Are you now denying you posted "": """ Like every decision we make personally, we become personally responsible for them."""" It is in post # 161 What else does it mean besides women are PERSONALLY responsible for their reproductive decisions.....don't pregnant women apply in your statement? You are free to explain what you meant by it instead of hiding behind silly comments like, ""The fun part being now that you've been called on it,""" Called on what?!
I do not deny anything. I'm calling you out for mischaracterizing the comment. As you are now. Your contention that what I wrote is somehow supportive of being pro choice is absurd. The question was, how not aborting the potentially disabled negatively impacted the society. That was, of course your assertion. Do you now deny you wrote that? It was, your expression of willful elimination of potentially disabled that led us to this point, did it not? And when challenged to defend your monstrous comment, now you attempt to libpslain and otherwise conflate my comment to seemingly agree with your original infantacidal comment. You asked me specifically what my harm to my society would create should I not abort a potentially disabled child. So, you attacked my criticism of those who would murder unborn kids on the off chance that they were born abnormal. As if, your process of aborting them was more beneficial to our society. You sound positively Mengelesque.
It really is funny (not 'ha ha' funny, but the other kind) how a civil rights organization could do so much good for the disabled and America in general, and yet all they have to do is question the ethics of Eugenic Abortion at a philosophical level (they're not even opposing it, but merely questioning one specific type of abortion) and suddenly they're 'pandoring to their members.' Authoritarians and Cults respond to such mild dissent in this manner. Not reasonable people.
A reasonable person could respond to the entire post... FoxHastings said: ↑ 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'.
Sorry that was a typo. You↑ Your point is ...... ? I didn't say anything about babies. Me>> What is ZEF? Obviously should have been What is A ZEF and it was rhetorical referring back to my previous post (bābē) Share: n. pl. ba·bies 1. a. A very young child; an infant. b. An unborn child; a fetus. You know the "F" in ZEF. So yes you did say something about babies.
No, I did not. Please stop telling untruths about me. And yes, you did ask what a zef is. Another untruth you should stop telling.
Yes a rhetorical question, look it up. And yes since ZEF means zygote/embryo/ fetus and as I showed a fetus is a baby you were talking about babies. Unborn babies.
No, I said nothing about babies. You will not find that word in my post. Please stop lying about me. And it's not a great idea to ask a question you know the answer to.
You can try every devious means to call what 's inside a woman any name you want....you can call it the Pope, a baby , God, a puppy wuppy.. ....and women still have the right to kill it ...and you haven't changed that and can't change that and calling it "baby" or mongoose does not change a woman's right to kill it.... Your "BIG point" is so meaningless except for showing that Anti-Choicers hate science and law and refuse to use correct grown up terms...
Even alot of "Pro-Choicers" tend to be "Pro Life" when it comes to systematically, targetting a certain group of babies; Asiatic countries tend to abort daughters because they only want sons and this is where many in the "Pro Choice-camp" (especially Feminists) tend to become "Pro Life". People with Down's Syndrome can live a decent life and the problem with attacking a certain group like this makes you wonder what the next step is. Obviously, I think abortion is never OK, but at the same time I am not prepared to support any sort of law that limits individual freedom. Morally "Pro Life". Juridically "Pro Choice". To me, this is not an "elimination" of a disease, but more of a "extermination" of a certain type of humans - much like a genocide.
It's a tad disconcerting here that we see the folks on the left lining up to support this. It's like they're unaware that adopting this type of an approach is clearly a nod to the master race argument. And isn't that always where liberals end up? Back in their comfortable roots?
Who does? When? Where? That issue is a matter of sexism....Pro-Choice is always Pro-CHOICE. I have never heard of a Pro-Choicer wanting to force women to gestate....there might be one or two but they sure don't speak for true Pro-Choice. You want to see hypocrisy? Then look to the Repubs who are "Pro-Life" but want to cut funding to social programs like WIC and Welfare that aid CHILDREN, BORN children... Then you should look up the word "genocide"... What is this "next step" you talk about? Abortion has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years and the only steps have been to make it legal and safe... 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, cut the crap about liberals are advocating a master race because they are for women's right to choose what to do with their own bodies....
Exactly! 100's of years ago, we used to put weak and/or sick babies and the elderly in the woods. Leaving them there to die. In many cultures, this is still the norm. Perhaps it is important not to look past this historical fact, but more important is not to ignore that we have come a long way since the 1300's. Today, healthcare is superb and most babies can and will survive. Means like aborting babies with Down's makes me shiver because it is selfish, distasteful and rather spoiled. Treating babies like cute, little asseccories that people you walk past are supposed to look at with envious admiration as if they were some sort of handbag or sportscar is one of the more horrifying thoughts i can come to think of. "The wrong kind of baby" can be anything and next up, people will single out the brown eyed, the ugly or something else. Additionally, Down's Syndrome is not a hereditary condition. It is a mutation and even if you abort a trillion babies with Down's, there will be a trillion more of them in the future. Death is not a cure. I am all for a cure for all the conditions in the world (I myself was born with an incurable one), but aborting the baby is not to be equated with curing it. That would be like claiming honour-killings solves the problem of cheating or something (you get the point).
He is right though. You are the one who should cut the bs and find another strawman or, preferably, an actual argument other than "You's a misogynist! Mysogynist bad! Bad misogyny!" It's getting really tiresome, you know.
Do you? I don't get sick of protecting women's rights from the self righteous and hypocritical.... Old saying: Can't take the heat , leave the kitchen...... But I know you may find it frustrating to have facts thrown at you especially those you can't refute.
Are you dreaming? I never said that. Why are you lying? I said what you can't address:Who does? When? Where? That issue is a matter of sexism....Pro-Choice is always Pro-CHOICE. I have never heard of a Pro-Choicer wanting to force women to gestate....there might be one or two but they sure don't speak for true Pro-Choice. You want to see hypocrisy? Then look to the Repubs who are "Pro-Life" but want to cut funding to social programs like WIC and Welfare that aid CHILDREN, BORN children... Then you should look up the word "genocide"... What is this "next step" you talk about? Abortion has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years and the only steps have been to make it legal and safe... 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'.
drluggit said: ↑ It's a tad disconcerting here that we see the folks on the left lining up to support this. It's like they're unaware that adopting this type of an approach is clearly a nod to the master race argument. And isn't that always where liberals end up? Back in their comfortable roots? You: """Additionally, Down's Syndrome is not a hereditary condition. It is a mutation and even if you abort a trillion babies with Down's, there will be a trillion more of them in the future. Death is not a cure.""" UH, tell that to the other poster who YOU AGREED WITH when he posted "" It's like they're unaware that adopting this type of an approach is clearly a nod to the master race argument. And isn't that always where liberals end up? "" Can't make up your mind??
