Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Here's a summary of left-wing arguments/complaints I've seen.

1. You're not really pro-life because you don't support universal health care, free daycare, don't do enough to feed starving children in Ehtiopia, won't save the whales, etc.

2. If you don't like abortions don't have them. Also, if you don't like child abuse, don't beat your children. Everyone should have the right to determine their own version of right and wrong without the government stepping in to protect the rights of others.

3. What's the point of having any laws when they'll be broken anyways?

4. What's the difference between an abortion and a tonsillectomy anyways?

5. War on wimmin™. *guffaw*

All pitiful. What's funny is very politically incorrect azzholes like Cluck U honestly put up more cogent arguments than they do.

The only question that matters is when life begins, and I don't claim to have a good answer, but I know that "birth" is a garbage, immoral, and unscientific answer. Everything else is moral relativity and lazy thinking.

When the lump gets arms and legs and the head stops looking like ET, it starts to get sort of cute. I don’t like seeing them get sucked out at that point.


What do I win?

Pwns wrote:Here's a summary of left-wing arguments/complaints I've seen.

1. You're not really pro-life because you don't support universal health care, free daycare, don't do enough to feed starving children in Ehtiopia, won't save the whales, etc.

2. If you don't like abortions don't have them. Also, if you don't like child abuse, don't beat your children. Everyone should have the right to determine their own version of right and wrong without the government stepping in to protect the rights of others.

3. What's the point of having any laws when they'll be broken anyways?

4. What's the difference between an abortion and a tonsillectomy anyways?

5. War on wimmin™. *guffaw*

All pitiful. What's funny is very politically incorrect azzholes like Cluck U honestly put up more cogent arguments than they do.

The only question that matters is when life begins, and I don't claim to have a good answer, but I know that "birth" is a garbage, immoral, and unscientific answer. Everything else is moral relativity and lazy thinking.

1-2)Why can't we have laws in place to protect peoples health and safety - even if it's a decision we might not agree? I agree - practice some restraint and don't have sex unless you're able to care for the child but i'm also a realist and understand that people will have sex in the heat of the moment and not wear a condom. Or they'll just bang with reckless abandon. But let's make that difficult decision safe.

3) We break laws every day. We speed, occasionally steal. I'm not sure if it's about the principle.

4) That's an AZ analogy there. Damn...

5) I never understood that one.

Pwns wrote:The only question that matters is when life begins, and I don't claim to have a good answer, but I know that "birth" is a garbage, immoral, and unscientific answer. Everything else is moral relativity and lazy thinking.

But the pro-choice side usually skips that part of the discussion, yet it's really the only one that matters.

89Hen wrote:

Pwns wrote:The only question that matters is when life begins, and I don't claim to have a good answer, but I know that "birth" is a garbage, immoral, and unscientific answer. Everything else is moral relativity and lazy thinking.

But the pro-choice side usually skips that part of the discussion, yet it's really the only one that matters.

Actually, there’s much more to the discussion of course. Many things matter.

That’s why it’s such a contentious issue.

93henfan wrote:

89Hen wrote: But the pro-choice side usually skips that part of the discussion, yet it's really the only one that matters.

Actually, there’s much more to the discussion of course. Many things matter.

That’s why it’s such a contentious issue.

Yes, like who pays for it.

93henfan wrote:

89Hen wrote: But the pro-choice side usually skips that part of the discussion, yet it's really the only one that matters.

Actually, there’s much more to the discussion of course. Many things matter.

That’s why it’s such a contentious issue.

No, there's really not. Does the baby have rights is the primary question, everything else is a distant second. More distant than the second place to California in everything.

Simple answer. States' rights. Let the states decide..

89Hen wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Actually, there’s much more to the discussion of course. Many things matter.

That’s why it’s such a contentious issue.

No, there's really not. Does the baby have rights is the primary question, everything else is a distant second. More distant than the second place to California in everything.

Does the mother have rights?

93henfan wrote:When the lump gets arms and legs and the head stops looking like ET, it starts to get sort of cute. I don’t like seeing them get sucked out at that point.


What do I win?

When it's a collection of cells i'm ok with aborting. Not when it has a beating heart.

