The death of Dr. Tiller.

[Kuchen Fairy]

magmayoshi

black_wing_angel

And there's a difference between a potential life, and one already in progress.

Kinda what I was getting at but people don't get that mothers have lives capable of being ruined too. confused

Except that I made note of that in my comment...  

[magmayoshi]

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

black_wing_angel

And there's a difference between a potential life, and one already in progress.

Kinda what I was getting at but people don't get that mothers have lives capable of being ruined too. confused

Except that I made note of that in my comment...

*looks* Nope or you took it horribly out of context and barely put in in there. There is a difference between being alive and having a life to ruin.

Tiller's life and vital processes got ended.

The mothers he helped didn't get their lives ruined beyond the bother, mental effects and monetary loss of getting an abortion. By terminating something that is purely alive and unwanted, the women dodged the health risks of pregnancy and all the things they could easily not afford afterward.

The child was saved from knowing what it's like to be born to a family that would easily use a simple process to end it. Ending something that is so genuinely unwanted is probably the best for it in the end, if you don't cloud it with what it could have been and other "what if" bullshit.  

[Kuchen Fairy]

magmayoshi

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

black_wing_angel

And there's a difference between a potential life, and one already in progress.

Kinda what I was getting at but people don't get that mothers have lives capable of being ruined too. confused

Except that I made note of that in my comment...

*looks* Nope or you took it horribly out of context and barely put in in there. There is a difference between being alive and having a life to ruin.

Tiller's life and vital processes got ended.

The mothers he helped didn't get their lives ruined beyond the bother, mental effects and monetary loss of getting an abortion. By terminating something that is purely alive and unwanted, the women dodged the health risks of pregnancy and all the things they could easily not afford afterward.

The child was saved from knowing what it's like to be born to a family that would easily use a simple process to end it. Ending something that is so genuinely unwanted is probably the best for it in the end, if you don't cloud it with what it could have been and other "what if" bullshit.

Okay, so basically you're determining what is best for an unborn child despite the fact that such a claim is largely investing faith in the very thing you condemned in the same paragraph - "what ifs."
I don't think it's anybody's place to assume that a child is better off dead or nonexistent. That's up to the child his/herself.

When I said "saving women's lives," I meant their lives in general - as in, if their physical health was in danger, Tiller remedied that through the abortion. I did not mean bettering their "quality of life." Like you said, life-ruining is not equatable to life-ending phenomena.

Or maybe I've drifted into the ******** Twilight Zone and just don't really get what you're saying. confused  

[magmayoshi]

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

black_wing_angel

And there's a difference between a potential life, and one already in progress.

Kinda what I was getting at but people don't get that mothers have lives capable of being ruined too. confused

Except that I made note of that in my comment...

*looks* Nope or you took it horribly out of context and barely put in in there. There is a difference between being alive and having a life to ruin.

Tiller's life and vital processes got ended.

The mothers he helped didn't get their lives ruined beyond the bother, mental effects and monetary loss of getting an abortion. By terminating something that is purely alive and unwanted, the women dodged the health risks of pregnancy and all the things they could easily not afford afterward.

The child was saved from knowing what it's like to be born to a family that would easily use a simple process to end it. Ending something that is so genuinely unwanted is probably the best for it in the end, if you don't cloud it with what it could have been and other "what if" bullshit.

Okay, so basically you're determining what is best for an unborn child despite the fact that such a claim is largely investing faith in the very thing you condemned in the same paragraph - "what ifs."
I don't think it's anybody's place to assume that a child is better off dead or nonexistent. That's up to the child his/herself.

When I said "saving women's lives," I meant their lives in general - as in, if their physical health was in danger, Tiller remedied that through the abortion. I did not mean bettering their "quality of life." Like you said, life-ruining is not equatable to life-ending phenomena.

Or maybe I've drifted into the ******** Twilight Zone and just don't really get what you're saying. confused

Wait, wait, wait... Why would you abort if you wanted the child and there was no reason to abort? It's not a "what if", the child is genuinely not wanted for one reason or another be it health, inconvenience, just not wanting it and/or other reasons. There is no "what if" scenarios in any of that.

He could also do that to but seeing as he was relatively willy-nilly about the process (well people are saying so) it only really comes down to people who just don't want a child more than literal life saving (in which the child isn't wanted as well or death will happen).

I think you are touching on it and are trying to but are drifting more than anything sweatdrop  

[Kuchen Fairy]

magmayoshi

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

black_wing_angel

And there's a difference between a potential life, and one already in progress.

Kinda what I was getting at but people don't get that mothers have lives capable of being ruined too. confused

Except that I made note of that in my comment...

*looks* Nope or you took it horribly out of context and barely put in in there. There is a difference between being alive and having a life to ruin.

Tiller's life and vital processes got ended.

