You seem to need to say "white flag" a lot...people do that when they have never made a point or had a decent argument When you are absent it's some goofy story about driving someone to the hospital...when someone else goes to bed it 's a white flag.....have you NEVER noticed how hypocritical and stupid that is.....I bet not ...
I also said "most." If MOST people would prefer to be alive regardless of poverty, neglect or disability, it stands to reason that MOST of the aborted would as well if they hadnt been aborted which we have both agreed upon. Thats WHY the argument that some use in support of abortion (the argument that abortion benefits the aborted by spairing them from experiencing poverty, neglect or disability) is MOSTLY innacurate or MOSTLY disingenuous, since they would MOST likely prefer to live if they were allowed to do so. Since women who abort are aborting to benefit themselves instead of the aborted (which is the case since we've already agreed that "of course most people would opt for life") at the cost of allowing the aborted to mature enough to choose life for themselves, abortion is MOSTLY selfish on the part of the aborting mother. Given the tendencies of our previous discussions, I must at this point reiterate that I do not support restricting abortion. It should remain legal and available. But just as I call out the selfishness of individuals hoarding their money (for example) instead of helping the less fortunate while I at the same time support peoples Right to hoard their money, I must call out the MOSTLY selfish nature of abortion, while maintaining that the right to access it is important. Ill protect peoples right to do it... while trying to convince them to NOT do it. Answer: The aborted are effected by abortion by being prevented from developing into people.
"""(the argument that abortion benefits the aborted by spairing them from experiencing poverty, neglect or disability""" is accurate, abortion DOES spare them from all those things. Your argument that BORN people would prefer life so every fetus would, is just too silly...of course once someone born they will answer they prefer life...but since a fetus can't think and has no knowledge of life to compare the two is ASSinine. A. Whether people would opt for life AFTER they are born had NOTHING to do with women's right to abortion. NO one gets to decide to be born or not.. B. Your kindergarten level of "it's naughty to be selfish" is ridiculous. Especially since you only apply it to pregnant women. Everyone does what is selfish..when you feed yourself it's selfish , why aren't you giving away that food ?? When you use your money to buy yourself a house, clothes, electricity that is selfish , you are thinking of yourself...it's called survival and it's what kept humans going throughout history. Why you think pregnant women should stop being just like any other human because they're pregnant is really quite unfair (and sexist). The following I mentioned to you before and you chose to ignore it, HIDE FROM IT: I consider it VERY SELFISH to bring a disabled child into this world so that the parents and OTHERS can feel all warm and fuzzy (and self-righteous) without a thought to what that child will feel, go through, suffer. How NASTY to want a child to suffer the rest of their lives for your own SELFISH REASONS ...just sayin'. Oh my goodness! What a job you've taken on! ""Keeper of the Universe and It's Money and Reproduction and Caller Out of Selfish People"... Except for the woman, no "people" are affected by abortion, ...............you are correct!
Interesting tact. It assumes that I would demand social services, which, frankly I would not. Like every decision we make personally, we become personally responsible for them. My answer is none. My choices, my burdens. I don't expect others to financially or socially support them. Your comment though, is an example of exactly my complaint. Socialism demands the destruction of the outliers. All under the auspices of "cost to societal resources". And this is the dissonance in the progressive world. Demands that require the society to take up the burden and at the same time, castigation of having caused the cost. The immorality of that position is striking. The socialist demand to destroy the potentially expensive lives of folks with disabilities seems as aligned with eugenics as any I've read recently. Folks on the left will squeal that they must not be labeled as the racial purists they truly are. And yet, here is more proof of exactly that.
You: """ Like every decision we make personally, we become personally responsible for them."""" Good !, good to know you're Pro-CHOICE......
Nice backpedaling. But the bottom line- most people would prefer to live if not deprived of the opportunity, and abortion does precisely that. I want what most of the aborted would want- them to have a chance at life. BTW Americans With Dissabilities advocates describes Eugenic Abortion as 'discriminaton against the disabled in their most vulnerable state.' It doesnt sound like they view it as very humane or compassionate either.
I did answer, in the first post of this thread. You should try reading the OP before injecting yourself into threads and trying to claim some victory, it makes your post look foolish. I repeat So you don't support what Iceland is doing? If you choose not to answer this time and instead obfuscate again I will take that as your surrender.
You couldn't point out this alleged "back pedaling"... YOU have NO idea what a fetus would want and neither does it....DO show proof that you KNOW what they want..."" I want what most of the aborted would want- them to have a chance at life."""" You cannot know that....the fetus can't know that...how asinine to think so.... I don't care how a group panders to it's members....that's what they're supposed to do. Because they call themselves "Americans with Disabilities" certainly does NOT give them the right to decide what a woman does with her pregnancy. They too, can spout all that warm fuzzy crap to make themselves and their members feel better and all self righteous but that's all it is, crap.. I see you couldn't address: I consider it VERY SELFISH to bring a disabled child into this world so that the parents and OTHERS can feel all warm and fuzzy (and self-righteous) without a thought to what that child will feel, go through, suffer. How NASTY to want a child to suffer the rest of their lives for your own SELFISH REASONS ...just sayin'.
Im not gonna waste my time adressing all your points, often by having to repeat things I've already said. I dont want children to suffer, and you know that. All I want is for them to have the opportunity to choose for themselves.
So addressing the FACTS that show you to be in error is a "waste of your time" ...well, for you ,of course it is. YES, if you are against abortion of fetuses with physical defects you are FOR children suffering. How could it be anything else? Could that severely disabled baby from England who couldn't see or hear CHOOSE to live or die? NO, his parents chose for him to live, he could NOT choose, he had no ability to even think....and neither can a fetus. You couldn't point out this alleged "back pedaling"... YET you accuse me of it.... YOU have NO idea what a fetus would want and neither does it....DO show proof that you KNOW what they want..."" I want what most of the aborted would want- them to have a chance at life."""" You cannot know that....the fetus can't know that...how asinine to think so.... I don't care how a group panders to it's members....that's what they're supposed to do. Because they call themselves "Americans with Disabilities" certainly does NOT give them the right to decide what a woman does with her pregnancy. They too, can spout all that warm fuzzy crap to make themselves and their members feel better and all self righteous but that's all it is, crap.. I see you couldn't address: I consider it VERY SELFISH to bring a disabled child into this world so that the parents and OTHERS can feel all warm and fuzzy (and self-righteous) without a thought to what that child will feel, go through, suffer. How NASTY to want a child to suffer the rest of their lives for your own SELFISH REASONS ...just sayin'.
Gosh, what to say? Purposeful dissembling on your part won't make your assertion any more truthful. Your foray into "squirrel" is duly noted.
Are you now denying you posted "": """ Like every decision we make personally, we become personally responsible for them."""" Or do you just think it applies only to situations you approve of?
I am not. I'm pointing out that you clearly don't understand what it means, and you continue to misrepresent it, which is purposeful. Your own assertion is what is in question, not my comment. The fun part being now that you've been called on it, you're still attempting to misstate the quote, and attach some non credible assumption to it. The comment we make personal decisions, isn't a support for being "pro choice" and you know it. And yet, here you are conflating that it does. My pointing out that you made a specious assertion doesn't mean that suddenly, you're allowed to continue to perpetuate the misstatement.
