Abortionists Chant "Hail Satan", Have Child Carry Sick Sign

[O Really]

What's wrong with just saying "I'm opposed to killing fetuses"? It would be accurate and far more defensible than trying to create a new language. "Murder" isn't a synonym for "kill." It's a legal term, with a specific meaning that currently does not include abortion. You can say "I think abortion should be considered murder" if you want, but you can't make it murder just by your own definition.

[Bungalow Bill]

Steal this fuckin' book.

If abortion is murder, you're going to have to arrest a whole lot of
people ASAP. I noticed the TN used the term Pro-Abortion in a
recent poll. I don't think anyone is actually pro-abortion, they are
in favor of a woman having the right to choose whether to have one
or not.

[O Really]

I don't think anyone is actually pro-abortion, they are
in favor of a woman having the right to choose whether to have one
or not.

I'm pro-abortion, as a medical procedure available to women by their doctors. I'm pro-mastectomy, too, as a means of fighting cancer. I'm pro-boob enhancement, if the woman so desires. That's the problem on abortion - the reasonable people let the anti-abortionists frame it as different from other medical procedures.

[Bungalow Bill]

I prefer pro-choice, because while abortion is a medical procedure, it is
generally not done for health reasons or for personal self-enhancement.

[neoplacebo]

Abbie Hoffman used to say (circa 1968) if you don't want it on tv, paint "fuck" on your forehead

Maybe that's what I'm remembering. Thanks.

You're welcome. When you think about it, those guys (Hoffman, Hayden, et al) were really ahead of their time. The cops didn't know how to deal with them. They made protests like theatre or something. And, then later, Tom Hayden married Jane Fonda, which I think was a pretty good score.

[Ombudsman]

Respect? You've got to be kidding. What makes you think the anyone respects a guy like you whose debating skills are so bad that he had to resort to a threat to release personal information...instead of actually discussing the issues?
.

Absolute total proof of what a morally empty human being you are. You call people every filthy name in the book, say absolutely vile things, then find it appalling that someone would have the audacity to call you by the name your mother gave you.

[Ombudsman]

Definitions matter. That's how we communicate. Particularly in legal matters. I could say that your touching my hand is "rape" but that doesn't mean it meets the definition in general use of the American language and the legal system. I could decide that although everyone else calls my dog a "Rhodesian Ridgeback" that I'll call her a Bulldog. Doesn't change her breed in the AKC registry.

Yes, they matter, but as your examples show, definitions can be distorted to hide the truth, especially the legal definitions used in court proceedings. My point is exactly your point, except that a moral person will try to see the truth and reality behind the label.

Why do you get to decide what is moral what isn't?

We all decide. Even when you deem yourself free of any specific morality, that choice had to be made. History, common sense, critical thinking and religion (or lack thereof) are all combined to develop our moral beliefs. We must also realize that there are absolute truths about right and wrong.

For example, we all (I hope) adhere to the moral standard that murdering someone is wrong. Some people, like
Vrede and other pro-abortion individuals, think that if the description of the act is changed that we can just dehumanize someone like an unborn child, and remove them from the definition of murder. History, common sense and critical thinking should tell us that changing the definition does not change the truth.

Dumb ass, you don't get define what the word murder means. The fact that you think you get to selectively make the rules demonstrates what a lunatic you are.

[Ombudsman]

You've got it bass ackwards. You're the one unilaterally changing descriptions and definitions to appeal to emotions in lieu of debating the issue honestly.

"Bass ackwards"??? SOOO Classy. And juvenile.

Any "honest debate" must begin with the acknowledgement that a human being is destroyed during all abortions. But I hardly expect any honesty from a person who considers such an evil
act to be a "right".

I'm in no way obligated to sooth your conscience by using the pro-murder verbiage that you favor. Show me where such faux "definitions" are mandatory for all or are even accepted
by a majority of people.

Your hiding from the truth will not in any way lessen its accuracy.

Murder is a legal term. It's defined by the rule of law, not by white separatists.

[Guest2]

Respect? You've got to be kidding. What makes you think the anyone respects a guy like you whose debating skills are so bad that he had to resort to a threat to release personal information...instead of actually discussing the issues?
.

Absolute total proof of what a morally empty human being you are. You call people every filthy name in the book, say absolutely vile things, then find it appalling that someone would have the audacity to call you by the name your mother gave you.

As far as name calling, you just called someone a "dick" on another thread, and you've also called people "assholes".

So....to sum up....YOU say vile things and YOU call people vicious names that even I don't use...these are the same things that you accuse me of doing. But one of us has enough integrity not to ever...EVER...threaten to release personal information just to try to win an argument. Care to take a guess who that might be?

If you are too delicate for the brisk debate and coarse expressions used here, I'm sure we wouldn't miss you if you left.

[Mr.B]

Murder is a legal term. It's defined by the rule of law, not by white separatists.

We know that Partisan62/Guest2 is racist (I'm not sure about "white separatist") but why do you think that UnLurker is either?

PM

[UnLurker]

Yep, abortionists are really vile and sick people. In addition to murdering unborn children, they write vile deadhead poems:

Austinite Katie Heim was one of many to testify before the committee. Unlike the other testifiers, she read a poem she wrote, called “If My Vagina Was a Gun.

