|
|
Post by MO on May 6, 2004 15:21:29 GMT -5
Wow! That is one long winded exercise in moral relativism!  I saw the pictures of those ladies (and I use that term loosely) at the pro abortion rally and frankly, I don't think most of them will ever have to worry about getting pregnant.  |
|
|
|
Post by remedios on May 7, 2004 20:35:10 GMT -5
So it wasn't enough I called your bluff on your hypocrisy about the value of human life - you decided to come right out and put your misogyny on display.
Well guess what? We're not going anywhere, we're not giving up the vote, we're not going back into the home, and you're just going to have to live with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on May 7, 2004 21:26:36 GMT -5
lol I am hardly a misogynist. In fact I am a woman. I just do not wonder why men become frustrated with the shrill feminists in our midst.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on May 9, 2004 20:58:41 GMT -5
How does suggesting that the entire world needs to start valuing human life make me a "shrill feminist?"
And while we're at it, how does being a woman keep you from being a misogynist? Newsflash: it doesn't. You may like yourself, but apparently you hate every women who isn't exactly like you. And from what I've seen of your viewpoint, the role you'd have women play is pretty lame. If that doesn't make you a misogynist, I don't know what does.
Should I start calling you Ms. Taliban now, since you apparently sympathize with the Taliban and other Muslim extremists? Your sympathy with the enemy is positively un-American.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on May 9, 2004 21:03:11 GMT -5
Oh, and if you want moral relativism, a perfect example is selectively applying an ethic of the sanctity of life.
Still haven't answered that charge with anything but excuses about "reality." Last time I checked, the fact that people are generally bad should not be used as an excuse for more bad behavior. After all, if that were the case, I could argue that women should be able to abort because women have always sought a way to terminate pregnancies, or, oh I don't know, that they should be able to abort because no one else respects innocent human life.
You want protection for innocent human life, you can have it, but not while reserving the right to break your own rule when you see fit.
That's moral relativism. See what you've wrought?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on May 10, 2004 1:10:51 GMT -5
You don't have a thing on me or anyone who is pro-life. You're saying that women should kill their babies because countries go to war. Very weak.
And now, you're even denying that you consider yourself a feminist. After making a feminist (fool) of yourself in the feminism threads.
Sorry hun, you can post to aim at me directly instead of the more numerous quiet readers, but I don't think you're making a good case for killing your kids.
And you've proved you have no sense of humor.
I'm not going to argue with your ridiculous premise that it is right to kill your children because others do wrong. My morals are not based on what other people do. But hey, what ever gets you through the night.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on May 14, 2004 20:55:08 GMT -5
No, you're arguing that it's o.k. to kill innocent human life if the alternatives aren't "realistic." What you're really arguing is that the desire to kill other people in war is impossible to get rid of, and that because it would be *very hard* to force people to find alternatives to war, we can just keep on going the same as we've always gone, and downplay the fact that war results in the death of innocent human life as much as abortion does. What you're really arguing is that it would be easy to force women to have babies that they don't want, so we should do it, but it would be too hard to stop war, so we shouldn't bother.
THAT is moral relativism. It's also blatantly misogynistic. If you really respected life and the women who have to care for it, you'd be as much against war as abortion. PERIOD.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on May 14, 2004 21:41:12 GMT -5
Incidentally, since you called me a fool in that last post, is it safe to assume that it's officially off the list of names that aren't tolerated at rant forum, or did you just abandon that high road once it was no longer convenient for you to travel it?
P.S. Nothing about the Taliban's perspective on women is funny - except maybe burquas hiding swimsuits or cheerleading outfits - ya know, something that a real funny guy like Al Franken would think of.
|
|
|
|
Post by navynate on May 19, 2004 17:30:56 GMT -5
TEXTTEXTTEXTHow can women say that it's a fundamental right to be able to kill their baby?  That makes no sense at all. Prochoice groups use slogans, not arguments to defend abortion on demand. Saying over and over again, "It's a womens body she can do with it whatever she wants isn't an argument for abortion, it's a slogan that they use all the time. I want to see a defense of Abortion from prochoicers, not slogans. And what about all the lies that prochoicers and groups have had to tell over the years to get Roe VS. Wade decided and then to keep Roe VS Wade the law? Why does abortion have to be legal? And then I'll tell you why it shouldn't be legal. Prochoice groups are going crazy because they're losing the debate and they're desperate to keep abortion legal. Lying is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for them, being completely wrong on minor issues is also SOP for them. If you gave prochoice groups a map to the truth, they still wouldn't be able to find it with easy to follow directions too. To all prochoicers here. Why are there more women who have had abortions who belong to the National Right To Life Committee then NARAL? Why is there even one lady belong to NRTLC who has had an abortion? Why have so many people at all levels of the abortion industry left and become prolife activists? I had a debate about abortion a few years ago with a freind of my brothers and she really got ticked off with me. I would totally destroy her argument for abortion and didn't do anything to my defense of the life of an unborn baby (and yes, when a women is pregnant, she is pregnant with a baby). She almost had smoke coming out of her ears she was so mad. Saying that abortion has to be legal isn't going to win many arguments. In debates the person who is calm and nice to talk to is usually the prolife person, the person getting very angry is the prochoice person.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on May 23, 2004 17:02:51 GMT -5
They are arguing the existence of a privacy right, which the Supreme Court has held includes the right to decide when and if to have children. You can argue that everyone has the choice when to have children by conflating it with the choice to have sex, except that argument falls apart when someone never wants to have children. Do these people have to live a life without sex and have sexless marriages?
