Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228612 Apr 5, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only person who claims I'm a liar is you. While pretty much everyone on this thread has caught you in a lie. Sorry, bud. You're wrong. As always. You're wrong, weak, sad, lonely, disturbed and lacking any moral code. I know it. You know it.
Hell, you're even afraid to answer a question because you KNOW what the consequences will be.
Another lie from you.

This is getting too easy.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228613 Apr 5, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no pro-abortion movement. I dare you to try and prove there is.
If a child dies at Planned Parenthood and nobody is there to see it, does that mean it never really happened? What I'm saying is that just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it's not true.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228614 Apr 5, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're little retorts only prove how little you can prove and how lacking in argument you are.
Seriously, how do you not laugh at the fact that the ONLY thing you can come back with is "you're a moron!" and "you're a liar" or "you're retarded"? It's hilarious how pathetic you make yourself look.
My little retorts are 100% accurate, and are all the majority of your statements deserve.

You lie.
You misrepresent the truth.
You ignore the facts.

Then you wonder why you no longer get a straight answer.

Stop being dishonest and you might get one. Until then, the discussion has already been laid out, and lost by you.

I'm sorry that frustrates you. Just think, if you hadn't killed your unborn child, you'd have someone to discuss it with.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228615 Apr 5, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
One question so that I can understand your position a little more clearly, and be able to “work with the facts”. Should the survivor of an abortion be considered a person with the right to live, and everything be done possible to save their life regardless of whether the mother wants them or not?
Yes____ No____
Is it outside the womb? Then yes.

LightForce, you should give your friend Grunt a tip or two about how to participate in a debate. At least you have something to say.

I bet you might even answer my question.

If your wife was pregnant and contracted a life-threatening disease of which she will certainly die if she does not have an abortion, what do you choose to do? How would you handle that situation? There's no wrong or right answer I'm looking for. Just an answer.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228616 Apr 5, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
That you consider a 6-wk-old fetus a person in your opinion. It is not a person. People have certain qualities that a piece of flesh within a uterus does not have. You still choose to ignore there are vast differences between a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy and an actual child. A fetus is not a child. It most certainly is potential life because it is not alive. Sentience is one of the defining qualities of a person. Just one, not the only.
You keep using the argument of late-term pregnancies to bolster your argument because you know there is a big difference between being two months pregnant and 7 months pregnant. Not one person on this thread advocates late-term abortion, so your argument is null and void. An unwanted pregnancy is the early stages is perfectly acceptable.
A fetus is not capable of innocence. It is not innocent or malevolent. Saying it is doesn't make it so. Something would have to have a brain and the capability to be either to be defined one way or another.
What is it, a bagel? All of us have a beginning, and it would be rediculous for us to believe that we all start our lives out being fully developed. The difference is only in the various developmental stages.

Opinions are only based on one's own subjective reasoning, while pro-life views are based on moral reasoning, and known scientific facts. On the other hand pro-abortion views are based on selfish reasoning, and a belief in scientific racism that's derived from a primitive understanding of genetics.

Challenge: Explain at what point it would be OK to kill somebody depending on the level of a person's consciousness.

Fact: Something that's not alive does not grow.

Question: If it is just a “potential life” then there would be no need for you to kill it, would there be?
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228617 Apr 5, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I checked, my house was not a person. You people always resort to these absurd idiotic analogies because you know your argument doesn't hold water. My body is mine. I can choose to share it with whomever and whatever I choose. If I decide I don't want to use my body to grow a child, I won't. It is also my right while I'm pregnant to smoke, drink, use drugs and eat bad foods. If I am pregnant and walking down the street with a cigarette, I cannot be arrested. Because it is MY body. The fetus inside does not have rights.
The second amendment is up for interpretation. Either way, the constitution guarantees my right to an abortion if I so choose to have one. I have the right to protect myself, my body, my future and have an abortion for any other reason I see fit.
So should the survivor of an abortion be considered a person with the right to live, and everything be done possible to save their life regardless of whether the mother wants them or not?

