Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Infanticide

lions2011

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
2,906
According to Noot....if you are Pro Choice......you are an extremist who condones Infanticide.

lol.....the hits just keep on coming from these clowns.
 
Context is everything: This is solely in regards to the "born alive" bill that Obama opposed in the state legislature. Gingrich didn't exactly get the facts right on that one, but Obama did vote against it, partially because it would give babies who survived an abortion legal status.

But, on the other hand, what is abortion?
 
smayschmouthfootball said:
Context is everything: This is solely in regards to the "born alive" bill that Obama opposed in the state legislature. Gingrich didn't exactly get the facts right on that one, but Obama did vote against it, partially because it would give babies who survived an abortion legal status.

But, on the other hand, what is abortion?

Abortion is infanticide to people who can't make a distinction between a cluster of cells that can develop the capacity for autonomous life from an actual living breathing baby. Mostly religious nuts like yourself.
 
cheeno said:
smayschmouthfootball said:
Context is everything: This is solely in regards to the "born alive" bill that Obama opposed in the state legislature. Gingrich didn't exactly get the facts right on that one, but Obama did vote against it, partially because it would give babies who survived an abortion legal status.

But, on the other hand, what is abortion?

Abortion is infanticide to people who can't make a distinction between a cluster of cells that can develop the capacity for autonomous life from an actual living breathing baby. Mostly religious nuts like yourself.

Thanks for the compliment. Except for that distinction you so eloquently expressed is not applicable here.
 
smayschmouthfootball said:
But, on the other hand, what is abortion?

You mean here? In the general terms you were implying?
 
cheeno said:
smayschmouthfootball said:
Context is everything: This is solely in regards to the "born alive" bill that Obama opposed in the state legislature. Gingrich didn't exactly get the facts right on that one, but Obama did vote against it, partially because it would give babies who survived an abortion legal status.

But, on the other hand, what is abortion?

Abortion is infanticide to people who can't make a distinction between a cluster of cells that can develop the capacity for autonomous life from an actual living breathing baby. Mostly religious nuts like yourself.

OK then. Make the distinction. Where's the cut off between the two.
 
Red and Guilty said:
cheeno said:
Abortion is infanticide to people who can't make a distinction between a cluster of cells that can develop the capacity for autonomous life from an actual living breathing baby. Mostly religious nuts like yourself.

OK then. Make the distinction. Where's the cut off between the two.

I'd prefer not to make this into a zillion page thread debating abortion. We can. But to equate abortion with infanticide is something all but the most religious of nut jobs would do without distinction. The OP was pointing out the ridiculousness of Repubs playing to a base that is so narrow that it makes them all but electable...so in that respect i'll try not to derail this thread and stick to the topic.

Do you see any problem in an official that wants to get elected to the office of president calling pro choicers 'baby killers'?
 
cheeno said:
Red and Guilty said:
OK then. Make the distinction. Where's the cut off between the two.

I'd prefer not to make this into a zillion page thread debating abortion. We can. But to equate abortion with infanticide is something all but the most religious of nut jobs would do without distinction. The OP was pointing out the ridiculousness of Repubs playing to a base that is so narrow that it makes them all but electable...so in that respect i'll try not to derail this thread and stick to the topic.

Do you see any problem in an official that wants to get elected to the office of president calling pro choicers 'baby killers'?

In this case, it depends on the 2nd post...about context. If it's actually about that state legislature vote, then that's a very different thing. It has nothing to do with the cluster of cells you brought up (so I was expecting that wherever you would draw your line, it wouldn't be relevant to this issue). If I remember, and I might not, there was a news story about hospitals putting babies that survived induced premature labor abortions on a shelf and waiting for them to die. Illinois threw together a law to address the issue and Obama and others voted against it because it was written broadly enough to challenge Roe v Wade. A 2nd version was written that included language to specify that the new law didn't challenge RvW and either Obama was the only one to vote against it, or he was one of very few people. Then when he ran for President, there was conflicting justification for his vote. I think that's where all the noise was...the different justifications between what he said when the votes were held and what he said when people drudged it up later.
 
This is just another issue where their is a double standard.

A conservative will call a liberal a babykiller if they are pro-choice, but get upset and say it's not that black-and-white when a liberal calls them supporters of cop killers because of their stance on assault weapons bans.

The knife cuts both ways, and they done even see it.

Using a blanket statement on anyone shows an overall lack of intelligence, I'm not surprised Noot falls into this category.
 
SLICK said:
According to Noot....if you are Pro Choice......you are an extremist who condones Infanticide.

lol.....the hits just keep on coming from these clowns.

Rowe vs. Wade protected the rights of states to make laws prohibiting abortions after the first trimester.

Many, many pro-choice voters have no problem with this.

In fact, many pro-choice voters have a problem with abortions after the first trimester.

Additionally, many pro-choice voters have a problem with what Gingrich was describing, that Obama supported as a State Senator in Illinois.
 
[color=#551A8B said:
TinselWolverine[/color]]
SLICK said:
According to Noot....if you are Pro Choice......you are an extremist who condones Infanticide.

lol.....the hits just keep on coming from these clowns.

