[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Why does there have to be an acceptable contraception? [/quote]
There doesn’t have to be.
I am asking you if you find any of them acceptable. I am, amazing I know, asking you for your opinion on the matter.
Now if you are unable to directly answer a direct question, then so be it. But Jesus man, give me a break here.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Finding statistics to argue the case for life is incredibly easy. To prove the case for abortion, you must prove the unborn are NOT alive. If unable to prove that portion of the debate you must prove that tearing another human apart is the solution to the supposed problem.
[quote]therajraj wrote: That’s great.
Then stop posting statistics to support your position as well.
If you only accept statistics that agree with your pre-conceived notions and reject all that oppose them, then you are nothing more than an ignoramus. [/quote]
[/quote]
You are not, and you never do, addressing his point.
I don’t know why I bother. It is like you are a google bot programed to say the same 12 things over and over again.
parrot.
Sorry man. I am used to posters attacking my positions and I was judgmental from the start. In addition, in this media many things are taken out of context. Again, my apologies.
To answer your question, self control is the one birth control I support. All others are abortifacient in some way. I know my knowledge and understanding has grown greatly, compared to when I was seventeen, when I thought I had life figured out. If adults taught self control and restraint there wouldn’t be the plethora of problems there are today. At least that is my opinion after thirty two years in this world ; )
[quote]countingbeans wrote: There doesn’t have to be.
I am asking you if you find any of them acceptable. I am, amazing I know, asking you for your opinion on the matter.
Now if you are unable to directly answer a direct question, then so be it. But Jesus man, give me a break here. [/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Finding statistics to argue the case for life is incredibly easy. To prove the case for abortion, you must prove the unborn are NOT alive.
[/quote]
Incorrect, the death penalty is generally accepted and those people are definitely alive. So being alive or not has nothing to do with abortion being acceptable.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t have to try… You’re the one all frazzled and hung up on labels and terminology, in order to sound less bad. Writing pages of tortured logic to support a phony label. It doesn’t bother me, not one bit… Whether you call me pro-life or anti-abortion or whatever, doesn’t actually matter. You can call me ‘Sally’ for all I care.
You’re pro-abortion, act like a man and own it.[/quote]
If you’ll remember, I had non-semantic based arguments too, you just stopped responding to them and instead focused on this.
I agree to your terms. I’ll be pro-abortion and you’ll be anti-freedom.
Now can we continue, Sally? [/quote]
Prove I am anti-freedom.[/quote]
Oh for fuck sakes…
You’re not anti-freedom. At least, you’re no more anti-freedom than I am pro-abortion. I’m pro-abortion to the extent that there are cases where I support abortion. You are anti-freedom to the extent that there are cases where you do not support free choice.
More often than not, I am anti-abortion, but I am always for the choice, so pro-choice is the more appropriate term. More often than not, you are pro-freedom, but you are always against abortion (savour for when the mother’s life is at risk), so anti-abortion is the more appropriate choice. I’d even concede that pro-life is a more appropriate choice than anti-freedom, so whichever rules you’re willing to play by, I’ll agree to them, but I won’t agree to a double-standard, especially one against my own position.
Hell, even if you don’t agree with my reasoning, it’s a matter of basic respect for your opponent’s position. You want to go by a particular term? Fine, so do I and I’ll agree to your’s if you agree to mine. You don’t think the term “pro-choice” is accurate? Guess what? I don’t think “pro-life” is accurate, but it doesn’t fucking matter. If you want to be petty, fine, I’ll match your ‘pettiness’ and raise you ‘basic logic’. If you want to actually debate the issues, great! Grow up and let’s move on then.
It’s your choice, but make it quick because I’m out of patience. [/quote]
Ok, it’s settled, I am not anti-freedom and you are pro-abortion. No amount of retarded reasoning is going to change that fact.
You already conceded that ‘abortion is obviously murder’, that’s all I am interested in establishing. The rest takes care of itself. If it’s murder than it should be illegal like murder is.
You can come and go as you please, I don’t really give a shit if you are out of patience or not.[/quote]
That’s not what I said I’d settle on at all. I have no clue how you got to that conclusion.
If I am pro-abortion, you are anti-freedom. If I am pro-choice, you are anti-abortion (or pro-life, if you must be called that). No amount of retarded reasoning is going to change that fact, and unlike you I actually have reasoning for this instead of just assertions.
