NationStates Jolt Archive

How many unwanted children have they adopted? What charities for the living do they support? What political action do they take to support families and/or reform child welfare services? Do they support general social welfare programs, like food stamps, that can help make sure a family can feed all their children, now that you have forced them to have another? How about health care -- what political measures do they support to provide affordable universal health care for children in their country and/or other places? And how about as the innocent little angels grow up into their sacred little lives? Do your anti-choice friends also support universal free public education, literacy programs, job assistance programs, continuing health care programs?

Talk is cheap. It's very nice to wave the banner and shout "murder," as long as you don't have to take any responsibility for all the people you cause to be born. It's easy to be "pro-life" when you only have to be "pro" for the pregnancy and birth and forget about the "life" part.

Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn; they will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that they don't wanna know about you! They don't wanna hear from you. No nothin'! No neo-natal care, no daycare, no headstart, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothin'---if you're preborn, you're fine...if you're preschool, you're fucked! Conservatives don't give a shit about you until you reach...Military Age! Then they think you are just fine, just what they've been lookin' for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise 'em to be dead soldiers.

The wisest words ever spoken on the subject, I think.

The wisest words ever spoken on the subject, I think.
And how. I'm going to light some incense for that great man's memory.

Shit, why did we have to lose George Carlin and Isaac Hayes, but we still have that muttering turd Cheney?

If that is not the true face of your movement, then I would strongly urge your movement to do something about its image and who it allows to be its spokespeople. Because you all look like a bunch moralistic hypocrites now.

I am pro-abortion. I am not sure who the spokespeople are for the prolife movement who you are referring to. I was shocked by a recent poll of Republicans that showed that pro-lifers were a minority within our party. I do not think that these pro lifer folks are a good element of our party. I think that they are big government liberals with an agenda to ban abortions.

I agree that in many countries the orphanages are lousy. I think that pro lifers and pro choicers adopt about equally. I have no evidence I just suspect that this is so. Do you think that pro-lifers are less willing to adopt children than pro-choicers are?

We had a thread on NSG a while back about this concept of babies being a punishment for immoral sexual activity. It was my recollection that few or no pro-lifers here supported that view and it seemed like it was a bit of a strawman argument that misrepresenetd the views of pro-lifers.

And how. I'm going to light some incense for that great man's memory.

Shit, why did we have to lose George Carlin and Isaac Hayes, but we still have that muttering turd Cheney?

Incense?! It's George Carlin. There are several things I can think of that would be better to light if you wanted to truly honor his memory. ;)

We had a thread on NSG a while back about this concept of babies being a punishment for immoral sexual activity. It was my recollection that few or no pro-lifers here supported that view and it seemed like it was a bit of a strawman argument that misrepresenetd the views of pro-lifers.
oh they would never SAY that that is what they think.

but suddenly they are talking about sluts who cant keep their legs together and you know that that is what they MEAN.

We had a thread on NSG a while back about this concept of babies being a punishment for immoral sexual activity. It was my recollection that few or no pro-lifers here supported that view and it seemed like it was a bit of a strawman argument that misrepresenetd the views of pro-lifers.

It's my recollection that you're wrong, and that the argument for 'babies as a punishment' came FROM the pro-life side.

How it can be a Strawman, under those circumstances, I'm unsure.

life begins when i tell it to.

And where would you actually place conception? When sperm meets egg? the first (fast block) the second block(slow)? At the first cell division? I mean really there is very little difference between a human and a bacteria at that point so . . .why conception?
Actually there are significant differences in size, cell structure/composition, etc :p.

How about a human and an amoeba?

I am pro-abortion. I am not sure who the spokespeople are for the prolife movement who you are referring to. I was shocked by a recent poll of Republicans that showed that pro-lifers were a minority within our party. I do not think that these pro lifer folks are a good element of our party. I think that they are big government liberals with an agenda to ban abortions.
Trolls can be funny sometimes. For about half a post.

I agree that in many countries the orphanages are lousy. I think that pro lifers and pro choicers adopt about equally. I have no evidence I just suspect that this is so. Do you think that pro-lifers are less willing to adopt children than pro-choicers are?
No, I think "pro-lifers" are more likely to try to justify their attempts to outlaw abortion by claiming adoption is a substitute, despite their own unwillingness to adopt.

We had a thread on NSG a while back about this concept of babies being a punishment for immoral sexual activity. It was my recollection that few or no pro-lifers here supported that view and it seemed like it was a bit of a strawman argument that misrepresenetd the views of pro-lifers.
Oh, you recollect that, do you? And which of the hundreds of threads on abortion in which some some "pro-lifer" started ranting on about how women who decide to have sex have to just live with the consequence of having a baby do you "recollect" that pro-choice "strawman" as coming from?

Actually there are significant differences in size, cell structure/composition, etc :p.

How about a human and an amoeba?

lol fine fine amoeba it is . . .*sulks in corner* nobody likes my bacteria analogy lmao

Life has already begun, no need to start it again...

Life has already begun, no need to start it again...

It didn't count if there wasn't a professional there to see it, validate it's claims, and make sure all the relevent paperwork was in order.

It didn't count if there wasn't a professional there to see it, validate it's claims, and make sure all the relevent paperwork was in order.

oh crap, I new I forgot something . .. now where was that l37n volume two in triplicate??

oh crap, I new I forgot something . .. now where was that l37n volume two in triplicate??

You have to pick it up from VR. (Vogon Resources).

Good luck.

I know several pro-life family's who adopted...and both of them adopted asians...just for the record.
In the end though, I am not going to try to debate, as I am not going to convince any of you angry liberals (sorry, its what you are)...I make a point not to debate with angry people from either group...and I would like to stick to it.