Rowe vs. Wade protected the rights of states to make laws prohibiting abortions after the first trimester.

Many, many pro-choice voters have no problem with this.

In fact, many pro-choice voters have a problem with abortions after the first trimester.

Additionally, many pro-choice voters have a problem with what Gingrich was describing, that Obama supported as a State Senator in Illinois.

That said, here's the scoop:

[i:0mche7kt]Gingrich was presumably referencing Obama
 
cheeno said:
smayschmouthfootball said:
But, on the other hand, what is abortion?

You mean here? In the general terms you were implying?

The question is the easy to answer. It's the active, willful termination of a human being, whose life begins at conception. People mollify the act with the justification that there is some distinction between cells and a person when there isn't one. That lack of awareness of self somehow means the self is non-existent. But the reality is that EDITED: fetuses are every much a person as is the octogenarian.
 
MI_Thumb said:
This is just another issue where their is a double standard.

A conservative will call a liberal a babykiller if they are pro-choice, but get upset and say it's not that black-and-white when a liberal calls them supporters of cop killers because of their stance on assault weapons bans.

The knife cuts both ways, and they done even see it.

Using a blanket statement on anyone shows an overall lack of intelligence, I'm not surprised Noot falls into this category.

Is that what this thread is about? I thought it was about Newt talking about Obama. Not a blanket thing. Slick worded it like a blanket thing, but that's not what happened, is it?
 
Red and Guilty said:
[quote="MI_Thumb":z5iyrrrq]This is just another issue where their is a double standard.

A conservative will call a liberal a babykiller if they are pro-choice, but get upset and say it's not that black-and-white when a liberal calls them supporters of cop killers because of their stance on assault weapons bans.

The knife cuts both ways, and they done even see it.

Using a blanket statement on anyone shows an overall lack of intelligence, I'm not surprised Noot falls into this category.

Is that what this thread is about? I thought it was about Newt talking about Obama. Not a blanket thing. Slick worded it like a blanket thing, but that's not what happened, is it?[/quote:z5iyrrrq]


The issue remains regardless of what the thread "is about".

And the OP opened it to this type of discussion when he mentioned Noot thinks all pro-choicers are babykillers, if you don't approve of the replies in this thread, go make your own thread and set the topic guidelines however you see fit.
 
[color=#551A8B said:
TinselWolverine[/color]]
[quote="TinselWolverine":6zjj6g7h]

Rowe vs. Wade protected the rights of states to make laws prohibiting abortions after the first trimester.

Many, many pro-choice voters have no problem with this.

In fact, many pro-choice voters have a problem with abortions after the first trimester.

Additionally, many pro-choice voters have a problem with what Gingrich was describing, that Obama supported as a State Senator in Illinois.

That said, here's the scoop:

[i:6zjj6g7h]Gingrich was presumably referencing Obama
 
smayschmouthfootball said:
cheeno said:
You mean here? In the general terms you were implying?

The question is the easy to answer. It's the active, willful termination of a human being, whose life begins at conception. People mollify the act with the justification that there is some distinction between cells and a person when there isn't one. That lack of awareness of self somehow means the self is non-existent. But the reality is that neonates are every much a person as is the octogenarian.

That's a lot of opinion right there you're trying to push off as fact.
 
MI_Thumb said:
[quote="Red and Guilty":nmk9xepw]

Is that what this thread is about? I thought it was about Newt talking about Obama. Not a blanket thing. Slick worded it like a blanket thing, but that's not what happened, is it?


The issue remains regardless of what the thread "is about".

And the OP opened it to this type of discussion when he mentioned Noot thinks all pro-choicers are babykillers, if you don't approve of the replies in this thread, go make your own thread and set the topic guidelines however you see fit.[/quote:nmk9xepw]

If you look up a few posts, you'll see cheeno trying to keep the discussion "on target". It's tough to do in an abortion related thread. I'm just going with the flow.

The OP acts like Newt made a blanket statement, the 2nd post challenges that idea. If you want to argue about the double standard of blanket statements, let's make sure there was actually a blanket statement made in the 1st place.
 
"Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section."

Ha, ha.

I don't know why, but something about the wording here stikes me as being a little bit funny.
 
smayschmouthfootball said:
cheeno said:
You mean here? In the general terms you were implying?

The question is the easy to answer. It's the active, willful termination of a human being, whose life begins at conception. People mollify the act with the justification that there is some distinction between cells and a person when there isn't one. That lack of awareness of self somehow means the self is non-existent. But the reality is that neonates are every much a person as is the octogenarian.

Now I get it, your argument is that cognition does not equate life...IMHO you're just worried someone is going to send your doddering old ass to the glue factory the next time you have a senior moment.
 
[color=#551A8B said:
TinselWolverine[/color]]"Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section."

Ha, ha.

I don't know why, but something about the wording here stikes me as being a little bit funny.

Damn near impossible to write this stuff without using words that impart more meaning than intended. I just want to know if a fetus is a corporation.
 
Back
Top