[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You don’t have to and at the same time you don’t have to allow abortion.[/quote]
Mind explaining, Chris? I’m genuinely curious.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
1+x=10… 99% of the time… unless x doesn’t equal 9… But that only happens 1% of the time so we can ignore that.
It’s just horribly flawed to think that way.
As for defining “unborn” for you,
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Unborn - An infant state of life that has not existed outside of its mother
[/quote]
First page
I didn’t really know what you were getting at then and I still don’t now.[/quote]
This contradicts with your earlier assertion of a cut-off point for allowing abortions (after the start of the 2nd or 3rd trimester, I forget which one you said). If you are going to stick with what you said earlier, then the child is still in the womb. If you are going to go with this, then it seems you are endorsing abortion at any time right up to the day a woman goes into labor.
So, which is it?
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]
I don’t quite understand this question. Could you rephrase it possibly? [/quote]
Where do you draw the line between a parent doing what is her “choice” and child abuse. When it is finally time to step in and stop someone and call the act abuse?[/quote]
Ehhhhhh, I don’t know… lol.[/quote]
Ooooookaaaaay…
Does this not give you pause?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]cvb wrote:
I do agree that a woman has a right to an abortion if her life is threatened. It is self defense. For myself, I would try to save the child first.
[/quote]
Negative, abortions are always wrong.[/quote]
Catholic Priests are always child molesters.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
1+x=10… 99% of the time… unless x doesn’t equal 9… But that only happens 1% of the time so we can ignore that.
It’s just horribly flawed to think that way.
As for defining “unborn” for you,
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Unborn - An infant state of life that has not existed outside of its mother
[/quote]
First page
I didn’t really know what you were getting at then and I still don’t now.[/quote]
This contradicts with your earlier assertion of a cut-off point for allowing abortions (after the start of the 2nd or 3rd trimester, I forget which one you said). If you are going to stick with what you said earlier, then the child is still in the womb. If you are going to go with this, then it seems you are endorsing abortion at any time right up to the day a woman goes into labor.
So, which is it?
[/quote]
After the 2nd trimester(roughly) I believe abortion is no longer an option. That is because at around this time you can remove the unborn from the womb and have it live(I went into detail earlier in the thread). The point of an abortion(in my mind) is to remove an unwanted parasite, not to kill an organism. It just so happens when you remove a young fetus it dies. You remove the developed parasite and it is still alive so then what? It is not unreasonable to restrict abortion to the earlier trimesters to prevent this conundrum from occurring. This is why I do not support 3rd trimester abortions.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]
I don’t quite understand this question. Could you rephrase it possibly? [/quote]
Where do you draw the line between a parent doing what is her “choice” and child abuse. When it is finally time to step in and stop someone and call the act abuse?[/quote]
Ehhhhhh, I don’t know… lol.[/quote]
Ooooookaaaaay…
Does this not give you pause? [/quote]
I don’t think “child” abuse and abortion are at all related. There is no “child” involved in abortions…
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]flores87 wrote:
I would say that a life begins with the parents decision to have sex. As I stated earlier the purpose of sex is to create children. So if two people decide to have sex they are choosing to create children. I know it takes time for the fetus to fully develop, however the child’s parents decided to mix their genetic material to create this life. It all starts with the parents decision so the moment the sperm penetrates the egg and the development process begins, this is where I believe a human life begins. [/quote]
I give you:
the Bonobo!
Who, incidentally, fucks like a demented rabid on speed, for all kinds of reasons, with procreation being the least of his worries.
[/quote]
Nature of Man is not the savage or beast, sorry orion.[/quote]
Says you, but stapling two unfounded assumptions on top of each other do not a convincing argument make.
[/quote]
Says 2400+ years of history.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You have my attention as I study: hook, line and sinker. Which other option does she still have?
[/quote]
Depends. What is the problem the mother is experiencing?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]cvb wrote:
I do agree that a woman has a right to an abortion if her life is threatened. It is self defense. For myself, I would try to save the child first.
[/quote]
Negative, abortions are always wrong.[/quote]
Catholic Priests are always child molesters.[/quote]
Prove it.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You don’t have to and at the same time you don’t have to allow abortion.[/quote]
Mind explaining, Chris? I’m genuinely curious.
[/quote]
First principles and alternative operations, generally.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]cvb wrote:
I do agree that a woman has a right to an abortion if her life is threatened. It is self defense. For myself, I would try to save the child first.