Good luck.
Pack a towel.

I know several pro-life family's who adopted...and both of them adopted asians...just for the record.
In the end though, I am not going to try to debate, as I am not going to convince any of you angry liberals (sorry, its what you are)...I make a point not to debate with angry people from either group...and I would like to stick to it.

You sound angry.

You need a hug?

Can I just point out that you know 'several' families, and 'both of them'.... suggests you, in fact, know TWO families?

Also - of course they adopted Asian babies. There's almost no control over adoption from a lot of asian countries, several religious groups target asian adoption as a form of evangelism/conversion... and you can actually get a BABY that way, rather than some part-grown kid.

It's the same reason lots of those kinds of people have adopted from former soviet republics. It's like a (semi-)legal market for baby-purchasing.

I know several pro-life family's who adopted...and both of them adopted asians...just for the record.
In the end though, I am not going to try to debate, as I am not going to convince any of you angry liberals (sorry, its what you are)...I make a point not to debate with angry people from either group...and I would like to stick to it.
One down.

I like it when they slap a dismissive label on their opponents while picking up their marbles and going home. It adds pizzazz.

"Angry liberals." :D And he even apologized for calling us that, as if it would be an insult even if it were true of everyone here.

Pack a towel.

If you gotta pack it, it's too late. You should always know where your towel is.

One down.

I like it when they slap a dismissive label on their opponents while picking up their marbles and going home. It adds pizzazz.

"Angry liberals." :D And he even apologized for calling us that, as if it would be an insult even if it were true of everyone here.

I'm not angry... :(

I'm not angry... :(
Well, why the hell not, damn you!? :D

Well, why the hell not, damn you!? :D

Can I be a Miffed Liberal? I could probably work up a fairly decent miffed.

You have to pick it up from VR. (Vogon Resources).

Good luck.

OH NO! not there!!! not the place of the three hour lineups just to get to the start of the bureaucratic process . . .oh god no . . .*crawls into corner with smg*

OH NO! not there!!! not the place of the three hour lineups just to get to the start of the bureaucratic process . . .oh god no . . .*crawls into corner with smg*

Excellent.

*Attaches "Mostly Harmless" sticker to DaWoad*

*Cringes further*
*realizes there is a sword in the corner*
*comes out swinging*

Can I be a Miffed Liberal? I could probably work up a fairly decent miffed.
Sigh. If that's the best you can manage...fine. ;)

Sigh. If that's the best you can manage...fine. ;)

Well... I didn't know there was gonna be a test...

I know several pro-life family's who adopted...and both of them adopted asians...just for the record.
In the end though, I am not going to try to debate, as I am not going to convince any of you angry liberals (sorry, its what you are)...I make a point not to debate with angry people from either group...and I would like to stick to it.

*blink*

Well, your choice of screen name certainly seems to hold true.

Trolls can be funny sometimes. For about half a post.


No, I think "pro-lifers" are more likely to try to justify their attempts to outlaw abortion by claiming adoption is a substitute, despite their own unwillingness to adopt.


Oh, you recollect that, do you? And which of the hundreds of threads on abortion in which some some "pro-lifer" started ranting on about how women who decide to have sex have to just live with the consequence of having a baby do you "recollect" that pro-choice "strawman" as coming from?

I am a bit confused about the troll comment. Did you mean that I was being a troll? I was trying to convey my disgust at my Republican Party including pro-lifers because I view the pro-lifers as big government because they want to expand the government's power at the expense of individual liberties in the area of reproductive rights.

Why do you think that pro-lifers are unwilling to adopt children? I remembert that there was a thread on that topic a while back.

There was a thread that was a spin off from an abortion thread. This spin off discussion was focused on an opinion expressed by a pro-lifer in the general abortion thread that abortions should be illegal to force the sluts to care for the fruits of their sexual activities. From the discussion that ensued it seemed to me that there were few or no other posters that really agreed with that concept. It seemed that this argument was the belief of either a radical or immature/stupid poster. As such it is not really reflective of the pro-life position.

As the devil's advocate I would present the prolife position to be that all human life is sacred or at least should be protected from destruction by the hands of man. Fetuses are humans. Therefore fetuses should be protected. Furthermore, a society is judged by how it treats those at its margins who are unable to stand up for themselves. Fetuses are some of the weakest members of society and need somebody to champion them because they cannot speak or do anything really on their own for that matter.

Now I am not saying that I share this belief. I am after all playing the devil's advocate here, but I respect that belief.

In contrast, the supposed argument that sluts should be punished with a baby, I find it difficult to present that argument in any way that I can respectfully disagree with. Maybe this is because of my pro abortion bias but I do not think so because I can respect at least the earlier mentioned "devil's advocate" argument as reasonable. I think that part of my problem is that I do not agree with the premise that there is anything wrong with women and men having sex and would therefore need to be punished in some way. It is like saying that men who eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches should not be allowed to get their ties dry cleaned if they spill jelly on their neckties as a result of having eaten a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch. I just do not think that someone needs to punished for sandwich eating or for having sex.

I also have a problem with the idea that a baby is some type of punishment. It does not seem like a good idea to make a person who did not ask to be born somehow in the role of a punisher of its parents. This just seems like a bizzarre idea.

Now there are nutcases out there. Undoubtedly there are pro-lifers who have insane ideas such as the babies as a punishment idea to support their conclusions but this is not a reflection of the true pro life argument.

I am a bit confused about the troll comment. Did you mean that I was being a troll?
Yes.

I was trying to convey my disgust at my Republican Party including pro-lifers because I view the pro-lifers as big government because they want to expand the government's power at the expense of individual liberties in the area of reproductive rights.
Uh-huh. Sure you were.