Do you concede that murder in self-defence is still killing? Then I guess that should be illegal too… Oh wait that’s stupid the argument is over exceptions and not the act itself. I guess I should know better than to assume your brand of logic has any sort of consistency to it. [/quote]
You are for abortion therefore you are pro-abortion. I am all for freedom, therefore I am pro-freedom, not anti-freedom.
You’re basis that killing is a tenet of freedom is totally unfounded. You just really want to call names… I can say your a nimrod. Prove your not a nimrod.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Finding statistics to argue the case for life is incredibly easy. To prove the case for abortion, you must prove the unborn are NOT alive.
[/quote]
Incorrect, the death penalty is generally accepted and those people are definitely alive. So being alive or not has nothing to do with abortion being acceptable.[/quote]
LOL!
Did you mean to say this?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Finding statistics to argue the case for life is incredibly easy. To prove the case for abortion, you must prove the unborn are NOT alive.
[/quote]
Incorrect, the death penalty is generally accepted and those people are definitely alive. So being alive or not has nothing to do with abortion being acceptable.[/quote]
LOL!
Did you mean to say this?[/quote]
What part did you have a problem with?
Before DNA was common place, the evolution of animals and their evolutionary relatives were thought to be understood. The understanding of DNA has shown the truth to which animals are related and others that are not related at all.
The genetic makeup of the unborn never changes. Yet they are allowed to be torn apart limb from limb, simply in the name of choice. Let us ignore the choice to create the life was there from the start. Pure selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
I don’t know if you were referring to me
[quote]countingbeans wrote: You are not, and you never do, addressing his point.
I don’t know why I bother. It is like you are a google bot programed to say the same 12 things over and over again.
parrot.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Before DNA was common place, the evolution of animals and their evolutionary relatives were thought to be understood. The understanding of DNA has shown the truth to which animals are related and others that are not related at all.
The genetic makeup of the unborn never changes. Yet they are allowed to be torn apart limb from limb, simply in the name of choice. Let us ignore the choice to create the life was there from the start. Pure selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
I don’t know if you were referring to me
[quote]countingbeans wrote: You are not, and you never do, addressing his point.
I don’t know why I bother. It is like you are a google bot programed to say the same 12 things over and over again.
parrot.[/quote]
[/quote]
AGain, you are not addressing Raj’s point. Now you are ignoring my point. Instead are addressing what is really a strawman because you know you painted yourself into a corner you can’t defend.
I’m done. You are impossible.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t have to try… You’re the one all frazzled and hung up on labels and terminology, in order to sound less bad. Writing pages of tortured logic to support a phony label. It doesn’t bother me, not one bit… Whether you call me pro-life or anti-abortion or whatever, doesn’t actually matter. You can call me ‘Sally’ for all I care.
You’re pro-abortion, act like a man and own it.[/quote]
If you’ll remember, I had non-semantic based arguments too, you just stopped responding to them and instead focused on this.
I agree to your terms. I’ll be pro-abortion and you’ll be anti-freedom.
Now can we continue, Sally? [/quote]
Prove I am anti-freedom.[/quote]
Oh for fuck sakes…
You’re not anti-freedom. At least, you’re no more anti-freedom than I am pro-abortion. I’m pro-abortion to the extent that there are cases where I support abortion. You are anti-freedom to the extent that there are cases where you do not support free choice.
More often than not, I am anti-abortion, but I am always for the choice, so pro-choice is the more appropriate term. More often than not, you are pro-freedom, but you are always against abortion (savour for when the mother’s life is at risk), so anti-abortion is the more appropriate choice. I’d even concede that pro-life is a more appropriate choice than anti-freedom, so whichever rules you’re willing to play by, I’ll agree to them, but I won’t agree to a double-standard, especially one against my own position.
Hell, even if you don’t agree with my reasoning, it’s a matter of basic respect for your opponent’s position. You want to go by a particular term? Fine, so do I and I’ll agree to your’s if you agree to mine. You don’t think the term “pro-choice” is accurate? Guess what? I don’t think “pro-life” is accurate, but it doesn’t fucking matter. If you want to be petty, fine, I’ll match your ‘pettiness’ and raise you ‘basic logic’. If you want to actually debate the issues, great! Grow up and let’s move on then.
