Saved a Life!

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I would love to see a huge step up in support for birth control and condom use to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Both sides can (and should) work together to limit the amount of unwanted pregnancies. [/quote]

Agree again, but preventing pregnancy goes well into personal responsibility as well.

I mean I can teach the most comprehensive course on sex ed the world has ever seen and stand on a corner and pass out pills and condoms… I, however, can’t be there to put them on.

I never wore the damn things, and I knew damn well the consequences. [/quote]

Of course not, but it’s all steps to reducing unwanted pregnancies.

If pro-lifers REALLY wanted to limit the amount of abortions they would start right here. Many of them are so caught up in simply getting roe v. wade to be overturned that they lose sight of what they hope is the result of that. [/quote]

It’s all about taking responsibility. You don’t want a baby don’t fuck. If you fuck accept the chance that you may have a baby and take care of it.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Abortion rates are lower in countries with LESS restrictive abortion laws and abortion related deaths are lower as well. [/quote]

Can you please post? The US has zero restrictions on Abortions
[/quote]

So far as I know there is no country in the world with zero restriction on abortion.[/quote]

There is at least one. The U.S. all restrictions are state legislated. It’s full on legal up to the point the child is sticking halfway out of the vagina at the federal level.
I believe china also has no restriction.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

There’s no such thing. A sperm is not an autonomous living human being. It carries information, that’s all.[/quote]

A sperm is an autonomous living sperm
[/quote]

Correct, not a human…

This might clear up some of your misconceptions from a source I know you cannot argue against. He’s a bioethicist

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857703[/quote]

It does not rule out that the egg and the sperm are Human Organisms as well

[quote]H factor wrote:

Anti-liberty stances push has:

State saying gay people cannot marry.

State making health decisions for women.

Why you think these make me a statist for being on the other side makes no sense. You’re completely backwards in your thinking on what is liberty here vs. what is not.

I don’t know why you keep throwing out the term statist either. You’re clearly a statist push being for these things as well as a big military.

READ THIS CAREFULLY:

â??Like so many others, Libertarians wrestle with the moral issues associated with abortion. While our party includes a significant number of people who describe themselves as pro-choice, nearly as many members describe themselves as pro-life. In my own view, however, there is no conflict: the best way to respect life is to prevent government from interfering with individual rights.

Regardless of oneâ??s view on this matter, however, we should all be able to agree that a pregnant woman is an individual with rights. And that includes the right to make often-difficult decisions concerning her own body."

Or just ignore it and call me a statist which I am. I’m not for no government anymore than you are. I’m for a decreased role in the private lives of citizens and in the fiscal lives of citizens. [/quote]

Thought this was an abortion thread, not a thread on push’s stances on what you call liberty. There is no right to kill.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I don’t feel like arguing when is it a child at this moment.[/quote]

Of course you don’t.

Your entire position is completely flattened with a steamroller the moment you do.

[/quote]

hey now, I didn’t say that, quote fail, lol

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

There’s no such thing. A sperm is not an autonomous living human being. It carries information, that’s all.[/quote]

A sperm is an autonomous living sperm
[/quote]

Correct, not a human…

This might clear up some of your misconceptions from a source I know you cannot argue against. He’s a bioethicist

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857703[/quote]

It does not rule out that the egg and the sperm are Human Organisms as well
[/quote]

The line is pretty clear, I have to only imagine your attempt to blur the line is an attempt at self justification. These are plain scientific facts. A sperm is not a human being, and egg is not a human being, this is verifiable scientific fact. So go on and verify it.

Look the issue is simple. All you have to do is prove that a baby in utero is not a human being. Just prove that, and you can have abortions galore. However, if you are wrong, the consequences are grave. It’s not ok to kill people.

[quote]pat wrote:

The line is pretty clear, I have to only imagine your attempt to blur the line is an attempt at self justification. These are plain scientific facts. A sperm is not a human being, and egg is not a human being, this is verifiable scientific fact. e.[/quote]

He made no distinction . All he said was the Fetus is a living human organism . I say so is the sperm.

"A human embryo is a whole living member of the species " so is the sperm and egg by definition of member and species

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Anti-liberty stances push has:

State saying gay people cannot marry.

State making health decisions for women.

Why you think these make me a statist for being on the other side makes no sense. You’re completely backwards in your thinking on what is liberty here vs. what is not.

