should IUD's be considered instruments of murder?

I held one position in that thread. He should have been charged for many things, but not murder. The major contention (between you and I) was what his intentions were. That is were they not the same as a woman who is wanting an abortion?The process of carrying it out did run him afoul of the law. He violated her rights in action, even if not with an intent to harm her physically. It is that which seemed to spin everything out of control for people with no control over their position. Really? In Post 138 (near the bottom) I said... This was her exact reply in Post 149... That is her stating that she believes the law is correct, kill fetus=murder, because it is on the books. Her only problem, stated immediately afterward, was that he should have been charged with assault as well because that is also on the books. She claims this was the point of contention (for the thread) all along.As you said, it's all there for everyone to read in posterity. Her words are clear. If you disagree with her assessment... take it up with her, not me.Edited by Silent H, : clarity

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Wow, now that's a misrepresentation.No, the point of contention was whether or not dosing a woman with RU-486 against her knowledge and consent constituted injury under the law. And since it was obvious that it did - Molbiogirl had a number of citations to that effect - there really was no doubt as to his intentions - since his intention obviously was to dose a woman with RU-486 against her will, there was no dispute about that, it's simply untenable to argue that he had no intent to injure. What he intended to do constitutes injury under the law, so there could simply be no dispute about his intent.That's why you were forced to misrepresent everybody; you had staked out a position that was wrong on inspection. Except that it's not. That's a misrepresentation on your part (or it's your suspicious inability to comprehend plain English.) But thanks for making it so obvious for all of us.

Crash,Will you tell The-one-who-goes-by-the-letter-between-G-and-I that upholding the law is different from agreeing with the law?Thank you!MBG

quote:

---

So saying that you hate women as a response for caring for a child is kind of the last ditch effort. Its inconceivable that you care about them both. In their mind, its one or the other. And then they pit you against one or the other.

---

But it is very clear by what you say, juggs, that you aren't really interested in saving all the precious little babies(tm), because you don't object in the least to IUD's.The copper content of IUD's kills fertilized eggs. Their position in the uterus also prevents the implantation of fertilized eggs. IUD's are even more effective than emergency contraceptive pills at killing fertilized eggs, and they are used for that function.You have had many days to explain this rather enormous inconsistency in your position in yet we've heard not a peep from about IUD's from you here, in the thread devoted to discussing this very inconsistency.You also left the majority of my rebuttals to your posts in this thread unanswered, one of which consisted of exactly four words; "No on both accounts". Obviously, there was no accompanying explanation or reasoning or any kind of argument at all, and when I asked you to explain why you held that position, you provided no reponse.Those rebuttals to the flaws in your arguments don't just evaproate when you ignore them, juggs.So, do you plan on addressing the OP of this thread anytime soon? Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

I know both of you don't even realize how you appear to someone like me.
The same could be said for me too. In fact I think it is a 100 times worse from my standpoint, and to me, I am way more fair about taking things in context, and about the only person I have ever seen admit they were wrong.

I have no clue. I really don't put much thought into it. All these things were kind of decided before I really could have an opinion about it. The one thing I like about these conversations, is that they make me think about it on different levels. I really wish the accusations would stop. I have yet to meet anyone with this attitude, and it was first introduced to me by you pro-choicers. That makes me think that you just have a guilty conscience.For me, being anti-abortion is about playing games with life, and the moral standard we set for ourselves. It has little to do with sex, as I think we should be able to enjoy sex. I also have come to realize that sex outside of love, and marriage is not really a good thing, but that does not mean people should be "punished." Your whole argument about that comes from the mis-usage of the word "accident." When the law says one thing, and your morals say another, then they are conflicting. All your doing is playing word games to distort the truth about it. To me, pro choicers have little regard for life, yet most of them are "tree-huggers", it's like one big joke. I wonder how many PETA supporters are pro-choice? They care more about what you do to a fish when fishing, than what you do to a human life. Step back and look at that picture, kind of silly isn't it? I think they are all selfish, and just want the law to reflect how they view life. I actually used to listen to people like this. But of course there are hypocrites on both sides of the camp. I am usually not accepted by either side, because I fall in the middle, and it is usually all or nothing. Fuck everyone?

This thread is about IUD's.I am against the pill for other reasons, as I see what it does to women, and I think it is not healthy for them.

I do wonder what the world must look like to someone like you.Then I shudder and think of more productive things.

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi

I, I, I, I, it's all about me me me. It's just selfishness. What about the life created? Time doesn't exist.

Why not? In the case of abortion, there is no one else besides the "me".

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi

That still only changes the health risk to .1% (WebMD...I can furnish the quote if you need it) unless you count emotional trauma from post birth, terrible twos, and age 13-24. Of course those can be avoided if the baby is given up for adoption.
Regardless, you didn't address the central issue. The opposition believes that the health risk to the mother is extremely minor compared to the health risk to the fetus. By the way, they believe it is an innocent human being. Ignoring that or wasting time trying to convince them otherwise just makes you look entrenched in your beliefs despite the evidence. Seems similar to another group of people that hang around this board....YEC's Yet you would prefer to war over it rather than compromise. Why?Why do anti-abortionists avoid fighting the legality of IUD's?
a. Some don't know how they work.
b. Some want to punish women for having sex (There's all kinds of people out there).
c. A compromise to get some anti abortion laws in place.Why do anti-abortionist support anti-abortion laws that allow for rape and incest victim to get abortions.
a. Some think the baby is tainted by the means of insemination (weirdos).
b. Some actually think of the mother's emotional health.
c. A compromise to get anti-abortion laws in place.A great many anti-abortionists believe in the inherent sinfulness of humans. They also believe that sinfulness needs to be controlled. Laws are a means of control. If they can't make abortion illegal then maybe they can control access to abortion. It is a step in the direction they want to go. Unlike YEC's, they have some evidence in their favor....if left alone that unrecognizable mass of cells will become a baby.You consider their position unreasonable, in fact your whole demeanor on this board shows that you consider them unreasonable.As the reasonable people here, what has your side chosen to do:
1. Tell the opposition that it's not a baby.
2. Tell the opposition that they are being inconsistent by supporting anti abortion laws that have compromise clauses in them.
3. Indicating that they are evil because they don't put a woman's choice (not needs, mind you) above the needs of the fetus.I guess fighting is something that you like to do.

Yet a woman who loses a fetus she wanted in the first trimester would never hear you say to her, "It was nothing". Why not? According to you, it was nothing. I'll bet you wouldn't say that to the almost father either.So, does that mean it was a human because she wanted it? Does belief change the truth of the situation?

What an odd question. At least it seems like it to me. You make it sound as if you've never encountered subjective opinions before.One person has a table, decides that it's basically junk, and gets rid of it. Another has an identical table, but wants to keep it -- maybe it even has sentimental value to her. In one case its disposed of, in the other it would be considered a crime if someone were to take it without permission. Does the "belief" change the "truth" of the situation here?Personally, I don't think "belief" and "truth" are really appropriate in this context.

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi

you mean the moral standard you set for yourself. stop generalizing your feelings on everyone.

you mean women like me who nearly bled to death for 8-10 days out of every month (or all month sometimes just for fun) who were put on the pill specifically to control their cycles in order to be able to function like a normal human being who is not bleeding to death?or just the sluts that need to be punished?Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.