[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
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]
[/quote]
“May” is the word. Still, it certainly takes down a peg or ten the certainty with which you proclaim that “by definition, contraceptives kill innocent children.”
By the way, I’d like to clear something up. A contraceptive is something that prevents (contra) conception (ceptive), so your claim is actually exactly wrong. A contraceptive, by definition (to use your terminology), prevents conception and therefore cannot induce an abortion.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s my understanding that the morning after pill is considered an abortion from the life at conception crowd. I believe it keeps the embryo from attaching to the uterus, but I could be wrong. I’m not a contraception expert…
[/quote]
-I believe it prevents fertilization, though I also may be wrong.
-She did, but not by the child inside her. The baby was not forcibly inserted into her-half of it was already there.
-I think you’re wrong, but I’m also not positive.
-I don’t think differing opinions on a subject create a gray area…what makes this a gray area is the fact that the child becomes his mother’s master if abortion is criminalized. The child is totally dependent on his mother. Mother is not dependent on her child.
-The embryo has no personhood, but you don’t believe the mother has a right to rid herself of it?
-I don’t want the government to enforce anything(at all, actually). I have actually stated that I do not want abortion to be criminalized in any circumstance.
-…and wait for the unintended consequences/hidden costs. Will the woman’s rape claim be put on trial before she is allowed to kill her unborn child? Will the offender have to be identified? Just wait for all the unsolved rape cases. Just wait to see all the tax money put toward finding unknown rapists.
-Giving birth is never a safe process.
-Unless we decide that there will be no abortions, under any circumstances, millions of babies will continue being murdered…
-The best solution is to get the government totally out of abortion. If everyone who wants one has to pay for it out of her own pocket, abortion numbers will drop. Of course, there’s the possibility that the woman will go to some back alley abortion “doctor,” but if she does, she probably won’t need much more punishment.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s my understanding that the morning after pill is considered an abortion from the life at conception crowd. I believe it keeps the embryo from attaching to the uterus, but I could be wrong. I’m not a contraception expert…
[/quote]
-I believe it prevents fertilization, though I also may be wrong.
-She did, but not by the child inside her. The baby was not forcibly inserted into her-half of it was already there.
-I think you’re wrong, but I’m also not positive.
-I don’t think differing opinions on a subject create a gray area…what makes this a gray area is the fact that the child becomes his mother’s master if abortion is criminalized. The child is totally dependent on his mother. Mother is not dependent on her child.
-The embryo has no personhood, but you don’t believe the mother has a right to rid herself of it?
-I don’t want the government to enforce anything(at all, actually). I have actually stated that I do not want abortion to be criminalized in any circumstance.
-…and wait for the unintended consequences/hidden costs. Will the woman’s rape claim be put on trial before she is allowed to kill her unborn child? Will the offender have to be identified? Just wait for all the unsolved rape cases. Just wait to see all the tax money put toward finding unknown rapists.
-Giving birth is never a safe process.
-Unless we decide that there will be no abortions, under any circumstances, millions of babies will continue being murdered…
-The best solution is to get the government totally out of abortion. If everyone who wants one has to pay for it out of her own pocket, abortion numbers will drop. Of course, there’s the possibility that the woman will go to some back alley abortion “doctor,” but if she does, she probably won’t need much more punishment.
[/quote]
It’s really pretty simple:
Abortion should be illegal except in rare cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or other sexual abuse. There should also be an exception for health reasons.
People on the right will be pissed and people on the left will be pissed, which means it’s probably perfect.
I’m completely shocked you want the government out of it…
It looks like you are right about the morning after pill.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s really pretty simple:
Abortion should be illegal except in rare cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or other sexual abuse. There should also be an exception for health reasons.
People on the right will be pissed and people on the left will be pissed, which means it’s probably perfect.
I’m completely shocked you want the government out of it…
It looks like you are right about the morning after pill. [/quote]
Why are you shocked that I want the government out of abortion?
With the existence of the morning-after pill, I really can’t think of a good reason to ever permit abortion, if it must be a government issue.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
-The embryo has no personhood, but you don’t believe the mother has a right to rid herself of it?
[/quote]
Not when she willingly helped put the embryo there on purpose.
The compromise I’m willing to make is for sexual assault and health reasons. [/quote]
What if she was blackout drunk? What about a chain smoker who develops a cancerous tumor in a lung? He was more aware of the possible consequences of his decision than the girl who got knocked up while blackout drunk. Should he not be allowed to rid himself of the tumor? If he should, then why should the mother not be allowed to rid herself of the cells inside her, which you say also lack personhood?
It’s very hard to legislate morality(and no, this isn’t even close to the only issue to which that applies).
My question regarding sexual assault is still: Should the mother go on trial, and have to prove that she was sexually assaulted, before being permitted to murder her child? Or should the government have to prove that she was not?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s really pretty simple:
Abortion should be illegal except in rare cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or other sexual abuse. There should also be an exception for health reasons.
People on the right will be pissed and people on the left will be pissed, which means it’s probably perfect.