“If my vagina was a gun, you would stand for its rights,
You would ride on buses and fight all the fights.
If my vagina was a gun, you would treat it with care,
You wouldn’t spill all its secrets because, well, why go there.
If my vaginas was a gun, you’d say what it holds is private
From cold dead hands we could pry, you surely would riot.
If my vagina was a gun, its rights would all be protected,
no matter the body count or the children affected.
If my vagina was a gun, I could bypass security,
concealed carry laws would ensure I’d have impunity.
If my vagina was a gun, I wouldn’t have to beg you,
I could hunt this great land and do all the things men do.
But my vagina is not a gun, it is a mightier thing,
With a voice that rings true making lawmakers’ ears ring.
Vaginas are not delicate, they are muscular and magic,
So stop messing with mine, with legislation that’s tragic.
My vagina’s here to demand from the source,
Listen to the voices of thousands or feel their full force.”

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/09/abor ... was-a-gun/

If this vacuous nonsense is typical of the pro-choice crowd, is it a wonder that killing children doesn't faze them?

[UnLurker]

You've got it bass ackwards. You're the one unilaterally changing descriptions and definitions to appeal to emotions in lieu of debating the issue honestly.

"Bass ackwards"??? SOOO Classy. And juvenile.

Any "honest debate" must begin with the acknowledgement that a human being is destroyed during all abortions. But I hardly expect any honesty from a person who considers such an evil
act to be a "right".

I'm in no way obligated to sooth your conscience by using the pro-murder verbiage that you favor. Show me where such faux "definitions" are mandatory for all or are even accepted
by a majority of people.

Your hiding from the truth will not in any way lessen its accuracy.

Murder is a legal term. It's defined by the rule of law, not by white separatists.

Murder is a legal "definition" that says that the killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice is wrong and will be punished.

But if the law suddenly changed to say that a person could kill their children between the ages of 0 and 5, we would still recognize the act as the "killing of one human by another"....it would STILL be murder because the law would be tragically wrong.

It's always a sign of shallow thinking when one defers to the "legal" definition instead of decency and common sense.

[O Really]

...
But if the law suddenly changed to say that a person could kill their children between the ages of 0 and 5, we would still recognize the act as the "killing of one human by another"....it would STILL be murder because the law would be tragically wrong.

It's always a sign of shallow thinking when one defers to the "legal" definition instead of decency and common sense.

Y'know, some of us might be more willing to discuss your actual issues if you wouldn't keep saying the same uninformed thing over and over. It wouldn't matter if the law were "tragically wrong." It's still the law until it's changed, and lawful killing of children between the ages of 0 and 5 would not be murder. Killing, sure. But not murder. Not manslaughter. Not aggravated assault. Not assault with intent to kill. Nada. Because it would be legal.

Just use the term "killing" instead of "murder" and see if that doesn't fit better.

[Mr.B]

"Just use the term "killing" instead of "murder" and see if that doesn't fit better."

Killing or murder of human life. One and the same.

Matthew 18:10:
"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you,
That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven."

Resurrected Child

[O Really]

Killing or murder of human life. One and the same.

[/quote]
No, they aren't. One is descriptive, the other is the name of a crime as defined by law. C'mon, Mr.B - you know that. Don't pretend to be as dense as some others are. You want to know why a lot of anti-abortionists get a "talk to the hand" response from others, particularly from from those who aren't that rabid about the topic anyway? This is one reason.

[Wneglia]

If someone kills a fetus in the womb it is homocide (or muder) in the majority of states, and the Federal Govt. If an abortionist does the same, it is just getting rid of a non-person. Great logic.

[UnLurker]

...
But if the law suddenly changed to say that a person could kill their children between the ages of 0 and 5, we would still recognize the act as the "killing of one human by another"....it would STILL be murder because the law would be tragically wrong.

It's always a sign of shallow thinking when one defers to the "legal" definition instead of decency and common sense.

Y'know, some of us might be more willing to discuss your actual issues if you wouldn't keep saying the same uninformed thing over and over. It wouldn't matter if the law were "tragically wrong." It's still the law until it's changed, and lawful killing of children between the ages of 0 and 5 would not be murder. Killing, sure. But not murder. Not manslaughter. Not aggravated assault. Not assault with intent to kill. Nada. Because it would be legal.

Just use the term "killing" instead of "murder" and see if that doesn't fit better.

Sorry that I seem "uninformed" to you, but I don't judge evil just by what the law books say. The malicious killing of one human being by another is a fact....it is reality.... whether the law definition recognizes it or not. I don't believe in softening the rhetoric just because abortion supporters don't want to hear their cruelty described in such terms. "Murder" describes abortion perfectly....it kills another human being and it is vile, premeditated and vicious in its application.

As Mr. B noted, how the hell can kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach be murder versus the same woman walking into an abortion clinic to kill the very same child!

[O Really]

OK, you win. Enjoy your world.

[Wneglia]

Hypothetical legal question for O Really: If a pregnant woman's boyfriend stomps her in the abdomen and kills her fetus, but she decides not to press charges, can the DA still accuse him of homocide?

[O Really]

Hypothetical legal question for O Really: If a pregnant woman's boyfriend stomps her in the abdomen and kills her fetus, but she decides not to press charges, can the DA still accuse him of homocide?

Keeping in mind most of what I know about criminal law I learned on TV, I'd say yes. And can still charge him with aggravated assault or assault with intent. The fact that she might not want to press charges would be ignored on such a serious matter. Like two people fighting in the street - cop comes up, both would like to just walk away. Cop decides one or both should be arrested and hauls them away.

But it's a state law matter. Here's a summary of the applicable state laws:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/hea ... -laws.aspx