Ibanez wrote:

93henfan wrote:When the lump gets arms and legs and the head stops looking like ET, it starts to get sort of cute. I don’t like seeing them get sucked out at that point.


What do I win?

When it's a collection of cells i'm ok with aborting. Not when it has a beating heart.

Do you run around the local ditches saving tadpoles?

93henfan wrote:

89Hen wrote: No, there's really not. Does the baby have rights is the primary question, everything else is a distant second. More distant than the second place to California in everything.

Does the mother have rights?

See, you're skipping ahead again.

93henfan wrote:

89Hen wrote: No, there's really not. Does the baby have rights is the primary question, everything else is a distant second. More distant than the second place to California in everything.

Does the mother have rights?

What does she look like?

89Hen wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Does the mother have rights?

See, you're skipping ahead again.

I think you are.

93henfan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: When it's a collection of cells i'm ok with aborting. Not when it has a beating heart.

Do you run around the local ditches saving tadpoles?

Yes. Yes I do. I also stop for squirrels, children and dogs.


But not cats...fuck them!

93henfan wrote:

89Hen wrote: See, you're skipping ahead again.

I think you are.

Nope. There is only one person being terminated and it aint her.

89Hen wrote:

93henfan wrote:
I think you are.

Nope. There is only one person being terminated and it aint her.

Sometimes it’s better to remove the lump before it becomes a viable human being or harms the mother. The earlier the better.

93henfan wrote:

89Hen wrote: Nope. There is only one person being terminated and it aint her.

Sometimes it’s better to remove the lump before it becomes a viable human being or harms the mother. The earlier the better.

93henfan wrote:

89Hen wrote: Nope. There is only one person being terminated and it aint her.

Sometimes it’s better to remove the lump before it becomes a viable human being or harms the mother. The earlier the better.

Go fish elsewhere.

Probably the one issue I side with the religious nutjobs on

It's an area where the left decides to eschew science (even though they view the right as the Luddites) to argue their point and the right eschews compassion and forward thinking to argue their point. There's no question that life begins at conception - those collections of cells are just the first step of what is a human. Science doesn't really argue against that. The issue is today, medical science is not capable of supporting and protecting that life as it develops if it needs to leave the womb before the 20-24 week threshold. That's why the first trimester has been used by the courts as the rough boundary line between when an elective abortion can occur and when it can't (unless there's a medical reason).

That's not always been the case, and science has clearly been moving into the direction of earlier and earlier in terms of out of womb viability. Extrapolate it out, and somewhere in the future viability will be at the point of conception. That's where the right gets into trouble. If we get to that point, what are we going to do with all the unwanted children that then exist from pregnancies that used to be aborted? The religious right has been very paltry in terms of their support of families who decide to keep their babies, and even more so in terms of children put up for adoption from women who carry to full term. How are we going to support the millions of extra children, many of who will be given up to the state, who are now not being aborted?

I'm pro-life, I don't like abortion at all - we're taking a human life when one is performed. But, in light of the limitations of medical science and in light of the even bigger question of how do we support the lives of the families and children that will be more numerous with the abolition of abortion, I'd leave it in place for the time being. But science is moving forward, so that extrapolation will become reality sooner than we think. Better to start planning for it now.

89Hen wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Sometimes it’s better to remove the lump before it becomes a viable human being or harms the mother. The earlier the better.

Go fish elsewhere.

I’m not fishing at all. Nobody wins in this debate, but you try to every time. It’s always your trigger issue, which I fully understand when you were indoctrinated starting at birth in CatholIc dogma.

You’re doing what you’ve been told. I don’t hold it against you, as long as you’re not shooting doctors or bombing medical facilities.

93henfan wrote:

89Hen wrote: Go fish elsewhere.

I’m not fishing at all. Nobody wins in this debate, but you try to every time. It’s always your trigger issue, which I fully understand when you were indoctrinated starting at birth in CatholIc dogma.

You’re doing what you’ve been told. I don’t hold it against you, as long as you’re not shooting doctors or bombing medical facilities.

Eat a dick and go fish elsewhere.

GannonFan wrote:Extrapolate it out, and somewhere in the future viability will be at the point of conception. That's where the right gets into trouble.

I see that more as trouble for the pro-choice crowd.