Pro-LIFE Birth Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

…That said, I am decidedly in favor of making sure that the government cannot tell a woman not to rid her womb of her rapist’s child.

[/quote]

What if the child is one week old? Should the government refrain from telling a woman she can’t rid herself of her rapist’s child?

How about one month old?

Six years?

12 years?
[/quote]

This is a bit ludicrous. No one is for women making the decisions after the child is born except to put it up for adoption. It’s a slippery slope strawman.

142

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
After all you, me, people in this thread, hindus, buddhists, etc none of us can agree on sin so let’s use logic and reason to make our laws. We may be able to agree there. If not it’s our only chance.
[/quote]

Logic and reason can be used to advance anything from communism to anarchism. It depends on those non-countable things, what you value, as to which way/where between one falls.
[/quote]

So can religion. I’m not seeing the point of making the distinction. A perfect system where everyone is good will never exist. You make laws based on what makes the most logical and rational sense for people irregardless of faith. Humans will find ways to fuck it up, but that would be true no matter WHAT we do. Count the number of wars we had when religion decided everything. It wasn’t any better. Corruption, death, assholes, etc are always going to exist.

143

H my man, you are changing your argument. Address my points to prove them wrong. The case for LIFE is proven with logic, science or reason. Using only one of the three proves the case for LIFE.

^ I quoted this again because you never even tried to address the point. ^

So you know, abortion will be taken away from America in my life time. The case for LIFE has Truth on our side.

Instant gratification is a personal problem. With a family and two kids under twenty months [not twins btw] I cannot spare much time for others. In addition, we are moving come the end of school this year. Eagle College Prep teaches until June so my time is getting tighter.

Multiple women die every year from birth control alone. Is that safe in your mind?

[quote]H factor wrote: If you want more abortions let’s get rid of ways to have sex safely

You can be against whatever you want…but thank goodness you aren’t making decisions for the nation. [/quote]

Here we go again with changing the subject to argue from your point of view. Address the points on the table and some learning can happen. What about slavery, womenâ??s rights or any abhorrent behavior in history; they only changed when they were illuminated by the Truth and you could see how evil the actions are, then the laws changed. Abortion is the worst case to claim history will keep it legal. Morality defines the laws of this land, never the inverse.

Here is some light reading for you: House Passes Bill to Completely Ban Taxpayer Funding of Abortions - LifeNews.com

144

Knee I have no idea what you are arguing. You keep saying the case for life in the same thread as you are attempting to argue birth control is abortion.

You can say the case for life over and over again, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking strictly getting rid of abortion or of getting rid of birth control and abortion?

My feelings on both are quite different. I’m not necessarily against getting rid of abortion eventually, but I think getting rid of birth control is one of the fucking dumbest ideas I have heard in a long time.

So which are we talking about? Is the case for life no abortion? Or is the case for life the absolutely insane idea in 2014 of getting rid of birth control?

Finally morality of course is and always has been subjective. Saying it is the law of the land doesn’t count for anything. What is morality and who decides which morality is correct? I think it is immoral as hell to try and pray a sick kid back to health and not use modern medicine. Some people do this. You can’t get everyone to agree on morality and we never have been able to.

145

By definition, contraceptives kill innocent children [exception of barriers]. An ovum is still released and can be fertilized if sperm are present. All it takes is a single swimmer. Conditions might be unfavorable, but that happens every cycle. When a woman ovulates, her feminine parts fight the sperm. From her vagina and lubrication to her cervix to her uterus, they do not close off the ovum but they do want the strongest members of the ejaculate.

If contraceptives never failed, there would be no evidence of any failure. Many abortions occur because contraception fails. Nothing is one hundred percent in the birth control world, nothing; unless you remove the organs or cut the pathways.

146

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
By definition, contraceptives kill innocent children [exception of barriers]. An ovum is still released and can be fertilized if sperm are present.
[/quote]

Check your current science.

147

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

…That said, I am decidedly in favor of making sure that the government cannot tell a woman not to rid her womb of her rapist’s child.