Why do you think that pro-lifers are unwilling to adopt children?
The fact that millions of children do not get adopted. By anyone. Coupled with the fact that the majority of so-called "pro-lifers" are not raising adopted children. Hell, even you could only think of two who did.

I remembert that there was a thread on that topic a while back.
You remember lots of threads, apparently. Too bad you've forgotten how to use the forum search function so you might find links to some of them so that we can see whether you're just blowing smoke or those long-ago posters of yesteryear were.

There was a thread that was a spin off from an abortion thread. <snip a whole bunch of junk that amounts to GF just laying out his own views but pretending that he's not by foisting them off on vague, unnamed parties who are not here to answer for them>
Blah, blah, whatever. Get an argument of your own, please.

Yes.


Uh-huh. Sure you were.


The fact that millions of children do not get adopted. By anyone. Coupled with the fact that the majority of so-called "pro-lifers" are not raising adopted children. Hell, even you could only think of two who did.


You remember lots of threads, apparently. Too bad you've forgotten how to use the forum search function so you might find links to some of them so that we can see whether you're just blowing smoke or those long-ago posters of yesteryear were.


Blah, blah, whatever. Get an argument of your own, please.

Wow you are being really nasty! Thank you for telling me that there was a way to research past threads. I did not know that. I also did not forget it. Maybe you should use this device to see that I am a pro-abortion kind of guy. You are so nasty and have me so worked up that if I was the type of squealer who ran to the moderators I would do it. If you had called me a liar to my face rather than via the internet (and if you are a man) I would ask that we step outside.

You have really pissed me off! I really really really want an apology and I am not kidding.

And I am not the guy that wrote about knowing two pro-life couples that adopted those Asian kids. I am going to go and try to figure out how to use this forum search function. By golly I am going to give you proof of what I am talking about and then you had better apologize to me then if not sooner. If this thread ends by the time I am done with my research I will be contacting you through telegram. I have been a pretty casual poster up to now but this matter is going on my to do list.

Wow you are being really nasty! Thank you for telling me that there was a way to research past threads. I did not know that. I also did not forget it. Maybe you should use this device to see that I am a pro-abortion kind of guy. You are so nasty and have me so worked up that if I was the type of squealer who ran to the moderators I would do it. If you had called me a liar to my face rather than via the internet (and if you are a man) I would ask that we step outside.

You have really pissed me off! I really really really want an apology and I am not kidding.

And I am not the guy that wrote about knowing two pro-life couples that adopted those Asian kids. I am going to go and try to figure out how to use this forum search function. By golly I am going to give you proof of what I am talking about and then you had better apologize to me then if not sooner. If this thread ends by the time I am done with my research I will be contacting you through telegram. I have been a pretty casual poster up to now but this matter is going on my to do list.

Heh I love 'civilised' anger, 'by golly!'

Wow you are being really nasty! Thank you for telling me that there was a way to research past threads. I did not know that. I also did not forget it. Maybe you should use this device to see that I am a pro-abortion kind of guy. You are so nasty and have me so worked up that if I was the type of squealer who ran to the moderators I would do it. If you had called me a liar to my face rather than via the internet (and if you are a man) I would ask that we step outside.

You have really pissed me off! I really really really want an apology and I am not kidding.

And I am not the guy that wrote about knowing two pro-life couples that adopted those Asian kids.

I am going to go and try to figure out how to use this forum search function. By golly I am going to give you proof of what I am talking about and then you had better apologize to me then if not sooner. If this thread ends by the time I am done with my research I will be contacting you through telegram. I have been a pretty casual poster up to now but this matter is going on my to do list.
You are right about that you were not the one who talked about knowing "pro-lifers" who adopted Asian kids, and I do apologize for confusing you with the poster who did:
I know several pro-life family's who adopted...and both of them adopted asians...just for the record.
<snip>
That person was being a troll, in my opinion, whereas I believe you were only trolling in that one paragraph, in which you speculated that "pro-life" Republicans are really liberals playing some kind of jiggery-pokery with your party -- a ridiculous notion if ever I heard one.

As for my nastiness, I stand by and will not waiver from this:

> Vague recollections of something someone else might have said somewhere once upon a time are not an argument.

> If you have an argument, statement or comment of your own to post on this topic, please lay it on us.

> If you want to comment on someone else's argument, then you should make an effort to know what that argument is.

> If you want to talk about who said what, how many people say it, why and under what circumstances, you should make an effort to find that out, too, rather than burden us with long explanations of what you think or guess might be the case based solely on vague recollections of what you think may have happened.

> Add all that up together and it amounts to this: If you wanted to present such extensive comments about past threads, you should have looked up such past threads to make sure you were right about them FIRST. And if you did not know how to, or whether that was even possible, you could have asked for technical help with that.

> OR you could instead have chosen to make an argument of your own, set in the present, rather than try to defend a past you could not even refer to directly.

Now, if you really think I am flaming you with this criticism, feel free to report me. I will gladly abide by whatever decision a moderator gives.

You are right about that you were not the one who talked about knowing "pro-lifers" who adopted Asian kids, and I do apologize for confusing you with the poster who did:

That person was being a troll, in my opinion, whereas I believe you were only trolling in that one paragraph, in which you speculated that "pro-life" Republicans are really liberals playing some kind of jiggery-pokery with your party -- a ridiculous notion if ever I heard one.

As for my nastiness, I stand by and will not waiver from this:

> Vague recollections of something someone else might have said somewhere once upon a time are not an argument.

> If you have an argument, statement or comment of your own to post on this topic, please lay it on us.

