AbortionNO Message Board ~ View topic

When it comes to the lives of innocent, defenseless people, there are absolutely NO circumstances.

You have NO "right" to end the lives of the innocent unless you have THEIR CONSENT.

Murder = wrong.
Rape = wrong.
Slaughter = wrong.
Abortion = wrong.

Site Admin Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 302

I have noticed you have ignored every question and every point I have made involving facts. Instead, you toss out red herrings, make assumptions and even accusations, speak only of your opinion and threats of "hell". If you are interested in an ACTUAL discussion, bring it on. If you want to call names and ignore fact based arguments, then continue to live in your self induced ignorance and denial of reality. The facts and evidence to PROVE the humanity of the unborn are firmly established and readily available to ANYONE with a true desire to know the truth and who has an open mind.

I have been discussing abortion on this site for years. Last year, I debated a guy named FXChip who was EXTREMELY pro-abortion. The difference between FXChip and you, is that this guy engaged in an intellectual discussion. He made an argument and attempted to make a case. We debated for a while as he asked questions (often very angrily and often being very rude). I presented the facts and sited the unbiased scientific and medical FACTS...don't take MY word for it...here are the words of professionals with an entire alphabet after their name! See, I am not pro-life because I hate women. I am not pro-life because I am against choice and want some crazy theocratic dictatorship. I am not pro-life because I am a sheep who just believes whatever I am told by "religious leaders". I am not pro-life because I am too stupid to know any better. I AM pro-life because of the evidence that I have researched for myself. The facts are that from the moment of fertilization, the ujnborn offspring of 2 humans...that resulting single celled combination...is FULLY alive and FULLY human and totally unique and complete from that moment. It has never existed before in history and will never exist again. I am for equality and believe what is written in the founding documents of the USA...that we are ALL created EQUAL...not some humans...ALL. That we are endowed by our Creator with the RIGHT TO LIFE. If all humans are equal and all humans are endowed with the right to life, then to legalize the killing of certain human beings...depriving them of their right to life and making them "less worthy to live" or "not worthy to live" (based on the subjective opinions of those who are in the position of power and wish to do the killing) is DISCRIMINATION. I am against discriminating against blacks, Jews, Native Americans, women, and tiny, innocent, defensless humans in the womb. We were wrong before in history when we denied rights of personhood and legalized discrimination (and the killing) of fellow humans. We were wrong again in 1973.

Do a search of the discussions w/ FXChip. HE was eventually persuaded by the facts and evidence. You will see the evidence and the sited sources that caused him to change his thinking on this subject.

His post telling of his switch is under "choice" and titled "VICTORY! hi, read before you get angry" http://old.abortionno.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=251&highlight=fxchip

He was willing to make an argument, accept the reality of the facts presented and come to an intellectual conclusion. What about you?

FXChip's Post:
If you don't feel like reading a novel, here's the summary: my beliefs have changed, I am pro-life, just not... outwardly, as I believe my beliefs should be kept to myself until necessary.

Longer summary: yes, I am pro-life now, because of myself realizing my own experiences, stubbornness, and because lifer makes arguments that are too damn good. If something does get passed for the pro-lifers, I pray to any and all deities out there that it is passed for her arguments (or similar ones) rather than religious ones, as seems to be the case a lot of the time. Lifer, do me a favor, and go to some other pro-life forums and show them how to debate with a pro-choicer, they're not really so much concerned with objectivity it seems like.

Sticking around? Cool. Let me go on. It's surprisingly short, actually.

When I was young (7th-8th grade), I had no idea what pro-choice and pro-life and abortion was.

Shortly after, I learned what it was, and figured adoption was a better choice.

Later, I decided people should be restricted as little as possible, so I went with the pro-choice side for... well, quite a while. It didn't help that the pro-lifers tended to use a picture of a dead baby as 100% of their argument. I will criticize that one until the day I die -- bring some substance with it, or don't even whip it out, for God's sake. Repost Lifer's response (which was a big part of it) for crying out loud to freaking telephone poles. Words will be much more effective in getting your point across. Why do I believe this? Because pictures alone are fighting dirty, so to speak, and quickly turn people off. Lull people in with a picture of a live, healthy baby rather than an aborted fetus. They'll be more inclined to agree with you. I think. This is a psychological *beginner* talking here, no formal classes, not claiming anything, but it seems less to me like a kick in the nuts, so to speak. But I'm rambling.

