The Question That "Pro-Choice" Advocates Cannot Answer

Continued science denial.

 

How do you determine what is relevant re: a forum thread? Hmmmm, you look at the OP, eh?

Wow........

 

The thread is about questions that you believe can not be answered.

I pointed out problems with your assertion.

 

No, I have very little doubt that I'm more conversant in science than you are.

 

hahahahahahahahahahaha

 

I can define chickens as people, and thus "prove" that anyone eating chicken is a murderer. And then I can claim that anyone who doesn't agree with my whackaloon definition is running from the issue.

Of course, if I did, I'd look insane and dishonest, and I'd be arguing just like PETA freaks, and like gfm7175.

It's hard to tell the difference between PETA freaks and pro-lifers, because they use the same sleazy tactics. I usually have to resort to the sniff test to tell them apart, as PETA freaks generally have better hygiene. Otherwise, they're identical to pro-lifers.

If someone's argument isn't hot garbage, they won't have to redefine the language to make it. The OP's argument is hot garbage, which is why he has to redefine the language.

 

I have noted before the right has trouble with ambiguity. They see things in black or white, right or wrong, with no gray areas to confuse the issue. If there is a heart beat then that human deserves all the rights and benefits of everyone else. It ignores what is best, what is humane. A real world perspective. Life's choices are subjective. People disagree, but a large part of making those decisions is a sense of empathy which the right lacks. Should we not allow a respirator to be turned off so the family can greive and move on? Should we not assist a suicide who is begging to die because of the pain? Should we not allow a woman to terminate a pregnancy who has three kids she can't feed? The answers are gray.

 

Blah blah blah... "the right sucks"... I get it.

Right, because if there is a heartbeat, then there is clearly and unambiguously a living human in existence. Black and white.

Killing one's own offspring (a living human) for sake of convenience of another living human is not humane nor is it healthcare. Morally speaking, it is murder and it is abhorrent.

This topic would be an entire thread of its own. I won't get into it here.

Blah blah blah... "the right sucks"... I get it.

This falls under "expressed desire to die".

This falls under "expressed desire to die".

No. This is morally abhorrent because it falls under 'killing a living human who has not committed any crime nor expressed any desire to die'.

It is not the child's fault that his/her mother is irresponsible. Why is she having a fourth kid if she can't feed the three that she already has?

The answers are pretty black and white, actually. The truth can hurt sometimes, but that doesn't mean it's "gray".

 

Thank you for clearly illustrating what studies have shown. Right-wingers tolerate ambiguity poorly and have low empathy for the "other" outside their group. All my examples were clearly black and white to you or are they?

The case of turning a ventilator off is not an "expressed desire to die" by the individual but the family's choice to stop a heart beat and may be contentious and last years.

The person with the "expressed desire to die" may be undermedicated to control the pain, which happens with terminal patients whose doctors don't keep up with the symptoms.

You give the fetus more rights than the "irresponsible" woman and take away her's. If she did go through with the abortion she would be a murderess per you. That would be first degree murder, the intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought, would it not, and I assume you are okay with the death penalty for such charges?