> If you want to comment on someone else's argument, then you should make an effort to know what that argument is.

> If you want to talk about who said what, how many people say it, why and under what circumstances, you should make an effort to find that out, too, rather than burden us with long explanations of what you think or guess might be the case based solely on vague recollections of what you think may have happened.

> Add all that up together and it amounts to this: If you wanted to present such extensive comments about past threads, you should have looked up such past threads to make sure you were right about them FIRST. And if you did not know how to, or whether that was even possible, you could have asked for technical help with that.

> OR you could instead have chosen to make an argument of your own, set in the present, rather than try to defend a past you could not even refer to directly.

Now, if you really think I am flaming you with this criticism, feel free to report me. I will gladly abide by whatever decision a moderator gives.

I was looking for an apology about when you called me a liar. I do not demand apologies for mistaking me for another poster. My research turned up one of the posts that I was looking for it is titled, "For the Pro-Lifes, if abortions were banned would you adopt the unwanted children?" The last post date on that thread was January 19, 2007.

I am not out to seek a moderator's interference. I demand an apology for calling me a liar.

You are right about that you were not the one who talked about knowing "pro-lifers" who adopted Asian kids, and I do apologize for confusing you with the poster who did:

That person was being a troll, in my opinion, whereas I believe you were only trolling in that one paragraph, in which you speculated that "pro-life" Republicans are really liberals playing some kind of jiggery-pokery with your party -- a ridiculous notion if ever I heard one.

As for my nastiness, I stand by and will not waiver from this:

> Vague recollections of something someone else might have said somewhere once upon a time are not an argument.

> If you have an argument, statement or comment of your own to post on this topic, please lay it on us.

> If you want to comment on someone else's argument, then you should make an effort to know what that argument is.

> If you want to talk about who said what, how many people say it, why and under what circumstances, you should make an effort to find that out, too, rather than burden us with long explanations of what you think or guess might be the case based solely on vague recollections of what you think may have happened.

> Add all that up together and it amounts to this: If you wanted to present such extensive comments about past threads, you should have looked up such past threads to make sure you were right about them FIRST. And if you did not know how to, or whether that was even possible, you could have asked for technical help with that.

> OR you could instead have chosen to make an argument of your own, set in the present, rather than try to defend a past you could not even refer to directly.

Now, if you really think I am flaming you with this criticism, feel free to report me. I will gladly abide by whatever decision a moderator gives.

I have already argued my views on abortion. I was not trolling when I wrote that as a conservative Republican I do not like the pro-lifer platform of my party. Maybe I expressed that in a way that miscommunicated what I was trying to express. I am unhappy that antiabortion is a plank in our platform. As a conservative, I believe that it is important to rein in governmental excess. It is clear to me that banning government is an improper expansion of government power. The essence of conservatism is limited government. The essence of liberalism is the expansion of governmental power to achieve justice. I wish that the Republicans would ditch the pro-life plank, I think it would help us to be true to our conservative roots.

I have pro-life friends and they never voice their concerns as based upon a desire to punish immoral sexual behavior. I personally think that the babies as a punishment theory is insane. Although I disagree with the idea that fetuses need protected by government action, I respect the opinion that fetuses need protection because they are people who are powerless to advance their interests in being born.

In other words, there is the sane pro-life argument of "well they are humans..." and there is the insane pro-life arument that "sluts need to be held accountable for their sins and babies are the punishment they should receive...".

I am the first to admit that I am not very good with the technical side of posting. I am not a liar though and I take great offense at being called a liar. Being called a liar is "fighting words". We come to these discussions to debate not to be personally insulted. Other posters might run to the moderators but I view that as a tattle tale type remedy. I simply want an apology from you for calling me a liar or an explanation that you did not call me a liar. Maybe, I misread your post or missed the idea that you were trying to post and maybe you did not call me a liar. If you did not call me a liar, explain that to me. If you called me a liar, apologize. If you still think I am a liar, I will try to calm down again and work with you to clear my name of this insult.

I was looking for an apology about when you called me a liar. I do not demand apologies for mistaking me for another poster. My research turned up one of the posts that I was looking for it is titled, "For the Pro-Lifes, if abortions were banned would you adopt the unwanted children?" The last post date on that thread was January 19, 2007.
It didn't give you a link to it? I'll get it for you:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513707&highlight=Pro-Lifes%2C+abortions+banned+adopt+unwanted+children%3F

Now you can show us or direct us to the proof of your claims within it.

I am not out to seek a moderator's interference. I demand an apology for calling me a liar.
Do you mean when I characterized your post as reflecting your own views under the guise of talking about someone else's?

I will retract that comment when you tell us what your actual views are by presenting an argument of your own.

In the meantime, what other impression do you think you were giving by going on at such length to defend anti-choicers against accusations of moralistic judgmentalism? It was stated that anti-choicers are more concerned with condemning and controlling the sexual behavior of women than worrying about the lives of babies. You posted long arguments claiming that the majority of anti-choicers do not say any such thing, that that is a view held only by a few nuts, or else it's a strawman put up by pro-choicers. And at the same time as you did that, you went on to describe how you could see how such statements could be justified for those who make them. At one and the same time, you denied that a group made such comments and defended them for making them! Seriously, did you think you would not look like an apologist for them?

I don't know if this link will work, but this is the search results page for the forum search I just did on the keyword "abortion":

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=1064524

It lists 300 threads. Admittedly not all of them are about abortion -- the search function reads content, too -- but many of them are.

Are you going to go through all of them to support your claim that only a few nuts and some strawman-toting pro-choicers make the arguments we have been talking about?

Or would you rather make an argument of your own, instead -- and tell us what your real position is while you're at it?

