American's More Pro-Life

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread][/quote]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

162

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.
[/quote]

The money and time anti-abortionists put into trying to stop abortions could save more lives if this time and money was spent saving starving and sick children.

And I think even an anti-abortionist would agree a young child starving to death is worse than a fetus being aborted.

163

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

The money and time anti-abortionists put into trying to stop abortions could save more lives if this time and money was spent saving starving and sick children.

And I think even an anti-abortionist would agree a young child starving to death is worse than a fetus being aborted.[/quote]

They’re equally horrible. Much of the good work being done to help sick and starving children is performed and funded by people of faith.

164

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

The money and time anti-abortionists put into trying to stop abortions could save more lives if this time and money was spent saving starving and sick children.

And I think even an anti-abortionist would agree a young child starving to death is worse than a fetus being aborted.

They’re equally horrible. Much of the good work being done to help sick and starving children is performed and funded by people of faith.

[/quote]

One involves a lifetime of suffering (starving to death is a pretty bad way to die), so I can’t see how they are equally horrible.
I know religious people help the starving. That doesn’t mean what I said isn’t true.

165

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.
[/quote]

Well in theory they need not be mutually exclusive but in real live you only have so much time and resources. Why waste them to legislate other peoples behavior instead of doing something yourself?

166

…what’s ridiculous is the fact that a Pope still doesn’t endorse condoms in AIDS ridden Africa.

What is ridiculous that a 1st world nation like the USA has one of the highest rates of under-age mothers.

What is ridiculous is the abstinence-only campaign.

What is ridiculous is that pharmacies in the US can deny the morning after-pill to paying customers based on religious beliefs.

What is ridiculous is that a country that goes to war on the other side of the world to bring freedom and democracy to a people that didn’t ask for it, has a growing number of citizens that would love to see half of it’s population to be placed under restrictive laws, just because of their gender.

…but i’m sure you’ve slept just fine…

167

[quote]ephrem wrote:
What is ridiculous is the abstinence-only campaign. [/quote]

I heard Obama cut the funding.

168

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

The money and time anti-abortionists put into trying to stop abortions could save more lives if this time and money was spent saving starving and sick children.

And I think even an anti-abortionist would agree a young child starving to death is worse than a fetus being aborted.

They’re equally horrible. Much of the good work being done to help sick and starving children is performed and funded by people of faith.

One involves a lifetime of suffering (starving to death is a pretty bad way to die), so I can’t see how they are equally horrible.
[/quote]

And being sliced up and vacuumed out isn’t a “pretty bad way to die”???

169

[quote]orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

Well in theory they need not be mutually exclusive but in real live you only have so much time and resources. Why waste them to legislate other peoples behavior instead of doing something yourself?

[/quote]

We have sufficient resources to feed starving children - it’s a matter of getting the food to them; talk to aid workers about how easy that is.

re: “legislating people’s behavior” - well presumably you believe in laws against murder right? Well, I consider baby killing murder; and, the rate at which it’s performed it’s nearly genocidal.

170

[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

…what’s ridiculous is the fact that a Pope still doesn’t endorse condoms in AIDS ridden Africa. [/quote]

see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

Yes, the breakdown of the family & traditional values has had truly devastating consequences.

Yes, a single campaign can only do so much. We need to do much, much more in this regard. The culture of death - family “planning,” condoms for children, moral relativism > nihilism, lack of authority and standards, etc. - is spreading and deeply entrenched.

If true, I don’t see that as ridiculous at all. Why should a person be forced to participate in murder? Just so you can sleep at night: this won’t prevent ANYONE from getting what they wish to obtain.

So let me get this straight - because we have freed countless people from oppressive regimes around the world, American mothers should be allowed unfettered power to kill their babies? Is that your argument?

[quote]…but i’m sure you’ve slept just fine…

[/quote]

Yes, I did indeed. Thank you :wink:

171

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

Well in theory they need not be mutually exclusive but in real live you only have so much time and resources. Why waste them to legislate other peoples behavior instead of doing something yourself?

We have sufficient resources to feed starving children - it’s a matter of getting the food to them; talk to aid workers about how easy that is.

re: “legislating people’s behavior” - well presumably you believe in laws against murder right? Well, I consider baby killing murder; and, the rate at which it’s performed it’s nearly genocidal.
[/quote]

Yep, a few other things to remember. The baby cannot live outside the womb if it is not supplied with food and shelter. It cannot fend for itself for a few years at least.

