Rubio: Life begins at conception

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2015, 12:18 PM)PhilHos Wrote:  they ARE baby murderers. 

I can play this game.

No they are not.  Because I say so, that is why.

Your turn.

[BonnieBengal]

(08-12-2015, 11:36 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Dr Ben Carson had the best answer on this.  He said in this day and age with our technology, it's very rare for the life of the mother to be threatened to the point that you have to choose mother or baby,  but it should be decided on a case by case basis.  He basically said that medical advances have made this almost purely a political argument.

[GMDino]

(08-12-2015, 12:18 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You do realize that gays have been around longer than the United States has, right? The country is over 200 years old and only for the last few decades has it been socially acceptable to be gay by the majority of the country and only NOW is it legally acceptable to marry someone of the same sex.

And heck, it took, what, over 100 years before slavery was banned? Abortion has only been legal for approximately 40 years. Give it time.


I feel for those who must chose abortion over risk of their own demise and for those who have had to experience something as heinous as rape. But for those who are inconvenienced, they ARE baby murderers. 

You're right, though. We need to not lose sight of the people who are truly affected: the unborn who aren't given a chance at life because the mother's convenience is more important than human life.

So you're OK with "baby murder" to save the mother's life?  What did the baby do to deserve to die?  Is the mother's life MORE important than the fetus...sometimes?  Sometimes you can overlook the "unborn who aren't given a chance at life"?

Can you see how it is an agonizing choice and not a dance party down to the clinic and a bowl of ice cream (with sprinkles) after?

No.  Because you think there are millions of women having sex with the thought already that they can just go get an abortion and everything will be OK if they get pregnant.



And there you go.




That kind of sympathy for a fellow human being leads to protests outside clinics and shooting doctors...all in the name of being pro-life.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-12-2015, 12:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can play this game.

No they are not.  Because I say so, that is why.

Your turn.

What else would you call someone who murders a baby? I know it's not original, but it IS an apt description.

Your turn.

[GMDino]

(08-12-2015, 12:24 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: Dr Ben Carson had the best answer on this.  He said in this day and age with our technology, it's very rare for the life of the mother to be threatened to the point that you have to choose mother or baby,  but it should be decided on a case by case basis.  He basically said that medical advances have made this almost purely a political argument.

Then Dr. Carson is OK with "baby murder"...sometimes.  He is "pro-choice".

Its an interesting moral slide scale there.  One that the pro-choice people get accused of quite regularly.

And keep in mind he would have a woman raped by a family member have no choice but carry to full term. Very caring.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-12-2015, 12:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.  People who act like abortion laws interfere with the rights of a fetus refuse to acknowledge that outlawing abortion interferes with the rights of the mother.

I don't think they refuse to acknowledge it. I think it's more along the lines of they just feel the unborn child's rights supersede the rights of the mother.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-12-2015, 12:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: That kind of sympathy for a fellow human being leads to protests outside clinics and shooting doctors...all in the name of being pro-life.

Oh yeah, I'm a real threat to go shoot a doctor because I'm against abortion. 

[GMDino]

(08-12-2015, 12:28 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Oh yeah, I'm a real threat to go shoot a doctor because I'm against abortion. 

Maybe you are not.  But it certainly happens.

I can't remember a pro-choice supporter bombing a pro-life doctor though.

[GMDino]

(08-12-2015, 12:27 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't think they refuse to acknowledge it. I think it's more along the lines of they just feel the unborn child's rights supersede the rights of the mother.

Why?  Why would a fetus that doesn't even have brain wave activity have more rights than the woman?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-12-2015, 07:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Interestingly enough, I know a little about this topic in a legitimate way, and not just talking out of my ass like usual.

Pro-life took their moniker because the more apt description for their movement, anti-abortion, is not as good. Using anti as a prefix for a name for a movement like that is bad marketing and propaganda.

On the other side, pro-choice is chosen because they are for the choice being available for an abortion. Using pro-abortion doesn't work and would drive away people because the majority of people that are pro-choice find abortion to be something they morally oppose on a personal level. The vast majority also draw a line somewhere. So calling them pro-abortion does not reflect the actual position of this side of the debate and is just propagandic.

Both sides chose their names because they reflect liberty and freedom in their wording and paint the other side as anti-life or anti-choice just by their mere opposition. The names are all marketing, nothing more. Especially when you consider the large variety of stances contained within both sides.

I actually knew this, and was asking a rhetorical question.  You have more patience than I do.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-12-2015, 12:25 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What else would you call someone who murders a baby? I know it's not original, but it IS an apt description.

Your turn.

It seems to me that the entire reason why the loving left wants to argue whether it's a life or not is because it justifies the act. 

They can't admit in any way that it's really a life in there, because then ending that life would be doing something bad. 

They call it a fetus, or embryo, or sack of cells...anything but the terms "life" or "baby". 

I remember very well when my wife was pregnant.  I don't ever remember referring to my baby as a fetus, embryo, or a sack of cells.  

[BonnieBengal]

(08-12-2015, 09:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: No, I'll use the "hopefully something good comes from the research" talking point instead because two wrongs (abortion and destruction of the tissue after) is no better than the one wrong of abortion and giving them to researchers for the cost of transportation and storage.

I won't bore you with the medical breakthroughs and success stories that have come from stem-cell research because you don't care about life after birth.  then it is all in god's hands.

Seriously.  The frothing at the mouth about "selling baby parts" would be laughable if I wasn't afraid another nut is going to start bombing clinics and shoot doctors in the name of being "pro-life".