The mothers he helped didn't get their lives ruined beyond the bother, mental effects and monetary loss of getting an abortion. By terminating something that is purely alive and unwanted, the women dodged the health risks of pregnancy and all the things they could easily not afford afterward.

The child was saved from knowing what it's like to be born to a family that would easily use a simple process to end it. Ending something that is so genuinely unwanted is probably the best for it in the end, if you don't cloud it with what it could have been and other "what if" bullshit.

Okay, so basically you're determining what is best for an unborn child despite the fact that such a claim is largely investing faith in the very thing you condemned in the same paragraph - "what ifs."
I don't think it's anybody's place to assume that a child is better off dead or nonexistent. That's up to the child his/herself.

When I said "saving women's lives," I meant their lives in general - as in, if their physical health was in danger, Tiller remedied that through the abortion. I did not mean bettering their "quality of life." Like you said, life-ruining is not equatable to life-ending phenomena.

Or maybe I've drifted into the ******** Twilight Zone and just don't really get what you're saying. confused

Wait, wait, wait... Why would you abort if you wanted the child and there was no reason to abort? It's not a "what if", the child is genuinely not wanted for one reason or another be it health, inconvenience, just not wanting it and/or other reasons. There is no "what if" scenarios in any of that.

He could also do that to but seeing as he was relatively willy-nilly about the process (well people are saying so) it only really comes down to people who just don't want a child more than literal life saving (in which the child isn't wanted as well or death will happen).

I think you are touching on it and are trying to but are drifting more than anything sweatdrop

The "what if" is not within the notion that the child is wanted or unwanted, it is within whether the child is better of dead/nonexistent because it is unwanted. There is no factual basis to any answer in regards to that, because 1) it's subjective and on a case-by-case basis, and 2) the child is dead/nonexistent regardless so not only is the question moot, but it's also unanswerable.

Exactly. He did elective abortions. So then how was he saving women's lives if he was only "improving" their "quality of life," if we've established that these two things are vastly different? As you said, an actual life (which I can assume we all agree can be called such as eight, nine months in-utero) ending is not the same as the decline of a woman's quality of life. So I guess I understand what you're saying but am having a hard time establishing 1) your point and 2) what actual stance you are taking. At first you seemed to be objecting to what we were saying but now it seems like you're actually agreeing, so wtf. gonk

Anyway, a point to add - these were viable, living infants, some of them capable of being born naturally any day at the time of the abortion. I fail to see that as heroic, but maybe that is just me. This wasn't a cluster of three-week-old cells, it was a human being - with very little objection that wasn't religion-based (I forget what religion is it that believes an unborn child has no soul until it crowns during birth or something, therefore aborting is okay at any time during the pregnancy). How this makes him a heroic martyr is beyond me.  

[magmayoshi]

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

Silver Screen

Except that I made note of that in my comment...

*looks* Nope or you took it horribly out of context and barely put in in there. There is a difference between being alive and having a life to ruin.

Tiller's life and vital processes got ended.

The mothers he helped didn't get their lives ruined beyond the bother, mental effects and monetary loss of getting an abortion. By terminating something that is purely alive and unwanted, the women dodged the health risks of pregnancy and all the things they could easily not afford afterward.

The child was saved from knowing what it's like to be born to a family that would easily use a simple process to end it. Ending something that is so genuinely unwanted is probably the best for it in the end, if you don't cloud it with what it could have been and other "what if" bullshit.

Okay, so basically you're determining what is best for an unborn child despite the fact that such a claim is largely investing faith in the very thing you condemned in the same paragraph - "what ifs."
I don't think it's anybody's place to assume that a child is better off dead or nonexistent. That's up to the child his/herself.

When I said "saving women's lives," I meant their lives in general - as in, if their physical health was in danger, Tiller remedied that through the abortion. I did not mean bettering their "quality of life." Like you said, life-ruining is not equatable to life-ending phenomena.

Or maybe I've drifted into the ******** Twilight Zone and just don't really get what you're saying. confused

Wait, wait, wait... Why would you abort if you wanted the child and there was no reason to abort? It's not a "what if", the child is genuinely not wanted for one reason or another be it health, inconvenience, just not wanting it and/or other reasons. There is no "what if" scenarios in any of that.

He could also do that to but seeing as he was relatively willy-nilly about the process (well people are saying so) it only really comes down to people who just don't want a child more than literal life saving (in which the child isn't wanted as well or death will happen).

I think you are touching on it and are trying to but are drifting more than anything sweatdrop

The "what if" is not within the notion that the child is wanted or unwanted, it is within whether the child is better of dead/nonexistent because it is unwanted. There is no factual basis to any answer in regards to that, because 1) it's subjective and on a case-by-case basis, and 2) the child is dead/nonexistent regardless so not only is the question moot, but it's also unanswerable.