Then I saw one of those pictures and it led me here, where I was very, very angry and argued for... not a long time, but a while. I also saw another forum, but.. they're too loud and unruly. Ugh. Don't go there. I don't remember where they are, but don't go. I refuse to set foot in that place anymore, even with my newfound belief. Anyway, to stop myself from rambling again, I got angry at Kristopher and completely yelled at him (I'm still not entirely happy towards him), and then lifer posted a metric assload of articles from (I hope) objective sources with better titles than I'll ever have stating (much better, but they're doctors) that yes, the fetus is a human from conception.

Seeing those names and recognizing that their arguments were not religious, but more based on <gasp> logic and facts is probably what finally did it. Well, in addition to other things.

I have this, eh, delusion (if you want to call it that, most people don't believe in psychic abilities, though I do), that I can see 'energy systems' of people, including those of life and psi (psychic) energy. I looked at a pregnant woman, don't think it was the third trimester, and saw... yeah, you guessed it. A miniature energy system. Well, it appeared to be more a 'storage', but then again, the connections and such were still being formed. Nonetheless, it was a life energy system. There was no psi yet (no brain/nerve activity at that stage yet? that or I just suck at seeing it), but... life energy.

Delusions/psychic abilities, arguments, and everything else aside, it is inherently less wasteful and more logical to put a child up for adoption if it's 'unwanted'. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean someone else will not. May as well put the life to some good use.

Which makes me curious now. What about adoption as a birth control? But I digress. I guess if it could be one, it's still better than the other.

Society itself needs to drop a lot of stigmas, too. Society needs to drop a lot of things.

Hmm... so, yeah, congrats, lifer, you found a convert. Keep attacking the argument rather than the group.

Kristopher... please don't use the word "Hitler" in an argument. That's what got to me. Yes, the Holocaust must be remembered and all that. But comparing people to Hitler just seems dumb to me. There's a saying called Godwin's Law of Usenet that essentially says that as an argument progresses and more posts are added, the probability that one arguer will call the other a nazi slowly increases to 1. At the point that that happens, the argument immediately ends, with the arguer calling the other a nazi automatically having lost the argument. I'm not going to force you to, but I'm suggesting it for future reference.

Thanks for your time and your arguments. If I continue to argue, it'll probably be because I hate one-sidedness in general or I just feel like arguing. hehe

Oh, and once again: lifer, I haven't seen too many argue for the pro-life side, but you are by far the best. You win. I wave the white flag.

I have no regrets. Well, some of the stronger things I said... maybe. But I at least learned.

Site Admin Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 302

Your asked/wrote:
[b]I hope you're against capital punishment, otherwise you'd be very hypocritical.

Red Herring. The topic is not Capital Punishment. It is abortion. Typically, those who are pro-abortion are also pro-capital punishment, so I guess you should congradulate them on their consistancy. However, if you are anti-capital punishment, where by a jury finds a human being GUILTY of a capital crime (like MURDER...the taking of an innocent life) and that criminal is then sentenced to lethal injection (a legal procedure that is considered "humane" by law)...and following YEARS of appeals...is given a shot and goes to sleep and dies and is buried YET you are pro-abortion, where by a human being who is innocent of all "criminal behavior", who has never done anything against anyone else (certainly never commited murder!) is dismembered and the remains tossed down the disposal or in the trash or in some cases are sent to a lab...no jury. No appeal. Just an innocent human being recieving Capital Punishment...in a mannor we wouldn't do to a criminal...a murderer...even a DOG. We don't dismember those guilty of horrific acts, yet we dismember the innocent? So, if you are against killing of the guilty and in favor of killing the innocent, WHO exactly is the hypocrite?

I also hope you're against the death threats of doctors who carry out abortion. Abortion is murder, we're pro-life, but its ok to threaten death on another human cos we don't like what they do for a living.[/b]

This is another "red herring" and a "guilt by association" attempt. Those who are PRO-LIFE are against violence towards unborn human beings and against the doctors who kill them. If you would research, those who commit such criminal and immoral acts are: 1)NOT pro-life...they may be nut jobs who are against abortion, but they are NOT pro-life. 2)a woman who has had an abortion and is acting out against the clinic/staff/doctor. 3)the father of the aborted child who is trying to stop the abortion or who is upset at the death of his child 4)clinic on clinic arson to eliminate competition or 5)attempt at insurance fraud knowing the assumtion will be "those anti-choice zealots".

Now, will you pease adress the issue? What is the unborn? What does abortion do to him or her?

Site Admin Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 302

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=6630429&nav=9qrx

San Bruno man prosecutors said went to clinic intending to shoot a doctor gets probation

Associated Press - June 8, 2007 8:14 AM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A San Bruno man prosecutors said went to a Planned Parenthood clinic in San Mateo intending to shoot a doctor won't be spending any time in prison after agreeing to a plea deal.