It’s brain will not fully develop until app 25 years of age. Yep, it starts developing as one cell with it’s own unique DNA and it continues until app 25 years of age.

so when is a fetus fully developed? Once it can survive on it’s own at 18? Or 6 months in utero? Or is it when it is a unique organism? Or when it shows signs of life according to 9th grade science textbooks?

Like maintaining homeostasis and developing maybe? Or how about the studies of twins showing much earlier interaction than previously thought. I forgot the exact week they were talking about, but scientists observed human behavior such as playing, teasing, comforting and such.

What do we do if we eventually prove this is life and the people getting an abortion are killing a life?

172

…interesting article, have you read it? The jist is not that condoms don’t work, but in the specific case of African countries most affected by the AIDS epidemic, it’s about inconsistent use of condoms whilst having multiple, overlapping relationships…

…at what time in your country’s history did you have strong family and traditional values?

[quote]What is ridiculous is the abstinence-only campaign.

Yes, a single campaign can only do so much. We need to do much, much more in this regard. The culture of death - family “planning,” condoms for children, moral relativism > nihilism, lack of authority and standards, etc. - is spreading and deeply entrenched.[/quote]

…education, education and education plus making birthcontrol available to adolescents. You will never change the nature of teenagers, or humans for that matter. Better accept that and work with how things are…

[quote]What is ridiculous is that pharmacies in the US can deny the morning after-pill to paying customers based on religious beliefs.

If true, I don’t see that as ridiculous at all. Why should a person be forced to participate in murder? Just so you can sleep at night: this won’t prevent ANYONE from getting what they wish to obtain.[/quote]

…what you believe has nothing to do with my business…

…no, what i find utterly hypocritical is this reverence for life and freedom you seem to be having when you are so quick to wage wars that kill countless of innocent people, and make 50% of your own country’s population a second class citizen because of your beliefs…

173

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

Well in theory they need not be mutually exclusive but in real live you only have so much time and resources. Why waste them to legislate other peoples behavior instead of doing something yourself?

We have sufficient resources to feed starving children - it’s a matter of getting the food to them; talk to aid workers about how easy that is.

re: “legislating people’s behavior” - well presumably you believe in laws against murder right? Well, I consider baby killing murder; and, the rate at which it’s performed it’s nearly genocidal.
[/quote]

We, do not have anything for “mine” is not “yours” to give, and I doubt that “you” do as much for poor starving children that you do to legislate other peoples behavior.

But, even if you did, that does not seem a common denominator of the pro-life crowd or otherwise there´d be no more starving children.

174

[quote]tom63 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

Well in theory they need not be mutually exclusive but in real live you only have so much time and resources. Why waste them to legislate other peoples behavior instead of doing something yourself?

We have sufficient resources to feed starving children - it’s a matter of getting the food to them; talk to aid workers about how easy that is.

re: “legislating people’s behavior” - well presumably you believe in laws against murder right? Well, I consider baby killing murder; and, the rate at which it’s performed it’s nearly genocidal.

Yep, a few other things to remember. The baby cannot live outside the womb if it is not supplied with food and shelter. It cannot fend for itself for a few years at least.

It’s brain will not fully develop until app 25 years of age. Yep, it starts developing as one cell with it’s own unique DNA and it continues until app 25 years of age.

so when is a fetus fully developed? Once it can survive on it’s own at 18? Or 6 months in utero? Or is it when it is a unique organism? Or when it shows signs of life according to 9th grade science textbooks?

Like maintaining homeostasis and developing maybe? Or how about the studies of twins showing much earlier interaction than previously thought. I forgot the exact week they were talking about, but scientists observed human behavior such as playing, teasing, comforting and such.

What do we do if we eventually prove this is life and the people getting an abortion are killing a life?[/quote]

Nothing, for “a life” and “a full fledged human being” and a “person” is not the same.

If however an embryo should ever complain about that cruel and inhuman treatment I´d suggest that we stopped abortions immediately.

The same is true for cows though.

175

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

The money and time anti-abortionists put into trying to stop abortions could save more lives if this time and money was spent saving starving and sick children.

And I think even an anti-abortionist would agree a young child starving to death is worse than a fetus being aborted.

They’re equally horrible. Much of the good work being done to help sick and starving children is performed and funded by people of faith.

One involves a lifetime of suffering (starving to death is a pretty bad way to die), so I can’t see how they are equally horrible.

And being sliced up and vacuumed out isn’t a “pretty bad way to die”???[/quote]

Not if thought processes haven’t even started. I would much rather be sliced to death in a coma than starve to death conscious.