Exactly. He did elective abortions. So then how was he saving women's lives if he was only "improving" their "quality of life," if we've established that these two things are vastly different? As you said, an actual life (which I can assume we all agree can be called such as eight, nine months in-utero) ending is not the same as the decline of a woman's quality of life. So I guess I understand what you're saying but am having a hard time establishing 1) your point and 2) what actual stance you are taking. At first you seemed to be objecting to what we were saying but now it seems like you're actually agreeing, so wtf. gonk

Anyway, a point to add - these were viable, living infants, some of them capable of being born naturally any day at the time of the abortion. I fail to see that as heroic, but maybe that is just me. This wasn't a cluster of three-week-old cells, it was a human being - with very little objection that wasn't religion-based (I forget what religion is it that believes an unborn child has no soul until it crowns during birth or something, therefore aborting is okay at any time during the pregnancy). How this makes him a heroic martyr is beyond me.

Yes but there are plenty of born children who are wanted that get shoved into foster care and whatnot but at the end of the day at least they can say their parents gave a flying s**t about them. My point was for that part, if it is unwanted to the point abortion is demanded, no good could come from this fact.
There are too many children born a year who are wanted anyways. It's not a case by case basis, they are unwanted, it will guarantee some s**t hitting the fan over it.

He didn't improve them there was nothing to at that point, there was ruining on the horizon, he was simply removing it. You vastly underestimate the emotional effects of even those who fully want to abort. And the monetary effects either way.
I'm a little harsher than most for what I consider "life" over being alive, so no I can't agree. Just like I can't agree something alive gets preference over something with a life.

1) *looks* Both saved things from stress and burden. Some lives which would have royally sucked were helped either way. One side saved lives by preventing something alive from ruining a life. The other saved others from suffocation since they can't stop sticking their noses up others' asses. Well they still can but that would be something towards necrophilia.
2) I never took a stance. Looking for my stance may be what is confusing you. 3nodding I'm always as understanding as my opponent lets me be I was merely confirming or denying your claims. I put my actual one in below a ways.

They were alive. And I swear you are the only one using the term "heroic martyr" I doubt anyone will agree with your "hero", since he was just a doctor doing his job who got killed in an ironic place. He wasn't good or bad, he was just doing things some people (who didn't have ANYTHING to do with the situation) disagreed with, that just happened to save others from s**t hitting the fan.



Maybe my actual stance which is separate on the issue might help:

What I believe is: people should be allowed to get abortions.
The people who say nay (like in most issues about freedom) should shut the ******** up or at least not be obnoxious about it. Since no one is forcing them to abort their child or to support what they are against. Their brown nosing is stupid and will only cause harm just like in this case with this innocent doctor.

Those for it will have the choice, those against will continue to not abort, easy is it not? It would be nice if people would realize that the possibility of choice doesn't make EVERYONE use it.


In Summary:
Quit letting YOUR choice destroy the choice of others, it's ironic. Morality is retarded decision making material and that's what really decides where a person lies in this discussion so let people do what they want as you do your own thing.

Edit***  

[Fresnel]

I think you're both putting words in each other's mouths, and Magmayoshi, you seem to be ignoring that in the original argument, we were only discussing life/death issues. 'Ruining' a life was never in play.  

[black_wing_angel]

Fresnel

black_wing_angel

Fresnel

black_wing_angel

Fresnel

black_wing_angel

Unless that person can see into the future, I'm ruling bullshit.

There's nothing to prove that the doctor, upon leaving the church, wouldn't have had a great "epiphany" and decide to quit. There's nothing to say he WOULD have, but nothing to say he WOULDN'T have, either. Remember, the point of going to church is to become closer to God. And they teach us that, to be closer to God, we are to do what we can to not sin. So, logically, if he wanted to go to church, and be closer to God, he would likely have soon quit the abortion scene. We'll never know, now...

The only thing the murderer can accurately claim, is that they are now absolutely no better than he was.

I hope the p***k gets the death penalty. Wouldn't that be wonderful irony?

There's nothing to say Tiller didn't drop dead of a massive brain aneurysm the instant before the bullet hit him, either. If you want to bring in whacko out-of-left-field theories, there's nothing to say that every baby Tiller aborted wasn't a new Hitler. Should we give him the Congressional Medal of Honor then?

My point is that one can not claim that they saved future lives by killing someone, because we'll never know that to be true. I'm not saying treat the man like a hero, I'm saying DON'T treat his murderer like one.

Why are you treating his murderer like a murderer? Tiller might have been secretly plotting to blow up the earth, and this man saved us all. HE'S AN INTERNATIONAL HERO.

My point is, don't make wild ******** 'could be' guesses. Go with what's most likely. Occam's Razor. Most likely, Tiller would have left that church and gone right back to doing exactly what he was doing before.

Most likely, sure. But that's still no justification for killing HIM.

That murderer made himself to be no better than Tiller himself was. What Tiller did, was perfectly legal, what his killer did, was not. And there's a difference between a potential life, and one already in progress.

