‘Unplanned’ Supporters Respond After Pro-Life Film Receives Shocking R-Rating: “MPAA Agrees Abortion is Violent” (Indiana, doctor)

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

I sat through all that video and I'm just as pro choice as ever. Why? Because I sure as hell don't want abortion banned leaving pregnant women with no choice other than performing do it yourself abortions at home or having to see sketchy people not medically qualified or licensed to assist in abortions. If my state bans abortion, there is nothing great to be gained from that state becoming an export state of abortion, due to women able to seek safe and legal abortions. Some women will end up dying as happened in Ireland, until citizens there finally came to their senses by a 66% majority to repeal their total ban on abortion.

It's morally insane how so many people, who want abortion, banned also want contraceptives typically used soon after sex banned as well. (This isn't much more advanced than many decades ago when one could get arrested for merely promoting birth control.) In Latin American countries where abortion is banned and use of birth control is discouraged, the abortion rate is higher than in the U. S. with many more women seeking medical attention in hospitals after illegal abortions. Who all in their right mind wants to see this come to be in the U. S.?

^^^^This.

You could make all abortions illegal and abortion would never go away. Women who are financially able will go somewhere that abortion is legal. The ones who will suffer are those without the means to do that.

Also, there would be a black market in do it yourself medical abortions.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN0YF1BC

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by newtovenice

Murder is killing someone who is no threat to you.

So now not only have you failed to withdraw your previous attempt to make up your own meaning for the word - and have failed to acknowledge the actual definition of the word straight from three dictionaries - you have moved instead to invent a completely new definition of your own.

Perhaps your credibility will benefit if you stop simply making things up?

Originally Posted by newtovenice

The law does not define my moral compass. it defines yours.

Not at all - perhaps your credibility would benefit if you ask me what my position is rather than telling me what it is. Especially erroneously.

My position is the opposite - I think the law is an expression of many things _including_ our moral position as a society. Since you have failed to manufacture a moral argument against the majority of elective abortions (which occur almost entirely before week 12 of gestation by medical abortifacient) I very much do think that the law should reflect that.

And the results of many legal cases and popular votes such as the Irish referendum seem to suggest the greater public agree with me on that position.

No - you are mixing up two things here you see. The law does not inform my moral position and I never claimed it did. What I _did_ say was that the law is part of the definition of what the word "murder" means. The rest you invented and put in my mouth.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

Killing has many definitions

Sure. But what has that got to do with anything? I was discussing with you the definition of the word "murder" not the word "killing". Stay on point here please. I have no issue with the word "killing". We do "killing" all the time when we are making meat, making paper, treating infections, or terminating a pregnancy. That is _all_ killing.

What it is not - however - is murder. And if your credibility is at all important to you - if - then I would suggest getting the absolute basic linguistics on this matter correct would benefit you greatly. In a way that merely making up definitions as and when it suits you - does not.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

I've also seen many interviews and spoken with many people who are 100% for murdering the baby no matter what.

As I said I have no doubt if you look for such people you will find them. That does not mean there is a statistically significant number of them however.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

They bring up rape and incest as why they are for abortion

If it makes your emotions any more relaxed I can tell you that as a pro-choice campaigners - who was hugely active during the recent referendum on the subject here in Ireland - I never once used the "rape" argument to support abortion. I think it is a very very very poor argument - one that is not required - and I appealed to my fellow campaigners to stop using it.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

So you agree that the other 98.5% of abortions are wrong?

I see zero arguments at this time to suggest the abortion of a 12-16 week old fetus is a moral or ethical wrong no. I have asked you for such arguments and your lack of reply in this regard is deafening. If you want to get around to answering this request however - I am here.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

I've never EVER seen a pro choice advocate who is OK with restricting abortion at any time.

Which is a lie given I just above told you I was in support of a temporal restriction on it and that abortion purely for elective reasons should not be allowed after a temporal cut off point.