I have already argued my views on abortion. I was not trolling when I wrote that as a conservative Republican I do not like the pro-lifer platform of my party. Maybe I expressed that in a way that miscommunicated what I was trying to express. I am unhappy that antiabortion is a plank in our platform.
And that's why you blamed it on liberals?

As a conservative, I believe that it is important to rein in governmental excess. It is clear to me that banning government is an improper expansion of government power. The essence of conservatism is limited government. The essence of liberalism is the expansion of governmental power to achieve justice. I wish that the Republicans would ditch the pro-life plank, I think it would help us to be true to our conservative roots.
That is a position on the conservative platform. It is not a position on abortion. Are you willing to tell us what your position on abortion is?

I have pro-life friends and they never voice their concerns as based upon a desire to punish immoral sexual behavior.
You are basing your assertions only on your own personal experience of what your friends have said -- or rather what they have NOT said to you?

I personally think that the babies as a punishment theory is insane.
I agree.

Although I disagree with the idea that fetuses need protected by government action, I respect the opinion that fetuses need protection because they are people who are powerless to advance their interests in being born.
Why do you respect that view if you do not share it?

In other words, there is the sane pro-life argument of "well they are humans..." and there is the insane pro-life arument that "sluts need to be held accountable for their sins and babies are the punishment they should receive...".
Why is the first more sane than the second, in your opinion?

I am the first to admit that I am not very good with the technical side of posting. I am not a liar though and I take great offense at being called a liar. Being called a liar is "fighting words". We come to these discussions to debate not to be personally insulted. Other posters might run to the moderators but I view that as a tattle tale type remedy. I simply want an apology from you for calling me a liar or an explanation that you did not call me a liar. Maybe, I misread your post or missed the idea that you were trying to post and maybe you did not call me a liar. If you did not call me a liar, explain that to me. If you called me a liar, apologize. If you still think I am a liar, I will try to calm down again and work with you to clear my name of this insult.
See my previous post in re the "liar" thing.

It didn't give you a link to it? I'll get it for you:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513707&highlight=Pro-Lifes%2C+abortions+banned+adopt+unwanted+children%3F

Now you can show us or direct us to the proof of your claims within it.


Do you mean when I characterized your post as reflecting your own views under the guise of talking about someone else's?

I will retract that comment when you tell us what your actual views are by presenting an argument of your own.

In the meantime, what other impression do you think you were giving by going on at such length to defend anti-choicers against accusations of moralistic judgmentalism? It was stated that anti-choicers are more concerned with condemning and controlling the sexual behavior of women than worrying about the lives of babies. You posted long arguments claiming that the majority of anti-choicers do not say any such thing, that that is a view held only by a few nuts, or else it's a strawman put up by pro-choicers. And at the same time as you did that, you went on to describe how you could see how such statements could be justified for those who make them. At one and the same time, you denied that a group made such comments and defended them for making them! Seriously, did you think you would not look like an apologist for them?

I don't know if this link will work, but this is the search results page for the forum search I just did on the keyword "abortion":

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=1064524

It lists 300 threads. Admittedly not all of them are about abortion -- the search function reads content, too -- but many of them are.

Are you going to go through all of them to support your claim that only a few nuts and some strawman-toting pro-choicers make the arguments we have been talking about?

Or would you rather make an argument of your own, instead -- and tell us what your real position is while you're at it?

Before I do more research into the other threads, I shall make the following points:

As I already posted in this thread, fetuses are alive. However, this is not the central issue. The important issue is, "Do fetuses have a right to life that trumps the right of a woman to abort the fetus. My conclusion is that the fetus does not have such a right. I will now take some time to argue this point further than I may have already done in my earliest of posts in this thread.

Humanity is defined by something greater than genetics. Sure a fetus is genetically homo sapien, but that does not make them a human being with human rights.

A human being must be born before he has any rights. Before we are born we are merely potential human beings just like sperm and egg cells. Once we are born, we have equal standing with all others in terms of our rights which ought not be deprived by anyone under color of law without substantive and proceduaral due process of law.

A potential human, despite any genetic similarities with us, is not a human being. At this stage of devellopment the potential human being is at most some sort of property of an actual human being that possesses it. Their may very well be two parents that have some sort of property interest in the potential human. There may even be other third parties such as sperm banks that might have some sort of property interest in the living potential human being.

Thus, when we think about the proper role of government in relation to fetueses, it is not in the capacity of a government seeking equal protection of all of its citizens but in the role of the protection and regulation of property rights in a manner that advances the public good.

There are some, including unfortunately the US Supreme Court, who have determined that reproduction is a personal right of the individual and should not be interfered with in any manner. However, I believe that this is the improper way to think about this matter. Instead, potential human beings need to be treated as a property right and not as the by product of a fundamental human right to procreate that I do not believe exists.

It is vital that property rights be protected. Even the most laissez-faire government summons forth its limited resources to vigorously defend the property rights of the individual. This is a fundamental and proper role of government. Efficiency and personal happiness is best achieved by minimal involvement by the government in property rights so long as the exercise thereof does not cause harm to others or the general public.

In an era of human overpopulation, overprocreation poses a danger to the public. Overprocreation leads to an increased demand for scarce natural resources. This demand leads to loss of wild areas and contributes to the endangerment and extinction of species. Just as it is unlawful to kill endangered species with a rifle, so too should it be unlawful to do so by overpopulating.

This is a major threat to the environment. The government has already taken steps to limit the ability of the individual to use his property if that use has a negative impact on the environment.

We need to have strict pro-abortion laws that reward people who have zero or one child and punish those who have more than one child. I believe that the best way to accomplish this is through financial means and the taking of children from parents who hoard children and contribute to overpopulation.

