JEFFERSON's AVATAR

[alwight]

Fair by what standard? Fair by the standard that BOTH get to go on with their lives? There is only one option where both do not get to go on with their lives: THAT option is abortion.

What would be fair imo or at least more desirable is that a child is born to loving parents who want it.
I don't want to see abortion used as a form of family planning. But in principal at least, as far as early pregnancy goes, I don't really see a whole lot of difference.

There can only be quality of life IF the unborn are allowed to live. How does killing off the unborn make their life better?

I disagree that I am advocating the killing of the unborn I'm merely after whatever is the best in any given situation, we may have different opinions on what that is.
I disagree that life at any cost is necessarily conducive to a better quality of life.

I guess it would depend on you and those you are surrounded by. How do *you* feel about a woman who has been victimized by rape and the child who was produced from that rape?

I don't think how I feel as an outsider matters very much, its about how she feels and what might help her get over rape.

I am pretty sure that most people here would feel the same way I do ... that the mother was a victim and the baby is innocent and precious. The mode of conception does not change how valuable a person is.

I would also question why a parent and those close to a parent are unable to let the child know they are loved. Children who are raised to value themselves and others should never feel badly about themselves.

These may be factors in a given situation to consider but I don't think restricting the possible options by dogmatic objection to abortion is particularly helpful.

I guess it would depend on the woman and how she values and deals with such trying situations in her life. Would you feel bad about such a woman? If someone degraded your wife/sister/mother/daughter or a close friend for being rape victim, how would you respond.

Again this isn't about how I feel, that's not important. However I don't think I know anyone who would say this and I don't want to know anyone who would.

As for me, I certainly wouldn't say "hey, he's right! You are scum and so is the child you produced." How would you respond?

This is again beside the point, it's about how she feels about the child, other people can go to blazes afaic.

Which is impossible for a child who is not ALLOWED to exist. :think:

An infinate number of possible humans are not allowed to exist.

 

[alwight]

Of course it's loaded .. you said "Yes" when asked if size was relevant to who should be considered a person. Do you have an answer to the loaded question? How is determining personhood based on size significantly different from determining it based on religion or skin colour?

The least worst one is that you do not kill your kids. You do realise that's a valid option, right?

Abortion is the intent to kill the child. You cannot have an abortion for rape without the intent to kill the child.

You could deliver a child without the intent that she die.

You start at conception. That is when a new person is created.

Actually, you're not entitled to your opinion. It will be taken from you sooner or later. Better to give it up now while you can still choose for yourself. :up:


Is the inside of a woman not part of the world? Can a child not develop there?

It'd be nice if you could not misrepresent what I say. :thumb:

What about him?

You tell us. It's your idea that people poof into existence sometime after conception. :idunno:



What you see does not affect the truth. The truth is that at conception we have a newly created person.

Look Stripe I've said my piece here for now, but I don't expect you would ever agree with it or anything. If I ever once again think you are an honest debater (I did at one time) I will be more than happy to have an extended chat.

BTW I really can't tell you how sorry I am that you think I misrepresented you in some way. Je suis desolet. :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

Look Stripe I've said my piece here for now, but I don't expect you would ever agree with it or anything. If I ever once again think you are an honest debater (I did at one time) I will be more than happy to have an extended chat. BTW I really can't tell you how sorry I am that you think I misrepresented you in some way. Je suis desolet. :thum b:

:wave2:

 

[OMEGA]

What is going on here ?

I only expected a few replies for this thread and now I have over a 100 .

 

[DoogieTalons]

That would be way more disgusting than Jeff's avatar.

So let me get this right, two men say hugging or kissing, is WAY more disgusting than a dead mutilated baby.

Nice one !!

Religion has twisted all y'all heads into a pretzel, you can't think straight.

Here's a little lesson, since 1974 there have been over 60 million abortions in the states.

Seems you god don't care much.

According to some of you idiots he gave us aids to get rid of gays but he's not done a great deal about 60 million baby deaths... what's he waiting for 100 million then he'll step in ?

Is there a magic number of baby deaths that it takes for God to intervene, he seems to intervene in more ball games than he does abortion clinics.

Wow if ever you want to see a "Crazy" christian. It's rabidly foaming a the mouth on an abortion thread.

Nut's the lot of ya !!!

Yeah i'm anti abortion but there is nothing more ineffective than a picture of a dead baby.. but it does allow you to righteously defend posts like these and feel good about yourselves and let others know just how offended you are.

Well done, here's a slow hand clap just for you guys who support dead baby props :loser:

 

[Granite]

As I said before, using a child's body as a prop strikes me as ghoulish...and those who call themselves pro-life shouldn't be the ones carrying pictures of corpses.

 

[Lighthouse]

So let me get this right, two men say hugging or kissing, is WAY more disgusting than a dead mutilated baby.

Yes.

Religion has twisted all y'all heads into a pretzel, you can't think straight.

Seems to me fags are the ones who can't seem to think straight.

Here's a little lesson, since 1974 there have been over 60 million abortions in the states.

Seems you god don't care much.

