Lets dissect this burst of "intelligent argumentation":
You need remedial Biology 101
Put that "zyst" out in the first eight weeks plus. If it survives nature wants it that way, if not then nature says "sorry". Thats biology, not your brainwashed attempt to "redefine" how it works. Life wants to survive. Then it survives. If not, then nature doesn't give it enough skills/power or anything to do it.
You
redefine, that suddenly in nature, another being has to be forced(!) to give up their freedom(!) to do what they want with their personal(!) body to keep something alive that can't survive by themselves.
Get government out of my private life...errr...wait! I have made up some exceptions! If there are exceptions, then everybody can made up some.
This is all to dehumanize, making it easier to kill without guilt.
No. "We" don't kill it. Nature kills it by not giving it enough skills/development to do so. If it could survive/develop, "we" would let it. But it doesn't. End of story. Freedom trumps your made up texts.
In 100+ years we will be able to put the zyst into another woman or in a mechanical apparatus ("artificial womb") (I guess there will be 10.000 of "your kind" who will wait in line to take one, for sure!) "We" would really like that. Abortions shouldn't be done lightly and surely not used as an contraception.
We should give young people early sex education and condoms, so they act responsible and know what they are doing. And in such countries where this happens they get very low teen pregnancies and and very low abortions per year. So, creative education, freedom of the mind and teaching compassion works.
But thats the problem with absolute freedoms: they are absolute, no exceptions. That includes giving everybody the right tools to the right decisions. For them.
Your ancestors used to do the same thing to their slaves and their slave's children.
Shaming people, calling them names, calling their ancestors names...this really sound like a positive, productive discussion by someone with intelligence, knowledge and a compassion for human beings. And not a zealot.
'nutjob' phrase onto those who want to save babies is the typical liberal strategy
There are currently about 11 Million US-children who need (temporal) governmental child care. There are many children who don't have education or food. Your whole argument about "protecting" children makes no sense, because "your kind" don't show any compassion as soon as they are born.
You are spewing hate and not really caring about any of those. You simply want to control the female body and their sexuality by any means. Thats the whole shtick: women control fantasies. Asking those about these things is like asking a carpenter to fix your teared knee, wrong person, wrong skill sets, way to judgmental and short sighted. Just avoid those jerks.
I would take any "nutjob" seriously who is against (any sort) of abortion, but absolutely for the woman to have a open sexual lifestyle. Strangely, these positions doesn't match, as we seen in this posting. No real arguments, just angry spouting and name calling.
Thats the reason the liberals win and continue to win. Because your control fantasies and pseudo arguments now became pathological: you can't win, you will die out and there is nothing you can do because you lack the basics: education, scientific reasoning, common sense, everything.
The damn brain washing works. And thats so sad.
reply
share
Douglas-Alan
10 years ago
Your entire post just made my point all over again.
With abortion - it is YOU who ends the baby's life. not nature. There is no natural selection there. Imbecile.
The word is "cyst"...that's the way I meant it. That's how you people justify killing. Call it a cancer or a growth - just a piece of useless flesh to flush away.
Your entire post just confirms that it is you who are brainwashed.
And by-the-way... if you want to try and talk about lack of education as an argument, please practice proper grammar and the proper use of words. Proof-reading and editing can be a valuable ally when trying to make a point, even one as ridiculous as yours.
Thanks for trying.
Shhh! Adults talking here!
reply
share
andsoitgoes_42
10 years ago
If you were truly intelligent, you wouldn't have focused on things like grammar and punctuation.
I've met brilliant doctors and surgeons who were poor spellers and weren't the best in the grammar department. You focusing on that and that alone, while ignoring the remaining arguments the poster made, prove to me that you are incapable of appropriately arguing the points made.
What about those million upon million of children who are left in foster care? On the street? Abused by their parents who did not want them in the first place?
According to you, no child should die. Children of rape, incest, children who will be born with defects that will cause them non stop pain during their short lives. That "absolute" decision "because God says so" is one of the reasons our planet is overcrowded to the point of destruction.
Hell, religious conquests, primarily from Catholics, has likely killed more babies than abortion. Religion breeds more hate and cruelty than any weapon of mass destruction or abortion clinic combined. But all in the sake of progress, right?
If you truly were godly, if you truly believe in religion, you sure as hell wouldn't be so unbearably snarky and arrogant as you are here.
That's another funny point, actually. Compare the snark, aggression and outright violence from current day religion versus current day atheism. If you talk the talk, shouldn't you walk the walk, too?
What would Jesus do? Would he approve of how twisted and distorted religion is? Not in a million years. It's as though many religious people have forgotten the golden rule. Or just don't think it applies to them.
Talk about hypocritical.
reply
share