[/quote]
Negative, abortions are always wrong.[/quote]
Catholic Priests are always child molesters.[/quote]
Prove it.[/quote]
Satire detection fail. Irony level +1; humor level +3.
If I was ever on the side of an argument with Mr. I’m always right your always wrong, my god is the only god your god is fake I would seriously reconsider whatever thoughts we shared… Everything is black and white with this guy… Maybe somebody needs to resuscitate his grey matter… lol (and yes I did steal that pun, I thought it was appropriate here)
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]flores87 wrote:
I would say that a life begins with the parents decision to have sex. As I stated earlier the purpose of sex is to create children. So if two people decide to have sex they are choosing to create children. I know it takes time for the fetus to fully develop, however the child’s parents decided to mix their genetic material to create this life. It all starts with the parents decision so the moment the sperm penetrates the egg and the development process begins, this is where I believe a human life begins. [/quote]
I give you:
the Bonobo!
Who, incidentally, fucks like a demented rabid on speed, for all kinds of reasons, with procreation being the least of his worries.
[/quote]
Nature of Man is not the savage or beast, sorry orion.[/quote]
Says you, but stapling two unfounded assumptions on top of each other do not a convincing argument make.
[/quote]
Says 2400+ years of history.[/quote]
No, that actually says that we have a rather beastly and savage streak.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]cvb wrote:
I do agree that a woman has a right to an abortion if her life is threatened. It is self defense. For myself, I would try to save the child first.
[/quote]
Negative, abortions are always wrong.[/quote]
Catholic Priests are always child molesters.[/quote]
Prove it.[/quote]
Swing and a miss.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
1+x=10… 99% of the time… unless x doesn’t equal 9… But that only happens 1% of the time so we can ignore that.
It’s just horribly flawed to think that way.[/quote]
I do not consider myself pro-choice and the choice is whether or not to have sex. I am pro life. It is about not murdering.
The choice to have sex is to prevent pregnancy. You know that if you have sex there might be a baby. If you don’t want a baby, do not have sex. There is an exception to every rule. A woman that is raped did not decide to have sex. Yes, that is correct. But if she is pregnant then she is going to be a mommy. I do not believe that her rape justifies her killing her baby.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]
I don’t quite understand this question. Could you rephrase it possibly? [/quote]
Where do you draw the line between a parent doing what is her “choice” and child abuse. When it is finally time to step in and stop someone and call the act abuse?[/quote]
Ehhhhhh, I don’t know… lol.[/quote]
Ooooookaaaaay…
Does this not give you pause? [/quote]
I don’t think “child” abuse and abortion are at all related. There is no “child” involved in abortions…
[/quote]
Ahh, good, I see you are detecting my point.
Okay, this brings us full circle now to a question I asked you earlier. I don’t feel I received an adequate answer so I am going to quote the exchange and then rephrase the question below.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Okay. Understood.
So what is the point at which the parasite becomes a human? What changes, exactly?[/quote]
To me its cut and dry. Whenever the fetus’s survival no longer pivots on co-existence in a parasitic biological interaction then it is no longer a parasite and becomes “human”. Basically, when you can pull that little fetus out of the womb and hook it up to some machines and shit and have it live… If you can pull it out of the womb(lets have a 4month old fetus as an example) and through no miracle of medical science have it any hopes of living, it is still a parasite. If you can pull it out of the womb(lets call this fetus 8months) and hook it up to a machine and have that little bastard live… Ect. Of course, I THINK the state defines this transition as the third trimester.
[/quote]
See, I didn’t ask, “What conditions change?” I asked, "What changes?
In one moment it is a parasite. In the next, it becomes a child. What about the organism itself changed in that moment? Please answer.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]
I don’t quite understand this question. Could you rephrase it possibly? [/quote]
Where do you draw the line between a parent doing what is her “choice” and child abuse. When it is finally time to step in and stop someone and call the act abuse?[/quote]
Ehhhhhh, I don’t know… lol.[/quote]
Ooooookaaaaay…
Does this not give you pause? [/quote]
I don’t think “child” abuse and abortion are at all related. There is no “child” involved in abortions…
[/quote]
Ahh, good, I see you are detecting my point.
Okay, this brings us full circle now to a question I asked you earlier. I don’t feel I received an adequate answer so I am going to quote the exchange and then rephrase the question below.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Okay. Understood.