Unfortunately, the law has the opposite impetus. Our policy of providing tax breaks and welfare aid to families based on the number of children rewards overprocreation instead of discouraging it. I applaud China for its excellent procreation policy. It is a shame that a rogue nation leads the world in this area. It is sad when one of the most unenlightened and brutal regimes who actually has weak environmental enforcement actually leads the world in this. It is an embarrassment. We can all do better. We must or we will crap up the planet even worse than we already have.

And that's why you blamed it on liberals?


Why do you respect that view if you do not share it?


Why is the first more sane than the second, in your opinion?


See my previous post in re the "liar" thing.

I believe that being pro-life is a liberal (i.e. "big government") view. I do not care for big government unless it is absolutely necessary. In my recent post which was posted after the one excerpted above in this post, I described why environmental concerns relating to overpopulation make it neccessary to promote abortion.

People can make reasonable arguments that reach different conclusions. The idea that fetuses are humans is reasonable because it is premised on genetics. The fetus like the adult is 100% human in its DNA. Do you agree that this is a rational premise? People that have arguments based on rational premises should respect the other's opinion even if they disagree.

I can think of no sane premises for the conclusion that babies are a punishment for slutty women and that we should ban abortion so that the sluts can be punished. Can you?

Obviously, there is some degree of life present at conception. I do not think that anybody really argues against that. however, is it a human life? Or is it a sacred life? Or is it a life that needs protected? These are the real questions.

I am pro-death. I like birth-control for most people except for people that are in minorities so minor that they are endangered subgroups. I view abortion as a good backup protection as part of a birth control plan.

I think that humans are overpopulated as a species and that the problem is getting worse. It is immoral to do a whole bunch of breeding in this time of overpopulation. If someone brings in more than two children into this world, they are contributing to the problem and I have no respect for you unless it is some freaky thing like triplets or whatnot.

I also love abortion because it can prevent birth defects. It is cruel to give birth to messed up kids.

It is strange to quote my own post, but here is the first post that I made on this thread. I believe it contains argument although not in as much detail as I have subsequently written.

I looked at the 300 posts in your link. I did not find the one that I am looking for. The one I was looking for was the one that explored the topic of a supposed pro-life argument that abortions should be outlawed to force women into dealing with the consequences of their actions. I Could have sworn this thread occurred in the past two years but I could not find it in your 300 threads link. Is there anyway to check further back?

The poll results from the old adoption thread suggests that pro-lifers want to adopt children. It was 36 to 10. However, the poll seemed to have been written rather clumsily. Yet, it seemed pretty conclusive that pro-lifers are willing to adopt children. They seemed much more likely to adopt than the pro-choice people.

I have put some time and effort into clearing my name of the liar insult. Do I have an apology yet or is it going to be pistols at thirty paces, or what?

Do you mean when I characterized your post as reflecting your own views under the guise of talking about someone else's?

I will retract that comment when you tell us what your actual views are by presenting an argument of your own.

In the meantime, what other impression do you think you were giving by going on at such length to defend anti-choicers against accusations of moralistic judgmentalism? It was stated that anti-choicers are more concerned with condemning and controlling the sexual behavior of women than worrying about the lives of babies. You posted long arguments claiming that the majority of anti-choicers do not say any such thing, that that is a view held only by a few nuts, or else it's a strawman put up by pro-choicers. And at the same time as you did that, you went on to describe how you could see how such statements could be justified for those who make them. At one and the same time, you denied that a group made such comments and defended them for making them! Seriously, did you think you would not look like an apologist for them?



I never said that I agreed that a women should be punished for sexual immorality by being forced to have a baby. I more or less denied that pro-lifers as a group made the comments that women should be punished for sexual immorality by being forced to have a baby. I merely defended pro-lifers from the accusation that they think that way.

I have put some time and effort into clearing my name of the liar insult. Do I have an apology yet or is it going to be pistols at thirty paces, or what?
Patience. You posted a lot of material. I have to examine it. But I now have to go the supermarket. I need cat litter. I'll catch up with this tonight, after I do that and some other stuff and have the time to read everything you provided.

If your materials do prove me wrong, you will get your apology.

But if it does not, or if it raises more questions, you will not. At least not yet.

It didn't give you a link to it? I'll get it for you:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513707&highlight=Pro-Lifes%2C+abortions+banned+adopt+unwanted+children%3F

Now you can show us or direct us to the proof of your claims within it.


Do you mean when I characterized your post as reflecting your own views under the guise of talking about someone else's?

I will retract that comment when you tell us what your actual views are by presenting an argument of your own.

I have never done anything else other than communicating my own views with my own argument. The very nature of the topic of "what does a particular group" believe demands the debater to make some claim upon another's views. However, my arguments were sincere and they were my own.

I believe that being pro-life is a liberal (i.e. "big government") view.

That's a weird definition, if ever I heard one. Surely, a liberal is someone who is socially... well, liberal? Big or small government are irrelevent?

*sarcasm* I go further. Every egg and sperm is sacred. These cells are living. If you do not allow such the start of life to become a child then you are a murderer. It is possible to give birth easily to over a dozen children. Anyone who dose not do so has murdered the difference in the numbers ie 12 possible - 2 acutal = 10 killed by you
Abstenance is a form of birth control. Therefore get married and have sex often of you will be punished by god for not having children. *sarcasm*

Before I do more research into the other threads, I shall make the following points:

<snip for length>
Thank you for that lengthy explanation of your views. I'm snipping it rather than responding to it because all the issues relevant to the present argument that I can comment on are detailed in the posts that follow it. So I am confining my comments to those posts. However, I wanted to refer to your explanatory post so that you will know I read it, and because I refer to it later on in my comments. Other readers should refer to that post to see details of things I refer to below, which are not in your comments included below.