So mere _minutes_ after me telling you that this is my position - you come and claim you have never "ever" seen a person claiming that position? Wow. Just - wow.

As I keep saying - you appear to be not at all invested in maintaining any credibility in your position here. Which even as a person opposed to your position - I do not wish for you. Raise your game.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

when pressed further, you really see what they believe.

Try it. Press me all you want. You will find me not unprepared or unwilling to engage. You will find me capable.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

You've never ever changed your mind about anything?
You've never had an experience that profoundly affected the way you view the world?

Actually the fact people change their mind is one of the good arguments we had for allowing abortion here in Ireland. Because the fact was that the illegality of such abortion was not at all preventing abortions. It was merely forcing women to travel an hour by plane to have that abortion in the UK.

What we found when talking to such women was that some of them did indeed have doubts when they were in the UK and second thoughts. But many of them proceeded anyway. Why? Because they had gone to great expense and effort to get to the UK to do it. And they feared if they changed their mind - went back to Ireland - but then decided to abort - they would have to repeat that expense and effort again.

So some women who might otherwise have changed their mind - didn't because they felt invested in the abortion.

Having the choice of abortion here in Ireland however means we can counter that dynamic. And women who have second thoughts about their abortion will feel free and less invested in the process to do so.

This is a good thing - I warrant you will agree.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

My moral compass? it's common sense.

The problem with common sense is it is not all that common. Rather what people call "common sense" is just what seems obvious to themselves. So that your own position makes sense to _you_ is not a surprise.

The fact that the issue of abortion divides people down the middle however suggests that whatever sense is being used to decide the issue it is not the "common" one.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

It's wrong to kill someone just because you feel like it. Pretty simple concept.

The problem here is that your concept is not simple but simplistic. A much different thing. The focus of your simplicity here is the word "someone". The majority - nay the near totality - of elective abortion happens in or before week 12 consistently across nearly all jurisdictions where abortion is legal and even in ones where it is not.

To call a 12 week old fetus "someone" is a massive failure in understanding of personhood, biology, and philosophy. Take your pick.

No amount of law or religious dogma changes that fact. Whether anyone believes that FACT, doesn't matter. It's true.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

And slavery as an example is 100% applicable.

You keep appealing to slavery and I do not know why as it not only does not support your positions but actually opposes them.

Why?

Well because slavery is one where we can actually construct a moral and ethical argument now apart from the law as to why it is a bad thing. I can have philosophical discussions with you have concepts like freedom, consent, choice, well being, happiness, human rights and more and construct a novel length argument as to why slavery is a bad thing.

Contrast this to abortion which - when I asked you for a moral argument against it - the best you could come back with was a new false definition for the word "murder" and an appeal to outdated laws on slavery.

This is no small failure in the debate. You appear not to actually have a coherent anti abortion position. Just a feeling it is wrong which you label "common sense" to bolster it.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by janelle144

This video shows the shocking truth about first trimester abortion

I just watched the whole video and there is nothing shocking about first trimester abortions in it at all.

The speaker's entire position against abortion in general is the "Slippery slope" fallacious approach to it. That all abortion is bad because if we allow one type - it incrementally moves us to allowing horrific types.

That is a massively terrible argument. They should be treated and dealt with distinctly. There are types against which there is no moral arguments and types for which there are. Separate them and deal with them accordingly. They should not be trying this insidious little move of trying to indict one with the horrors of the other.

But if I got this wrong and I missed something in the video please tell me what "the shocking truth about first trimester abortion" was in the video. Because I literally can not find it. I find myself suspecting that by "shocking" you actually means "details I personally find distasteful".

[newtovenice]

Originally Posted by monumentus

So now not only have you failed to withdraw your previous attempt to make up your own meaning for the word - and have failed to acknowledge the actual definition of the word straight from three dictionaries - you have moved instead to invent a completely new definition of your own.

Perhaps your credibility will benefit if you stop simply making things up?