I’m completely shocked you want the government out of it…
It looks like you are right about the morning after pill. [/quote]
Why are you shocked that I want the government out of abortion?
With the existence of the morning-after pill, I really can’t think of a good reason to ever permit abortion, if it must be a government issue. [/quote]
…Because you want the government out of everything…
-Your wife is going to die if she carries the baby to term.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
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]
[/quote]
“May” is the word. Still, it certainly takes down a peg or ten the certainty with which you proclaim that “by definition, contraceptives kill innocent children.”
By the way, I’d like to clear something up. A contraceptive is something that prevents (contra) conception (ceptive), so your claim is actually exactly wrong. A contraceptive, by definition (to use your terminology), prevents conception and therefore cannot induce an abortion.[/quote]
You have to understand the argument from his religious point of view. Prevention is seen as abortion because it somehow, in his thinking, aborts the possibility of a soul being born. It defies the whole purpose of marriage. I don’t know if this joker is Catholic but when I went with my fiancee to see a priest about getting married he asked if we were planning on having children. If we had said no then he would not have married us. The exception would be if one or both of us was unable to have kids. The Catholic Church only recognizes the rhythm method as proper birth control. All other methods defy the real purpose of sex which is procreation. James Joyce partially blamed the church for his mother’s death because she ended up having so many kids. He referred to her as a “cracked vessel for childbearing.”
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
-Your wife is going to die if she carries the baby to term. [/quote]
-It looks like ectopic pregnancies(fetus develops outside the uterus) may be the only time this is a big issue…and the fetus will not survive anyway…I’m not sure I’d even classify killing something that can’t survive on its own as killing.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
-The embryo has no personhood, but you don’t believe the mother has a right to rid herself of it?
[/quote]
Not when she willingly helped put the embryo there on purpose.
The compromise I’m willing to make is for sexual assault and health reasons. [/quote]
What if she was blackout drunk? What about a chain smoker who develops a cancerous tumor in a lung? He was more aware of the possible consequences of his decision than the girl who got knocked up while blackout drunk. Should he not be allowed to rid himself of the tumor? If he should, then why should the mother not be allowed to rid herself of the cells inside her, which you say also lack personhood?
It’s very hard to legislate morality(and no, this isn’t even close to the only issue to which that applies).
My question regarding sexual assault is still: Should the mother go on trial, and have to prove that she was sexually assaulted, before being permitted to murder her child? Or should the government have to prove that she was not?
Health reasons: pregnancy is not safe.[/quote]
If she’s black out drunk that was by her choice. Chain smoker, choice. Neither of your scenarios involves coercion. Should there have to be a trial? I don’t think so, at least in my opinion. Calling the police/filing a report should suffice. If it turns out she lied, well that’s a crime isn’t it?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If she’s black out drunk that was by her choice. Chain smoker, choice. Neither of your scenarios involves coercion. Should there have to be a trial? I don’t think so, at least in my opinion. Calling the police/filing a report should suffice. If it turns out she lied, well that’s a crime isn’t it?
Coercion = gray area.
Pregnancy is pretty safe, lol…[/quote]
When’s the last time you were blackout drunk? “Blackout” may not describe the type of drunk I am talking about well enough.
How would the government prove she lied? It’s supposed to be pretty difficult to prove a negative, right?
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.
[/quote]
I have no problems with your religious view informing you who to vote for and what to support. In fact I have never said that I have a problem.
Morals and values differ by person, location, religious views, etc. However logical and rational arguments can be made for stuff that work for the majority of people. That is precisely how our laws and political decisions should be made.
I get that idea from the Constitution. The document which mentions no official religion, doesn’t mention Jesus, and talks about religion in the sense of tolerance and freedom. Despite the fact that I am not a believer I very much believe in your right to think whatever you want. I may argue passionately against it, but it is your right to believe what you want.
The vast majority of “us” agree on how things should be done on all the major points. We shouldn’t get rid of soldiers or gay people simply because Fred Phelps hates both. Why would we cater to the whims of religious extremists when most of our population does not feel that way?
It doesn’t make a secular version any more “correct,” it is just a much more pragmatic way to do things. People can believe whatever they want. Where have I been against that? I’m against making rules based on fringe beliefs that lack logical sense for the majority of the population. Is it right? Is it wrong? Who cares? It is the absolute best way to govern a large populace who has so many mixed beliefs. In fact, it is probably the ONLY way.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
You have to understand the argument from his religious point of view. Prevention is seen as abortion because it somehow, in his thinking, aborts the possibility of a soul being born. It defies the whole purpose of marriage. I don’t know if this joker is Catholic but when I went with my fiancee to see a priest about getting married he asked if we were planning on having children. If we had said no then he would not have married us. The exception would be if one or both of us was unable to have kids. The Catholic Church only recognizes the rhythm method as proper birth control. All other methods defy the real purpose of sex which is procreation. James Joyce partially blamed the church for his mother’s death because she ended up having so many kids. He referred to her as a “cracked vessel for childbearing.” [/quote]
Indeed.