Just saying...

So if you'd shot Hitler in 1940, knowing full well what was coming in the next five years...

Except that, in 1940, you WOULDN'T know.  

[Fresnel]

black_wing_angel

Fresnel

black_wing_angel

Fresnel

black_wing_angel

My point is that one can not claim that they saved future lives by killing someone, because we'll never know that to be true. I'm not saying treat the man like a hero, I'm saying DON'T treat his murderer like one.

Why are you treating his murderer like a murderer? Tiller might have been secretly plotting to blow up the earth, and this man saved us all. HE'S AN INTERNATIONAL HERO.

My point is, don't make wild ******** 'could be' guesses. Go with what's most likely. Occam's Razor. Most likely, Tiller would have left that church and gone right back to doing exactly what he was doing before.

Most likely, sure. But that's still no justification for killing HIM.

That murderer made himself to be no better than Tiller himself was. What Tiller did, was perfectly legal, what his killer did, was not. And there's a difference between a potential life, and one already in progress.

Just saying...

So if you'd shot Hitler in 1940, knowing full well what was coming in the next five years...

Except that, in 1940, you WOULDN'T know.

Hypothetical fail.  

[Kuchen Fairy]

magmayoshi

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

Silver Screen

Except that I made note of that in my comment...

*looks* Nope or you took it horribly out of context and barely put in in there. There is a difference between being alive and having a life to ruin.

Tiller's life and vital processes got ended.

The mothers he helped didn't get their lives ruined beyond the bother, mental effects and monetary loss of getting an abortion. By terminating something that is purely alive and unwanted, the women dodged the health risks of pregnancy and all the things they could easily not afford afterward.

The child was saved from knowing what it's like to be born to a family that would easily use a simple process to end it. Ending something that is so genuinely unwanted is probably the best for it in the end, if you don't cloud it with what it could have been and other "what if" bullshit.

Okay, so basically you're determining what is best for an unborn child despite the fact that such a claim is largely investing faith in the very thing you condemned in the same paragraph - "what ifs."
I don't think it's anybody's place to assume that a child is better off dead or nonexistent. That's up to the child his/herself.

When I said "saving women's lives," I meant their lives in general - as in, if their physical health was in danger, Tiller remedied that through the abortion. I did not mean bettering their "quality of life." Like you said, life-ruining is not equatable to life-ending phenomena.

Or maybe I've drifted into the ******** Twilight Zone and just don't really get what you're saying. confused

Wait, wait, wait... Why would you abort if you wanted the child and there was no reason to abort? It's not a "what if", the child is genuinely not wanted for one reason or another be it health, inconvenience, just not wanting it and/or other reasons. There is no "what if" scenarios in any of that.

He could also do that to but seeing as he was relatively willy-nilly about the process (well people are saying so) it only really comes down to people who just don't want a child more than literal life saving (in which the child isn't wanted as well or death will happen).

I think you are touching on it and are trying to but are drifting more than anything sweatdrop

The "what if" is not within the notion that the child is wanted or unwanted, it is within whether the child is better of dead/nonexistent because it is unwanted. There is no factual basis to any answer in regards to that, because 1) it's subjective and on a case-by-case basis, and 2) the child is dead/nonexistent regardless so not only is the question moot, but it's also unanswerable.

Exactly. He did elective abortions. So then how was he saving women's lives if he was only "improving" their "quality of life," if we've established that these two things are vastly different? As you said, an actual life (which I can assume we all agree can be called such as eight, nine months in-utero) ending is not the same as the decline of a woman's quality of life. So I guess I understand what you're saying but am having a hard time establishing 1) your point and 2) what actual stance you are taking. At first you seemed to be objecting to what we were saying but now it seems like you're actually agreeing, so wtf. gonk

Anyway, a point to add - these were viable, living infants, some of them capable of being born naturally any day at the time of the abortion. I fail to see that as heroic, but maybe that is just me. This wasn't a cluster of three-week-old cells, it was a human being - with very little objection that wasn't religion-based (I forget what religion is it that believes an unborn child has no soul until it crowns during birth or something, therefore aborting is okay at any time during the pregnancy). How this makes him a heroic martyr is beyond me.

Yes but there are plenty of born children who are wanted that get shoved into foster care and whatnot but at the end of the day at least they can say their parents gave a flying s**t about them. My point was for that part, if it is unwanted to the point abortion is demanded, no good could come from this fact.
There are too many children born a year who are wanted anyways. It's not a case by case basis, they are unwanted, it will guarantee some s**t hitting the fan over it.

He didn't improve them there was nothing to at that point, there was ruining on the horizon, he was simply removing it. You vastly underestimate the emotional effects of even those who fully want to abort. And the monetary effects either way.
I'm a little harsher than most for what I consider "life" over being alive, so no I can't agree. Just like I can't agree something alive gets preference over something with a life.

