Indisputable Abortion FACTS: - Page 8

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 01:49

Quote:

Originally posted by monolith94
You're the one being unrealistic, sacrificing a woman's future so that some hypothetical human comes into a world that doesn't want it. And part of being human is the ability to imagine oneself in another's position. If you can't understand where others come from, their motivations, their hopes, their etcetera, and you can't calculate all that together, I worry for the future.

We're just facing off on the impossible, aren't we?

Yet with every continuing description of "knowing and understanding the situation and personality of others" and "knowing when a new should be denied entrance into the world" - my own skecth of pro-choice personality becomes more vivid.

Christ, I always thought I was the most arrogant mind on this board...

monolith94 · August 5, 2003, 01:51

Not arrogant...

realistic.

st_swithin · August 5, 2003, 01:53

A fig for reality.

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 01:54

Quote:

Originally posted by monolith94

realistic.

Apparently not

[Check my unanswered mocking of a few posts ago

]

monolith94 · August 5, 2003, 01:57

apparently zylka and I live on two different worlds

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 01:58

Why - is quoting a single word of a response and putting an emoticon after it an answer in your wonderful plane of reality?

monolith94 · August 5, 2003, 01:59

monoliths are from mars, zylkas are from venus. that's my opinion on the subject. and with that, I go to bed.

st_swithin · August 5, 2003, 02:04

You cheeky monkey, you!

Spiffor · August 5, 2003, 02:04

Most unwanted pregnancies come from the man's behaviour. The ancient favorite, which still is a blast today, is that the man promises to stop before ejaculation. This 'contraception' method almost never works, because 1) the man rarely stops in time and 2) some sperm is secreted before ejaculation, meaning a girl can become pregnant even if the man stopped in a timely fashion. The sad thing is that it's not common knowledge.

Another favourite is when the man leaves the woman because he can't tolerate her being pregnant. It happens very, very often as well, to teenagers mostly.
Of course, you aren't able to fathom uninformed / naive teens being plunged into unwanted pregnancy, because the only thing you are thinking about is yourself and your little middle class sexual life.

Obviously, the situations make for less than 5% of unwanted pregnancies ?

Obviously, aborting women are all sluts who want to take a condomless **** hard, and then willfully kill the baby for whom they feel nothing.

Yes, how dare these sluts take up 95% of the abortions !

Urban Ranger · August 5, 2003, 02:06

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
so u decided to play god? u foresaw a future that YOU wouldn't want to live in. and then decided that instead of letting the child live u would simply kill it. isnt that a lil beyond a persons scope?

so u decided to play god? u foresaw a future that YOU wouldn't want to live in. and then decided that instead of letting the mother having the abortion u would simply force her to bear it to term. isnt that a lil beyond a persons scope?

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 02:08

Guess what UR - No one, and I mean NO ONE respects you or your opinions, so please quietly leave my thread.

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Most unwanted pregnancies come from the man's behaviour. The ancient favorite, which still is a blast today, is that the man promises to stop before ejaculation. This 'contraception' method almost never works, because 1) the man rarely stops in time and 2) some sperm is secreted before ejaculation, meaning a girl can become pregnant even if the man stopped in a timely fashion. The sad thing is that it's not common knowledge.

Another favourite is when the man leaves the woman because he can't tolerate her being pregnant. It happens very, very often as well, to teenagers mostly.
Of course, you aren't able to fathom uninformed / naive teens being plunged into unwanted pregnancy, because the only thing you are thinking about is yourself and your little middle class sexual life.

Obviously, the situations make for less than 5% of unwanted pregnancies ?

Obviously, aborting women are all sluts who want to take a condomless **** hard, and then willfully kill the baby for whom they feel nothing.

Yes, how dare these sluts take up 95% of the abortions !

Blar blar blar. Come up with some large percentage stats and I'll give the sob stories a look

tinyp3nis · August 5, 2003, 02:13

Zylka, are you serious? Do you actually believe anything you are saying? I wonder if your just a pro-choicer trolling your ass off.

st_swithin · August 5, 2003, 02:18

hee hee hee!

"A true fisher of men is the Master Baiter" - goong fu tze, literal translation

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 02:23

Ok guys, I'm sorry to have become so aggravated - but here's the basic conversation as I recieve it [feel free to show me your own version

]

Pro-Choicer: Abortion is wonderful. Just think of all the misery it stops!

Me: The degrees of misery you have in mind do not justify murder to eliminate them.

Pro-Choicer: It's not murder! I know it isn't because I am realistic, and that's all I need to say.

Me: I don't really know for sure if it is, but a large enough opinion holds it as chance - so why even risk murder when you're simply trying to alleviate 9 months of pregnancy and labour?

Pro-Choicer: Ok, even if a fetus is alive, making it murder - HOW does it make sense to make a woman go through pregnancy etc. when she didn't want the unborn baby and it was its choice to be concievd?

Me: It wasn't the (now) babies choice to concieve - I'm pretty sure of that much! So if she didn't want the baby, she and Jack shouldn't have been f*cking in the first place.

Pro-Choicer: Yet even if she took measures to avoid the pregnancy - it still happens! Think rape or the ever brilliant and consistent "pulling out" contraception method!

Me: Unfortunately - these things do happen, but are in minority case. I would well tackle them before coming to complete terms, only when the majority is dealt with. So from now on, this point is seen as a smokescreen to the major issue, ok?