Joel Robison was sentenced to three years probation yesterday after pleading no contest to felony attempted commercial burglary and misdemeanor possession of a loaded firearm in public.

The 27-year-old Robison had originally been charged with attempted murder.

When Robison was first charged after the February incident, prosecutors said he drove to the clinic in San Mateo with a loaded handgun, allegedly intending to kill the doctor who performed an abortion on his girlfriend.

But authorities say when he saw a security guard outside the clinic, he decided not to go in, turned the gun over to his brother and checked into a hospital the next day for treatment of depression.

http://www.examiner.com/a-590198~San_Bruno_man_charged_in_alleged_murder_plot.html

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (Map, News) - A San Bruno man accused of intending to kill a doctor who performed an abortion on his girlfriend is expected to enter a plea March 5.

Joel Robison, 27, was arraigned Monday on a charge of attempted murder. He is alleged to have driven to a Planned Parenthood clinic on Palm Avenue in San Mateo on Feb. 17 with a loaded gun to confront the doctor who performed an abortion on his girlfriend, according to prosecutors.
Upon approaching the clinic, Robison spotted a security guard in front, changed his mind, returned home and gave the gun to his brother, prosecutors say.

He was arrested Saturday, however, after telling a psychiatrist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in South San Francisco about the incident. The doctor called police.

“We’ve gotten a lot of questions about whether he was part of any group but this was just a case of a man and his girlfriend and he was the father,” Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said. “We’ve requested more information from police about his background.”

Robison is being held without bail. The doctor was not hurt in the incident. Planned Parenthood had no comment and requested the identity of the targeted doctor remain anonymous.

It's "funny" how babies are being killed every day by the thousands and the same people that try to arrest shooters and bombers don't care.

Not that I agree with shooting and bombing, because I DON'T; however, it's hypocritical in a sense because it's the dads and everyone else that try to save their children from being killed and they go to jail for it. I don't get it.

Joined: 25 May 2007 Posts: 19

You let your emotions cloud your judgement and common sense. An unborn baby is not a person, but a potential person, therefore it is not murder. Its unpleasent and distasteful but in some circumstances necessary. And before you say killing a baby is never necessary, IT IS NOT A BABY IT IS A FOETUS! Taking a pill to stop the growth of a bunch of cells that are a few weeks old is not murder.

Site Admin Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 302

You are correct...the fetus is NOT a person. "person" or "personhood" or having "rights of personhood" are legal terms and is a legal status. As I stated earlier, in the 1857 Dred Scott Decision, the US Supreme Court rulled 7-2 that Blacks were legal "non-persons" and they were denied "rights of personhood". They were the property of their owner and could be bought, sold, raped, beaten, and killed LEGALLY because they were not a person. The German high court made a similar ruling against the Jews. They were legal non-persons and this made it legal for the Nazis to take their property, thei liberty and even their lives. The US did it to the Native Americans when we wanted their land. Our Government ruled that rights of personhood did not extend to the "Indians" and that they were not "persons" but rather "savages". We could then seize their land and kill them legally (Trail of Tears!). These are just a few examples. In every instance, the victims were always 100% HUMAN. What they were denied was "personhood" and that status is confired upon or denied by those in positions of power (like a Government). The decision to deny personhood to Jews, Blacks, and Native Americans is not because they were not human. It is because they had something those in power wanted or were in the way or were "unwanted" or "undesirable". Those in power used euphamisms when referring to the target group: cattle, increase, breeders, slaves, savages, useless eaters, parasites, etc... In 1973, the US Supreme Court decided that humans in the womb (if determined to be "unwanted" by the subjective opinion of the mother/owner...if it got in the way of her career, social life, goals, social life, etc... or if it has something we want like organs, stem cells etc...) it is a non-person and can legally be killed for any reason (or no reason) for the full 9 months of pregnancy. We call them "blobs", "products of conception", a clump of cells, a blood clot, a fetus, etc... Fetus is not a word that means "non-human"...it is Latin for offspring. Look it up.

Biologically, the unborn offspring of 2 humans is 100% human. When the 23 chromosomes of the mother (egg) and 23 chromosomes of the father (sperm) united during fertilization, a totally unique set of 46 chromosomes results. One that has never existed before in all history and one that is NOT the mother or part of her body nor is it the father or part of his body...it is seperate genetically. Ever watch CSI or some similar show and they do crime scene investigations? They find DNA and can idnetify who that DNA belings to because it is specific to that one human being. The unborn is the same...it has it's own unique DNA. Often a totally different blood type from the mother/parents and all the information for sex, height, body type, intelligence, eye color, hair color, etc...are present at the moment of fertilization. Nothing else is added except time and nutrients.