1) *looks* Both saved things from stress and burden. Some lives which would have royally sucked were helped either way. One side saved lives by preventing something alive from ruining a life. The other saved others from suffocation since they can't stop sticking their noses up others' asses. Well they still can but that would be something towards necrophilia.
2) I never took a stance. Looking for my stance may be what is confusing you. 3nodding I'm always as understanding as my opponent lets me be I was merely confirming or denying your claims. I put my actual one in below a ways.

They were alive. And I swear you are the only one using the term "heroic martyr" I doubt anyone will agree with your "hero", since he was just a doctor doing his job who got killed in an ironic place. He wasn't good or bad, he was just doing things some people (who didn't have ANYTHING to do with the situation) disagreed with, that just happened to save others from s**t hitting the fan.



Maybe my actual stance which is separate on the issue might help:

What I believe is: people should be allowed to get abortions.
The people who say nay (like in most issues about freedom) should shut the ******** up or at least not be obnoxious about it. Since no one is forcing them to abort their child or to support what they are against. Their brown nosing is stupid and will only cause harm just like in this case with this innocent doctor.

Those for it will have the choice, those against will continue to not abort, easy is it not? It would be nice if people would realize that the possibility of choice doesn't make EVERYONE use it.


In Summary:
Quit letting YOUR choice destroy the choice of others, it's ironic. Morality is retarded decision making material and that's what really decides where a person lies in this discussion so let people do what they want as you do your own thing.

Edit***

You can't assume that no good will come from an unwanted pregnancy. Generally such pregnancies result in adoption, so the child at least has the chance to have a relatively normal life.
This is not the same kind of situation, but here's a story anyway: Most of us have read A Child Called It by now, it's like the oldest book in the world. Basically the author's mum had some kind of mental issues (I guess? I mean why else would she be such a little s**t?) and abused him. Throughout the story you learn she wasn't always this way, so clearly it's already different from an unwanted pregnancy, but her negative actions towards her child could be equated to the regret or hatred one might feel for a child they never wanted. Whether they would physically abuse that child is another story, but whatever. The author seemed to be doing fine at the time of the publishing of the novel, which is my point - the events that led to the writing of his novel were terrible, but life goes on. It's not the end of the world when an "unwanted" child comes into the world. Eight-months-along infants are not to be discarded at the discretion of the host, because said infants are alive. This isn't the same as an eight-week-old embryo. Duh.
In any case, abortion should not be looked upon as a decent method of population control. That's where sex education and proper protection comes in. And it is a case-by-case basis because some women, upon giving birth, change their minds. Others change their minds sometime during the care of the child within the first years of their lives. It's really not all that black and white.

Excuse me? I don't think you know enough about me or my stance on abortion to deduce whether or not I am "vastly underestimating" anything.
So are you agreeing that it's stupid to value a woman's life over the life of a viable infant? Something with a life is something that is alive. Life is not something that can be turned on or off whenever you want. "Life" is not a tangible thing you can just shove in your pocket so that you aren't using it but still have it. Unborn children at eight, nine months are viable outside of the womb. Do you understand what that means? That means they can live independently of the mother's nutrients in a parasitic manner. They are living beings. Even if your religion tells you otherwise, scientifically this is NOT open for debate. It's alive, just as a grown, born woman is. The difference is merely age.
And as you said, life-ruining is not life-ending. Therefore, establishing that both lives in this case are equal, one is not being "valued" over the other, it's being salvaged from the other. Both are equal but the situations are not. The right to life versus the right to dictate whether or not another human gets to live are not even close to being the same. Obviously it makes sense to go with the former over the latter.

Um, have you watched or read the news lately? So many people have been calling him a hero for his "deeds," whatever the ******** that means.

Oh my God, no. No. No, it's not as easy as "if you don't like it, don't have one." I'm so ******** sick of this retarded opinion I can't even... IT'S NOT THAT EASY. People who are pro-life generally believe that a foetus is a living human being, and despite what YOU may think is right or wrong, science actually has not been able to prove or disprove either side, so that plays a big role in the fact that it's such a hot topic - either side at this point can be right. So no, I won't just sit around and let people kill children just because you think "my choice is destroying the choice of others" and because the law allows people to do so. The law has said a lot of shitty things before. You STILL don't fully know my stance on abortion, so stop acting like it.

I strongly believe in the right to life. At eight months along in the pregnancy, I think the foetus qualifies as a living human. I am not against abortion to spite women or to be a control freak, I'm against abortion (late term, I should clarify) because I think abortion kills a human being. Just as people are against murder, I am against late-term abortions. If the law said it was legal to kill, say, YOU - and everybody else as "worthy of life" as you - would that not be reason for uproar and protest? Murder should be illegal. So too should late-term abortions.

In summary:
People have the right to stand up for what they believe in. You bet your bottom ******** dollar I'm going to exercise that.  