I believe that being pro-life is a liberal (i.e. "big government") view.
This is a ridiculous assertion. Here's why:

"Liberal" =/= "big government." There is nothing inherent in liberal views that requires "big government." For instance, being pro-choice is an inherently "small government" view because it requires less, not more action and involvement from government affecting people's private lives. It would seem, from your involved but rather non-deep comments that you yourself would acknowledge this to be true.

However, "liberal" does require a certain set of social views/policies that promote individual liberty free of imposed controls or conformity, within a framework of social cooperation (as opposed to control).

Being anti-choice (or as they like to call it, "pro-life") IS NOT a liberal view because it expressly requires that the populace (or at least a portion of it) be subjected to an imposed control that reduces individual liberty to an excessive and oppressive degree.

Therefore, anti-choice/"pro-life" is NOT a liberal view even though it does promote big government. If you had given even half the honest thought to this matter that the effort you put into typing all these words should have required, you should have been able to see that for yourself.

Or is your understanding of what "liberal" means really so off the mark? Do you honestly believe that "big government" is the one true measure of "liberal"? In that case, tell me, do you think the Chinese government, which you praise in your other comments, is liberal? Because they sure as hell are big and controlling. According to what you wrote here, that should make them "liberal" and bad. And yet you praise them because they sometimes force people to abort pregnancies. Hm. Interesting.

So...does this mean that "liberal" is only bad if it does something you don't like, but it's fine if it conforms to your views?

Or perhaps, does it mean that you're just blowing smoke? Does it mean that the only reason you claimed that "pro-life" is a liberal view was so that you could take a jab at liberals by saying something that would piss them off? In other words, that yours is the argument of an internet troll?

I have to say that the internal inconsistency of your remarks -- the way you praise China at the same time that you denounce the features of big government that define China, for instance -- and the fact that I do not believe you to be too stupid to follow your own arguments, make me lean towards the latter explanation as making more sense.

Because of this internal inconsistency in your argument, I stand by my original statement that, when you said that "pro-life" is a liberal thing, you were trolling.

I do not care for big government unless it is absolutely necessary. In my recent post which was posted after the one excerpted above in this post, I described why environmental concerns relating to overpopulation make it neccessary to promote abortion.
Ah, is this your disclaimer that allows you to support big, intrusive government in China while denouncing it as "liberal" in the US?

I reject this as self-serving and over-broad. A person who is, as you claim to be, so interested in the relationship of government to citizen should know that the Chinese government does a lot more than merely "promote" abortion. It actively pressures people to conform to its population rules and penalizes those who do not. Still, China's population is huge and many regions of it are perpetually in danger of food shortages. Also, China's environmental record is abysmal. Or did you miss the recent stories about the Olympics? Your support of them, despite this, directly contradicts both your claim that you think big government is bad (which, I guess, is why you call it "liberal") AND that you believe rules such as China's are good environmental policy (since it clearly isn't having any better effect on the environment than it is on their population).

Compare China's example to a much more "liberal" government such as, say, Canada, which does not pressure people to do one thing or another but merely provides access to the full spectrum of health care, including abortion services, without legal restriction and without promoting the practice, and which is not, to my knowledge, suffering a massive over-population problem. Compare China also to Italy, where there are more restrictions on abortion, yet the birth rate has been declining.

While over-population is indeed an environmental problem, your attempt to tie it in to abortion is nonsense on its face, because the effects you claim of "promoting" abortion or not "promoting" it do not exist. Countries that do push it are still over-populated and many countries that do not push it are not over-populated and may even become under-populated.

So I wonder then, what is it exactly that makes you think "promoting" abortion makes you a champion of individual rights and environmentalism, since such a stance has no demonstrable positive effect on either? And especially since supporting such a view causes you to violate the other view you claim to support in the exact same posts, namely the one about big government being bad?

This is another internal inconsistency on your part. This one causes me to reject all your finely crafted explanations of your position as just so much bull. I do not believe that you are so confused by your own argument that you cannot follow it and so would make such a mistake. That leaves me no other choice but to conclude that you are deliberately presenting a false viewpoint.

People can make reasonable arguments that reach different conclusions. The idea that fetuses are humans is reasonable because it is premised on genetics. The fetus like the adult is 100% human in its DNA. Do you agree that this is a rational premise? People that have arguments based on rational premises should respect the other's opinion even if they disagree.

I can think of no sane premises for the conclusion that babies are a punishment for slutty women and that we should ban abortion so that the sluts can be punished. Can you?
I already answered this, but I am going to change my answer as follows:

1) I do not agree that the arguments presented by anti-choicers about fetuses being human are reasonable, because they do not stop at the undisputed fact that fetuses are alive and have human DNA. Instead, they carry on past that fact into claims about fetuses being persons with legal rights, a claim you yourself disagree with and reject, according to what you write herein. To characterize their arguments as being merely about observing the genetic condition of fetuses is to cut out the greatest part of their argument altogether and, in doing so, misrepresent it.

And so I wonder, why would you misrepresent their argument so grossly? You give me no reason for you to have done so except so that you can claim it is reasonable. But the whole argument is NOT reasonable, not even by the standards you claim to follow (in your explanation of your position). So tell me why you are going to such lengths to portray these people as reasonable, even though they hold views you yourself consider unreasonable? Why are you going so far as to misrepresent those views so that you can call them reasonable?