It’s your choice, but make it quick because I’m out of patience. [/quote]
Ok, it’s settled, I am not anti-freedom and you are pro-abortion. No amount of retarded reasoning is going to change that fact.
You already conceded that ‘abortion is obviously murder’, that’s all I am interested in establishing. The rest takes care of itself. If it’s murder than it should be illegal like murder is.
You can come and go as you please, I don’t really give a shit if you are out of patience or not.[/quote]
That’s not what I said I’d settle on at all. I have no clue how you got to that conclusion.
If I am pro-abortion, you are anti-freedom. If I am pro-choice, you are anti-abortion (or pro-life, if you must be called that). No amount of retarded reasoning is going to change that fact, and unlike you I actually have reasoning for this instead of just assertions.
Do you concede that murder in self-defence is still killing? Then I guess that should be illegal too… Oh wait that’s stupid the argument is over exceptions and not the act itself. I guess I should know better than to assume your brand of logic has any sort of consistency to it. [/quote]
You are for abortion therefore you are pro-abortion. I am all for freedom, therefore I am pro-freedom, not anti-freedom.
You’re basis that killing is a tenet of freedom is totally unfounded. You just really want to call names… I can say your a nimrod. Prove your not a nimrod.[/quote]
More senseless asserting.
Your first sentence is wrong. I am not “for” abortion and in fact in most most pregnancies I am against it. I am for the choice. I know you understand the difference and that’s exactly why you’re pushing “pro-abortion” so hard, but you don’t want to play by your own rules.
You’ve said it yourself, you don’t care what I call you. I guess that was all talk, because you sure backed the hell out of that quickly.
Also, I have no problem being called nimrod. Do you even know what nimrod means? Maybe you need to read the bible more. Hmm?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
90% of abortions are performed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Here is what an 8-week-old embryo looks like. Is that a clump of cells?
Nope, but how about 3 weeks? Got a picture of how human that looks?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
90% of abortions are performed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Here is what an 8-week-old embryo looks like. Is that a clump of cells?
Point is taken, the ‘clump of cells’ is a stretch in it’s own right, but it doesn’t matter what the fetus looks like, IMO. It doesn’t matter if the fetus is considered a ‘person’ or not. The single most important point is (in my opinion) that NONE of this is more important than a woman’s right to control her own body. There is no baby without the woman, so the woman’s rights trump every other argument. I am not “pro” abortion, it is always a tragedy in my opinion, but it is a necessity in some cases, and it’s up to the woman to make that call (whether it is necessary or not). NOT the government’s call, and not a bunch of assholes standing on the sidewalk with megaphones.
I am willing to acknowledge that anti-abortion advocates mean well (death of a baby is bad, okay, no duh) but the State should NOT be forcing women to bring babies to term against the mother’s will. It’s that simple. Even if you believe the unborn have rights (which is not totally unreasonable) the fetus’ rights do not trump the the mother’s rights.
It’s not a matter of one side being totally right and the other side being totally full of shit (except the people who harass patients at a doctor’s office, that is just sick). When you weigh the pros and cons, abortion needs to remain legal and available. That’s how it goes in a free society.
We still have a free society, right?
I don’t understand why both sides can’t agree to work together to make abortions much less frequent (we know what a lot of the factors are, and it’s not closing down clinics or harassing women who are entering them). But it seems like a lot of the anti-choice people are not interested in that… They’re against sex education, giving financial aid to young women who are pregnant, etc. (Not being able to afford to raise a child is one of THE biggest reasons why young women have abortions). But the hard liners want to ban abortion (even in cases of rape) and those people are basically impossible to work with, and thus it’s hard to make improvements we would all like to see.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
90% of abortions are performed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Here is what an 8-week-old embryo looks like. Is that a clump of cells?
Nope, but how about 3 weeks? Got a picture of how human that looks?[/quote]
How many women do you think actually get abortions at around the 3 week mark?
You aren’t a parent, are you?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
90% of abortions are performed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Here is what an 8-week-old embryo looks like. Is that a clump of cells?
Nope, but how about 3 weeks? Got a picture of how human that looks?[/quote]
How many women do you think actually get abortions at around the 3 week mark?
You aren’t a parent, are you? [/quote]
Not a parent – he probably hasn’t ever had sex with a woman before, if he’s looking for a picture of an abortion at 3 weeks. Three weeks is not long enough to even know you’re pregnant.