[magmayoshi]

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

*snip*

*snip* [since we aren't showing any signs of moving, hence why I don't usually bother with abortion debates]

So are you agreeing that it's stupid to value a woman's life over the life of a viable infant? Something with a life is something that is alive. *snip* It's alive, just as a grown, born woman is. The difference is merely age.
And as you said, life-ruining is not life-ending. Therefore, establishing that both lives in this case are equal, one is not being "valued" over the other, it's being salvaged from the other. Both are equal but the situations are not. The right to life versus the right to dictate whether or not another human gets to live are not even close to being the same. Obviously it makes sense to go with the former over the latter.

Nope, something that is alive does not necessarily have a life and can merely be alive. Age AND experience, giving the woman the ability to know that she'd rather be alive (with her life) than dead or just being purely alive like the child. Her life has given her the knowledge that she finds it rather unpleasant to not be (beyond the pain in death). Something that you can only gain through life and experience in it. The aborted may feel pain in death but only if they developed to that degree, they lack knowledge and experience to want to avoid death for other reasons, hence why having a life sets them apart.

Quote:

Um, have you watched or read the news lately? So many people have been calling him a hero for his "deeds," whatever the ******** that means.

People call a lot of people heros, get over it.

Quote:

Oh my God, no. No. No, it's not as easy as "if you don't like it, don't have one." I'm so ******** sick of this retarded opinion I can't even... IT'S NOT THAT EASY.

It is that easy, quit being retarded and thinking just because you have the right to throw a tantrum, it gives you the right to dominate others' lives.

Quote:

People who are pro-life generally believe that a foetus is a living human being, and despite what YOU may think is right or wrong, science actually has not been able to prove or disprove either side, so that plays a big role in the fact that it's such a hot topic - either side at this point can be right.

What? Science has proved it's a very subjective topic and wherever you draw the line people will get pissed off. Therefore it should be let up to the people to choose for themselves and not someone who's ego tripping to decide for them (yes I implied you were ego tripping).

Quote:

So no, I won't just sit around and let people kill children just because you think "my choice is destroying the choice of others" and because the law allows people to do so. The law has said a lot of shitty things before.

No I didn't say for those believing this to die off, just to shut up about their morality, unless they are not doing it forcefully. They can b***h about it in a pleasant fashion but that is it.

Quote:

You STILL don't fully know my stance on abortion, so stop acting like it.

I didn't act like it at all and the last thing was in general at meddlers. Get off your high horse, not everything is about you.

Quote:

I strongly believe in the right to life. At eight months along in the pregnancy, I think the foetus qualifies as a living human. I am not against abortion to spite women or to be a control freak, I'm against abortion (late term, I should clarify) because I think abortion kills a human being. Just as people are against murder, I am against late-term abortions. If the law said it was legal to kill, say, YOU - and everybody else as "worthy of life" as you - would that not be reason for uproar and protest? Murder should be illegal. So too should late-term abortions.

Okay. Then don't abort yours or others after that time. I didn't specify a date or time to not breed conflict. Not everyone is against murder some in fact support it (see: war). Depends: if there was a good reason, I wouldn't be mad, I'd fight like nothing else for myself but not for others; if there was no reason or a reason such as morality THEN it is taking away my right of life and there will be not a personal war but a war for everyone else as well. No it shouldn't, it is already subjectively legal at times, legal against something with a life. Murder is legal at times against things with lives and should be perfectly legal when terminating something purely alive.

Quote:

In summary:
People have the right to stand up for what they believe in. You bet your bottom ******** dollar I'm going to exercise that.

Good for you, now quit ruining others' choice with your choice to speak against it and we're all cool. The right to b***h shouldn't override the right to choose on the same issue.  

[Kuchen Fairy]

magmayoshi

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

*snip*

*snip* [since we aren't showing any signs of moving, hence why I don't usually bother with abortion debates]

So are you agreeing that it's stupid to value a woman's life over the life of a viable infant? Something with a life is something that is alive. *snip* It's alive, just as a grown, born woman is. The difference is merely age.
And as you said, life-ruining is not life-ending. Therefore, establishing that both lives in this case are equal, one is not being "valued" over the other, it's being salvaged from the other. Both are equal but the situations are not. The right to life versus the right to dictate whether or not another human gets to live are not even close to being the same. Obviously it makes sense to go with the former over the latter.

Nope, something that is alive does not necessarily have a life and can merely be alive. Age AND experience, giving the woman the ability to know that she'd rather be alive (with her life) than dead or just being purely alive like the child. Her life has given her the knowledge that she finds it rather unpleasant to not be (beyond the pain in death). Something that you can only gain through life and experience in it. The aborted may feel pain in death but only if they developed to that degree, they lack knowledge and experience to want to avoid death for other reasons, hence why having a life sets them apart.

Quote:

Um, have you watched or read the news lately? So many people have been calling him a hero for his "deeds," whatever the ******** that means.