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228618 Apr 5, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Good idea – let's help the poor by killing them. And you think that my moral foundations are in question? We on the pro-life side hold to the radical view that we don't kill people in order to help them.
Aren't you that freedom loving person? Your presupposed “moral” reasoning is that we should kill the preborn child because life is not worth living, in reallity is the immoral practical equivalent of “sacrificing” some in order to make the life of others a little bit easier. If we say that it is OK to sacrifice the weakest, most vulnerable, or least important, what next? Should we kill granny too. Does freedom mean the freedom to disregard the rights of those that we have power over, or that might be a burden to us as your comments suggest? If we only consider the right to life of some individuals depending on their race, gender, disability, age, stage of development, state of dependency, place of residence or amount of property, then nobody's right to life is really safe. Once a precedence or idea is defined, then it will only be a matter of time before it will be taken to it's next logical conclusion. Freedom doesn't happen automatically, it is dependant on the strong protecting the weak, the rich protecting the poor, and the most powerful protecting the most vulnerable. There will always be selfish people, and people who have more power than ourselves, so freedom can easily be lost if good people fail to act in this regard. Freedom is not free, and those that we have now will easily be lost if we forget about the responsibilities that come with them.
Pro-life sentiments do not deal only with abortion, but also with hunger, poverty, and social and political oppression. To be pro-life is to support the rights and dignity of ALL human beings, from conception onwards. American society has convinced us that many things are disposable, but we should never forget that people are not disposable. Every human being deserves equal respect and the chance at life that we expect for ourselves.
I like what you said, but it has one problem. You said the strong protecting the weak, the rich protecting the poor. Except people like Grunt do not want to do these things. Once an unwanted child is born, they do not want to lift a finger to help that child live a normal life. He doesn't want to pay taxes for any sort of subsidized living. It just so happens that a woman accidentally got pregnant and maybe doesn't have the best education or has fallen on hard times and requires subsidized living. Now, I THINK it's responsible to take advantage of the tax dollars we all pay to create a more civilized society and use that money to give that child food, clothing, a bed, and a warm place to live. Yet Grunt and many others like him disagree with that. They think it should be solely up to the mother to just *poof* come up with a new life overnight.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228619 Apr 5, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
You point out yet never offer anything to the contrary. Hmmm....interesting. Oh, that's right, that's what incompetent, sterile losers do who can't even answer simple questions like:
What if your wife was pregnant and had a life-threatening disease and the only way to save her life was to abort the fetus?
I know your fear prohibits you from answering. And you know how I know it's fear? Because you don't even reply to these posts where I point out how flaccid you are and rely on specious arguments that are based on your misguided opinion.
You can't call out "stupid" and "moron" on this one because you know that you got backed into a corner and there's no way out.
I've proven everything I've stated. I've pointed out that your rebuttals don't make sense, or even address my point. I've pointed out that you ignore my evidence, and instead try to shift focus to a side point.

Like I said. You're dishonest. You've lost your argument, now you just hang around to troll and cry loudly. You're like the schoolyard bully who just got his butt handed to him, so now he stands outside the fence and calls names.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228620 Apr 5, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
You are now referring to a case in which the mother's life is in danger if the child is not killed. I'm not arguing that point. What I was saying is that morality is actually when you act in the interest of others, as opposed to your own self-interest. Therefore your comment does contradict itself because you stated that the self-interest of the mother is the moral thing to do, and is also in the best interest of the child. Hypothetically speaking, there might be a cause for concern if we knew for certain that the child were doomed to spend their entire life posting meaningless comments on Topix, but then we still can't say that the self-interest of the mother ever has anything to do with the morality of killing the preborn child.
Have you ever been on a plane? You are aware that they tell people traveling with children to put a mask over their own face first before putting one on the child. Figure that one out.

And by the by, I have never heard of a medical case where a pregnant woman was in critical condition and they took care of the fetus first.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228621 Apr 5, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Another lie from you.
This is getting too easy.
Deflection coward. Prove me wrong. Answer the question.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228622 Apr 5, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
If a child dies at Planned Parenthood and nobody is there to see it, does that mean it never really happened? What I'm saying is that just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it's not true.
Just because you *think* something doesn't make it true. Lots of people think a lot of things about PP that aren't true. But people refuse to hear facts because it suits their agenda.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228623 Apr 5, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
My little retorts are 100% accurate, and are all the majority of your statements deserve.
You lie.
You misrepresent the truth.
You ignore the facts.
Then you wonder why you no longer get a straight answer.
Stop being dishonest and you might get one. Until then, the discussion has already been laid out, and lost by you.
I'm sorry that frustrates you. Just think, if you hadn't killed your unborn child, you'd have someone to discuss it with.
I'm not frustrated, I literally smile while I type because of how inane and baseless all your testimony is. You've got nothing but sophomoric comments.

If I had had a child, I would still be on here fighting for the rights of women to choose their own paths. If you had children like you claim you do, you'd be spending this gorgeous Friday evening with them. Alas, here you are like the impotent little loser you are who keeps embarrassing himself over and over.

Answer the question.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228624 Apr 5, 2013
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>Bullshite. It's a wad of goo that cannot live on its own for quite a spell, and if the woman who is pregnant does not wish to risk her life and health trying to bring it to term, she doesn't have to as long as she acts within a reasonable time. When you're pregnant, YOU can make the decision, but until then, it's none of your business.
I'll assume that what you are saying is that human beings who do not possess certain physical criteria that we see in most adults should not have the basic right to live like you and others might enjoy. You could use this same argument to kill granny too.