I care very much about research and life after birth. My great nephew Elijah has been fighting Neuroblastoma since July 2013 and still has not been declared cancer free. He was diagnosed before Leah Still. I used to post about it on the old board. But we can do research without killing babies. I would never kill a child to save another child, which is basically what you're advocating. As far as your frothing at the mouth comments, I find libs try very hard to excuse their callousnesses in supporting the murder of 55 million babies by making anyone who is pro life seem crazy. There have been some abortion clinic bombings by murderers, but those people are not pro life no matter what they claim, because they took lives. They are extremists who have nothing to do with us.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-12-2015, 12:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe you are not.  But it certainly happens.

I can't remember a pro-choice supporter bombing a pro-life doctor though.

A million babies are killed by abortion every year.

How many abortion doctors were killed last year by pro-life "radicals"?

Which group do you think poses the greater threat to humanity on an annual basis?  

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2015, 12:25 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What else would you call someone who murders a baby? I know it's not original, but it IS an apt description.

Your turn.

It is not an individual human therefore it is not a baby.  

In order to be a baby it can not still just be a part of the mothers body.

in order to be a baby it has to be possible for it to live separate and apart from the mother.

Since there is not separate life then there is not murder.

[GMDino]

(08-12-2015, 12:33 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: I care very much about research and life after birth.  My great nephew Elijah has been fighting Neuroblastoma since July 2013 and still has not been declared cancer free. He was diagnosed before Leah Still.  I used to post about it on the old board.  But we can do research without killing babies.  I would never kill a child to save another child, which is basically what you're advocating.   As far as your frothing at the mouth comments, I find libs try very hard to excuse their callousnesses in supporting the murder of 55 million babies by making anyone who is pro life seem crazy.  There have been some abortion clinic bombings by murderers, but those people are not pro life no matter what they claim, because they took lives.  They are extremists who have nothing to do with us.

I am advocating nothing.

I am saying IF some good can come from the awful decision to have an abortion I will take that as a better thing than the abortion alone.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2015, 12:34 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: A million babies are killed by abortion every year.

They are not babies.  They are still a part of the mothers body.  It is impossible for them to live separte and apart from the mothers body.

[Belsnickel]

(08-12-2015, 12:27 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't think they refuse to acknowledge it. I think it's more along the lines of they just feel the unborn child's rights supersede the rights of the mother.

(08-12-2015, 12:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why?  Why would a fetus that doesn't even have brain wave activity have more rights than the woman?

That's my question. I mean, even going into the argument of citizen v. non-citizen. You have to be born to be a citizen, so now we are saying that the rights of a non-citizen supersedes the rights of a citizen of this country. That rabbit hole is a deep one.

(08-12-2015, 12:31 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I actually knew this, and was asking a rhetorical question.  You have more patience than I do.

I just felt like typing that out for the benefit of some people that like to claim a lack of bias yet exhibit their bias in their word choice because it is nothing but propaganda.

[djs7685]

(08-12-2015, 12:32 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: It seems to me that the entire reason why the loving left wants to argue whether it's a life or not is because it justifies the act. 

They can't admit in any way that it's really a life in there, because then ending that life would be doing something bad. 

They call it a fetus, or embryo, or sack of cells...anything but the terms "life" or "baby". 

I remember very well when my wife was pregnant.  I don't ever remember referring to my baby as a fetus, embryo, or a sack of cells.  

No, they argue whether it's a baby or not because they truly don't believe it's a baby.

Just like you have certain beliefs that may not be able to be 100% proven.

This is one of the arguments that will never have a true ending because there is no absolute, set definition for "when life begins", no matter how much anyone on either side wants to claim.

I always referred to what was inside of my pregnant wife to be a baby as well, but that's because it would sound awkward to call it a "sack of cells", even if it IS just a sack of cells at that point. The fact that it's commonly accepted to call it a baby, no matter what stage it's at, doesn't mean it's technically, factually a baby.

I don't know when life begins, but the difference between us is that I'm willing to admit that.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-12-2015, 12:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you're OK with "baby murder" to save the mother's life? 

It's not murder. It's self defense. Yes, I AM being serious.

GMDino Wrote:What did the baby do to deserve to die?

He or she threatened the life of the mother. 

GMDino Wrote:Sometimes you can overlook the "unborn who aren't given a chance at life"?

Yes, if the mother's life is in danger or if the child is the product of rape.

GMDino Wrote:Can you see how it is an agonizing choice and not a dance party down to the clinic and a bowl of ice cream (with sprinkles) after?

So what? Adult murderers don't always kill on a whim. Some of them make the agonizing decision to take someone's life. Should we not call them murderers because they weren't complete psychopaths when they took someone's life?

GMDino Wrote:No.  Because you think there are millions of women having sex with the thought already that they can just go get an abortion and everything will be OK if they get pregnant.

I don't know if there are millions but they are out there. And if they want to murder an unborn child because it's inconvenient or what have you, then I will call them for what they are: a baby murderer. 

Just for the record, I've never called anyone that, nor would I with the one exception being if I knew someone was on their way to have an abortion and I thought that calling them that might spare the unborn child's life.

Let me also add that abortion is known to lead to depression and suicied in women and not because someone called them a baby murderer, well, a small part of it is because of that. But the bigger reason is because they carried a life in them and that life is no longer there. Think of it like post-partum depression only worse.

But who cares, right? As long as the mother has the right to kill her unborn child, who cares what happens to her afterwards?

[*PhilHos*]

(08-12-2015, 12:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe you are not.  But it certainly happens.

I can't remember a pro-choice supporter bombing a pro-life doctor though.

Right, the old "all muslims are terrorist" argument.