|
| Pro-Abortionists Destroyed by Their Own Logic I was over on Revelife the other day, reading people's comments about abortion, and I noticed one lady's comment had zero logic in it. So I replied to it. Then she replied back. And then I replied back. And she and another pro-abortionist replied back. The main case being argued between us was whether or not being pro-choice necessarily means you are pro-abortion. Anyway, here, let's start from the beginning:
Pro-Abortion Lady #1: "I doubt anyone is pro-abortion. Abortion is an option, the same way chemotherapy is."
Me: "Chemotherapy is an option (as it should be), as is legalized murder (as it should NOT be). To say that you are pro- anything but you don't necessarily support that thing--that is hypocrisy. If you are pro-choice, you are for allowing women the choice to execute a 'living human' (as medical textbooks define fetuses) that has a right to life, according to the Constitution. If you are an advocate of people making the CHOICE to abort babies, then you are an advocate of people ABORTING babies; and if you are an advocate of people aborting babies, you are an advocate of abortion. That means pro-abortion. If you are FOR legal abortions, you are PRO-abortion. Saying you are pro-choice just makes you sound selfish.' [And then I gave her this quote:] "To promote choice for its own sake is more akin to self-indulgence than self-determination. It is the philosophy of a pre-schooler in a candy shop." - Brian Pollard, M.D. (Not that he's famous, but I gotta give credit where it's due; he's got it dead-on.)
Pro-Abortion Lady #1: "If you are for eating Big Macs, then you are for animal cruelty. See how little sense that makes?"
Me: If you are FOR eating Big Macs, then you are PRO-eating Big Macs. That's the correct analogy. If you are FOR abortions, then you are PRO-abortion. If you are FOR eating Big Macs, then you are PRO-eating Big Macs. Your analogy was way off. [My explanation for why it is way off comes later; just keep reading.]
And she hasn't responded yet, but give her time. Then Pro-Abortion Lady #2 came in and gave me a different but equally illogical analogy to someone else.
Pro-Abortion Lady #2: "I'm going to assume that if you think people should be allowed to own guns, you're pro-murder."
Me: "Nope. Pro-self-defense. If I were pro-murderers-owning-guns, yes, I'd be pro-murder."
Pro-Abortionist #2: "A life is a life. And there's no way to dictate the choices of an individual. Last I checked, psych evaluations were not a part of receiving a gun license."
Me: "You are 100% correct. And science and medical textbooks define a fetus as an early stage of human life. And as you said, a life is a life. A fetus meets all the legal and medical requirements in order for something to be considered 'alive,' and it also meets all the biological requirements in order for it to be considered human. The Constitution says every human (a fetus is a human; it's not a cat) has the 'right to life.' Abortion directly takes away that human's right to life. The point I was trying to make was this: [Abortion Lady #1] took my statement, 'Being FOR abortion means you are PRO abortion,' and compared that statement to, 'Being FOR gun ownership means you are FOR murder.' And I corrected her. That analogy is way off, logically. She also said this: 'If you are for eating Big Macs, then you are for animal cruelty.' Again, the logic is off. If you are FOR eating Big Macs, you are PRO eating Big Macs. It's that simple. And if you are FOR people aborting their babies, then you are PRO abortion. Again, it's that simple. She [Pro-Abortion Lady #1] doesn't know how to use analogies correctly."
She hasn't responded to this one, but, like the other lady, we must give her time. But I did notice that Pro-Abortion Lady #2 wrote something to someone else:
Pro-Abortion Lady #2: "Prove that a fetus physically dependent on another being should have rights equal to that of the being it is dependent upon. And note that I said physically dependent, not socially.
I joined in.
Me: "You are aware that even a one-week-old newborn is PHYSICALLY dependent on his mother, right? Isn't that a known thing? If physical dependency is the only reason to be for abortion, then that means you have no problem killing a 6-month-old or a 2-day-old or a 3-week-old."
Pro-Abortion Lady #2: "Again, there's a difference between physical and social independence. I do not believe that a being which is solely dependent upon one other being---and has no other option of dependency---should have rights equal to that being."
Are you ready for this one, people? Are you ready?