I am not understanding what you are trying to say. Can you rephrase this another way please?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Finding statistics to argue the case for life is incredibly easy. To prove the case for abortion, you must prove the unborn are NOT alive.
[/quote]
Incorrect, the death penalty is generally accepted and those people are definitely alive. So being alive or not has nothing to do with abortion being acceptable.[/quote]
There was never an actual point to address, at least not one presented by raj.
You can try and tell me that comparing Nazi’s to the pro-death camp is wrong but you are choosing to keep your mind closed. I can try to spell it out for you if you need me to do so. It really is quite simple and I don’t mean that as an attack on you or anyone.
[quote]countingbeans wrote: AGain, you are not addressing Raj’s point. Now you are ignoring my point. Instead are addressing what is really a strawman because you know you painted yourself into a corner you can’t defend.
I’m done. You are impossible.[/quote]
Now looks determine the worth of a human life?
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
90% of abortions are performed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Here is what an 8-week-old embryo looks like. Is that a clump of cells?
Nope, but how about 3 weeks? Got a picture of how human that looks?[/quote]
Please research the country of Chile and tell me they are less free than America is. Abortion is banned across the whole country, the means of conception is irrelevant there. Cite the problems that exist in the country and how those problems tie to abortion being banned.
[quote]K2000 wrote: Point is taken, the ‘clump of cells’ is a stretch in it’s own right, but it doesn’t matter what the fetus looks like, IMO. It doesn’t matter if the fetus is considered a ‘person’ or not. The single most important point is (in my opinion) that NONE of this is more important than a woman’s right to control her own body. There is no baby without the woman, so the woman’s rights trump every other argument. I am not “pro” abortion, it is always a tragedy in my opinion, but it is a necessity in some cases, and it’s up to the woman to make that call (whether it is necessary or not). NOT the government’s call, and not a bunch of assholes standing on the sidewalk with megaphones.
I am willing to acknowledge that anti-abortion advocates mean well (death of a baby is bad, okay, no duh) but the State should NOT be forcing women to bring babies to term against the mother’s will. It’s that simple. Even if you believe the unborn have rights (which is not totally unreasonable) the fetus’ rights do not trump the the mother’s rights.
It’s not a matter of one side being totally right and the other side being totally full of shit (except the people who harass patients at a doctor’s office, that is just sick). When you weigh the pros and cons, abortion needs to remain legal and available. That’s how it goes in a free society.
We still have a free society, right?
I don’t understand why both sides can’t agree to work together to make abortions much less frequent (we know what a lot of the factors are, and it’s not closing down clinics or harassing women who are entering them). But it seems like a lot of the anti-choice people are not interested in that… They’re against sex education, giving financial aid to young women who are pregnant, etc. (Not being able to afford to raise a child is one of THE biggest reasons why young women have abortions). But the hard liners want to ban abortion (even in cases of rape) and those people are basically impossible to work with, and thus it’s hard to make improvements we would all like to see.
[/quote]
^ 7 week fetus
New Life Is a Wonderful Gift
by Karen Dudek July 18, 2012
It was only two months ago - on Pentecost Sunday, a Sunday I will never forget - that my husband and I received some wonderful, life-changing news. I can still hear and see my daughter, Anna, and her husband, Daniel, standing on our threshold, excitedly telling us that they are expecting a baby and that we are going to have a grandchild!
I was more than elated. It is difficult to find words to convey what my emotions were. I don’t think I have ever hugged Anna for so long before. What with wanting to congratulate, share the moment (one might say impact), receive the message, comprehend the work/pain/love of her motherhood, and communicate my support, I wanted to hang on to that moment of time to have her for my own for just another minute. My precious baby girl! She hugged me right back.
How little time has passed since she made me a mother and I would just hold her and gaze at her sweet little face until my neck hurt. It’s true. I needed a chiropractor to fix my neck, her beauty was so captivating. There was nothing more beautiful in the world. Thinking of her leaving would bring me to tears. Yes, the tears were also brought on by post-partum hormonal swings, but the intensity of that maternal love can be described in no other way than to border on an insane-sounding bond. What an exquisite creature! How powerful my attachment to her!
The news of Anna’s pregnancy struck me like an out-of-body experience. For days, I felt that I was outside myself, observing things from afar. I functioned in my body, but my mind was elsewhere, enraptured and too transfixed on the marvelous to care much for practicalities or even focus on the drama of what was happening here on earth. It was a lot to take in: this event that connects me in a chain of ancestry and immortality. What is expected of me? I searched my memory of grandparents and great-grandparents to find my role models and consider my place.