People call a lot of people heros, get over it.

Quote:

Oh my God, no. No. No, it's not as easy as "if you don't like it, don't have one." I'm so ******** sick of this retarded opinion I can't even... IT'S NOT THAT EASY.

It is that easy, quit being retarded and thinking just because you have the right to throw a tantrum, it gives you the right to dominate others' lives.

Quote:

People who are pro-life generally believe that a foetus is a living human being, and despite what YOU may think is right or wrong, science actually has not been able to prove or disprove either side, so that plays a big role in the fact that it's such a hot topic - either side at this point can be right.

What? Science has proved it's a very subjective topic and wherever you draw the line people will get pissed off. Therefore it should be let up to the people to choose for themselves and not someone who's ego tripping to decide for them (yes I implied you were ego tripping).

Quote:

So no, I won't just sit around and let people kill children just because you think "my choice is destroying the choice of others" and because the law allows people to do so. The law has said a lot of shitty things before.

No I didn't say for those believing this to die off, just to shut up about their morality, unless they are not doing it forcefully. They can b***h about it in a pleasant fashion but that is it.

Quote:

You STILL don't fully know my stance on abortion, so stop acting like it.

I didn't act like it at all and the last thing was in general at meddlers. Get off your high horse, not everything is about you.

Quote:

I strongly believe in the right to life. At eight months along in the pregnancy, I think the foetus qualifies as a living human. I am not against abortion to spite women or to be a control freak, I'm against abortion (late term, I should clarify) because I think abortion kills a human being. Just as people are against murder, I am against late-term abortions. If the law said it was legal to kill, say, YOU - and everybody else as "worthy of life" as you - would that not be reason for uproar and protest? Murder should be illegal. So too should late-term abortions.

Okay. Then don't abort yours or others after that time. I didn't specify a date or time to not breed conflict. Not everyone is against murder some in fact support it (see: war). Depends: if there was a good reason, I wouldn't be mad, I'd fight like nothing else for myself but not for others; if there was no reason or a reason such as morality THEN it is taking away my right of life and there will be not a personal war but a war for everyone else as well. No it shouldn't, it is already subjectively legal at times, legal against something with a life. Murder is legal at times against things with lives and should be perfectly legal when terminating something purely alive.

Quote:

In summary:
People have the right to stand up for what they believe in. You bet your bottom ******** dollar I'm going to exercise that.

Good for you, now quit ruining others' choice with your choice to speak against it and we're all cool. The right to b***h shouldn't override the right to choose on the same issue.

So because an unborn child isn't intelligent enough to object to their death, they are less worthy of life than a woman is worthy of killing? Cool story, bro.

I'm not going to "get over" the fact that people are deluding themselves into thinking Tiller is a "hero." It's not just a face-value thing; if Tiller is a hero, then he is a martyr, and if he is a martyr, then the anti-abortion side is a villain. The vein runs deep into the ground and can seriously disrupt the abortion issue, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but certainly is when such disruption is based on delusions.

Calling me retarded means you've lost all credibility with me and I seriously cannot even read the rest of your comment. rofl Nice try though. Come back to me when you can invest in actual discussion and not ad hominem views. I'm not big on logical fallacies, nor am I big on people who are unwilling to put themselves in others' shoes or be respectful of opinions they may not share. I'm far too civil for such inane drivel.  

[magmayoshi]

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

Silver Screen

magmayoshi

*snip*

*snip* [since we aren't showing any signs of moving, hence why I don't usually bother with abortion debates]

So are you agreeing that it's stupid to value a woman's life over the life of a viable infant? Something with a life is something that is alive. *snip* It's alive, just as a grown, born woman is. The difference is merely age.
And as you said, life-ruining is not life-ending. Therefore, establishing that both lives in this case are equal, one is not being "valued" over the other, it's being salvaged from the other. Both are equal but the situations are not. The right to life versus the right to dictate whether or not another human gets to live are not even close to being the same. Obviously it makes sense to go with the former over the latter.

Nope, something that is alive does not necessarily have a life and can merely be alive. Age AND experience, giving the woman the ability to know that she'd rather be alive (with her life) than dead or just being purely alive like the child. Her life has given her the knowledge that she finds it rather unpleasant to not be (beyond the pain in death). Something that you can only gain through life and experience in it. The aborted may feel pain in death but only if they developed to that degree, they lack knowledge and experience to want to avoid death for other reasons, hence why having a life sets them apart.

Quote:

Um, have you watched or read the news lately? So many people have been calling him a hero for his "deeds," whatever the ******** that means.

People call a lot of people heros, get over it.

Quote:

Oh my God, no. No. No, it's not as easy as "if you don't like it, don't have one." I'm so ******** sick of this retarded opinion I can't even... IT'S NOT THAT EASY.

It is that easy, quit being retarded and thinking just because you have the right to throw a tantrum, it gives you the right to dominate others' lives.

