I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind

There is no murder. Try to be honest at least. Blatantly lying is why people like you are despised.

I know what the medical procedure is, so I don't have to know what each woman is having done.

I'm being honest. I am the only one who is bringing facts to the table. You can complain and white knight for women all you want with your incoherent arguments. I, on the other hand, will argue to not have humans slaughtered.

Did you support the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? If you can wander off on tangents then I can. Now answer.

Not when you LIE and claim a murder is committed.

One tends to find that anti-abortionists are selectively moral...….Ergo hypocritical.

Can you honestly state that you have never supported the taking of a human life?

I find it comical you think you are smarter and know more about abortions than a former abortionist who has performed 1,200 of them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k&feature=youtu.be

That was sufficient justification though!  It was my subjective feelings of why I can murder my 2 year old, because it can't survive on its own and does not have as much moral significance as me.

Oh I should've been more clear. If you feel your justification for something is sufficient, go right on ahead. In terms of your personal morals, you should be a-ok. Just don't be surprised when the police knock down your door because your personal morals run afoul of society's moral framework. I personally think you would be wrong to murder a 2 year old, but that's just me because I actually understand the positions I've made.

This thread really perfectly encapsulates what I was discussing with HistoryGenius in another thread, which is that these young socialists have no principled respect for the poor at all. G. K. Chesterton, in one of his famous advocacies for property redistribution, wrote these lines about urchins who, after being forced into filthy slums, then had their hair sheared to prevent the spread of lice:

'It never seems to strike them that the body is more than raiment; that the Sabbath was made for man; that all institutions shall be judged and damned by whether they have fitted the normal flesh and spirit. It is the test of political sanity to keep your head. It is the test of artistic sanity to keep your hair on.

Now the whole parable and purpose of these last pages, and indeed of all these pages, is this: to assert that we must instantly begin all over again, and begin at the other end. I begin with a little girl's hair. That I know is a good thing at any rate. Whatever else is evil, the pride of a good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good. It is one of those adamantine tendernesses which are the touchstones of every age and race. If other things are against it, other things must go down. If landlords and laws and sciences are against it, landlords and laws and sciences must go down. With the red hair of one she-urchin in the gutter I will set fire to all modern civilization. Because a girl should have long hair, she should have clean hair; because she should have clean hair, she should not have an unclean home: because she should not have an unclean home, she should have a free and leisured mother; because she should have a free mother, she should not have an usurious landlord; because there should not be an usurious landlord, there should be a redistribution of property; because there should be a redistribution of property, there shall be a revolution. That little urchin with the gold-red hair, whom I have just watched toddling past my house, she shall not be lopped and lamed and altered; her hair shall not be cut short like a convict's; no, all the kingdoms of the earth shall be hacked about and mutilated to suit her. She is the human and sacred image; all around her the social fabric shall sway and split and fall; the pillars of society shall be shaken, and the roofs of ages come rushing down, and not one hair of her head shall be harmed.'

This is the uncompromising vision which reshaped materialistic and callous society, which tirelessly advocated for the rights of the poor contra worldly power. Yet what do we see the self-proclaimed socialist advocating here? Chesterton was horrified enough at the injustice of shearing children like cattle that he called for the dissolution of the British Empire. But modern day, self-described advocates of the poor compare impoverished children to acorns, and coldly muse that if we crush them before they sprout roots then we avoid any messy moral conundrums. It echoes the lines which Chesterton invoked just prior to these ones: 'the mob can never rebel unless it is conservative, at least enough to have conserved some reasons for rebelling. It is the most awful thought in all our anarchy, that most of the ancient blows struck for freedom would not be struck at all today, because of the obscuration of the clean, popular customs from which they came.' These so-called defenders of the downtrodden cannot even muster an iota of outrage over the industrial slaughter of poor children; indeed, it is defended as an unholy cure for poverty. We don't even think seriously about human life any more; we are too engrossed in endless escapism and hedonism to raise a little bit of an ire over the butchery of children.

What is that wall of drivel about.

So you've performed 1200 abortions, WOW.

Did you support the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? If you can wander off on tangents then I can. Now answer.

Now answer.

Now answer.

