Pro-Lifer Throws Incendiary Device at PP

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Here’s one for you guys. Since you are so fond of this “argument” form, How would you feel if you were married, had one child already and you were ready for number two. You and your wife have already agreed, together, to have this child. She gets pregnant, and you are just thrilled, you tell your current child, who is just old enough to understand, that she has a little sister or brother coming.

Then, your wife suddenly has a change of heart. She can’t do it. It’s just under three months in but there’s no way she can do it, she is going to have the abortion.

What would you do and how would you feel? [/quote]

Initially, I’d be gutted.

Though, I’d still respect her choice.

What would you do?[/quote]

I’d be a man.

I’d do everything in my power to persuade and prevent her from murdering our child.

What,did you abdicate all your rights as a man to feminism and “choice?”
[/quote]

Men have different values dude. Sorry to break this to you.

IMHO, pandering to either gender ideal (of what makes a ‘real man’ or ‘real woman’) is what makes you a real pussycake!

Feminism is a rather tired scapegoat here.

[/quote]

What universe do you inhabit where it is not an ideal to fight for the life of your child, particularly when you share exactly one half of the responsibility for the creation of that life?

But okay, let’s pursue this. If you don’t mind, why would you be disappointed?
[/quote]

Dissapointed by what exactly?

Please, do yourself a favour & realise that not everyone shares your view. Far from in fact. However passionately you might believe you are correct.

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Here’s one for you guys. Since you are so fond of this “argument” form, How would you feel if you were married, had one child already and you were ready for number two. You and your wife have already agreed, together, to have this child. She gets pregnant, and you are just thrilled, you tell your current child, who is just old enough to understand, that she has a little sister or brother coming.

Then, your wife suddenly has a change of heart. She can’t do it. It’s just under three months in but there’s no way she can do it, she is going to have the abortion.

What would you do and how would you feel? [/quote]

Initially, I’d be gutted.

Though, I’d still respect her choice.

What would you do?[/quote]

I’d be a man.

I’d do everything in my power to persuade and prevent her from murdering our child.

What,did you abdicate all your rights as a man to feminism and “choice?”
[/quote]

Men have different values dude. Sorry to break this to you.

IMHO, pandering to either gender ideal (of what makes a ‘real man’ or ‘real woman’) is what makes you a real pussycake!

Feminism is a rather tired scapegoat here.

[/quote]

What universe do you inhabit where it is not an ideal to fight for the life of your child, particularly when you share exactly one half of the responsibility for the creation of that life?

But okay, let’s pursue this. If you don’t mind, why would you be disappointed?
[/quote]

Dissapointed by what exactly?

Please, do yourself a favour & realise that not everyone shares your view. Far from in fact. However passionately you might believe you are correct. [/quote]

Oh I am well aware of that, no favors or advice necessary.

In response to my hypothetical involving your wife who wanted to abort, you said, “I’d be gutted.”

Why would you feel so?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Vasectomies are a sensible option for people that don’t want kids.
[/quote]

It’s really simple, if you aren’t open to having children…DON’T HAVE SEX. It’s the whole road
thing, if you don’t wanna go North Carolina, don’t take the 40.[/quote]

Wow, such practical advice.

If we applied this logic to everything else in life, we’d never do anything.
[/quote]

I don’t get what you’re trying to say, can you explain.[/quote]

I’m saying your view is basically a nice ideal. Though, deeply impractical.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Here’s one for you guys. Since you are so fond of this “argument” form, How would you feel if you were married, had one child already and you were ready for number two. You and your wife have already agreed, together, to have this child. She gets pregnant, and you are just thrilled, you tell your current child, who is just old enough to understand, that she has a little sister or brother coming.

Then, your wife suddenly has a change of heart. She can’t do it. It’s just under three months in but there’s no way she can do it, she is going to have the abortion.

What would you do and how would you feel? [/quote]

Initially, I’d be gutted.

Though, I’d still respect her choice.

What would you do?[/quote]

I’d be a man.

I’d do everything in my power to persuade and prevent her from murdering our child.

What,did you abdicate all your rights as a man to feminism and “choice?”
[/quote]

Men have different values dude. Sorry to break this to you.

IMHO, pandering to either gender ideal (of what makes a ‘real man’ or ‘real woman’) is what makes you a real pussycake!

Feminism is a rather tired scapegoat here.

[/quote]

What universe do you inhabit where it is not an ideal to fight for the life of your child, particularly when you share exactly one half of the responsibility for the creation of that life?

But okay, let’s pursue this. If you don’t mind, why would you be disappointed?
[/quote]

Dissapointed by what exactly?

Please, do yourself a favour & realise that not everyone shares your view. Far from in fact. However passionately you might believe you are correct. [/quote]

Oh I am well aware of that, no favors or advice necessary.

In response to my hypothetical involving your wife who wanted to abort, you said, “I’d be gutted.”

Why would you feel so?
[/quote]

Human nature, any expectation which doesn’t come to fruition = Some degree of disappointment/frustration.

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Here’s one for you guys. Since you are so fond of this “argument” form, How would you feel if you were married, had one child already and you were ready for number two. You and your wife have already agreed, together, to have this child. She gets pregnant, and you are just thrilled, you tell your current child, who is just old enough to understand, that she has a little sister or brother coming.

Then, your wife suddenly has a change of heart. She can’t do it. It’s just under three months in but there’s no way she can do it, she is going to have the abortion.

What would you do and how would you feel? [/quote]

Initially, I’d be gutted.

Though, I’d still respect her choice.

What would you do?[/quote]

I’d be a man.

I’d do everything in my power to persuade and prevent her from murdering our child.

What,did you abdicate all your rights as a man to feminism and “choice?”
[/quote]

Men have different values dude. Sorry to break this to you.

IMHO, pandering to either gender ideal (of what makes a ‘real man’ or ‘real woman’) is what makes you a real pussycake!

Feminism is a rather tired scapegoat here.

[/quote]

What universe do you inhabit where it is not an ideal to fight for the life of your child, particularly when you share exactly one half of the responsibility for the creation of that life?

But okay, let’s pursue this. If you don’t mind, why would you be disappointed?
[/quote]

Dissapointed by what exactly?

Please, do yourself a favour & realise that not everyone shares your view. Far from in fact. However passionately you might believe you are correct. [/quote]

Oh I am well aware of that, no favors or advice necessary.

In response to my hypothetical involving your wife who wanted to abort, you said, “I’d be gutted.”

Why would you feel so?
[/quote]

Human nature, any expectation which doesn’t come to fruition = Some degree of disappointment/frustration. [/quote]

No, I asked why you would feel frustrated. You just repeated yourself.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
You missed the point.[/quote]

Then explain it. It is after all your point.

Why don’t you consider Natural Law and come back to me on that.

[quote]
You can pretend all you want that your view on this issue is informed by nothing but pure logic etc…though, you’d be wrong. You just don’t see it.[/quote]

Well then let’s reason this out. Let’s get some common ground first, is a child that is born alive?

[quote]
I dare say, religion has something to do with it. [/quote]

You’d be wrong, I was pro-life before I was religious. Christopher Hitchens is pro-life as well, doubt you’d say it is because of religion that he’s pro-life.[/quote]

My apologies for rather rudely assuming your view was primarily motivated/maintained by faith.

Anyways…With regars Natural Law: My problem with natural law is that I don’t believe nature to be moral, to me, nature is morally neutral. The danger with natural law is that we take what happens most of the time, moralize that this is either permissible or indeed morally laudable & we effectively demonize anything OR anybody which isn’t quite in-keeping with this view.

For me, their is a very significant difference between something being far from ideal & actually being morally wrong. I think to think otherwise is a very slippery slope.

Supporters of natural law will often try & convince people that their views are the by-products of reason & observation (their are no inherent value judgements driven by emotion) .Though, in reality I will always contend morality basically falls apart without at least some emotional weightedness.

With regards me citing taboo morality, the point I’m hinting at here is that while certain things may seem deeply unpleasant, (lets consider cannabalism for example), when you examine the actual reasons behind why many if not most people object to such practices, they are highly emotive in nature.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Here’s one for you guys. Since you are so fond of this “argument” form, How would you feel if you were married, had one child already and you were ready for number two. You and your wife have already agreed, together, to have this child. She gets pregnant, and you are just thrilled, you tell your current child, who is just old enough to understand, that she has a little sister or brother coming.

Then, your wife suddenly has a change of heart. She can’t do it. It’s just under three months in but there’s no way she can do it, she is going to have the abortion.

What would you do and how would you feel? [/quote]

Initially, I’d be gutted.

Though, I’d still respect her choice.

What would you do?[/quote]

I’d be a man.

I’d do everything in my power to persuade and prevent her from murdering our child.

What,did you abdicate all your rights as a man to feminism and “choice?”
[/quote]

Men have different values dude. Sorry to break this to you.

IMHO, pandering to either gender ideal (of what makes a ‘real man’ or ‘real woman’) is what makes you a real pussycake!

Feminism is a rather tired scapegoat here.

[/quote]

What universe do you inhabit where it is not an ideal to fight for the life of your child, particularly when you share exactly one half of the responsibility for the creation of that life?

But okay, let’s pursue this. If you don’t mind, why would you be disappointed?
[/quote]

Dissapointed by what exactly?

Please, do yourself a favour & realise that not everyone shares your view. Far from in fact. However passionately you might believe you are correct. [/quote]

Oh I am well aware of that, no favors or advice necessary.

In response to my hypothetical involving your wife who wanted to abort, you said, “I’d be gutted.”

Why would you feel so?
[/quote]

Human nature, any expectation which doesn’t come to fruition = Some degree of disappointment/frustration. [/quote]

No, I asked why you would feel frustrated. You just repeated yourself. [/quote]

Because I’d be anticipating fatherdom.

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

Because I’d be anticipating fatherdom.
[/quote]

But you would let your wife kill your child? Doesn’t sound like you are anticipating it that much. Or am I missing something here?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Christopher Hitchens is pro-life as well, doubt you’d say it is because of religion that he’s pro-life.[/quote]

I’m going to stop you right here. This is very typical of you. You make statements like this and omit very crucial pieces of information.

Hitchens is very much in favor of things like RU-486 (mifepristone). He may not be a fan of surgical abortion, but he is not the type to see it banned it either. Because you see, unlike you, he isn’t a moron and fundamentally believes in access to contraceptives and reproductive rights in order to prevent surgical abortion altogether.

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Vasectomies are a sensible option for people that don’t want kids.
[/quote]

It’s really simple, if you aren’t open to having children…DON’T HAVE SEX. It’s the whole road
thing, if you don’t wanna go North Carolina, don’t take the 40.[/quote]

Wow, such practical advice.

If we applied this logic to everything else in life, we’d never do anything.
[/quote]

I don’t get what you’re trying to say, can you explain.[/quote]

I’m saying your view is basically a nice ideal. Though, deeply impractical.

[/quote]

I know it’s difficult, but impractical it definitely isn’t.

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
You missed the point.[/quote]

Then explain it. It is after all your point.

Why don’t you consider Natural Law and come back to me on that.

[quote]
You can pretend all you want that your view on this issue is informed by nothing but pure logic etc…though, you’d be wrong. You just don’t see it.[/quote]

Well then let’s reason this out. Let’s get some common ground first, is a child that is born alive?

[quote]
I dare say, religion has something to do with it. [/quote]

You’d be wrong, I was pro-life before I was religious. Christopher Hitchens is pro-life as well, doubt you’d say it is because of religion that he’s pro-life.[/quote]

My apologies for rather rudely assuming your view was primarily motivated/maintained by faith.

Anyways…With regars Natural Law: My problem with natural law is that I don’t believe nature to be moral, to me, nature is morally neutral. The danger with natural law is that we take what happens most of the time, moralize that this is either permissible or indeed morally laudable & we effectively demonize anything OR anybody which isn’t quite in-keeping with this view.[/quote]

That’s not really Natural Law. Natural Law’s premise is basically there is positive law and there is Natural Law. NL is what is true for all (well most) societies and cultures. Well it has done great so far, it is the foundation for most of the European Government, American government, &c. It also put the Nazi leaders to death.

And does this include willingly terminating the unborn?

[quote]
Supporters of natural law will often try & convince people that their views are the by-products of reason & observation (their are no inherent value judgements driven by emotion) .Though, in reality I will always contend morality basically falls apart without at least some emotional weightedness.[/quote]

I suppose, but what does one’s emotions towards something have to do with it’s reasoning. Yes, we don’t want to use emotion to prove something. However, that doesn’t mean that because someone has emotions that they can’t reason. Otherwise that goes to dangerous places.

Well, I guess the you’ll have a problem with the Stoic’s Natural Law as well? And, I don’t get the emotion thing. Even so, cannibalism isn’t just unpleasant (let’s take that out of the discussion as that’s an emotion), it’s morally wrong because it goes against the first principle that an innocent person should not be willfully killed.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Christopher Hitchens is pro-life as well, doubt you’d say it is because of religion that he’s pro-life.[/quote]

I’m going to stop you right here. This is very typical of you. You make statements like this and omit very crucial pieces of information.

Hitchens is very much in favor of things like RU-486 (mifepristone). He may not be a fan of surgical abortion, but he is not the type to see it banned it either. Because you see, unlike you, he isn’t a moron and fundamentally believes in access to contraceptives and reproductive rights in order to prevent surgical abortion altogether.[/quote]

Name calling?

Your assertional that access is a right is fundamentally and pragmatically incorrect. A right implies an obligation from an external agent. No one has a right to access, as that would mean there is an obligation from someone else to give you access, which there is no obligation on anyone to give anyone that access. Therefore, it is incorrect that and misleading to say that someone has the right to access.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Christopher Hitchens is pro-life as well, doubt you’d say it is because of religion that he’s pro-life.[/quote]

I’m going to stop you right here. This is very typical of you. You make statements like this and omit very crucial pieces of information.

Hitchens is very much in favor of things like RU-486 (mifepristone). He may not be a fan of surgical abortion, but he is not the type to see it banned it either. Because you see, unlike you, he isn’t a moron and fundamentally believes in access to contraceptives and reproductive rights in order to prevent surgical abortion altogether.[/quote]

Name calling?

Your assertional that access is a right is fundamentally and pragmatically incorrect. A right implies an obligation from an external agent. No one has a right to access, as that would mean there is an obligation from someone else to give you access, which there is no obligation on anyone to give anyone that access. Therefore, it is incorrect that and misleading to say that someone has the right to access.[/quote]

Yes, name calling. When I think you’re ready to rational discussion instead of going in circles and not reading my post but rather going off on your own tangent then I’ll reconsider.

Hell, this thread isn’t even about the incendiary device anymore.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Yes, name calling. When I think you’re ready to rational discussion instead of going in circles and not reading my post but rather going off on your own tangent then I’ll reconsider.

Hell, this thread isn’t even about the incendiary device anymore.[/quote]

I’m not going to argue with you about my debating.

However, I do wish to have a dialog.

So, do you think that pro-life institutions should have the right to display pictures of abortion and protest/pray/hold vigil outside organizations like Planned Parenthood?

Since this incident is being used to spin the pro-choice movement as ruthless and indifferent to human life, let’s be sure to put the shoe on the food for a moment:

In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[6][7]

* March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
* July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.
* December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
* January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.
* October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.
* May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas.
*August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).
*October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.
* December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[15][16][17]
* May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.[18]
* October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[19]
* May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved.[20][21][22] This was the second arson at the clinic.[23]
* September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[24]
* June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.[19]
* July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[19]
* December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a â??memorial lampâ?? for an abortion she had had there.[25]
* September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[26]
* April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[27]
* May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[28]
* December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altmanâ??s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[29]
* January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness [30] rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[31]
*November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.
* July 16, 2001: Steven Rogers, a security guard at a clinic in Melbourne, Australia was shot in the chest and killed by Peter James Knight. Knight was charged and was sentenced to life in prison on November 19, 2002.[33]
* January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Faulty construction of the bombs limited damage to a single external burnt area, though if successful damage would have been severe. It is believed that the inviduals who made the attack were responsible for graffiti "baby killers" on the site, indicating a pro-life reason for the attack. The site turned out to in fact not be an abortion clinic, though the attackers most likely were not aware of this.[34]
* November 8, 1994: Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver, British Columbia was shot.
* November 10, 1995: Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ontario was shot.
* November 11, 1997: Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg, Manitoba was shot.
* July 11, 2000: Dr. Romalis was stabbed by an unidentified assailant in the lobby of his clinic

For a group that supposedly has such great concern for the sanctity of human life, anti-choicers sure do seem to like to kill and main those who disagree with them.

Is this excused as some form of vigilante justice? Is this a deference to biblical law above civil law? How many of those here who would excuse the numerous acts of violence listed above as the due consequences of violated God’s law would be severely opposed to the practice of sharia law by Muslims?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So, do you think that pro-life institutions should have the right to display pictures of abortion and protest/pray/hold vigil outside organizations like Planned Parenthood?[/quote]

You have every right to stage a peaceful protest or vigil (or prayer circle jerk). But it never stops there. As posted already, there is just too much violence from your side of the argument to simply see a vigil as something that will remain peaceful. Firebombing? Murder? These are not the actions of rational people.

With the amount of violence directed at the pro-choice crowd, the tipping point is getting pretty close. You seem to have this misguided view that you are being downtrodden and hushed up. Nothing could be further from the truth. What people will try to stomp out, however, is the constant stream of misinformation that you spout.

You are most welcome to disagree with abortion, but if you are not willing to provide alternatives outside of “stay abstinent” and religious sentiment, then you are not providing any solution.

You also seem to have this impression that I am comfortable with the idea of abortion. I will say it again: I am not. But it is something that is here to stay unless we start looking at better ways of providing contraception. It is highly unrealistic to expect abortion to be banned. Your best option is, and always has been, providing education and access to a wide form of contraceptives. Here are just some of the methods available with the failure rate in brackets:

  • Abstinence (0%)
  • The implant (0.05%)
  • Vasectomy (0.15%)
  • IUD with Progestogen (0.2%)
  • Tubal Litigation (0.5%)
  • Depo Provera (0.3%)
  • The Pill (0.3% - 8%, largely dependent on education on use)
  • Condoms (2% - 15%, again dependent on education on proper use)
  • Symptoms based fertility awareness (25%)
  • The rhythm method (25%)
  • Pulling out (27%)
  • Spermicidal Gel (29%)
  • None (85%)

Now, instead of hushing up every method that your Church disagrees with, I am more than comfortable having all the above taught to people, dispassionately, with all the pros and cons weighed up. Yes, even the fertility awareness methods.

I’ve also said this time and time again, but there are male contraceptives being developed, one in particular that does not touch hormones and provides protection for 10 years with one injection. Were this commonly available would anyone disagree with its use? Or would religious bullshit about non-procreational sex barge in again? Because the way it really looks is it has to be your way or no way, which will not happen, and will not in any way further your goal to have abortion a thing of the past. Proper education and knowledge are the way forward if you truly want abortion to go away.

But I’m babbling.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
You have every right to stage a peaceful protest or vigil.[/quote]

I appreciate that you agree with my right to free speech, even though we don’t agree on the subject.

Another question, do you think that abortion should be allowed and be legal through all nine months?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
You have every right to stage a peaceful protest or vigil.[/quote]

I appreciate that you agree with my right to free speech, even though we don’t agree on the subject.

Another question, do you think that abortion should be allowed and be legal through all nine months?[/quote]

Yes, abortion should be allowed, and no it should not be allowed throughout the entire nine months of gestation. As medical technology advances children can be kept alive at increasingly earlier stages so too should the cut off point for abortions be adjusted.

I agree with a lot of the points that the pro-life crowd puts forward, but it still doesn’t lead me to think abortion should be banned.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Now, instead of hushing up every method that your Church disagrees with, I am more than comfortable having all the above taught to people, dispassionately, with all the pros and cons weighed up. Yes, even the fertility awareness methods.

I’ve also said this time and time again, but there are male contraceptives being developed, one in particular that does not touch hormones and provides protection for 10 years with one injection. Were this commonly available would anyone disagree with its use? Or would religious bullshit about non-procreational sex barge in again? Because the way it really looks is it has to be your way or no way, which will not happen, and will not in any way further your goal to have abortion a thing of the past. Proper education and knowledge are the way forward if you truly want abortion to go away.

But I’m babbling.[/quote]

I’m very interested in any response to this. Especially the bolded part. Would you let your qualms about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage get in the way of reducing abortion rates, or even making it a thing of the past?

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

Because I’d be anticipating fatherdom.
[/quote]

But you would let your wife kill your child? Doesn’t sound like you are anticipating it that much. Or am I missing something here?[/quote]

Yes, you are missing something. You seem to be assuming that on some level I agree with your concept of personhood, when in reality, I don’t.