176

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

If true, I don’t see that as ridiculous at all. Why should a person be forced to participate in murder? Just so you can sleep at night: this won’t prevent ANYONE from getting what they wish to obtain.
[/quote]

I didn’t realise anyone thought the morning after pill was considered murder. I thought most of you anti-abortionists didn’t mind it because it acts before fertalisation.

177

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

The money and time anti-abortionists put into trying to stop abortions could save more lives if this time and money was spent saving starving and sick children.

And I think even an anti-abortionist would agree a young child starving to death is worse than a fetus being aborted.

They’re equally horrible. Much of the good work being done to help sick and starving children is performed and funded by people of faith.

One involves a lifetime of suffering (starving to death is a pretty bad way to die), so I can’t see how they are equally horrible.

And being sliced up and vacuumed out isn’t a “pretty bad way to die”???

Not if thought processes haven’t even started. I would much rather be sliced to death in a coma than starve to death conscious.[/quote]

So the fetus is feigning when it writhes while being sliced up?

178

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

If true, I don’t see that as ridiculous at all. Why should a person be forced to participate in murder? Just so you can sleep at night: this won’t prevent ANYONE from getting what they wish to obtain.

I didn’t realise anyone thought the morning after pill was considered murder. I thought most of you anti-abortionists didn’t mind it because it acts before fertalisation.[/quote]

I’m not saying I believe it’s murder - I’m saying that IF a person believes it’s murder, or aggregiously sinful, or whatever, they should not be forced to participate in what they believe to be wrong.

179

[quote]orion wrote:
tom63 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

Well in theory they need not be mutually exclusive but in real live you only have so much time and resources. Why waste them to legislate other peoples behavior instead of doing something yourself?

We have sufficient resources to feed starving children - it’s a matter of getting the food to them; talk to aid workers about how easy that is.

re: “legislating people’s behavior” - well presumably you believe in laws against murder right? Well, I consider baby killing murder; and, the rate at which it’s performed it’s nearly genocidal.

Yep, a few other things to remember. The baby cannot live outside the womb if it is not supplied with food and shelter. It cannot fend for itself for a few years at least.

It’s brain will not fully develop until app 25 years of age. Yep, it starts developing as one cell with it’s own unique DNA and it continues until app 25 years of age.

so when is a fetus fully developed? Once it can survive on it’s own at 18? Or 6 months in utero? Or is it when it is a unique organism? Or when it shows signs of life according to 9th grade science textbooks?

Like maintaining homeostasis and developing maybe? Or how about the studies of twins showing much earlier interaction than previously thought. I forgot the exact week they were talking about, but scientists observed human behavior such as playing, teasing, comforting and such.

What do we do if we eventually prove this is life and the people getting an abortion are killing a life?

Nothing, for “a life” and “a full fledged human being” and a “person” is not the same.

If however an embryo should ever complain about that cruel and inhuman treatment I�´d suggest that we stopped abortions immediately.

The same is true for cows though.

[/quote]

A cow isn’t a human being. Must I really say things like this?

Your embryo complaining thing is, well, just silly - okay, so a child is being sexually abused but isn’t “complaining” - does that mean it’s okay?

180

[quote]orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

[/thread]

Not /thread because those two things are not mutually exclusive. Because there are starving children in the world we should kill babies in the womb? Obviously that’s ridiculous.

Well in theory they need not be mutually exclusive but in real live you only have so much time and resources. Why waste them to legislate other peoples behavior instead of doing something yourself?

We have sufficient resources to feed starving children - it’s a matter of getting the food to them; talk to aid workers about how easy that is.

re: “legislating people’s behavior” - well presumably you believe in laws against murder right? Well, I consider baby killing murder; and, the rate at which it’s performed it’s nearly genocidal.

We, do not have anything for “mine” is not “yours” to give, and I doubt that “you” do as much for poor starving children that you do to legislate other peoples behavior.

But, even if you did, that does not seem a common denominator of the pro-life crowd or otherwise there�´d be no more starving children.

[/quote]

Wrong - we (the US) have plenty of food to give. There are huge stockpiles of food all over the US that go unused. We do try to deliver it. We also try to help regions develop their own agriculture/distribution. However, as you prolly know, starvation in most parts of the world is a political phenomena. Shipping food simply doesn’t work. A number of family members of mine work in development/aid in Africa, and they have horror stories of starvation that they can easily prevent, but local governments/warlords, etc. make doing so impossible.