I support the Afghan war because our soldiers were saving Afghan lives from the Taliban. I support the first Iraq War because we saved Kuwaiti lives from the Iraqis. I don't know enough about the second Iraq war to have an opinion on it. 

Notice the theme here: I am in favor of war when it can save innocent lives. You are attempting to conflate the death of the innocent with the death of the guilty. I am opposed to the death of the innocent and I oppose it consistently. You are trying to make an inconsistency where there is none.

Secondly, you think that the majority of women - and the majority is pro-life - don't oppose their own bodily autonomy. If pro-life women don't oppose women's bodily autonomy, then you are being inconsistent by saying that pro-life men do oppose women's bodily autonomy. Having different chromosomes does not change the logic of the situation.

The War in Iraq, definitely didn't support. Don't know a ton about Afghanistan. It is time to bring the troops home, though.

And I'm not lying, it is 100% murder.

I support abortion in some cases. For instance, if the mother would die. Aka self-defense.

I support killing someone who is trying to kill you. Also self-defense.

And you support the slaughter of INNOCENT men, women, children and fetuses when America wages war. You are a hypocrite, simple as.

Look at the TWO godists who claim do defend innocent life either support the slaughter of innocent life or claim they didn't know it was happening.

How pathetically hypocritical can these cretins be?

If you would care to check, perhaps you would have seen that on my profile, I am very isolationist. I very rarely support wars, so stop lying please. ^_^

I said that I was 100% against Iraq's invasion. That means anti-war, in case you had difficulty understanding that. I said I don't know enough about Afghanistan to have an opinion, which is neither pro or anti-war. So, now that we have your lies of hypocrisy out of the way, please tell me why you are okay with killing defenseless and innocent babies? I look forward to your illogical rationalization and cognitive dissonance that you always spew at everyone on this site.

bmrocks: I don't support the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.  I rarely support wars.

Disgusted: So you support the INNOCENT SLAUGHTER of people in WARS?? WhAT a HyPoCrItE!!

me:

If you actual read and watched the video, you would see a 2nd trimester abortion explained by Dr. Levatino, who has performed 1,200 of them.  You think you know way more than him, which is comically pathetic and stupid at the same time.

No.

Well said.

No no, don't bring up the legality of killing a 2 year old or the societal norms.  

We are thinking about this logically.  If you think it should not be restricted to kill a human being inside the womb, even it has gained personhood, in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, then why can't I kill my 2 year old that has gained personhood?

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein's army that invaded Kuwait were anything but innocent. There is no inconsistency here.

Who did that?

Is that meant to be an insult? If so, it doesn't seem very insulting.

What are you talking about? I just answered your question. Your attention span is getting increasingly short. Perhaps you should take a break

Ok, you tell me then, based on what I've said, why is it wrong to kill that 2 year old?

Your society has a moral framework that determines whether what we do is right or wrong in that society. In that moral framework, killing a 2 year old has been definitively deemed to be wrong unless you have sufficient reason to do so. What that sufficient reason might be is anyones guess however I can be quite certain that the reasons you gave are insufficient. 

Lol, that about sums it up

Unsurprising. 'Wall of drivel' is usually how subliterate cretins describe a paragraph.

Again, don't keep going back to societal norms and societal morality.  Think about it LOGICALLY.

You have yet to respond to what I've said.  I will repeat it "If you think it should not be restricted to kill a human being inside the womb, even it has gained personhood, in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, then why can't I kill my 2 year old that has gained personhood?"

Forget about legality and society, killing my 2 year old is logically consistent with your position.  Care to defend your position?

Exactly.  This is the whole problem with your argument.  A sufficient reason is subjective and can't be sustained.  That's why we must use concrete facts to determine what something is.  Life is inherent or its not.  You are living, or you are dead.  One is living from conception.  Philosophical subjective reasons do not work in creating laws.  You said just take the most popular idea and use it as the law.  That is bogus.  That is completely subjective, and just because something is popular does not make it right.  Concrete facts are the only way to fix this.

citation!

The 200,000 innocent men women and children killed by America were you hypocrite who only defends the innocent. What a fucking liar.

Add another 200,000 in Afghanistan.