Another anomaly is that first you said that it's nobody's business, and then you said it's alright as long as she acts in a “reasonable” time. Which is it?

I've found in my own experience that it usually works for the best if you try to develop a moral basis for your actions before they actually occur, rather than acting first, and then trying to justify your actions later.

Note: At the most about 1% of abortions are done because the woman's life is in danger, so that is essentially a non-argument.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228625 Apr 5, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Deflection coward. Prove me wrong. Answer the question.
I've proven you wrong time and time again. Start reading.

Liar.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228626 Apr 5, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you *think* something doesn't make it true. Lots of people think a lot of things about PP that aren't true. But people refuse to hear facts because it suits their agenda.
Planned Parenthood's position is what happens to that child should be the decision of the mother and the doctor. Nobody else.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228627 Apr 5, 2013
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>Apparently there is a place called "Cloud Cuckoo-land where wads of goo can think, talk and make demands upon actual living, breathing human beings.
Not your body? Not your uterus? NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
As long as the rights of another person are being violated, it is the responsibility of everybody to make it their business.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228628 Apr 5, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not frustrated, I literally smile while I type because of how inane and baseless all your testimony is. You've got nothing but sophomoric comments.
If I had had a child, I would still be on here fighting for the rights of women to choose their own paths. If you had children like you claim you do, you'd be spending this gorgeous Friday evening with them. Alas, here you are like the impotent little loser you are who keeps embarrassing himself over and over.
Answer the question.
Now that's irony. Getting parenting criticism by someone who killed her child.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228629 Apr 5, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Beating one's wife and abortion has nothing in common. Nothing at all.
Stating that something is so, isn't the same thing as it actually being so.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228630 Apr 5, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it, a bagel? All of us have a beginning, and it would be rediculous for us to believe that we all start our lives out being fully developed. The difference is only in the various developmental stages.
Opinions are only based on one's own subjective reasoning, while pro-life views are based on moral reasoning, and known scientific facts. On the other hand pro-abortion views are based on selfish reasoning, and a belief in scientific racism that's derived from a primitive understanding of genetics.
Challenge: Explain at what point it would be OK to kill somebody depending on the level of a person's consciousness.
Fact: Something that's not alive does not grow.
Question: If it is just a “potential life” then there would be no need for you to kill it, would there be?
It is what it is in that stage of development. A zygote is not a person.

You lose the argument by using "pro-abortion." No one is pro-abortion. This has been stated to you many times by many posters. As for using morality to guide your thoughts, morality is subjective. You see abortion as selfish, I see it as completely lacking in selfishness. Anyone can choose to spit out a kid and give it a miserable life. But making a decision because you know it's in everyone's best interest despite what you may "want" is actually quite the opposite of selfish. Many women who become pregnant on accident wish they could continue the pregnancy. Many wish their lives were in different places, that they had the money, that they had a better job, that they weren't in an abusive relationship, etc. etc. etc. Many of them wish for a lot of things that would make having a child possible. Wishing for things doesn't make them come true and doesn't stop reality from ruining a lot of people's lives.

We make decisions to end people's lives all the time in our society. Ever hear of passive euthanasia? What do you think pulling the plug means? The problem with what you're saying is that a zygote is not a somebody.

A plant is alive. But that doesn't give it any rights. Things can be alive but that does not mean they are people.

Because it's potential life, there is every reason to abort it if you do not want to produce life. That potential life is also not guaranteed and many women have miscarriages very early on in their pregnancy. I had a miscarriage and by no means did I say I lost a baby. I lost the potential to have a baby if it had come to fruition.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228631 Apr 5, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've proven everything I've stated. I've pointed out that your rebuttals don't make sense, or even address my point. I've pointed out that you ignore my evidence, and instead try to shift focus to a side point.
Like I said. You're dishonest. You've lost your argument, now you just hang around to troll and cry loudly. You're like the schoolyard bully who just got his butt handed to him, so now he stands outside the fence and calls names.
You don't answer a very important question that's been posed to you by I believe three posters and by me repeatedly. You only put your hand in where you think it's not going to get messy. You're a coward. And the fact that you feel bullied just proves my point that you don't like the fact that I've backed you into a corner.

When it comes to your retorts, all that you've shown is that your uneducated and lacking in logic. Nothing else.

So until you can add "I've answered all the questions" I would say your resume is quite incomplete and you're credibility is lost. Since it's lost, you can't seriously think that any of us would read what you wrote above and do anything other than laugh, do you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 min Aura Mytha 268,751
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 16 min Christian with Jesus 808,506
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 29 min Wordsworth 5,528
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 37 min Rosa_Winkel 608,078
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... 46 min MUQ1 6
Anyone gay from Dhaka? (Mar '11) 1 hr Abir 2
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr June VanDerMark 573,532
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 hr DNF 97,844
More from around the web