What lies? The religious right has engaged in just as much, if not more, outright deceit in their attempts to get Roe v. Wade overturned.
Because there are people with belief systems that are just as much the product of reason and conscience as yours is who also happen to believe that women should be able to have absolute control over whether or not they have children, and that this control should not require that the woman only have sex when she wants to have children. Pure and simple.
Go ahead, but I'm sure I've heard it before.
Only until Bush gets kicked out of office on his cowardly, ignorant butt this November.
You know, you keep on saying this, but fail to provide any examples for debate. Hmmm, I wonder why? Could it be you're just making it up?
Citation please.
Because she should have never had an abortion in the first place. Because it was a bad choice that she made. Only fascists argue that the possibility of making a bad decision is adequate justification to take away the ability to choose at all.
Citation please. And note: if you give me nothing but pro-life sources, I'll simply have to conclude that the real reason you have the opinions you have is that you've never read anything that disagrees with them.
Nobody's arguing with that.
Not quite sure what to say to that except that it's anecdotal and therefore, worth about as much as other anecdotal evidence: not much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Letsgetreal on May 23, 2004 21:24:27 GMT -5
Only fascists argue that the possibility of making a bad decision is adequate justification to take away the ability to choose at all. Only fascists argue that the possibility of difficulty or discomfort is adequate justification to take away the problem, life, as quickly and easily as possible. If I, being a facsist, take away your ability to choose by taking away your ability to kill, then by all means insult me; call me a facsist. Let's Get Real |
|
|
|
Post by shell on Oct 7, 2004 2:55:29 GMT -5
why are people so obsessed with the rights of women what about the rights of the child arent they just as important the only diffrence i can see is the fact that the child doesnt yet have a voice so therfore it is the mother who should protect her child at all costs that has the only say why what about the father for one its his child to what about his rights to say to the mother hey hold on thats my child your killing no i want it to live as far as im concerned you become a mother at conception and the definition of mother is some one that will fight for and protect her child from anything not kill that child because it is inconveniant or less than perfect there is no concevable reason on this planet for abortion murder is a crime even if the killer is mummy and abortion= murder so does that make mummy = murderer it does in my eyes
|
|
Brad
German Shepard
Posts: 11
|
Post by Brad on Oct 7, 2004 6:40:18 GMT -5
An innocent child? Oh you must be refering to the unborn creature that is a Foetus. Of course abortion is right.It is science.And it is the right to choice (Because it is a choice you idiot) for each and every single woman. I will argue more soon, but id like you to reply first 'maineh'. I could do with a good laugh.  |
|
|
|
Post by shell on Oct 7, 2004 7:50:44 GMT -5
brad are you sure you are up to getting a reply because i think you made it clear from your last post that you cannot handle other peoples oppinions to state that some one is an idiot just because they happen to have diffrent veiws fron you is very juvanile and as for the fact that abortion is legal unfortunatly may i add is neither here nor there to take a childs life is down right murder for a mother to do it is horriffic you expect mothers to lay down there life for their children not sign their death warrant
|
|
|
|
I saw the pictures of those ladies (and I use that term loosely) at the pro abortion rally and frankly, I don't think most of them will ever have to worry about getting pregnant. 
That makes no sense at all. Prochoice groups use slogans, not arguments to defend abortion on demand. Saying over and over again, "It's a womens body she can do with it whatever she wants isn't an argument for abortion, it's a slogan that they use all the time. I want to see a defense of Abortion from prochoicers, not slogans. And what about all the lies that prochoicers and groups have had to tell over the years to get Roe VS. Wade decided and then to keep Roe VS Wade the law? 
Shell, are you sure you're up to me replying, because it doesn't appear as though you can even handle the correct use of grammar. (oppinions?) So before you go all holy on us, remember I pointed out that abortion is a choice (which it is) and that I completely agree.For a mother herself to commit that act is nothing short of horrific.So im glad we agree on that.Son. 