Pro-Lifer Throws Incendiary Device at PP

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.

Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.

Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]

Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]

Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.

My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.

I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.[/quote]

So, it’s only murder if the baby can survive without it’s mother (I’m guessing survive without dependence on others as well)?

So, if you were at a pool and you saw a 8 month old kid by the pool and he fell into the pool and he couldn’t swim, couldn’t help himself out, &c. it is okay for you to let that child drown because it’s only murder if the kid can survive without you?[/quote]

It’s interesting to me that you read what I wrote and this is what your brain came up with.

322

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.

Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.

Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]

Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]

Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.

My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.

I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.[/quote]

So, it’s only murder if the baby can survive without it’s mother (I’m guessing survive without dependence on others as well)?

So, if you were at a pool and you saw a 8 month old kid by the pool and he fell into the pool and he couldn’t swim, couldn’t help himself out, &c. it is okay for you to let that child drown because it’s only murder if the kid can survive without you?[/quote]

It’s interesting to me that you read what I wrote and this is what your brain came up with.[/quote]

What he wrote is more germane to your comment than you realize. You need to think about it in both directions.

323

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.

Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.

Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]

Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]

Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.

My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.

I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.[/quote]

The contention that abortion is murder does not require a religious argument to support it.

Your unexplored expression of right and wrong above touches upon the most fundamental and, so far as I have seen, heretofore unshakable pillar of the secular pro-life argument.

Care to try and figure out what it is? [/quote]

It’s a moral argument. I’m aware that morals exist independent of religion.

324

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.

Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.

Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]

Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]

Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.

My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.

I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.[/quote]

The contention that abortion is murder does not require a religious argument to support it.

Your unexplored expression of right and wrong above touches upon the most fundamental and, so far as I have seen, heretofore unshakable pillar of the secular pro-life argument.

Care to try and figure out what it is? [/quote]

It’s a moral argument. I’m aware that morals exist independent of religion.[/quote]

What’s the argument?

325

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.

Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.

Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]

Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]

Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.

My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.

I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.[/quote]

So, it’s only murder if the baby can survive without it’s mother (I’m guessing survive without dependence on others as well)?

So, if you were at a pool and you saw a 8 month old kid by the pool and he fell into the pool and he couldn’t swim, couldn’t help himself out, &c. it is okay for you to let that child drown because it’s only murder if the kid can survive without you?[/quote]

It’s interesting to me that you read what I wrote and this is what your brain came up with.[/quote]

What he wrote is more germane to your comment than you realize. You need to think about it in both directions.
[/quote]

No, it’s really not. It’s nitpicking my chosen verbiage, nothing more. Obviously a perfectly healthy child will die if it is not cared for, and saving a kid drowing in a pool is not the same thing.

This is the age-old “when does life start” argument. My position is that it starts when the child is able to survive outside of the womb with proper care. Functioning lungs, heart, etc. It is no longer dependent on the mother for life support. You can pick that apart all day about various details (machine life support, feeding tubes, what constitutes “proper care”, etc).

Is your position that it starts immediately after the sperm fuses with the ovum? Could it be before?

326

Life begins at the very moment of conception. Together the egg and sperm join resulting in the ovum and finally a child/person. After the amazing initial process, the fetus is then in a place where nature intended life to begin and develop.

Before the cycle starts we have two cell types [the egg or sperm] with half the genetic material of an individual. Separate, the two cells never becoming anything. By rights, a man provides half the genetics to the life, so why does he get no voice?

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.

Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.

Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]

Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]

Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.

My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.

I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.[/quote]

So, it’s only murder if the baby can survive without it’s mother (I’m guessing survive without dependence on others as well)?

So, if you were at a pool and you saw a 8 month old kid by the pool and he fell into the pool and he couldn’t swim, couldn’t help himself out, &c. it is okay for you to let that child drown because it’s only murder if the kid can survive without you?[/quote]

It’s interesting to me that you read what I wrote and this is what your brain came up with.[/quote]

What he wrote is more germane to your comment than you realize. You need to think about it in both directions.
[/quote]

No, it’s really not. It’s nitpicking my chosen verbiage, nothing more. Obviously a perfectly healthy child will die if it is not cared for, and saving a kid drowing in a pool is not the same thing.

This is the age-old “when does life start” argument. My position is that it starts when the child is able to survive outside of the womb with proper care. Functioning lungs, heart, etc. It is no longer dependent on the mother for life support. You can pick that apart all day about various details (machine life support, feeding tubes, what constitutes “proper care”, etc).

Is your position that it starts immediately after the sperm fuses with the ovum? Could it be before?[/quote]

327

I would just like to thank Bambi’s first post on this page for elevating the thread above “clusterfuck”. It is a MUCH more interesting conversation now than the complete tripe that was being bandied before.

I completely agree with his assessment of the “moral” vs. “realist” comment argumentation.

Interesting conversation between you two Cortes and Bambi. :slight_smile:

328

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Yup, argue for the whole population because that percent of a number is SO large, it doesn’t even total a single whole numerical value.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
choosing not to bring a child into the world.
[/quote]

I’ll stop you right here, there is a very easy and very non-lethal way to do this. If we’re going to act like gods, should we not have the responsibility of gods then?

If you wish not to bring a child into the world, then you should abstain from sex as we know sex leads to making babies. You can throw road blocks in the way, but the road ultimately leads to the same destination with or without road blocks: making babies. If you wish not to reach that destination, then don’t make that turn. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]

Excellent post, Chris.

/thread
[/quote]

Yeah, fuck all those woman who get raped and should no longer have a choice. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]
[/quote]

Oh so by your logic only those who represent the vast majority deserve rights?

329

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
“playing God” is when you exterminate any life when you deem necessary or in the way. Creating life should be given the same reverence.

Now please define the unborn for me.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
So I have a question for all you anti-abortion fellas. How would you all define “playing god” in a general sense? Interfering with the nature process of life perhaps?[/quote]
[/quote]

First, why is it that you can only “play god” when it comes to exterminating life? Why is it that saving a life that otherwise would have ended is not considered the same? Second, go back and read where I clearly told you how I was using unborn and finally, you failed to answer my question as to why the definition of unborn has any relevance to this argument.

330

YOU are arguing for the whole [populous vote] to decide the rights of all. I know ALL people deserve their own rights, regardless of what the population believes. Infringement upon the individuals rights are what I have a problem with.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Yup, argue for the whole population because that percent of a number is SO large, it doesn’t even total a single whole numerical value.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
choosing not to bring a child into the world.
[/quote]

I’ll stop you right here, there is a very easy and very non-lethal way to do this. If we’re going to act like gods, should we not have the responsibility of gods then?

If you wish not to bring a child into the world, then you should abstain from sex as we know sex leads to making babies. You can throw road blocks in the way, but the road ultimately leads to the same destination with or without road blocks: making babies. If you wish not to reach that destination, then don’t make that turn. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]

Excellent post, Chris.

/thread
[/quote]

Yeah, fuck all those woman who get raped and should no longer have a choice. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]
[/quote]

Oh so by your logic only those who represent the vast majority deserve rights? [/quote]

331

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
choosing not to bring a child into the world.
[/quote]

I’ll stop you right here, there is a very easy and very non-lethal way to do this. If we’re going to act like gods, should we not have the responsibility of gods then?

If you wish not to bring a child into the world, then you should abstain from sex as we know sex leads to making babies. You can throw road blocks in the way, but the road ultimately leads to the same destination with or without road blocks: making babies. If you wish not to reach that destination, then don’t make that turn. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]

Excellent post, Chris.

/thread
[/quote]

Yeah, fuck all those woman who get raped and should no longer have a choice. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]

Um…Oleena was talking about willingly creating a child. Your logic, sir, fails (as Dustin says). And, thanks for the emotional and fallacious arguments, but they are not needed (we’ve already seen them and answered them). As much as I can sympathize with those who have been raped, murdering an innocent child is not going to reverse rape.

And, because you brought the subject up, if you are willing to say that an unborn child should be allowed to be killed because their father is a rapist, then I am sure you’re fine with killing toddlers who has a rapist for a father.[/quote]

I dont give a fuck what oleena said. My whole point is that pathetic, religious people like you prefer to force your beliefs on others at the price of their rights. And yes of course I believe killing toddlers whose father is a rapist is fine because obviously a walking, breathing child is exactly the same as a multi-cellular mass the size of a pencil head.

332

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Life begins at the very moment of conception. Together the egg and sperm join resulting in the ovum and finally a child/person. After the amazing initial process, the fetus is then in a place where nature intended life to begin and develop.

Before the cycle starts we have two cell types [the egg or sperm] with half the genetic material of an individual. Separate, the two cells never becoming anything. By rights, a man provides half the genetics to the life, so why does he get no voice?

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.

Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.

Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]

Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]

Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.

My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.

I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.[/quote]

So, it’s only murder if the baby can survive without it’s mother (I’m guessing survive without dependence on others as well)?

So, if you were at a pool and you saw a 8 month old kid by the pool and he fell into the pool and he couldn’t swim, couldn’t help himself out, &c. it is okay for you to let that child drown because it’s only murder if the kid can survive without you?[/quote]

It’s interesting to me that you read what I wrote and this is what your brain came up with.[/quote]

What he wrote is more germane to your comment than you realize. You need to think about it in both directions.
[/quote]

No, it’s really not. It’s nitpicking my chosen verbiage, nothing more. Obviously a perfectly healthy child will die if it is not cared for, and saving a kid drowing in a pool is not the same thing.

This is the age-old “when does life start” argument. My position is that it starts when the child is able to survive outside of the womb with proper care. Functioning lungs, heart, etc. It is no longer dependent on the mother for life support. You can pick that apart all day about various details (machine life support, feeding tubes, what constitutes “proper care”, etc).

Is your position that it starts immediately after the sperm fuses with the ovum? Could it be before?[/quote]
[/quote]

Who says that life begins at the moment of conception? Why can it not begin earlier? Every egg and sperm is a potential child is it not?

333

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Life begins at the very moment of conception. Together the egg and sperm join resulting in the ovum and finally a child/person. After the amazing initial process, the fetus is then in a place where nature intended life to begin and develop.

Before the cycle starts we have two cell types [the egg or sperm] with half the genetic material of an individual. Separate, the two cells never becoming anything. By rights, a man provides half the genetics to the life, so why does he get no voice?

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.

Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.

Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]

Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]

Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.

My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.

I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.[/quote]

So, it’s only murder if the baby can survive without it’s mother (I’m guessing survive without dependence on others as well)?

So, if you were at a pool and you saw a 8 month old kid by the pool and he fell into the pool and he couldn’t swim, couldn’t help himself out, &c. it is okay for you to let that child drown because it’s only murder if the kid can survive without you?[/quote]

It’s interesting to me that you read what I wrote and this is what your brain came up with.[/quote]

What he wrote is more germane to your comment than you realize. You need to think about it in both directions.
[/quote]

No, it’s really not. It’s nitpicking my chosen verbiage, nothing more. Obviously a perfectly healthy child will die if it is not cared for, and saving a kid drowing in a pool is not the same thing.

This is the age-old “when does life start” argument. My position is that it starts when the child is able to survive outside of the womb with proper care. Functioning lungs, heart, etc. It is no longer dependent on the mother for life support. You can pick that apart all day about various details (machine life support, feeding tubes, what constitutes “proper care”, etc).

Is your position that it starts immediately after the sperm fuses with the ovum? Could it be before?[/quote]
[/quote]

Who says that life begins at the moment of conception? Why can it not begin earlier? Every egg and sperm is a potential child is it not? [/quote]

Clearly, life begins at breakfast, when you ingest the nutrients needed to

a) make sperm
b) make the right combination of chemicals to keep the uterus hospitable

334

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.

Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.

Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]

Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]

Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.

My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.

I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.[/quote]

So, it’s only murder if the baby can survive without it’s mother (I’m guessing survive without dependence on others as well)?

So, if you were at a pool and you saw a 8 month old kid by the pool and he fell into the pool and he couldn’t swim, couldn’t help himself out, &c. it is okay for you to let that child drown because it’s only murder if the kid can survive without you?[/quote]

It’s interesting to me that you read what I wrote and this is what your brain came up with.[/quote]

What he wrote is more germane to your comment than you realize. You need to think about it in both directions.
[/quote]

No, it’s really not. It’s nitpicking my chosen verbiage, nothing more. Obviously a perfectly healthy child will die if it is not cared for, and saving a kid drowing in a pool is not the same thing.

This is the age-old “when does life start” argument. My position is that it starts when the child is able to survive outside of the womb with proper care. Functioning lungs, heart, etc. It is no longer dependent on the mother for life support. You can pick that apart all day about various details (machine life support, feeding tubes, what constitutes “proper care”, etc).

Is your position that it starts immediately after the sperm fuses with the ovum? Could it be before?[/quote]

No, because biologically it is not a human.

335

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No, because biologically it is not a human.[/quote]

Who are you to dictate this?

336

Simple biology determines when a person is formed. Sure everything has potential. Every single child conceived and then born has potential to find the cure for cancer and any other topic you would like! Separate the the two cells will NEVER result in anything.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Life begins at the very moment of conception. Together the egg and sperm join resulting in the ovum and finally a child/person. After the amazing initial process, the fetus is then in a place where nature intended life to begin and develop.

Before the cycle starts we have two cell types [the egg or sperm] with half the genetic material of an individual. Separate, the two cells never becoming anything. By rights, a man provides half the genetics to the life, so why does he get no voice?

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.

Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.

Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]

Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]

Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.

My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.

I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.[/quote]

So, it’s only murder if the baby can survive without it’s mother (I’m guessing survive without dependence on others as well)?

So, if you were at a pool and you saw a 8 month old kid by the pool and he fell into the pool and he couldn’t swim, couldn’t help himself out, &c. it is okay for you to let that child drown because it’s only murder if the kid can survive without you?[/quote]

It’s interesting to me that you read what I wrote and this is what your brain came up with.[/quote]

What he wrote is more germane to your comment than you realize. You need to think about it in both directions.
[/quote]

No, it’s really not. It’s nitpicking my chosen verbiage, nothing more. Obviously a perfectly healthy child will die if it is not cared for, and saving a kid drowing in a pool is not the same thing.

This is the age-old “when does life start” argument. My position is that it starts when the child is able to survive outside of the womb with proper care. Functioning lungs, heart, etc. It is no longer dependent on the mother for life support. You can pick that apart all day about various details (machine life support, feeding tubes, what constitutes “proper care”, etc).

Is your position that it starts immediately after the sperm fuses with the ovum? Could it be before?[/quote]
[/quote]

Who says that life begins at the moment of conception? Why can it not begin earlier? Every egg and sperm is a potential child is it not? [/quote]

337

Extermination of any and all human life is wrong in my mind!

Where did I wish to exterminate life?

When you define the unborn you can then tell me how you justify the killing of another person.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
“playing God” is when you exterminate any life when you deem necessary or in the way. Creating life should be given the same reverence.

Now please define the unborn for me.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
So I have a question for all you anti-abortion fellas. How would you all define “playing god” in a general sense? Interfering with the nature process of life perhaps?[/quote]
[/quote]

First, why is it that you can only “play god” when it comes to exterminating life? Why is it that saving a life that otherwise would have ended is not considered the same? Second, go back and read where I clearly told you how I was using unborn and finally, you failed to answer my question as to why the definition of unborn has any relevance to this argument.[/quote]

338

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Life begins at the very moment of conception. Together the egg and sperm join resulting in the ovum and finally a child/person. After the amazing initial process, the fetus is then in a place where nature intended life to begin and develop.

Before the cycle starts we have two cell types [the egg or sperm] with half the genetic material of an individual. Separate, the two cells never becoming anything. By rights, a man provides half the genetics to the life, so why does he get no voice?

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.

Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.

Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]

Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]

Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.

My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.

I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.[/quote]

So, it’s only murder if the baby can survive without it’s mother (I’m guessing survive without dependence on others as well)?

So, if you were at a pool and you saw a 8 month old kid by the pool and he fell into the pool and he couldn’t swim, couldn’t help himself out, &c. it is okay for you to let that child drown because it’s only murder if the kid can survive without you?[/quote]

It’s interesting to me that you read what I wrote and this is what your brain came up with.[/quote]

What he wrote is more germane to your comment than you realize. You need to think about it in both directions.
[/quote]

No, it’s really not. It’s nitpicking my chosen verbiage, nothing more. Obviously a perfectly healthy child will die if it is not cared for, and saving a kid drowing in a pool is not the same thing.

This is the age-old “when does life start” argument. My position is that it starts when the child is able to survive outside of the womb with proper care. Functioning lungs, heart, etc. It is no longer dependent on the mother for life support. You can pick that apart all day about various details (machine life support, feeding tubes, what constitutes “proper care”, etc).

Is your position that it starts immediately after the sperm fuses with the ovum? Could it be before?[/quote]
[/quote]

Who says that life begins at the moment of conception? Why can it not begin earlier? Every egg and sperm is a potential child is it not? [/quote]

Clearly, life begins at breakfast, when you ingest the nutrients needed to

a) make sperm
b) make the right combination of chemicals to keep the uterus hospitable[/quote]

For women, it begins in our mother’s uterus, where all of our eggs are formed at the same time as we are. We’re like tribbles :slight_smile:

339

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No, because biologically it is not a human.[/quote]

Who are you to dictate this?[/quote]

Also, at what point is something biologically not human? We need a real definition here. How many gene deviations does it take? Is there a percentage? That whole not being able to breed with the original species thing is not a good enough definition, because in some species, all it’s taken is ONE deviation! We have humans deviated from each other further than that and we still consider them the same species.

340

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]joutmez wrote:
This debate is 12 pages too long. I only got like four pages in before I gave up. Anyways Roe vs. Wade ruled in favor of a womens right to privacy and thus protecting and allowing her to make her own decesion regarding her pregnacy. That was almost forty years ago and overturning such a ruling would create such a new precedent allowing for other cases to be reexamined and new rulings to be made. Rest assured the Supreme Court and the rest of the Gov does not want that. So I feel it safe to say abortion is here to stay. I guess were going to have to agree to disagree and learn to cope with each others opposing viewpoints. Really though the problem lies in our culture. Rates of unwanted pregancy and abortion are startingly lower in Europe and else where were sex is openly discussed and viewed as a normal part of life unlike here in the states where it is a taboo subject. Minimize occurance of unwanted pregnancy and you get rid of abortion. [/quote]

Don’t want unwanted pregnancies, don’t have sex. And, this is the same logic as well, if we over turn slavery then it’ll create new precedent to allowing other cases to be reexamined.[/quote]

All of the pro-lifers like this argument, because free-will and equality are paramount to their argument. However, not everyone is born with the same amount of self control. Terrible life circumstances add to the negative, uncontrolled aspects of a person’s actions as well. If these people do not want to be parents, who are you to force that one them? And if they don’t want to take the chance on adoption, why are you forcing them to complete what they started? It is these very people, who lack self control in such a way that would result in an unwanted pregnancy, that would make the worst parents, yet you argue that they should try and keep every one of their children. Does this sound like a smart idea to you? Be realistic. Not everyone is going to have enough self-control to avoid sex and use protection when they should and those are exactly the people who shouldn’t be parents and there are NOT enough people to adopt their kids or foster them.

You want to take away the conscious choice to abort, but refuse to address the fact that your body naturally aborts at any point in the process when conditions are not favorable that it can sense. If the child’s genes are messed up, the body often aborts it. If the parent isn’t eating right, the body aborts it. Sometimes, for no reason that can be sensed, the body aborts.

[b] When the body consciously does this (as in the case of messed up genes such or unfavorable conditions in the middle of pregnancy), is it committing a crime, or is it furthering it and it’s offspring’s survival for the good of the species? [/b]