Not at all - perhaps your credibility would benefit if you ask me what my position is rather than telling me what it is. Especially erroneously.

My position is the opposite - I think the law is an expression of many things _including_ our moral position as a society. Since you have failed to manufacture a moral argument against the majority of elective abortions (which occur almost entirely before week 12 of gestation by medical abortifacient) I very much do think that the law should reflect that.

And the results of many legal cases and popular votes such as the Irish referendum seem to suggest the greater public agree with me on that position.

No - you are mixing up two things here you see. The law does not inform my moral position and I never claimed it did. What I _did_ say was that the law is part of the definition of what the word "murder" means. The rest you invented and put in my mouth.



Sure. But what has that got to do with anything? I was discussing with you the definition of the word "murder" not the word "killing". Stay on point here please. I have no issue with the word "killing". We do "killing" all the time when we are making meat, making paper, treating infections, or terminating a pregnancy. That is _all_ killing.

What it is not - however - is murder. And if your credibility is at all important to you - if - then I would suggest getting the absolute basic linguistics on this matter correct would benefit you greatly. In a way that merely making up definitions as and when it suits you - does not.



As I said I have no doubt if you look for such people you will find them. That does not mean there is a statistically significant number of them however.



If it makes your emotions any more relaxed I can tell you that as a pro-choice campaigners - who was hugely active during the recent referendum on the subject here in Ireland - I never once used the "rape" argument to support abortion. I think it is a very very very poor argument - one that is not required - and I appealed to my fellow campaigners to stop using it.



I see zero arguments at this time to suggest the abortion of a 12-16 week old fetus is a moral or ethical wrong no. I have asked you for such arguments and your lack of reply in this regard is deafening. If you want to get around to answering this request however - I am here.



Which is a lie given I just above told you I was in support of a temporal restriction on it and that abortion purely for elective reasons should not be allowed after a temporal cut off point.

So mere _minutes_ after me telling you that this is my position - you come and claim you have never "ever" seen a person claiming that position? Wow. Just - wow.

As I keep saying - you appear to be not at all invested in maintaining any credibility in your position here. Which even as a person opposed to your position - I do not wish for you. Raise your game.



Try it. Press me all you want. You will find me not unprepared or unwilling to engage. You will find me capable.



Actually the fact people change their mind is one of the good arguments we had for allowing abortion here in Ireland. Because the fact was that the illegality of such abortion was not at all preventing abortions. It was merely forcing women to travel an hour by plane to have that abortion in the UK.

What we found when talking to such women was that some of them did indeed have doubts when they were in the UK and second thoughts. But many of them proceeded anyway. Why? Because they had gone to great expense and effort to get to the UK to do it. And they feared if they changed their mind - went back to Ireland - but then decided to abort - they would have to repeat that expense and effort again.

So some women who might otherwise have changed their mind - didn't because they felt invested in the abortion.

Having the choice of abortion here in Ireland however means we can counter that dynamic. And women who have second thoughts about their abortion will feel free and less invested in the process to do so.

This is a good thing - I warrant you will agree.



The problem with common sense is it is not all that common. Rather what people call "common sense" is just what seems obvious to themselves. So that your own position makes sense to _you_ is not a surprise.

The fact that the issue of abortion divides people down the middle however suggests that whatever sense is being used to decide the issue it is not the "common" one.



The problem here is that your concept is not simple but simplistic. A much different thing. The focus of your simplicity here is the word "someone". The majority - nay the near totality - of elective abortion happens in or before week 12 consistently across nearly all jurisdictions where abortion is legal and even in ones where it is not.

To call a 12 week old fetus "someone" is a massive failure in understanding of personhood, biology, and philosophy. Take your pick.

No amount of law or religious dogma changes that fact. Whether anyone believes that FACT, doesn't matter. It's true.



You keep appealing to slavery and I do not know why as it not only does not support your positions but actually opposes them.

Why?