Me: "Let's say there are two conjoined twins, Bob and Carl. They are 22 years old. They COULD have been safely separated at birth, but the parents thought for some reason to just let them stay conjoined--maybe saying it's God's or nature's will or something. Regardless, the babies stay conjoined, alright? The twins have lived a healthy life up till now, but now they decide they both want to have their own families and get married, okay? So they decide to get surgically separated. One problem: because of puberty years ago, their bodies have grown/changed in such a way that Carl is now physically dependent on Bob for his own survival; if they get separated, Carl will die. Bob still wants to live a separate life from Carl, though. Your opinion, in your own words, is that any being who is solely dependent on another in order to live does not deserve equal rights as the being he is dependent on. So, according to your view, Bob has the right to end the life of Carl, who depends on Bob to live?"
Oh my word, I can't wait for her response.
[EDIT, April 21, 2009]
Okay, so Pro-Abortion Lady #2 responded! You ready for it? Here it is:
Pro-Abortion Lady #2: "Well, that would be the million dollar question: Does the physical dependency go both ways? Most conjoined twins have this issue...one is physically capable of living as a separate being, while the other is not. Parents usually have to choose. But to answer your question: Yes. If Bob is the sole physical supporter of Carl, and such a dependent relationship cannot be transplanted to another individual, or Carl is incapable of existing on his own, I think Bob has every right to decide that he no longer wants to continue what is, by scientific definition, a parasitic relationship. [And then she asked me this:] Would you say Bob should be forced by law to continue being a conjoined twin for the rest of his existence?"
Me: "And so you think Bob does have the right to kill Carl, his full-grown adult conjoined brother? You do realize that that is murder, right? And that it's illegal? The only difference between that and abortion is that baby's are defenseless. Let's be clear: in a complete sentence, do you think Bob has the right to kill Carl? Yes, Bob has the right to kill Carl, or no, Bob does not have the right to kill Carl. I mean, I know what you wrote, but I can't believe anybody but a deranged criminal would have that opinion, so I'm just trying to make sure I have it straight. If you really do think that, does that mean you think Carl is not a living human? Here's a great question: Let's imagine Bob and Carl are YOUR sons. Would you be okay with Bob killing Carl? After all, the fact that Carl is attached to Bob and cannot live otherwise means Carl doesn't have a right to life, according to what you say. Right? So, mother of Bob and Carl: Does Bob have your blessing in killing Carl? [And then, in response to her question, 'Would you say Bob should be forced by law to continue being a conjoined twin for the rest of his existence?' I wrote this:] Yes, I DO think Bob should be forced to not murder his brother Carl. If that means having to continue being conjoined to Carl, so be it. At least a murder was prevented."
I also offered this definition of "pro-choice": Pro-Choice means you think people should be allowed to kill a human being, as science refers to a fetus. It means you think murder should be a choice and that it is no worse a choice than allowing the baby the Constitutional right to life.
Then I asked Pro-Abortion Lady #1 the same question about Bob and Carl, the conjoined twins. Let's wait and see what she says.
| | |
| I've Invented Something That Mostly Works! These past three or four months I've had a strong desire to invent something; been trying to think up something that everybody could benefit from, regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or whatever diseases one may carry. I finally settled on the perfect idea maybe two weeks ago, an invention I like to call Pyew-B-Gone (patent pending). It's a clear liquid that you drink daily, a little thicker than water, and the desired effect is to make one's bowel movements odorless.
After I came up with the purpose and name, I invented it; that is, I am longer in the going-to-be-invent-it stage, but the have-now-officially-invented-it stage. I've been drinking it for the past six days, 8 ounces of the stuff every morning, and now, finally, I have seen the actual effects (for some reason I didn't poop at all during those six days). On the bright side, the purpose of Pyew-B-Gone has been met: my bowel movement was completely free of any sort of odor at all. On the downside, it was one of the most painful bouts of diarrhea I've ever had in my life.
If you're interested in purchasing a 2-liter bottle of Pyew-B-Gone, I can be reached via e-mail, or simply send me a comment or message here on Xanga. Remember to ask about the 14-day trial offer.
| | |
| Reasonable to Be Angry With Those Who Disagree?Sometimes, yes, of course. Several examples:
Is it reasonable to be angry with Charles Manson since you (hopefully) disagree that he was helping God and since you disagree with him about killing people? I think it's very reasonable.
Is it reasonable to be angry at irresponsibility? Of course it is.