Pro-Choicer: ...but even the majority don't want the child. Again, even if indeed it is "MURDER" - infringing upon the wants and comfort of the would be mother is worse than the mercy killing itself! This is a woman's body, after all!

Me: How could you EVER justify murder over a relative 9 month (or even life) comfort?

Pro-Choicer: YOU HATE WOMEN! YOU HATE THE VAGINA AND DESPISE THE FEMALE RACE

Me: what

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 02:25

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Zylka, are you serious? Do you actually believe anything you are saying? I wonder if your just a pro-choicer trolling your ass off.

Go ahead and tell me why through rhetoric/debate, although I'm always rather fond and impressed with the use of an

emoticon.

Spiffor · August 5, 2003, 02:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Ok guys, I'm sorry to have become so aggravated - but here's the basic conversation as I recieve it [feel free to show me your own version

]

You're completely wrong, Z, as you are putting all prochoicers in the same bag.
There are some prochoicers who argue the embryo is not a human being.
Some others try to show that an embryo doesn't have individual rights, and argue that the mother comes first.
Some others (to which I belong) dismiss the whole embryo issue as irrelevant and discuss about the future of the women and the children.
A few try to sicuss about all 3 elements, but it is the best way to become confused.

By mixing the 3 kinds of pro-choice arguments into one mix allows you to take some cheap shot on the pro-choicers

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 02:36

Oh, I also like that one

I'm dealing with the people I've been arguing with, and have set a universal tone of opposition argument for it. Unfortunatelty I have not as much been attending to your points, they're rather original and exception like in their own.

So combining your completely off base whims with my illustrated defence of others is not an option to discredit what I've outlined. Try a little harder!

Spiffor · August 5, 2003, 02:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Oh, I also like that one

I'm dealing with the people I've been arguing with, and have set a universal tone of opposition argument for it. Unfortunatelty I have not as much been attending to your points, they're rather original and exception like in their own.

So combining your completely off base whims with my illustrated defence of others is not an option to discredit what I've outlined. Try a little harder!

I did not understand this post. What should I try harder ?

Besides, here's another critic to your version : you dramatically overestimate the flexibility of your opponents. You think they are actually changing their mind while reading your arguments. You think they are giving concessions to your arguments over time. Well, you're wrong. Only Ramo did make concessions, and you have seen how much nonsense the Zylka / Ramo debate was.

Basically, you're repeating over and over the same rehashed crap since the beginning of the thread: that the embryo is a full fledged human, and that its destruction is murder plain and simple. There is no variation to your simplistic argument, except when you say pregnant women had it coming.

On the other side, you have a variety of points of views, which don't change. This leads to some wonderful dialogues, when you say "how many times must I tell you this is so ?", and your opponent replies "No, how many time must I tell you that it is that way ?". This fits my definition of pointless, but maybe that's just me.

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 02:53

I am not saying they are changing mind, but countless have said - "ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in saying a fetus is human for debate. Yet even if it was, [...]"

There's nothing wrong with my outlined conversation, because if you look back and read through the thread - you'll see it all happened often 2 or 3 times.

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 02:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

Basically, you're repeating over and over the same rehashed crap since the beginning of the thread: that the embryo is a full fledged human, and that its destruction is murder plain and simple. There is no variation to your simplistic argument, except when you say pregnant women had it coming.

Go back and read. Or would you like me to drag out posts (within the last 30 even) - that completely contradict what you've just said?

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 02:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

Only Ramo did make concessions, and you have seen how much nonsense the Zylka / Ramo debate was.

Because you say so! Yet a majority of the others active in this thread caught on to and branched out from that argument. I guess it's all whatever you consider nonsense, even if you're the only person in the thread who has declared such.

Another humble individual

Spiffor · August 5, 2003, 02:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
There's nothing wrong with my outlined conversation

Well, if you repeat it enough, it may become true. There, I'll help it making it true: "there is nothing wrong with your outlined conversation", repeat after me

Spiffor · August 5, 2003, 03:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Go back and read. Or would you like me to drag out posts (within the last 30 even) - that completely contradict what you've just said?

Come and humiliate me.

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 03:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

Basically, you're repeating over and over the same rehashed crap since the beginning of the thread: that the embryo is a full fledged human, and that its destruction is murder plain and simple.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka

1 - Simply because "you said so"? Gee, not even I am arrogant or delusional enough to arrive at the concrete conclusion of whether or not a fetus is always living. Given the significant opinion chance that it is (which you can and have NOT disproved) - YOU DON'T RISK MURDER

Awww. That’s too bad. Anything else?

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 03:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

Basically, you're repeating over and over the same rehashed crap since the beginning of the thread: that the embryo is a full fledged human, and that its destruction is murder plain and simple.

Find the word "embryo" in even one of my preceding posts.

Spiffor · August 5, 2003, 03:09

Ah, so that was your strawman. Ok I wrote embryo in place of foetus, because I'm not used differentiating the two.

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 03:12

...because they are often different things in other's minds - not always the singular entity you self describe. Oh look - another lesson in humility! (Still waiting for you to respond to the "humiliate me" answered post)

Spiffor · August 5, 2003, 03:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Awww. That’s too bad. Anything else?

I stand corrected.

So, I'll now repeat with corrections:
"Basically, you're repeating over and over the same rehashed crap since the beginning of the thread: that the foetus may be a full fledged human, and that its destruction may be murder plain and simple."

Happy now ?

Zylka · August 5, 2003, 03:13

Not until others come by tommorrow and see me making an ass of you in the last few posts.

Seriously though spiffy, this topic aside - you're great