Well because slavery is one where we can actually construct a moral and ethical argument now apart from the law as to why it is a bad thing. I can have philosophical discussions with you have concepts like freedom, consent, choice, well being, happiness, human rights and more and construct a novel length argument as to why slavery is a bad thing.

Contrast this to abortion which - when I asked you for a moral argument against it - the best you could come back with was a new false definition for the word "murder" and an appeal to outdated laws on slavery.

This is no small failure in the debate. You appear not to actually have a coherent anti abortion position. Just a feeling it is wrong which you label "common sense" to bolster it.

See, I write 1 statement: Common sense says it's wrong to kill people because you feel like it.

You respond with a full page of statements, all different ways of saying the thing. But I get it. You believe in the law. and the law says abortion is perfectly OK, so then you believe that murdering babies is OK. You've said the SAME THING a multitude of different ways.

You believe murdering someone is OK if you feel like it and the law says it's OK. Murdering babies? Not moral.

PS. The fact that you believe that slavery is moral is appalling.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by newtovenice

I get it. You believe in the law. and the law says abortion is perfectly OK, so then you believe that murdering babies is OK.

So rather than read what I wrote you have chosen to respond to me repeating all the same errors I just corrected. More credibility fail for you.

1) My position on abortion has nothing to do with the law.
2) The _only_ mention of the law I make is in terms of the definition of "murder" and your fallacious use of the term.
3) I never once said murder is ok or the killing of babies.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

PS. The fact that you believe that slavery is moral is appalling.

The fact you are pretending I ever said such a thing when I demonstrably and patently never have - is appalling. I said the exact opposite in fact. Why are you wilfully being this dishonest exactly? What does it gain you?

[newtovenice]

Originally Posted by monumentus

So rather than read what I wrote you have chosen to respond to me repeating all the same errors I just corrected. More credibility fail for you.

1) My position on abortion has nothing to do with the law.
2) The _only_ mention of the law I make is in terms of the definition of "murder" and your fallacious use of the term.
3) I never once said murder is ok or the killing of babies.



The fact you are pretending I ever said such a thing when I demonstrably and patently never have - is appalling. I said the exact opposite in fact. Why are you wilfully being this dishonest exactly? What does it gain you?

Nothing to do with credibility. My answer is very simple, I'll write it again:

It is common sense that murdering someone just because you FEEL like it is WRONG.

I look forward to your many questions about that simple, uncomplicated statement. And I will respond, again, with the same sentence.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by newtovenice

Nothing to do with credibility. My answer is very simple, I'll write it again:

It is common sense that murdering someone just because you FEEL like it is WRONG.

I look forward to your many questions about that simple, uncomplicated statement. And I will respond, again, with the same sentence.

So basically you are openly saying you will ignore any replies and just maintain your fundamentalist view of the issue. Well that's honest at least.

However as I said that position is not simple but simplistic. Firstly because it is a fallacious and erroneous use of the word "murder" and secondly because it is a fallacious and erroneous use of the word "someone". A 12 week old fetus is not a "someone".

So you can say over and over "murdering someone just because you feel like it is wrong" but what you will miss is that there is no one word of that sentence I actually disagree with. The problem is the sentence does not apply to the vast majority of elective abortions - the vast majority of the time.

So your issue here is that you are pretending I am disagreeing with something I am not.

I also note you did not retract your lie about my position on slavery. Could you be honest in that much at least?

[newtovenice]

Originally Posted by monumentus

So basically you are openly saying you will ignore any replies and just maintain your fundamentalist view of the issue. Well that's honest at least.

However as I said that position is not simple but simplistic. Firstly because it is a fallacious and erroneous use of the word "murder" and secondly because it is a fallacious and erroneous use of the word "someone". A 12 week old fetus is not a "someone".

So you can say over and over "murdering someone just because you feel like it is wrong" but what you will miss is that there is no one word of that sentence I actually disagree with. The problem is the sentence does not apply to the vast majority of elective abortions - the vast majority of the time.