[/quote]

What if the child is one week old? Should the government refrain from telling a woman she can’t rid herself of her rapist’s child?

How about one month old?

Six years?

12 years?
[/quote]

Yes it should refrain, ditto, ditto, ditto. Of course, getting rid of a child of one week entails putting it up for adoption, and ditto, ditto, ditto again.

148

Kneedragger

Talk about changing the goalposts and avoiding! Your reading link did NOTHING to address his argument AT ALL. Not to mention that your comment about multiple women dying from birth control is about as patently ridiculous as you can get–first because the amount of women who die is INFINITESIMALLY small compared with the number of babies that die from abortions so you are arguing against your own interests and secondly because the number of deaths is, what, a maximum of 30-40 women? 16000+ people die from tylenol overdose! The pill is medically safe with a death rate lower than the chance of dying by lightning strike–which averages approximately 50-60 people a year (decadal rate of ~ .2 per million people).

You have a greater chance of dying by lightning bolt than dying from the pill.

Finally it is a red herring anyways regarding the discussion at hand and you know it.

149

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Kneedragger

Talk about changing the goalposts and avoiding! Your reading link did NOTHING to address his argument AT ALL. Not to mention that your comment about multiple women dying from birth control is about as patently ridiculous as you can get–first because the amount of women who die is INFINITESIMALLY small compared with the number of babies that die from abortions so you are arguing against your own interests and secondly because the number of deaths is, what, a maximum of 30-40 women? 16000+ people die from tylenol overdose! The pill is medically safe with a death rate lower than the chance of dying by lightning strike–which averages approximately 50-60 people a year (decadal rate of ~ .2 per million people).

You have a greater chance of dying by lightning bolt than dying from the pill.

Finally it is a red herring anyways regarding the discussion at hand and you know it.[/quote]

I am pretty sure that the chances of your receiving a cogent response to this, or really anything else you care to criticize with “facts,” are somewhere between “a snowball’s in hell” and “Chris Christie in a decathlon.”

150

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
By definition, contraceptives kill innocent children [exception of barriers]. An ovum is still released and can be fertilized if sperm are present. All it takes is a singl swimmer. Conditions might be unfavorable, but that happens every cycle. When a woman ovulates, her feminine parts fight the sperm. From her vagina and lubrication to her cervix to her uterus, they do not close off the ovum but they do want the strongest members of the ejaculate.

If contraceptives never failed, there would be no evidence of any failure. Many abortions occur because contraception fails. Nothing is one hundred percent in the birth control world, nothing; unless you remove the organs or cut the pathways.

[/quote]

Kneedragger, did you read ANYTHING that I posted?? I gave you a direct scientific rebuttal that SHOWS, complete with references to textbooks and scientifically peer reviewed studies, that hormonal contraception DEFINITELY stops ovulation–meaning by definition the release of an ovum…and you come back with “nu huh, it doesn’t stop the ovum because I say it doesn’t”??

Come on, be serious.

And further we are not talking about what happens if birth control fails, although if you want I can show you–AGAIN–the scientific literature that indicates that hormonal birth control does not affect rate of implantation and thus pregnancy from implantation in the uterine wall. In other words, and I can even quote directly if you like, that oral contraception does not prevent implantation and therefore is NOT an abortifacient.

Now if you’re going to argue, try some damn science rather than a simple “no it doesn’t stop the ovum!!1!1”

Man, I’m pro-life and anti abortion, and I’m telling you, you are wrong. And stop it with the “contraception kills babies” bullshit unless you are going to take Sloths position and say the denial of any POTENTIAL meeting of sperm and egg is a moral wrong–and even then, you cannot say it is abortion because by definition no human being was conceived.

So stop it.

151

[quote]H factor wrote:

So can religion. I’m not seeing the point of making the distinction. A perfect system where everyone is good will never exist. You make laws based on what makes the most logical and rational sense for people irregardless of faith. Humans will find ways to fuck it up, but that would be true no matter WHAT we do. Count the number of wars we had when religion decided everything. It wasn’t any better. Corruption, death, assholes, etc are always going to exist. [/quote]

My religious views, and of all other religious, can inform us as to who to vote for, and what to support.