But here’s the thing: He can lament all he wants for the poor soul that might have been, but he can’t use a medical and scientific term to describe what it does not, by definition, describe.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
You have to understand the argument from his religious point of view. Prevention is seen as abortion because it somehow, in his thinking, aborts the possibility of a soul being born. It defies the whole purpose of marriage. I don’t know if this joker is Catholic but when I went with my fiancee to see a priest about getting married he asked if we were planning on having children. If we had said no then he would not have married us. The exception would be if one or both of us was unable to have kids. The Catholic Church only recognizes the rhythm method as proper birth control. All other methods defy the real purpose of sex which is procreation. James Joyce partially blamed the church for his mother’s death because she ended up having so many kids. He referred to her as a “cracked vessel for childbearing.” [/quote]
Indeed.
But here’s the thing: He can lament all he wants for the poor soul that might have been, but he can’t use a medical and scientific term to describe what it does not, by definition, describe.[/quote]
Catholics are not even supposed to get vasectomies. The reason he uses the term abortion is for the dramatic effect. It’s about getting a reaction. The reality is that the Catholic church views unnatural birth control as a sin and that’s all there is to it. It doesn’t provide much shock value nor does it carry the same weight as calling it murder. It’s one thing to tell someone that birth control is a sin and another to call it murder.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
You have to understand the argument from his religious point of view. Prevention is seen as abortion because it somehow, in his thinking, aborts the possibility of a soul being born. It defies the whole purpose of marriage. I don’t know if this joker is Catholic but when I went with my fiancee to see a priest about getting married he asked if we were planning on having children. If we had said no then he would not have married us. The exception would be if one or both of us was unable to have kids. The Catholic Church only recognizes the rhythm method as proper birth control. All other methods defy the real purpose of sex which is procreation. James Joyce partially blamed the church for his mother’s death because she ended up having so many kids. He referred to her as a “cracked vessel for childbearing.” [/quote]
Indeed.
But here’s the thing: He can lament all he wants for the poor soul that might have been, but he can’t use a medical and scientific term to describe what it does not, by definition, describe.[/quote]
Catholics are not even supposed to get vasectomies. The reason he uses the term abortion is for the dramatic effect. It’s about getting a reaction. The reality is that the Catholic church views unnatural birth control as a sin and that’s all there is to it. It doesn’t provide much shock value nor does it carry the same weight as calling it murder. It’s one thing to tell someone that birth control is a sin and another to call it murder. [/quote]
Yeah, I’m aware. We’re in agreement.
My point is: You can be opposed to what you’d like, but if you’re lying, you’re a liar.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
My point is: You can be opposed to what you’d like, but if you’re lying, you’re a liar.[/quote]
I wouldn’t call him a liar he’s just trying too hard. He is ignorant and not well educated on many things, including Catholicism (assuming he professes to be Catholic). If you have ever watched the film Religulous there is an interview with Father Reginald Foster who talks about people like the OP.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
My point is: You can be opposed to what you’d like, but if you’re lying, you’re a liar.[/quote]
I wouldn’t call him a liar he’s just trying too hard. He is ignorant and not well educated on many things, including Catholicism (assuming he professes to be Catholic). If you have ever watched the film Religulous there is an interview with Father Reginald Foster who talks about people like the OP. [/quote]
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
My point is: You can be opposed to what you’d like, but if you’re lying, you’re a liar.[/quote]
I wouldn’t call him a liar he’s just trying too hard. He is ignorant and not well educated on many things, including Catholicism (assuming he professes to be Catholic). If you have ever watched the film Religulous there is an interview with Father Reginald Foster who talks about people like the OP. [/quote]
I suppose, if he believes it, liar is harsh.
Just ignorant and fatuous then.[/quote]
He is being “taught” by Youtube. It’s like watching The Flintstones to learn about dinosaurs.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If she’s black out drunk that was by her choice. Chain smoker, choice. Neither of your scenarios involves coercion. Should there have to be a trial? I don’t think so, at least in my opinion. Calling the police/filing a report should suffice. If it turns out she lied, well that’s a crime isn’t it?
Coercion = gray area.
Pregnancy is pretty safe, lol…[/quote]
When’s the last time you were blackout drunk? “Blackout” may not describe the type of drunk I am talking about well enough.
How would the government prove she lied? It’s supposed to be pretty difficult to prove a negative, right?[/quote]
I’ve never been blackout drunk, which is irrelevant. Unless some guy tied this imaginary girl down and poured alcohol down her throat until she passed out, it was still her choice.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
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]
Wrong yet again. Where have I said I have no problem with abortion?
Find it please. You won’t because I’ve never said it. Because I have a problem with abortion. A big one.
So you admit the comment on the pill “killing multiple women each year” was a red herring? Good. Thank you for that.
I will admit I misread your intention with the link. Seemed to me you posted it as a reply H Factor’s last point, but that was because you were responding line by line.