So what is the point at which the parasite becomes a human? What changes, exactly?[/quote]
To me its cut and dry. Whenever the fetus’s survival no longer pivots on co-existence in a parasitic biological interaction then it is no longer a parasite and becomes “human”. Basically, when you can pull that little fetus out of the womb and hook it up to some machines and shit and have it live… If you can pull it out of the womb(lets have a 4month old fetus as an example) and through no miracle of medical science have it any hopes of living, it is still a parasite. If you can pull it out of the womb(lets call this fetus 8months) and hook it up to a machine and have that little bastard live… Ect. Of course, I THINK the state defines this transition as the third trimester.
[/quote]
See, I didn’t ask, “What conditions change?” I asked, "What changes?
In one moment it is a parasite. In the next, it becomes a child. What about the organism itself changed in that moment? Please answer.
[/quote]
I. Just. Did. After the 2nd trimester the parasite no longer requires the host for survival. In that, its removal does is not synonymous with its death(an unrelated solution to the problem of it being a bastard offspring that nobody wants). This brings up a conundrum of what to do with this unwanted, now premature baby. And since your crowd doesn’t put its money where its mouth is a provide shelter for them, I am in favor of restricting abortions to the first 2 trimesters. If you didn’t understand what I said that time, don’t bother asking a 3rd time(not to sound hostile, it’s just I answered you directly both times).
PS It never goes from parasite to “child” within the womb. The fetus stays a parasitic organism until the moment the umbilical cord is cut.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]
I don’t quite understand this question. Could you rephrase it possibly? [/quote]
Where do you draw the line between a parent doing what is her “choice” and child abuse. When it is finally time to step in and stop someone and call the act abuse?[/quote]
Ehhhhhh, I don’t know… lol.[/quote]
Ooooookaaaaay…
Does this not give you pause? [/quote]
I don’t think “child” abuse and abortion are at all related. There is no “child” involved in abortions…
[/quote]
Ahh, good, I see you are detecting my point.
Okay, this brings us full circle now to a question I asked you earlier. I don’t feel I received an adequate answer so I am going to quote the exchange and then rephrase the question below.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Okay. Understood.
So what is the point at which the parasite becomes a human? What changes, exactly?[/quote]
To me its cut and dry. Whenever the fetus’s survival no longer pivots on co-existence in a parasitic biological interaction then it is no longer a parasite and becomes “human”. Basically, when you can pull that little fetus out of the womb and hook it up to some machines and shit and have it live… If you can pull it out of the womb(lets have a 4month old fetus as an example) and through no miracle of medical science have it any hopes of living, it is still a parasite. If you can pull it out of the womb(lets call this fetus 8months) and hook it up to a machine and have that little bastard live… Ect. Of course, I THINK the state defines this transition as the third trimester.
[/quote]
See, I didn’t ask, “What conditions change?” I asked, "What changes?
In one moment it is a parasite. In the next, it becomes a child. What about the organism itself changed in that moment? Please answer.
[/quote]
I. Just. Did. After the 2nd trimester the parasite no longer requires the host for survival. In that, its removal does is not synonymous with its death(an unrelated solution to the problem of it being a bastard offspring that nobody wants). This brings up a conundrum of what to do with this unwanted, now premature baby. And since your crowd doesn’t put its money where its mouth is a provide shelter for them, I am in favor of restricting abortions to the first 2 trimesters. If you didn’t understand what I said that time, don’t bother asking a 3rd time(not to sound hostile, it’s just I answered you directly both times).
PS It never goes from parasite to “child” within the womb. The fetus stays a parasitic organism until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. [/quote]
Soooo, is someone on life support a parasite?
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]
I don’t quite understand this question. Could you rephrase it possibly? [/quote]
Where do you draw the line between a parent doing what is her “choice” and child abuse. When it is finally time to step in and stop someone and call the act abuse?[/quote]
Ehhhhhh, I don’t know… lol.[/quote]
Ooooookaaaaay…
Does this not give you pause? [/quote]
I don’t think “child” abuse and abortion are at all related. There is no “child” involved in abortions…
[/quote]
Ahh, good, I see you are detecting my point.
Okay, this brings us full circle now to a question I asked you earlier. I don’t feel I received an adequate answer so I am going to quote the exchange and then rephrase the question below.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Okay. Understood.
So what is the point at which the parasite becomes a human? What changes, exactly?[/quote]
To me its cut and dry. Whenever the fetus’s survival no longer pivots on co-existence in a parasitic biological interaction then it is no longer a parasite and becomes “human”. Basically, when you can pull that little fetus out of the womb and hook it up to some machines and shit and have it live… If you can pull it out of the womb(lets have a 4month old fetus as an example) and through no miracle of medical science have it any hopes of living, it is still a parasite. If you can pull it out of the womb(lets call this fetus 8months) and hook it up to a machine and have that little bastard live… Ect. Of course, I THINK the state defines this transition as the third trimester.
[/quote]
See, I didn’t ask, “What conditions change?” I asked, "What changes?
In one moment it is a parasite. In the next, it becomes a child. What about the organism itself changed in that moment? Please answer.
[/quote]
I. Just. Did. After the 2nd trimester the parasite no longer requires the host for survival. In that, its removal does is not synonymous with its death(an unrelated solution to the problem of it being a bastard offspring that nobody wants). This brings up a conundrum of what to do with this unwanted, now premature baby. And since your crowd doesn’t put its money where its mouth is a provide shelter for them, I am in favor of restricting abortions to the first 2 trimesters. If you didn’t understand what I said that time, don’t bother asking a 3rd time(not to sound hostile, it’s just I answered you directly both times).
PS It never goes from parasite to “child” within the womb. The fetus stays a parasitic organism until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. [/quote]
You are contradicting yourself. Your PS demonstrates this contradiction. Can you not see it?
Again, you are either misunderstanding me, or avoiding my point. I specifically stated that I am not talking about the conditions of the pregnancy.
I will rephrase one more time, and put it just a bit differently:
Did the organism itself change? Not it’s circumstances. The organism connected to its mother via the umbilical cord. Did THAT ORGANISM change in form in some manner?
And btw, Aragorn already demonstrated that your argument as it stands above can be quickly dismantled with an advance in medical technology, and is therefore not sound.
That’s not the rabbit I’m chasing, however.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]
I don’t quite understand this question. Could you rephrase it possibly? [/quote]
Where do you draw the line between a parent doing what is her “choice” and child abuse. When it is finally time to step in and stop someone and call the act abuse?[/quote]
Ehhhhhh, I don’t know… lol.[/quote]
Ooooookaaaaay…
Does this not give you pause? [/quote]
I don’t think “child” abuse and abortion are at all related. There is no “child” involved in abortions…
[/quote]
Ahh, good, I see you are detecting my point.
Okay, this brings us full circle now to a question I asked you earlier. I don’t feel I received an adequate answer so I am going to quote the exchange and then rephrase the question below.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Okay. Understood.
So what is the point at which the parasite becomes a human? What changes, exactly?[/quote]
To me its cut and dry. Whenever the fetus’s survival no longer pivots on co-existence in a parasitic biological interaction then it is no longer a parasite and becomes “human”. Basically, when you can pull that little fetus out of the womb and hook it up to some machines and shit and have it live… If you can pull it out of the womb(lets have a 4month old fetus as an example) and through no miracle of medical science have it any hopes of living, it is still a parasite. If you can pull it out of the womb(lets call this fetus 8months) and hook it up to a machine and have that little bastard live… Ect. Of course, I THINK the state defines this transition as the third trimester.
[/quote]
See, I didn’t ask, “What conditions change?” I asked, "What changes?
In one moment it is a parasite. In the next, it becomes a child. What about the organism itself changed in that moment? Please answer.
[/quote]
I. Just. Did. After the 2nd trimester the parasite no longer requires the host for survival. In that, its removal does is not synonymous with its death(an unrelated solution to the problem of it being a bastard offspring that nobody wants). This brings up a conundrum of what to do with this unwanted, now premature baby. And since your crowd doesn’t put its money where its mouth is a provide shelter for them, I am in favor of restricting abortions to the first 2 trimesters. If you didn’t understand what I said that time, don’t bother asking a 3rd time(not to sound hostile, it’s just I answered you directly both times).
PS It never goes from parasite to “child” within the womb. The fetus stays a parasitic organism until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. [/quote]
You are contradicting yourself. Your PS demonstrates this contradiction. Can you not see it?
Again, you are either misunderstanding me, or avoiding my point. I specifically stated that I am not talking about the conditions of the pregnancy.
I will rephrase one more time, and put it just a bit differently:
Did the organism itself change? Not it’s circumstances. The organism connected to its mother via the umbilical cord. Did THAT ORGANISM change in form in some manner?
[/quote]
For the mother fucking 3rd time YES it mother fucking changed. IT NO LONGER REQUIRES A HOST ORGANISM FOR SURVIVAL. CAN YOU NOT FUCKING READ?! HOLY FUCK MY PATIENCE IS SHOT.