Reasonable to be angry at 3- to 4,000 unnecessary infant deaths a day? Sure thing.
Is it reasonable to be angry at people who are angry that we want to take away the "right" to kill 4,000 babies a day? Whoever says that it's unreasonable to be angry at this, frankly, doesn't deserve the right to life, the right to liberty, or the right to pursue happiness. | | |
| These People, These Days[Note: A friend of mine wrote a Xanga entry on which I left a big ol' long comment. The big ol' long comment was something I'd like to put here as an actual entry, though, 'cause it's something I'm pretty outspoken about even outside of Xanga. So here is my edited comment, edited for any irrelevance in the original.]
My friend: "I want to be alive and I want to live and I want someone to be adventurous with [and] I want someone to be okay with the fact that I'm a free spirit."
Me: “Do you want to be 'alive' as in live materialistically and free from morals? 'Cause that's usually what people mean when they say that sort of thing, but [in the next paragraph] you chastise that sort of lifestyle, the life of living for and giving in to all your desires. And is this also what you mean by 'adventurous' and calling yourself a 'free spirit'? A lot of people think it's impossible to be a good person and an 'adventurous' person. These people these days, the most creative they can get when trying to think of 'fun' or 'adventurous' things to do is to have a party in which everybody does nothing aside from getting drunk and screwing whoever's sitting next to them. And that's all the fun they can ever think up. Where's the variety? Where's the adventure they're so craving? I think it sounds less like freedom and more like being trapped in a cage of monotony, a slave to the stereotypical.”
My friend: "Material objects are just objects. Sure, it'd be great to have that $770 pair of [shoes]...but that's not what I truly want and truly value."
Me: “Good to hear you say something like that! You're right that material things won't make you complete. Humans have a spiritual property, a soul, so there is no possible way that earth, a place with nothing but material, can supply what we actually need. And there is no possible way a human can supply what we actually need because humans are flawed, as we've all seen. Sex doesn't give us what we need; just what we want. Drugs, beer, money, jewelry....We may want it, but it's all entirely unnecessary and it all rots away eventually. Nothing but a perfect spiritual 'something' can make us feel complete and be complete.”
[So there's yet another entry about today's youth, with an extra little ditty about materialism.]
| | |
| Abortion and Society's Avoidance of ResponsibilityThis is what one supporter of abortion said in an anti-Obama group when the comments began to gravitate towards abortion (I corrected punctuation and added a few bracketed words for clarity, but other than that, the words remain the same; apologies for his vulgarity):
"Alright, suppose after a night on the town, you bring a 'lucky girl' back to you're place after she's way too drunk to make any real decisions. You aren't taking advantage of her [though] because you're shitfaced too. She doesn't mention anything as far as protection before you have sloppy, drunk sex, and you don't take it upon yourself to wear one because you 'really don't like the feel. She calls you back later, saying she's pregnant. Will you say, 'Don't you dare abort it! You better have it tear open your vagina! Now that my cum, which I didn't put in a condom, [has] attached to your eggs, abandon you're career and your future dreams, bitch, cause it's living now, even though its a fuckin tadpole!' Beautiful, isn't it? This is what God wants? 'Oh well, at least its alive'. Yeah, great. Look at some of the people that make mistakes like that: mostly teenagers. I'm obviously not saying its exactly like this every time, but are teenagers going to be able to raise a child very well?"
This seems to be the common attitude among Americans today, especially young people, and it makes me ashamed of my country.
But let's answer his questions for him:
Will I insist the girl allow the baby to live? The baby that is just as much mine as it is hers? Yes. After all, we both acted incredibly irresponsibly that night, and what kind of society are we that we believe we should not have to take responsibility for our actions, whether those actions were accidental or intentional? If you make a mistake, you need to deal with the consequences instead of taking the cowardly, easy way out.
As far as teenagers go, if they feel they cannot take care of their baby, give it to another couple who actually deserve him/her, maybe to a couple who cannot conceive and who want nothing in the world but a baby. Isn't that the more loving act? To not only permit your child to live, but to also give an infertile couple a much-wanted gift?
What kind of society are we that we value convenience or a good job over an invaluable life; that we fight so hard for mere convenience or a good job that we will do anything it takes, even snuff out the life of a baby, in order to achieve it? | | |
|
|