Have you not said there are no universal morals/values?

Well, then a secular approach to politics is no more right than the approach of one whose political thought and decisions are informed by his religiosity.

152

Universally accepted source please. You will NOT find it, but you are welcome to waste your time.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
By definition, contraceptives kill innocent children [exception of barriers]. An ovum is still released and can be fertilized if sperm are present.
[/quote]

Check your current science.[/quote]

153

You are the one who has no problem with abortion. This subject is not a gray area where you can sit on the fence. In addition, I said the link was some light reading. Damn dude, read and comprehend before you post. not intended as an attack of any sort

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Kneedragger

Talk about changing the goalposts and avoiding! Your reading link did NOTHING to address his argument AT ALL. Not to mention that your comment about multiple women dying from birth control is about as patently ridiculous as you can get–first because the amount of women who die is INFINITESIMALLY small compared with the number of babies that die from abortions so you are arguing against your own interests and secondly because the number of deaths is, what, a maximum of 30-40 women? 16000+ people die from tylenol overdose! The pill is medically safe with a death rate lower than the chance of dying by lightning strike–which averages approximately 50-60 people a year (decadal rate of ~ .2 per million people).

You have a greater chance of dying by lightning bolt than dying from the pill.

Finally it is a red herring anyways regarding the discussion at hand and you know it.[/quote]

155

In addition Aragorn, when does a new human life begin? At the moment of conception. Read up on your birth control, if an ovum is released and sperm are present, a new life has begun. The embryo does NOT attach in the uterine wall eight to ten days after ovulation and the embryo dies. You might need to take a biology class if my word is not good enough for you.

157

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

And stop it with the “contraception kills babies” bullshit unless you are going to take Sloths position and say the denial of any POTENTIAL meeting of sperm and egg is a moral wrong–and even then, you cannot say it is abortion because by definition no human being was conceived.

So stop it.
[/quote]

Eh? Just to be clear, my position has nothing to do with “contraception kills babies.” Abortificatients set aside. The way it’s worded above, or maybe it’s the way I’m reading ya, it sort of comes off as if you’re saying that.

Knee, how are you? I understand you might have had a really bad accident some time back. I’ve caught snippets of it before, and I see your avatar.

160

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

…That said, I am decidedly in favor of making sure that the government cannot tell a woman not to rid her womb of her rapist’s child.

[/quote]

What if the child is one week old? Should the government refrain from telling a woman she can’t rid herself of her rapist’s child?

How about one month old?

Six years?

12 years?
[/quote]

Yes it should refrain, ditto, ditto, ditto. Of course, getting rid of a child of one week entails putting it up for adoption, and ditto, ditto, ditto again.[/quote]

It should refrain from telling a woman she can’t rid herself of her rapist’s child at one week old? Really now?

And one week - 12 years?

Why can’t a woman rid herself of a 12 year old by killing it just like she could a child that was two months from being born?

If she should put up a child for adoption who is one month old why shouldn’t she have to wait and have the child and put it up for adoption after birth?

Why does she get to kill her baby before he’s born and not afterward?[/quote]

Because the underlying principle is that she should not be forced to nurture, care for, or sustain the child of her rapist.

After the child is born, this entails putting it up for adoption. Killing it once it can survive under the care of someone who is willing to care for it would be nonsensical.

Before the child is born, “not being forced to nurture, care for, or sustain the child of her rapist” necessarily entails the death of the fetus. This is tragic in a way, and yet it doesn’t change anything for me, because it represents what I believe is the far lesser of two evils.

I wrote this analogy before:

Say a villain brutalizes you and then finds a way to attach an innocent person to your blood supply. Say this innocent person will need to stay attached to you for nine months, at which time–with great pain, the possibility of the physical mutilation or at least alteration-for-the-worse of your genitals, and the possibility, however slim, of your death–the innocent person will be disconnected from you.

I would detach myself from the innocent person and regret their murder, which was really at the hands of the villain.

You would try me for murder?