What needs to be established is WHAT IS THE UNBORN? If it is a non-human then who cares if we abort it. It would be no different than cutting my finger nails or having a tooth pulled or removing a gull bladder. If it is human, then there is no justification for discriminating against an innocent, defensless human being.

Now, I think you will agree, I am not letting "emotion cloud" my "judgement" nor do my arguments "lack common sense". In fact, my arguments have been made using unbiased medical and scientific facts and evidence, not emotionalism. Prove to me that the unborn is not a human being and is not alive until it is out of the womb and the cord is cut. Prove it. The issue isn't "baby" vs. "foetus" because these are arbitrary terms. You use "foetus" to dehumanize the unborn while others use "baby" to show it's humanity. Doctors often use the term fetus or embryo not to show inhumanity, but to show stage of development...prior to 8/9 wks it is called an "embryo". After and until birth it is a " fetus". Post birth it is a "neonate". Some people have adolecents. These are terms used to show a place on a continum, not membership or exclusion from the human race/family. When women are pregnant with a wanted child, it is a "baby". If unwanted, a "fetus" or a "blob of cells". After it is born, I don't hear people complaining when it is called a "baby" and not a "neonate"...do you? Have you corrected pregnant women when she refers to her "baby"..."Uh, no mama, that is NOT a baby! It is just a foetus!" I doubt it. The issues isn't one of semantics and terminology...it is one of fact. You say it isn't a baby...fine. But is it a HUMAN? Is it a living human?

Joined: 25 May 2007 Posts: 19

God loves me and wants me to spread this message. He loves you to, despite your sin. But you will be forgiven if you repent. God is asking common sense from us.

I am starting a tour in the UK on Monday, going to schools, teaching children about God's will. The website should be running within the next few days, so your support would be appreciated.

Newborn baby:

Preborn baby:

Oh, and if it interests you (psht), here's a 3D ultrasound of an EIGHT WEEK OLD FETUS:

Amazing, huh?

Site Admin Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 302

I think it is obvious to everyone who has read and who will read the exchange on this thread "the truth" has no argument. S/he uses no facts. No evidence. No sited unbiased sources. No common sense or logic. And no intellectual integrity.

For those who wish to participate in an actual mature discussion, complete with arguments, in an attempt to "make a case" for a particular position concerning abortion, I invite you to join in. As for "the truth", continuing to present accurate information, begging for him/her to make an actual argument with facts instead of opinion, and endevoring to make a fact based argument (while this person makes theological arguments) is a waste of my time. When and if you ever want to have an actual discussion, I'll be ready and willing to engage. Until then, I encourage you to research fetal development, 1st trimester abortion, history~especially in regards to "personhood" and discrimination, and also the law (US founding documantes, Bill of Rights, Constitution, etc...).

Funny how your final post says: "God loves me and wants me to spread this message. He loves you to, despite your sin. But you will be forgiven if you repent. God is asking common sense from us."

In past posts, you wrote: "You're going to hell...Then you will die a misguided fool, and go straight to hell. You better pray for God's forgiveness." After all your "God" talk and theological ranting, you write: "Oh, and if your argument is based on science and not religion, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But because of your misguided belief, you say no abortion on no uncertain terms, because spirtually you believe foetus' are babies from conception."

I have presented from a scientific and medical perspective. I have posed an intellectual argument against legal abortion based on unbiased facts, logic, history, and the law itself. You counter with threats of hell, accusations of making a religious argument, and continue to ignore every single question and every single attempt to engage in an intellectual discussion. I believe you have represented your side shamefully. Come back when you have some information or when you want to learn.

Abortion isn't the only thing you are "pro-choice" about. Ignorance is pretty high up on your list as well, by your showing on this board.

Joined: 25 May 2007 Posts: 19

Hell awaits you. You will have burning hot poker up your arse for eternity. You must support abortion or you will become a kebab in hell. Now, I am going to be absent for a little while due to my tour of schools. I hope when I return you will re-evaluate your stance. Remember, abortion is a gift from God. Every abortion counts. Spread the love. Spread the foetus'.

I don't believe in hell.

Joined: 14 Oct 2005 Posts: 142 Location: oshawa ont canada

WTF IS THAT!!!!! That is not something that i wanna come back to and see.... Are you for real!!!! Dude, i think you should look into who is goina burn in hell..... Shocked

Joined: 04 Jun 2009 Posts: 1

O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
How blessed will be the one who repays you
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.
How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock.