Abortion opponents are really fanatics.

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: JD50
I find it funny that this topic is talking about pro life fanatics, but the thread has brought out all the loonies on the other side of the aisle. Garth you have major issues.

If you feel that something I have posted is false, you are invited to demonstrate such.

Lacking that, you have nothing more than knee-jerk emotionalism and ad hominem.

Saying that sex doesn't cause pregnancy... Equating a baby to a parasite... Calling a baby a non-consentual violation of the mother... That pretty much makes you every bit as looney as the radical pro-lifers out there.

Saying the facts are false does not make them so.

It amuses me when righties like yourself are confronted with the facts that they disparage them as lunacy, all the while unable to contest the factual basis.

Be careful your knee doesn't jerk up and smack you right in the chin

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: JD50
I find it funny that this topic is talking about pro life fanatics, but the thread has brought out all the loonies on the other side of the aisle. Garth you have major issues.

If you feel that something I have posted is false, you are invited to demonstrate such.

Lacking that, you have nothing more than knee-jerk emotionalism and ad hominem.

Saying that sex doesn't cause pregnancy... Equating a baby to a parasite... Calling a baby a non-consentual violation of the mother... That pretty much makes you every bit as looney as the radical pro-lifers out there.

Saying the facts are false does not make them so.

It amuses me when righties like yourself are confronted with the facts that they disparage them as lunacy, all the while unable to contest the factual basis.

Be careful your knee doesn't jerk up and smack you right in the chin

Whoa, so everyone that believes that sex causes pregnancy are righties? At least now we can end the discussion of birth control, since sex doesn't cause pregnancy its just a waste of money and time.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: JD50
I find it funny that this topic is talking about pro life fanatics, but the thread has brought out all the loonies on the other side of the aisle. Garth you have major issues.

If you feel that something I have posted is false, you are invited to demonstrate such.

Lacking that, you have nothing more than knee-jerk emotionalism and ad hominem.

Saying that sex doesn't cause pregnancy... Equating a baby to a parasite... Calling a baby a non-consentual violation of the mother... That pretty much makes you every bit as looney as the radical pro-lifers out there.

Saying the facts are false does not make them so.

It amuses me when righties like yourself are confronted with the facts that they disparage them as lunacy, all the while unable to contest the factual basis.

Be careful your knee doesn't jerk up and smack you right in the chin

And declaring them to BE facts doesn't make them so either. You must be a law student. Only a wanabe lawyer would continue to defend this fringe/radical line of logic.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: JD50
I find it funny that this topic is talking about pro life fanatics, but the thread has brought out all the loonies on the other side of the aisle. Garth you have major issues.

If you feel that something I have posted is false, you are invited to demonstrate such.

Lacking that, you have nothing more than knee-jerk emotionalism and ad hominem.

"Sex does not cause pregnancy"

Yea, thats false.

No it isn't. I've had sex hundreds of times and not once have I caused a pregnancy.

If I stab someone one hundred times in the chest and they die, I should be innocent because I did not murder them nor did I cause them to die. The heart stopped working and thats why they died.

The disconnect between your analogy and my argument is that there is an unmistakable causative pathway connecting the lacerations caused by your stabbing and the failing of the victims heart. There is no such pathway leading from sex to pregnancy. Do you have any idea how seldom instances of sex finally connect with a pregnancy?

If I flip a coin and it lands heads-up, would it make sense to say I "caused" the result? Of course not, and we're talking about a 50% correlation between the event of "flipping a coin" and "landing heads up."

Do you seriously think that the correlation between "having sex" and "becoming pregnant" is any higher than that?

Sounds a little wacky doesn't it?

Most analogies proffered by the ignorant often do.

{snip}

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: Garth
The fact is that my analogy illustrates the crux of the issue: the parasitic relationship between the fetus and the mother is a violation of the mother's rights when she does not consent to it. Any waiver of those rights must be explicit. All of your hooting and hollering about prior conditions is nothing more than a smoke screen obscuring the real issue. Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to pregnancy.

My arguments appear to be like water on a duck's back to you. You're not really addressing anything I've said, only regurgitating the same things back to me.

I'll say it again... having consensual sexual intercourse IS CONSENT to a pregnancy. This is simple causality. You attempt to claim this means no one should leave their house for fear of being hit by a bus, but this is a silly Straw Man argument. Many things can happen when one leaves the house but being hit by a bus is not directly related causally to leaving the house.

Of course one can say that if one had never left the house, the incident never would have occurred, but this is cyclic and would eventually end in "everything is God's fault!" However, the real cause of the bus accident would be the person not looking when crossing the street, the bus driver not paying attention, or the brakes being out since there are DIRECT CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THESE EVENTS, aka "If 'A,' then 'B.'"

Again, you're ignoring the fact that the woman chose to engage in actions she knew could result in pregnancy. The child is not "violating" the woman's rights any more than you're violating my rights by making me read your flawed logic. I choose to subject myself to it by reading your posts.

Originally posted by: Garth
Please see my refutation of this nonsense elsewhere in the thread.

And your refutations have been subsequently refuted. You're beating a dead horse.

Originally posted by: Garth
I'm not arguing with links, I'm arguing with you. If you think there are convincing rebuttals to the arguments I've posted, then bring them here yourself.

No one asked you to argue with the links. I provided them as material relevant to our conversation and to spark further debate on the subject by introducing other points of view. You can ignore them if you wish, as I suspect you will.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: JD50
I find it funny that this topic is talking about pro life fanatics, but the thread has brought out all the loonies on the other side of the aisle. Garth you have major issues.

If you feel that something I have posted is false, you are invited to demonstrate such.

Lacking that, you have nothing more than knee-jerk emotionalism and ad hominem.

"Sex does not cause pregnancy"

Yea, thats false.