Quote:

People who are pro-life generally believe that a foetus is a living human being, and despite what YOU may think is right or wrong, science actually has not been able to prove or disprove either side, so that plays a big role in the fact that it's such a hot topic - either side at this point can be right.

What? Science has proved it's a very subjective topic and wherever you draw the line people will get pissed off. Therefore it should be let up to the people to choose for themselves and not someone who's ego tripping to decide for them (yes I implied you were ego tripping).

Quote:

So no, I won't just sit around and let people kill children just because you think "my choice is destroying the choice of others" and because the law allows people to do so. The law has said a lot of shitty things before.

No I didn't say for those believing this to die off, just to shut up about their morality, unless they are not doing it forcefully. They can b***h about it in a pleasant fashion but that is it.

Quote:

You STILL don't fully know my stance on abortion, so stop acting like it.

I didn't act like it at all and the last thing was in general at meddlers. Get off your high horse, not everything is about you.

Quote:

I strongly believe in the right to life. At eight months along in the pregnancy, I think the foetus qualifies as a living human. I am not against abortion to spite women or to be a control freak, I'm against abortion (late term, I should clarify) because I think abortion kills a human being. Just as people are against murder, I am against late-term abortions. If the law said it was legal to kill, say, YOU - and everybody else as "worthy of life" as you - would that not be reason for uproar and protest? Murder should be illegal. So too should late-term abortions.

Okay. Then don't abort yours or others after that time. I didn't specify a date or time to not breed conflict. Not everyone is against murder some in fact support it (see: war). Depends: if there was a good reason, I wouldn't be mad, I'd fight like nothing else for myself but not for others; if there was no reason or a reason such as morality THEN it is taking away my right of life and there will be not a personal war but a war for everyone else as well. No it shouldn't, it is already subjectively legal at times, legal against something with a life. Murder is legal at times against things with lives and should be perfectly legal when terminating something purely alive.

Quote:

In summary:
People have the right to stand up for what they believe in. You bet your bottom ******** dollar I'm going to exercise that.

Good for you, now quit ruining others' choice with your choice to speak against it and we're all cool. The right to b***h shouldn't override the right to choose on the same issue.

So because an unborn child isn't intelligent enough to object to their death, they are less worthy of life than a woman is worthy of killing? Cool story, bro.

I'm not going to "get over" the fact that people are deluding themselves into thinking Tiller is a "hero." It's not just a face-value thing; if Tiller is a hero, then he is a martyr, and if he is a martyr, then the anti-abortion side is a villain. The vein runs deep into the ground and can seriously disrupt the abortion issue, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but certainly is when such disruption is based on delusions.

Calling me retarded means you've lost all credibility with me and I seriously cannot even read the rest of your comment. rofl Nice try though. Come back to me when you can invest in actual discussion and not ad hominem views. I'm not big on logical fallacies, nor am I big on people who are unwilling to put themselves in others' shoes or be respectful of opinions they may not share. I'm far too civil for such inane drivel.

It's not the intelligence, it's a life with past experiences they lack.

People delude a lot of things.

Wait, wait, wait. I didn't call you retarded I said you were being it in your spasm, learn to read quotes.
I didn't that's what you are doing by quitting because I took a direct shot at your pride like you wanted, setting off your usual prance about like you've won, which I've seen you do in ED. You've destroyed your credibility by showing you have no intent to discuss anything and are just so damn predictable. I took your bait and I took out your pride as well.
You were the one who quit because I countered your insult with one that wasn't even a direct one but at how you acted in that quote. I'm too civil to deal with someone who will quit on a dime and leaves because of their own such obvious bait. You were never civil in this or your past couple responses I may add.

Way to show that you have the pride to never budge on a topic.  

[black_wing_angel]

Fresnel

black_wing_angel

Fresnel

black_wing_angel

Fresnel

black_wing_angel

My point is that one can not claim that they saved future lives by killing someone, because we'll never know that to be true. I'm not saying treat the man like a hero, I'm saying DON'T treat his murderer like one.

Why are you treating his murderer like a murderer? Tiller might have been secretly plotting to blow up the earth, and this man saved us all. HE'S AN INTERNATIONAL HERO.

My point is, don't make wild ******** 'could be' guesses. Go with what's most likely. Occam's Razor. Most likely, Tiller would have left that church and gone right back to doing exactly what he was doing before.

Most likely, sure. But that's still no justification for killing HIM.

That murderer made himself to be no better than Tiller himself was. What Tiller did, was perfectly legal, what his killer did, was not. And there's a difference between a potential life, and one already in progress.

Just saying...

So if you'd shot Hitler in 1940, knowing full well what was coming in the next five years...

Except that, in 1940, you WOULDN'T know.

Hypothetical fail.

It'd still be "wrong". You're not guilty of a crime, until you've committed it.