This is really your argument?

According to some of you idiots he gave us aids to get rid of gays but he's not done a great deal about 60 million baby deaths... what's he waiting for 100 million then he'll step in ?

This is a poor debate tactic. Seriously. If I thought God created AIDS to get rid of queers you might have a good thing going here for your side. But I don't, and I never have. So attempting to use that against me is, as they say these days, epic fail.

Is there a magic number of baby deaths that it takes for God to intervene, he seems to intervene in more ball games than he does abortion clinics.

Since when does God get involved in ball games?

...i'm anti abortion...

...dead baby props :loser:

If you see dead babies as 'props' you are a liar when you say you are anti-abortion.

 

[OMEGA]

All I wanted was an opinion on an Avatar - not pro life or abortion topic.

All I really wanted was for him to change his avatar to something nicer.

 

[Granite]

Well he won't. So yeah.

 

[Adam]

Jefferson in real life. Again, with the graphic picture of a dead baby. Keep it up Jefferson, we appreciate all you do and have done for the unborn.

In this video, Jefferson is the first person you see.

Jefferson stands for the babies

 

[madman]

As I said before, using a child's body as a prop strikes me as ghoulish...and those who call themselves pro-life shouldn't be the ones carrying pictures of corpses.

Many people are unaware of what actually takes place in an abortion, because of those who provide misinformation. I would think that anyone who was truly pro-life, would support that the correct information is made available to everyone.

Thank you Jefferson, for doing what you have done to provide the correct information, and I'm sorry that people like Granite oppose you.

 

[Granite]

Many people are unaware of what actually takes place in an abortion, because of those who provide misinformation. I would think that anyone who was truly pro-life, would support that the correct information is made available to everyone.

Thank you Jefferson, for doing what you have done to provide the correct information, and I'm sorry that people like Granite oppose you.

Hi Dave.

I don't "oppose" Jeff, I simply disagree with his strategy and with this tactic overall. I don't believe exploiting the bodies of murdered children speaks well to a movement opposed to their murder. As I've said before, this is borderline grave robbery.

 

[madman]

Are all those films and photos of the Holocaust "grave robbing"? Do you think that movies like Schindler's List did a disservice to the atrocities done to the Jewish people?

 

[Granite]

Are all those films and photos of the Holocaust "grave robbing"? Do you think that movies like Schindler's List did a disservice to the atrocities done to the Jewish people?

Apples and oranges. Anyway we've been over this before on a previous thread and I don't want to just rehash what we already said.

That, and I've breakfast and a bloody mary in my future. Have a good one.:cheers:

 

[madman]

Apples and oranges.

Only to you, not to anyone who understands that both events are an atrocity that should be exposed.

 

[Granite]

Only to you, not to anyone who understands that both events are an atrocity that should be exposed.

Mmm, yes, well, the Holocaust was and has been exposed for a while. I guess that's picking hairs. In addition I don't think the use of murdered children as propaganda and artistic displays is appropriate, and I find it incredibly inappropriate and macabre, to say the least. The whole point of opposing abortion boils down to the violation of the child's rights and dignity. I don't see how their rights and dignity are protected by posing and photographing their nude, violated corpses.

 

[madman]

Mmm, yes, well, the Holocaust was and has been exposed for a while. I guess that's picking hairs. In addition I don't think the use of murdered children as propaganda and artistic displays is appropriate, and I find it incredibly inappropriate and macabre, to say the least.

Unless they are Jewish children in the death camps, right?

The whole point of opposing abortion boils down to the violation of the child's rights and dignity. I don't see how their rights and dignity are protected by posing and photographing their nude, violated corpses.

Then you are opposed to the use of the horrific pictures of the death camps, is that right?

 

[alwight]

Then you are opposed to the use of the horrific pictures of the death camps, is that right?

There's usually a time and place for such images.
Having such an image permanently on display rather dulls the effect, but also in this case rather makes Jefferson look like a one trick pony.

 

[elohiym]

There's usually a time and place for such images.

And this forum isn't one of them? :squint:

In your opinion, when and where is the time and place for such images?

Having such an image permanently on display rather dulls the effect...

How? What is the effect that you think Jefferson expects? How is it dulled?

...but also in this case rather makes Jefferson look like a one trick pony.

No. It makes him look like someone who openly opposes abortion.

 

[alwight]

There's usually a time and place for such images.

And this forum isn't one of them? :squint:
In your opinion, when and where is the time and place for such images?

Like most other fora this one runs in real time and avatars are always on display, until they get changed of course. I'd be more impressed by rational argument than by apparent dogmatism.
But then Jefferson for example could show his versatility and rational reasoning by being more selective with it perhaps.

Having such an image permanently on display rather dulls the effect,

How? What is the effect that you think Jefferson expects? How is it dulled?

Don’t you think it does? I don’t think you really notice it after a while unless someone starts a thread about it of course, desensitisation perhaps?

but also in this case rather makes Jefferson look like a one trick pony.

No. It makes him look like someone who openly opposes abortion.

I think it makes him look like a one trick pony. lain: