[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
It was just that facility.
O…
Wait, it appears not to be isolated:
Something tells me there is more to come out. They are playing this smart. Let people make excuses then destroy them. The ACORN video’s showed how to do this.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Something tells me there is more to come out. They are playing this smart. Let people make excuses then destroy them. The ACORN video’s showed how to do this.[/quote]
Exactly - it’s amazing that Planned Parenthood didn’t learn from Acorn’s mistakes in how they responded. LOL.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Orion to answer (sort of) your own though experiment I would say the following: It depends.
If you are married, have a family, and they will suffer gravely from you being locked in a room for 9 months you clearly are not morally obligated to care for this strangers life more than your own family. [/quote]
What if you engaged in an activity that you knew ran the risk of having an innocent man attached to you, and needing you for the next 9 months?
And then you woke up with the man attached to you. Shit, bad luck. Is it still right to kill that man, knowing that he did nothing wrong and that YOU put him in that situation?
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Chris- I am not advocating for either side here (for what it is worth I have a young son and a marriage from knocking my girlfriend up and we decided against an abortion- we have a great family now). These are simply thought experiments. I would point out sex more often than not actually DOESN’T lead to babies. Average length of time for a couple “trying” to have a baby is 1 year. Point being you probably stand better odds of NOT impregnating someone via intercourse than impregnating them even though it is a distinct possibility. On a long enough time line you will most likely get pregnant, but you catch my drift.[/quote]
Yes, I get your drift. If you get my drift that through the entire world animal and human both recognize that when there is sexual intercourse a by product of that is offspring. To ignore or try to remove babies from sexual intercourse is just against nature. If you don’t want to have babies, abstinence while the woman is fertile.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Insulting each other is part of PWI, [/quote]
Hey John…Fuck…You.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Ryan, when does the child gain rights??
[/quote]
You see, he does not recognize it. It’s less than an “animal” in his own words. If an embryo is not human, then none of us are. We forget about the rights of unborn citizens.
I see his arguments ALL the time and they NEVER change. I’m toying with him, like a cat who is fascinated with a toy ; ) I like taunting simpletons who believe they are correct jajaja
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Ryan, when does the child gain rights??
[/quote]
You see, he does not recognize it. It’s less than an “animal” in his own words. If an embryo is not human, then none of us are. We forget about the rights of unborn citizens.
[/quote]
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
Insulting each other is part of PWI, [/quote]
Hey John…Fuck…You.[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Chris- I am not advocating for either side here (for what it is worth I have a young son and a marriage from knocking my girlfriend up and we decided against an abortion- we have a great family now). These are simply thought experiments. I would point out sex more often than not actually DOESN’T lead to babies. Average length of time for a couple “trying” to have a baby is 1 year. Point being you probably stand better odds of NOT impregnating someone via intercourse than impregnating them even though it is a distinct possibility. On a long enough time line you will most likely get pregnant, but you catch my drift.[/quote]
Yes, I get your drift. If you get my drift that through the entire world animal and human both recognize that when there is sexual intercourse a by product of that is offspring. To ignore or try to remove babies from sexual intercourse is just against nature. If you don’t want to have babies, abstinence while the woman is fertile.[/quote]
Against nature? Nature provided the sheepskin!
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
In actuality, the circumstances under which conception took place are utterly irrelevant–it is the woman’s body in all cases, and you don’t have the least to right to tell her what she will and will not do with it. If she wants an abortion because she doesn’t like the way it makes her belly look in her favorite dress, that is her right.
It would be quite a shame if that were the only reason she sought an abortion, but it is still her right.
[/quote]
You are one of the dumbest and most pretentious assholes on T-Nation. In all my time reading PWI I don’t think you have said anything intelligent. Conservative hillbillies are a bastion of wise comments compared to you.
Have you ever spent time thinking through the abortion issue? Learning about a fetuses development etc.
If you have then please tell us why it is her right. Give us your analysis of the situation. Woo us all with your deep insight.
Is it her right to leave her baby at home to starve to death? What makes it being part of her body any different? You seem to make the distinction that because something is inside of you, you can do whatever you want to it. Why make the distinction? What is the ethical basis for it? That you can’t just give your fetus up for adoption?
End of the day you emotionally disconnect from the situation and see fetuses as sort of tumors or parasites. Thats ok. My ancestors didn’t believe black people were really human in the same way whites were. It was one of the reasons slavery was so hard to abolish. But they weren’t evil people. Even the slaveholders back in the day weren’t evil people. Just backwards folk.[/quote]
Let me know when you’re off the rag, and I’ll respond to this.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
In actuality, the circumstances under which conception took place are utterly irrelevant–it is the woman’s body in all cases, and you don’t have the least to right to tell her what she will and will not do with it. If she wants an abortion because she doesn’t like the way it makes her belly look in her favorite dress, that is her right.
It would be quite a shame if that were the only reason she sought an abortion, but it is still her right.
[/quote]
…So, it’s cool if she kills her child because she doesn’t like the way her child makes her belly look in her favorite dress?[/quote]
We don’t agree that it is a child.
But even still…yes. Her right to her person is not contingent upon your approval of her actions.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
There are some great thought experiment battles over this topic, but I will drop this one in for the time being:
Suppose you moved to an area you really enjoyed to live with your fiancee, but that area was a high crime area. One day you leave the window open to get some fresh air into the apartment, despite knowing that your area has a high concentration of building-scaling thieves present. If one of these thieves crawls into your apartment while you are there, do you have the right to defend yourself/kill them even if you knew there was a possibility this would happen? Would killing the person and kicking them out of your apartment be considered taking ‘personal responsibility’ for leaving the window open?
[/quote]
No, it’s called self defense. And there is a big difference between an innocent child and a man that willfully climbed up a wall into your window.[/quote]
It’s not an “innocent child.” It’s a blob.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Ryan, when does the child gain rights??[/quote]
After it is born and no longer directly dependent upon the mother’s body to live.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Ryan, when does the child gain rights??
[/quote]
You see, he does not recognize it. It’s less than an “animal” in his own words. If an embryo is not human, then none of us are. We forget about the rights of unborn citizens.
[/quote]
Sure. We don’t care too awfully much about the rights of born citizens here–why should we waste much time over the unborn? We’re probably doing them a favor anyway.
But yes, you are right–in the very early stages of pregnancy, the time when the majority of abortions occur, there’s very little you could say to argue that the embryo is a human that would not apply equally well to the embryo of a horse or a cow.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
there’s very little you could say to argue that the embryo is a human that would not apply equally well to the embryo of a horse or a cow.
[/quote]
Ryan…were you ever a human embryo? If you were, then you were human at the time. Our very existence proves embryos are the roots of human life. And with all the social programs my taxes go to, you cannot argue people like me care for the living less than the unborn.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
There are some great thought experiment battles over this topic, but I will drop this one in for the time being:
Suppose you moved to an area you really enjoyed to live with your fiancee, but that area was a high crime area. One day you leave the window open to get some fresh air into the apartment, despite knowing that your area has a high concentration of building-scaling thieves present. If one of these thieves crawls into your apartment while you are there, do you have the right to defend yourself/kill them even if you knew there was a possibility this would happen? Would killing the person and kicking them out of your apartment be considered taking ‘personal responsibility’ for leaving the window open?
[/quote]
No, it’s called self defense. And there is a big difference between an innocent child and a man that willfully climbed up a wall into your window.[/quote]
It’s not an “innocent child.” It’s a blob.
[/quote]
your brain is nothing but a blob, a mucosa conglomeration of neurons.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Ryan, when does the child gain rights??[/quote]
After it is born and no longer directly dependent upon the mother’s body to live.
[/quote]
wow you are showing your knowledge of simple biology here, must go to one of them fancy liberal schools where they smoke pot and meditate.
really at what point is a child capable of caring for itself, because only then is it not directly dependent on something.
so with your argument there are only two paths, either at the point the child can be taken from the womb and survive with critical support it is human. Or once the blob can care for itself it is human, which is it?
Every complete genome is it’s own individual human. Not all make it to be a completely viable adults, but to kill one is to kill an innocent life.
You are an educated moron, who can spit out what you are given.
Good bye.
A premature child needs the mother yet it is outside the womb, do they have rights then?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Ryan, when does the child gain rights??[/quote]
After it is born and no longer directly dependent upon the mother’s body to live.
[/quote]
An embryo of an animal and a HUMAN embryo are night and day different!! Yet if you have no problem killing animal embryo’s that is your right. Something tells me you won’t be in business for very long.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Ryan, when does the child gain rights??
[/quote]
You see, he does not recognize it. It’s less than an “animal” in his own words. If an embryo is not human, then none of us are. We forget about the rights of unborn citizens.
[/quote]
Sure. We don’t care too awfully much about the rights of born citizens here–why should we waste much time over the unborn? We’re probably doing them a favor anyway.
But yes, you are right–in the very early stages of pregnancy, the time when the majority of abortions occur, there’s very little you could say to argue that the embryo is a human that would not apply equally well to the embryo of a horse or a cow.
[/quote]
The child gains rights around the time of viability. A little earlier to be safe.
Its batshit crazy people standing in the way of the morning after pill that really bother me. It prevents implantation of the sperm in the egg. It might as well be a condom. It is a contraceptive, not an abortion.