I don’t know why you keep throwing out the term statist either. You’re clearly a statist push being for these things as well as a big military.

READ THIS CAREFULLY:

�?�¢??Like so many others, Libertarians wrestle with the moral issues associated with abortion. While our party includes a significant number of people who describe themselves as pro-choice, nearly as many members describe themselves as pro-life. In my own view, however, there is no conflict: the best way to respect life is to prevent government from interfering with individual rights.

Regardless of one�?�¢??s view on this matter, however, we should all be able to agree that a pregnant woman is an individual with rights. And that includes the right to make often-difficult decisions concerning her own body."

Or just ignore it and call me a statist which I am. I’m not for no government anymore than you are. I’m for a decreased role in the private lives of citizens and in the fiscal lives of citizens. [/quote]

Thought this was an abortion thread, not a thread on push’s stances on what you call liberty. There is no right to kill. [/quote]

Before you comment on this Pat why not go back to the beginning and see who called out who first and why.

I was discussing abortion and nothing else until Push the troll came along to derail with a personal attack. And yet your post is badmouthing me? Just because you agree with someone on an issue doesn’t mean they need defended all the time you know.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I don’t feel like arguing when is it a child at this moment.[/quote]

Of course you don’t.

Your entire position is completely flattened with a steamroller the moment you do.

[/quote]

You may have said this before but what is your definition of a human? Or at least a human that gets the same rights we do which I assume your answer to both is the same.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Abortion rates are lower in countries with LESS restrictive abortion laws and abortion related deaths are lower as well. [/quote]

Can you please post? The US has zero restrictions on Abortions
[/quote]

So far as I know there is no country in the world with zero restriction on abortion.[/quote]

There is at least one. The U.S. all restrictions are state legislated. It’s full on legal up to the point the child is sticking halfway out of the vagina at the federal level.
I believe china also has no restriction.[/quote]

Point taken, though I wouldn’t characterize a country with hundreds of abortion laws on state books as one with “zero restrictions.” “Zero federal restrictions,” yeah.

In China, everything has restrictions, which is not to say that abortion isn’t very legal there. The ultrasound-gender laws are often considered indirect abortion laws, though that is certainly arguable.

Edit: apparently, North Korea, unlike the U.S. and China, does not even allow its government subdivisions to restrict abortion.

^ The point, though, that the U.S. is in some questionable company, is a good one. But then that argument has to stand for capital punishment, too.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Abortion rates are lower in countries with LESS restrictive abortion laws and abortion related deaths are lower as well. [/quote]

Can you please post? The US has zero restrictions on Abortions
[/quote]

So far as I know there is no country in the world with zero restriction on abortion.[/quote]

There is at least one. The U.S. all restrictions are state legislated. It’s full on legal up to the point the child is sticking halfway out of the vagina at the federal level.
I believe china also has no restriction.[/quote]

Point taken, though I wouldn’t characterize a country with hundreds of abortion laws on state books as one with “zero restrictions.” “Zero federal restrictions,” yeah.

In China, everything has restrictions, which is not to say that abortion isn’t very legal there. The ultrasound-gender laws are often considered indirect abortion laws, though that is certainly arguable.

Edit: apparently, North Korea, unlike the U.S. and China, does not even allow its government subdivisions to restrict abortion.[/quote]

Honestly I don’t know much about China law except that they ‘encourage’ abortion to those impregnated with a second. Leading me to believe it’s fair unrestricted.

North Korea, the beacon of the light of liberty! It’s interesting that one of the most repressive regimes in history having unrestricted abortions is an indication to those claiming that abortion is a link to liberty is in fact the opposite. It’s the degradation of human dignity and value which is the specimen of oppression, not freedom… But I digress…

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

There’s no such thing. A sperm is not an autonomous living human being. It carries information, that’s all.[/quote]

A sperm is an autonomous living sperm
[/quote]

Correct, not a human…

This might clear up some of your misconceptions from a source I know you cannot argue against. He’s a bioethicist

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857703[/quote]

It does not rule out that the egg and the sperm are Human Organisms as well
[/quote]

Seriously? You need your very basic biology broken down for you at a cellular level? On their own neither cell is it’s own autonomous human specie.

http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/aobjetEmbr/objectembryo.html

Here. I am not an embryologist, so you can read the work of people who are.
So from the link:
"After the spermatozoon has docked onto the oolemma, a coalescence of the two membranes takes place. This makes it possible for the structures lying inside the spermatozoon to enter the cytoplasma of the oocyte. One calls this process the impregnation of the oocyte. Among other things the nucleus with the highly concentrated DNA, the centrosome that lies across the nucleus in the neck region and the mid piece with the mitochondria and the kinocilium (tail) are transferred.