This is the third internal inconsistency of your arguments. This one causes me to suspect that you are not only misrepresenting their position, but your own as well. I can think of only two reasons why anyone would go to so much trouble to defend the "reasonableness" of people they claim to oppose: (1) they do not understand what those people are saying, or (2) they do not really oppose them. And since I've already established that I do not think you are confused, I find myself leaning towards option (2).

2) I do not agree with your argument about there being no sane premise to the conclusion that babies are a punishment for slutty women, etc., because the argument that babies are a punishment for slutty women, etc., is not a conclusion. It was not an idea reached after following a train of logical questioning. It is not the point B to a point A. Since it is not a conclusion, whether there can be a sane premise to it or not is moot. What that argument is, actually, is a premise unto itself. The belief that pregnancy and babies is a punishment for having sex is the point A from which anti-choicers eventually reach the point B of banning abortion. As a premise, it is presented not as a reasoned conclusion from anything but as an axiom, a foundational idea upon which the rest of their arguments is based.

I have no idea why you would miss this point and thus present an attack on that argument that is so off-base. However, one thing I do notice is that your attack on the babies-as-punishment argument as being an insane idea, is nearly identical to what anti-choicers who make that argument say in their own defense. After having presented arguments that say precisely that pregnancy and birth is a price for having sex that women should not be permitted to avoid by abortion, and after being challenged on that by pro-choicers, they universally declare that they never said any such thing as babies being some kind of punishment for sex and that such a notion would be insane, and are we (the anti-choicers) calling them insane and thus flaming them?

So this leads me to wonder why you, who claim to oppose "pro-lifers" (anti-choicers) would defend them from accusations that they said something by using the exact same defense arguments they themselves use.

This is a fourth internal inconsistency, and the second one that makes it look as if you do not really oppose the anti-choice view the way you say you do.

It is strange to quote my own post, but here is the first post that I made on this thread. I believe it contains argument although not in as much detail as I have subsequently written.
And you wrote it very well. Unfortunately I find myself moved to reject all of it for the reasons explained above. In particular, my first two objections (see bolded parts) cause me to not believe that you really are "pro-abortion."

I looked at the 300 posts in your link. I did not find the one that I am looking for. The one I was looking for was the one that explored the topic of a supposed pro-life argument that abortions should be outlawed to force women into dealing with the consequences of their actions. I Could have sworn this thread occurred in the past two years but I could not find it in your 300 threads link. Is there anyway to check further back?
I have not found one. You could ask for technical assistance (ask a mod or admin how, perhaps?). Maybe older threads were lost when the new company took over.

The poll results from the old adoption thread suggests that pro-lifers want to adopt children. It was 36 to 10. However, the poll seemed to have been written rather clumsily. Yet, it seemed pretty conclusive that pro-lifers are willing to adopt children. They seemed much more likely to adopt than the pro-choice people.
Sorry, but in this paragraph above you already give all the reasons for us not to pay any attention to that poll. Also, what does it have to do with anything? Do you deny that millions of children are languishing in public systems now, with no one stepping up to adopt them? How many of the respondents to that poll actually are raising adopted children? Hint: It's not many. And if they are not actually examples of anti-choicers/"pro-lifers" doing what you say they do, then they aren't much use to this conversation, are they?

And why are you citing it in the first place? I never said that anti-choicers were less likely to adopt than pro-choicers. What I said is that they are unlikely to adopt and, therefore, their argument that adoption is a good alternative to abortion is hypocritical bullshit. I repeat: I said they were unlikely to adopt. I never said they were MORE unlikely than pro-choicers or any other group. Your reference to a poorly structured internet poll with such a small number of respondents hardly counters my assertion.

And why are you defending them on this point, anyway? If, as you claim, you are "pro-abortion" and you think having babies born into the world is bad for the environment, then I should think you would either (a) praise anti-choicers for not adopting because adoption only encourages births, or (b) condemn anti-choicers for promoting adoption regardless of whether they themselves adopt kids or not.

This is the fifth internal inconsisteny of your arguments. This one makes me doubt the sincerity of both your claim to be "pro-abortion" and your claim to oppose the anti-choice view.

I never said that I agreed that a women should be punished for sexual immorality by being forced to have a baby. I more or less denied that pro-lifers as a group made the comments that women should be punished for sexual immorality by being forced to have a baby. I merely defended pro-lifers from the accusation that they think that way.
Yes, I know that is what you did. What I don't understand is why you did it.

You have no proof to offer that the argument was presented by anyone other than them, even though you claimed such proof exists somewhere (but cannot be retrieved and presented). Why did you bother to present and defend -- at such great effort! -- a position that (a) you cannot possibly hope to support and (b) should make no difference to your view of anti-choicers, since whether they made that argument or not has nothing to do with the reasons you claim you oppose them. It would be one thing if you had proof positive (or at least strong evidence) that the anti-choice faction were being misrepresented by this particular accusation, but you don't. So why have you pursued this point so strenuously?

This is a sixth internal inconsistency, and the fourth (including the one immediately preceding) that makes me doubt the sincerity of your claimed opposition to the anti-choice position.

I have never done anything else other than communicating my own views with my own argument. The very nature of the topic of "what does a particular group" believe demands the debater to make some claim upon another's views. However, my arguments were sincere and they were my own.
I agree that you have communicated your views very clearly. I have explained exactly what you have communicated clearly to me, and what, as a result, I believe your views to be.

I have put some time and effort into clearing my name of the liar insult. Do I have an apology yet or is it going to be pistols at thirty paces, or what?
No, I'm sorry. For the reasons explained above, I will not be offering you any apologies for anything I said except the part mentioned earlier in the thread where I mistakenly attributed another person's comment to you, for which I did and do apologize. But nothing else. I stand my statements.