where they are clearly not wanted. Am I not correct on this? At least I have the legitimate argument that I am a fan and regular visitor to Crew forums and games.
Again, what team does your monicor state?
Oh yeah, it ain't Crew. Go home Troll!@
To paraphrse Sean Connery from The Untouchables "Just like a kraut to bring a knife to a gun fihgt"
That Margaret Sanger was eugenicist is a fact? Got a source?
Not really. Trollng can also be posting some outlandishly stupid statement to get a response. Things such as taking pride in the belief that women should be forced to give birth to the offpsring of their rapists, stupid shit like that.
What's a monicor?
Anyway, this is Bill's forum, no? Not the Crew forum.
I mean, seriously.
The indispensable Michelle Malkin posts a long piece today on this subject.
Campbell's high-tech window to the womb also shows the babies moving their limbs at 8 weeks, leaping and turning by 12 weeks, curling their toes and fingers at 15 weeks, and yawning at 20 weeks. The clients' reactions are overwhelming, Campbell said, "especially with fathers, who rarely get involved. Before, they sat in the corner. Now, they really show emotion. I enjoy scanning and looking at babies. It is so informative about babies and behavior. Every scan is an adventure."
How have pro-abortion activists abroad reacted after seeing the happy, grinning photos of these unborn babies? With reflexive scowls and dour grimaces, naturally.
Anne Karpf, a commentator for the British-based Guardian who bills herself as a "medical sociologist," says the photos are "deeply disquieting" and ridicules the anti-abortion lobby for being "intoxicated with evidence of a fetus' humanity." (God forbid this cold woman ever be exposed to a pregnant mommy experiencing the undiluted joy of a baby kicking inside her for the first time.) Australian Birth Control Services medical director Geoff Brodie complained that the photos "will be picked up by those groups that use anything and everything to stop terminations but ignore the fact that women have a right to choice."
Karpf, Brodie and their deathmates are enraged that Dr. Campbell is so gleefully showing the world that the vibrant life inside a mother's womb is much more than inanimate and disembodied material. How dare anyone suggest that the booming business of "terminations" is tantamount to mass murder?
Here in America, the pro-abortion lobby is having the same toxic reaction. It was bad enough when conventional, 2-D sonograms revealed unborn hearts beating and blurry hands waving, but the abortionists are absolutely aghast over rapidly spreading access to 3-D/4-D ultrasound technology. When General Electric began running incredibly moving ads last year celebrating the company's new innovations in sonography, a writer for the liberal American Prospect complained the commercials were "a milieu of clever illusion" that "blur(red) the distinction between a fetus and a newborn infant."
This from the masters of deception who gave us the infamous euphemisms "fetal matter" and "uterine tissue," which have successfully blurred the distinction between human life and disposable Kleenex for more than three decades.
Similarly, pro-abortion advocates have attacked legislation in Congress, introduced by Florida Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns, which would guarantee free ultrasound screenings to any woman who visits a non-profit crisis pregnancy center that receives subsidies for sonogram equipment. Kathryn Allen, Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, griped: "With all the problems going on in our world, I can't imagine that Congress would spend its time and energy on ultrasound for anyone."
Allison Herwitt, director of government relations for NARAL Pro-Choice America in Washington, also attacked pro-life supporters of the bill. "They don't want women to go to Planned Parenthood, where they'll get their full range of options," said Alison Herwitt. "They just want them to go to crisis pregnancy centers, where women will be exposed to this weapon at taxpayers' expense."
Liberals in America are all for the government giving away any health services for free -- except if it's a service that has the ability to persuade a wavering patient to preserve a life instead of end it.
These amazing advances in golden-hued ultrasound have illuminated an insurmountable truth: No amount of NARAL money or National Organization for Women screeching can overcome the persuasive power of an unborn child's beaming face.