The genetic material, lying in the nucleus and coming from the father, is unpacked and is used for building the paternal pronucleus. In what follows, the centrosome plays an important role in the convergence of the two pronuclei. Later - after the subsequent division - it will also be responsible for building the first division spindle of the new creature. All centrosomes in the bodily cells of a human originate from that of the father.
Other sperm components transferred to the oocyte cytoplasm, like the kinocilium, are dissolved. Effective processes also exist for eliminating sperm mitochondria from the cytoplasm of the oocyte.
Thus, all mitochondria in the bodily cells of an individual normally derive from the mother alone"

So what that means is that a sperm cell is a cell that originates from the father, but is not itself a human person. Much like you eyeball has eyeball cells, but are not a separate and distinct human aside from the person it belongs to. It’s an eyeball cell. Now your eyeball has your DNA and nobody else’s. Your sperm has your DNA and nobody elses. When the abovementioned process finishes, the result is a being with different DNA than either the sperm or the egg originally had. The cells with it’s own unique and separate DNA are a different being than the host, not the same. Hence a separate human being, not a part of an existing human being.

Now quiz time, do you believe that two distinct separate persons can run into each other and become one? Because that is what you are talking about by saying a sperm or egg is the same as a person in the zygote stage.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I don’t feel like arguing when is it a child at this moment.[/quote]

Of course you don’t.

Your entire position is completely flattened with a steamroller the moment you do.

[/quote]

You may have said this before but what is your definition of a human? Or at least a human that gets the same rights we do which I assume your answer to both is the same.[/quote]

We’ve been over this so many times. Gotta do it again?
[/quote]

There is no ‘your’ definition of a human. It’s got it’s own definition that is transcendently true and cannot be altered by will. One person cannot define it differently and that definition also be correct. It’s got a meaning and you either understand it correctly or you do not.
You cannot say it’s consciousness, or arms and legs, or a nervous system, etc… those are all parts of a human. They don’t define it.

Easy peasy to prove you are ignorant. You trust a thin peace of plastic between you and the girls you sleep with to keep you safe and her from getting pregnant. What happens when those fail? Please tell me the synthetic hormones they give girls to NOT ovulate, allow them to cycle the moment after they stop taking the oral medication. Next you will tell me that the girls who need in vitro fertilization never took a man made birth control. Do the hormones ever break down? Do you see the obvious mistakes in the whole system?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What? The manufacturer wants them to fail? I hope you’re kidding or misspeaking.[/quote]

Why, because self control is too much to ask? Are you able to speak for all the kids I know who can think without jerking off and have a mind more powerful then you? NFP teaches a couple how to know when the fertile period starts and when the infertile period begins. Simple traits are charted and once a pattern is observed, nothing more needs to be done. That is until the couple decides they want to have kids. In addition, when a couple is only with each other where do these STDs come from? Those type of diseases come from people who lack the self control to be mature.

Do you see a long future for the “hook up culture?” I sure don’t. In addition, have I ever said anything about religion? Stop projecting your ideas onto this debate and instead pay attention. I know we can both learn from each other. I am learning from just this discussion already.

My problem with any abortion [chemical or surgical] has always been the same. After every abortion, you have a dead child and the parents that killed their own child. Seems like an obvious dilemma. And so you know, in my mind, every abortion is exactly the same. The only difference is age of the fetus. Please tell me how a partial birth abortion is worse than surgically tearing apart a six month old fetus? How about a chemical abortion of a three week old child?

How is any abortion different after the moment of conception? I hope your answer describes more than Size, Level of awareness, Environment and Degree of development. The acronym I just used also describes the differences that you and I share, along with how the unborn are different from us. Nothing more or less describes how they are different. Do those four simple traits allow you to kill any child in the world? So I should then be able to stop the killing because of the obvious wrongs.

You can trust me, before my time in this world is over, I will stop abortion.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Abstinence is not going to happen in the vast majority of cases. It is a waste of time to believe that unwanted pregnancy can be eradicated through abstinence–it can’t and it won’t, ever.

As far as NFP being a “far better method,” it’s not anything like feasible. A] It’s extremely easy to screw up and, more importantly, B] it’s a great way to spread HPV, herpes, HIV and all of their esteemed colleagues. We have a hook-up culture. You may not like it, but that never changed anything. Most sexually active Americans give exactly 0 fucks about what someone else’s religion has to say about sex. If kids would simply wear condoms to hook up and take birth control in relationships, almost all of your abortion woes would disappear. And I doubt you’d disagree that a partial-birth abortion is a far greater evil than anything the Trojan Man has up his sleeve.[/quote]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
If you were raped and impregnated what would you do? [/quote]

Raise the baby to kill rapists.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:

Why, because self control is too much to ask? Are you able to speak for all the kids I know who can think without jerking off and have a mind more powerful then you? NFP teaches a couple how to know when the fertile period starts and when the infertile period begins. Simple traits are charted and once a pattern is observed, nothing more needs to be done. That is until the couple decides they want to have kids. In addition, when a couple is only with each other where do these STDs come from? Those type of diseases come from people who lack the self control to be mature.
[/quote]

I don’t have the time to wade through this addled mess of a post, so I’ll just stick with this excerpt right here.

I am not able to speak for “all the kids [you] know who can think without jerking off [Aside: do you have hidden cameras set up in their bedrooms, or are you just taking their word for it? Cause I’ve got news for you] and have a mind more powerful [than me].” What I am able to do is to support my contention–that the human sex drive is simply far too powerful to be overcome on a societal or global scale by people preaching abstinence, especially when abstinence cannot be demonstrated to be an objectively desirable thing in the first place–with data from any time, and any place, and any people in the history of humanity. You ask if I think that the hook-up culture is going to be around much longer.

Yes, yes I do. Because it is simply a modern manifestation of an inexorable and timeless human truth, a human truth that you’ll see exactly everywhere you look. To take one of literally billions of examples, the same thing that drives college kids into awkwardly waking up next to strangers and then awkwardly shame-walking home was driving Union soldiers to go out a’lookin’ for some strange centuries ago.

How do I know this? Because the Union army recorded more than 100,000 cases of gonorrhea in just a two-year period during the Civil War. The human tendency to promiscuity hasn’t changed since then, and it isn’t changing in the future, especially now that protective contraceptives, if used properly, have greatly reduced–in fact essentially eliminated–the risks and costs associated with the modern sex life.

Regarding “those type of diseases come from people who lack the self control to be mature.” Well, I agree, in a way. Unprotected sex with people whom you’re not familiar with is a pretty dumb thing to do in this world. But I suspect that you mean something more–something along the lines of, “people who abstain are mature and people who don’t are not.”

Well, to quote the Dude: That’s like, your opinion man. Your religion wants you to wait until marriage, mine doesn’t. my worldview, in fact, considers consensual sex to be among the healthiest and most important aspects of life as an adult human, right up there with exercise, reading, and watching football. [And nothing makes a responsible man mature like learning his way around a woman’s body, whether he’s married or not.]

Take that little conundrum, take the fact that the set of moral axioms by which you live your life mean exactly nothing to me and to the billions of other people who live their lives by a completely different set of moral axioms, multiply it by 7 billion and you’ve got a problem that you’re not, and I mean not ever, going to solve.

You will never, in other words, convince me and/or people like me that abstinence is a good thing.

But, luckily for all of us, abortion isn’t about sex, it’s about pregnancy. And sex doesn’t need to lead to pregnancy. Because you know what you can do? You can win on abortion where you failed on abstinence. You can, in the context of abortion, appeal to certain moral axioms that are, unlike the “wait 'till marriage” ones, universal or very nearly universal. You can make inroads with the Christian, the Jew, the agnostic, and even the atheist–inroads that cannot be made vis-a-vis abstinence.

Convince Christians not to wear condoms, that’s fine as long as they aren’t going to get abortions. But when it’s non-Christians you’re talking about, who gives a damn if they wear them? Whereas when a non-Christian gets an abortion, we all give a damn. People who wear condoms don’t generally get abortions. And shouldn’t the enemy of your enemy be your friend?