Anna’s four sisters were utterly overjoyed at the prospect of becoming aunts, jubilantly planning their future activities and adventures together with the new baby. It seemed the baby would have to prepare for a battery of doting relatives. We hoped that he/she would be up to the task of being adored by so many.
About two weeks later, the happy couple was back with more exciting news. Daniel, the proud father, was shaking. He had taken the rest of the day off from work, at the insistence of his sensitive female co-workers after viewing the first ultrasound. As Anna tells it, the technician matter-of-factly announced to them, “There are two in there!” Two babies! Anna and Daniel are expecting twins!
Amidst soprano screams of delight followed by a quiet text-mania to those family members not present, my slightly queasy- feeling daughter, resembling an angel, glowed happily as she carried her two blessings in her womb; she now embraced both babies, dubbed by the doctor as Baby A and Baby B, fully in her mind and heart.
Baby B had been my name too when the doctor discovered, only at birth, that my mother was carrying twins. Today we see so much more. As Anna told her sisters that the babies were now the size of blueberries and that the doctor could hear their tiny hearts beating, I saw their eyes fill with tears of wonder.
In another week, we heard with glee how the babies were the size of raspberries and had tiny arm buds. How delicate! How precious! Only six to seven weeks along, yet all systems were already in place! They were growing rapidly.
Anna would smile happily when we greeted the babies as she entered a room or said good-bye to them when she left. We all want our voices to be recognized at their birth.
Another week went by, and Anna called with a shaking voice asking for prayers. She had seen some blood and was going to see the doctor. My heart stopped beating for a moment, frozen with sick apprehension. The core of my being refused any threat to my grandchildren, and I felt raw strength rising up to defend the small ones. Mercifully, we learned very soon that everything was fine. We had only to shake off the scare.
In that situation, I felt the profoundest contrast between the desire to protect my beloved ones and the cultural apathy and even enmity toward new life in the womb. Fully aware that I would rather die than allow anything to happen to that new life, the sad opinion of an acquaintance - ironically, someone I used to baby-sit - resounded in my memory: “A fetus is not viable,” and therefore, the presumption goes, it “may be destroyed.”
The world of my children born after Roe v. Wade, and now the world of my grandchildren, is one of survivorship. They are living in a society and under a government that will not protect life in general and therefore does not necessarily celebrate life in particular. We cannot rejoice with everyone. Many do not share our elation. The excitement has been diminished due to the wounds of abortion - abortion that has been submitted to, championed for, or silently assented to. In fact, it would be hypocritical to say that one baby (or two) rather than another should be celebrated. We see the disparity, and the more we delight in the twins’ developments, the more we can sense a certain lack of enthusiasm, the hardness of hearts.
People will accept the destruction of the unborn for the very thing we marvel at: the unborn are small. Small limbs, small organs, small spine. They are hidden; we can’t gaze upon the precious features and behold their humanity, so we pretend that eliminating them is something that is not going to have terrible repercussions.
What else is small when a baby is growing? Plans are small. Hopes and dreams are small. These things are also taking shape, and like the sacred, they begin with a spirit and slowly fill a void to become manifest as the gift of our future, creating their entrance into a family tree and humanity’s history. Every baby lost, every miscarriage or abortion, may be small, but it is counted. No one forgets that she had a baby.
As I endeavor to help ease Anna’s morning sickness, as plans for work and wardrobe, birth and baby supplies consume us, I marvel at how something so small extracts such love. Anna is understandably tired but immeasurably happy. She is growing, too. The physical discomforts of pregnancy, the pain and sacrifices are all a part of the process of becoming a mother. The mother of twins has even greater challenges. Anna accepts it and anticipates it with joy. People warn her of the trials ahead, and as she says, “I know, I’m going to be tired!”
There are times in every person’s life when we are called to make sacrifices, do difficult things, and persevere for a lot longer than we feel ourselves able. With that constancy in faith and love, our sacrifices for our children are glorious.
The babies are the size of plums now. Their joints are moving, and they have tiny taste buds and reflexes. They still have a long way to go. They are not viable. But they are fearfully and wonderfully made-and very much loved.
http://liveactionnews.org/culture/new-life-is-a-wonderful-gift/