So your issue here is that you are pretending I am disagreeing with something I am not.

I also note you did not retract your lie about my position on slavery. Could you be honest in that much at least?

I'm not religious, which I have to mention every single time abortion is discussed, because *obviously* only religious people are anti-abortion. /eyeroll/

"Vast majority of elective abortions" all have the same exact result: Baby is bye bye. Dead and gone. Otherwise, why have an abortion, since the intent of an abortion is to make sure the baby is DEAD.

So let's recap AGAIN: It's common sense that murdering someone just because you FEEL like it is WRONG.

If you are pro-abortion, you 100% disagree with that statement.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by newtovenice

I'm not religious, which I have to mention every single time abortion is discussed, because *obviously* only religious people are anti-abortion. /eyeroll/

I said nothing about religion at all so you do not "have to mention" anything. The word fundamentalist usually has religious connotations. But not always. My use of it above was not in a religious context - but more in the context of you openly admitting you have unmovable views on this subject.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

"Vast majority of elective abortions" all have the same exact result: Baby is bye bye. Dead and gone.

Nope. The fetus is bye bye. Dead and gone. It never reached the stage of "baby". Just like ripping up a blue print is not the same as losing a house.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

since the intent of an abortion is to make sure the baby is DEAD.

The intent of an elective abortion is to make sure a "baby" never happens in the first place.

Originally Posted by newtovenice

So let's recap AGAIN: It's common sense that murdering someone just because you FEEL like it is WRONG.

So let's recap AGAIN: It is not murder and it is not a "someone" and I have not disagreed with a word of your sentence here no matter how much you repeat it. You have utterly failed to offer a single argument validating your use of the word "murder". But rather than acknowledge that you hammer your head into the sand - and just keep using it anyway. Credibility erosion of your own position is your main goal here?

Originally Posted by newtovenice

If you are pro-abortion, you 100% disagree with that statement.

I just explained why I do not disagree with it. Perhaps you should let me tell you my views and you tell me yours. As soon as you tell me mine - you get it wrong every time. Such as your lie about my position on slavery which you are _still_ not being honest enough to retract.

[newtovenice]

Originally Posted by monumentus

I said nothing about religion at all so you do not "have to mention" anything. The word fundamentalist usually has religious connotations. But not always. My use of it above was not in a religious context - but more in the context of you openly admitting you have unmovable views on this subject.



Nope. The fetus is bye bye. Dead and gone. It never reached the stage of "baby". Just like ripping up a blue print is not the same as losing a house.



The intent of an elective abortion is to make sure a "baby" never happens in the first place.



So let's recap AGAIN: It is not murder and it is not a "someone" and I have not disagreed with a word of your sentence here no matter how much you repeat it. You have utterly failed to offer a single argument validating your use of the word "murder". But rather than acknowledge that you hammer your head into the sand - and just keep using it anyway. Credibility erosion of your own position is your main goal here?



I just explained why I do not disagree with it. Perhaps you should let me tell you my views and you tell me yours. As soon as you tell me mine - you get it wrong every time. Such as your lie about my position on slavery which you are _still_ not being honest enough to retract.

You seem to want to engage in a debate about why abortion is OK. And I've repeatedly told you why it is not.

I'll write it one more time>

It's common sense that murdering someone just because you FEEL like it is WRONG.

I really don't understand how you are having such difficulty understanding that. I feel I'm pointing to the sun, and saying, "That's the sun." And you point to a tree and a bird and a flower and say, "Is that the sun? Is that the sun? Is that the sun?"

And I have to keep REPEATING: No, THAT'S the sun. I cannot make it any clearer.

And I think that's the whole pro-abortion stance. Make it as complicated as possible, find eleventy billion different examples, try to play 'gotcha' in discussions, because the baby MUST be murdered at all costs. Sigh.

But it's not complicated at all. It's common sense. It's basic morality -- you do not murder others because you FEEL like it.