No it isn't. I've had sex hundreds of times and not once have I caused a pregnancy.

If I stab someone one hundred times in the chest and they die, I should be innocent because I did not murder them nor did I cause them to die. The heart stopped working and thats why they died.

The disconnect between your analogy and my argument is that there is an unmistakable causative pathway connecting the lacerations caused by your stabbing and the failing of the victims heart. There is no such pathway leading from sex to pregnancy. Do you have any idea how seldom instances of sex finally connect with a pregnancy?

If I flip a coin and it lands heads-up, would it make sense to say I "caused" the result? Of course not, and we're talking about a 50% correlation between the event of "flipping a coin" and "landing heads up."

Do you seriously think that the correlation between "having sex" and "becoming pregnant" is any higher than that?

Sounds a little wacky doesn't it?

Most analogies proffered by the ignorant often do.

{snip}

So in your world, the only way that sex would cause pregnancy is if every single time someone had sex the women would get pregnant. Good argument you have going there, seriously though, you really should talk to someone about getting rid of this whole birth control thing.

You can call me all the names in the world, it really doesn't bother me. It kind of reminds me when I would lock up some crazy crackhead or when I would deal with some loony person on the street and they would start saying some random crap and calling me names.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

And declaring them to BE facts doesn't make them so either.

Good thing I didn't. I explained what causes pregnancy -- implantation of the zygote on the uterine wall. As a matter of fact, that fails to happen more often than it succeeds, and it's failure necessarily follows intercourse as much as does it's success. Should we say that sex causes natural abortions?

You must be a law student. Only a wanabe lawyer would continue to defend this fringe/radical line of logic.

Do you ever attempt a substantive argument, or do you just take pot-shots?

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: Garth
No it isn't. I've had sex hundreds of times and not once have I caused a pregnancy.

lol

I can see there is no point attempting to reason with you anymore.

Originally posted by: Garth
It amuses me when righties like yourself are confronted with the facts that they disparage them as lunacy, all the while unable to contest the factual basis.

Having argued with many conservative "righties" for years, I can safely say you must be a closet conservative because your style of debate so closely resembles theirs.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: child of wonder

I'll say it again... having consensual sexual intercourse IS CONSENT to a pregnancy. This is simple causality.

But there is only correlation, not causation, so your claim is false.

You attempt to claim this means no one should leave their house for fear of being hit by a bus, but this is a silly Straw Man argument. Many things can happen when one leaves the house but being hit by a bus is not directly related causally to leaving the house.

Neither is sex directly related causally to implantation of a zygote. It happens or it fails to happen, both as consequences of sex, and in fact the latter more often than the former.

{snip}

Again, you're ignoring the fact that the woman chose to engage in actions she knew could result in pregnancy.

I know that driving a car could result in a car wreck. That doesn't mean I consent to a wreck when I get behind the wheel. I know that leaving my front door unlocked could result in a burglary. That doesn't mean that I consent to a burglary when I don't lock my door.

We don't automatically waive our rights by engaging in acts that *could* have unwanted consequences. Why do you think they make people sign consent forms when they go bungee jumping or sky diving? Waivers pertaining to bodily integrity must be explicit.

The child is not "violating" the woman's rights any more than you're violating my rights by making me read your flawed logic. I choose to subject myself to it by reading your posts.

It must be really easy to construct arguments when you just make up your facts as you go along.

{snip}

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: JD50

So in your world, the only way that sex would cause pregnancy is if every single time someone had sex the women would get pregnant.

No, but there would need to be a much higher statistical correlation than there is.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: child of wonder

Originally posted by: Garth
No it isn't. I've had sex hundreds of times and not once have I caused a pregnancy.

lol

I can see there is no point attempting to reason with you anymore.

You can't "reason away" the facts.

Originally posted by: Garth
It amuses me when righties like yourself are confronted with the facts that they disparage them as lunacy, all the while unable to contest the factual basis.

Having argued with many conservative "righties" for years, I can safely say you must be a closet conservative because your style of debate so closely resembles theirs.

Pot shots, yet no real arguments, but *I'm* the closet conservative.

Uh-huh. Right.

 

[JD50]

If you said that sex does not always cause pregancy than you would be correct. But you stated that "sex does not cause pregnancy" which is factually incorrect. Can you show us something that proves that sex does not cause pregnancy?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't understand why everyone wastes their time responding to Garth...go figure. Anyway, Aisengard stated that there's no scientific evidence to support the fact that a fetus feels pain. I'm not sure where Aisengard got his "facts" but, for the record, the oposite is true.

"The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without doubt a partial birth abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant." - R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery & Brain Research, Case Western Univ.

"Real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG (electrocardiogram) and fetal EEG (electroencephalogram) have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch, and sound. That the fetus responds to changes in light intensity within the womb, to heat, to cold, and to taste (by altering the chemical nature of the fluid swallowed by the fetus) has been exquisitely documented in the pioneering work of the late Sir William Lily ? the father of fetology." - American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology letter to President Reagan dated 2/13/84

"Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980

And if you don't believe the scientists, you should watch the Silent Scream video. It's a realtime ultrasound video of a 12- week suction abortion. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby?s mouth clearly opens wide...hence, the title. You can view it here ---> www.silentscream.org

It should be mandatory viewing for our proabortion friends here so they have some inkling of what they're talking about. I also suggest an "abortion pictures" google. If you're proabortion after this...so be it...at least you'll have a clue as to why some find this practice so barbaric.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JD50
If you said that sex does not always cause pregancy than you would be correct. But you stated that "sex does not cause pregnancy" which is factually incorrect. Can you show us something that proves that sex does not cause pregnancy?

If Sex isnt the leading cause of pregnancy, I question how our species continues to survive? How did we get through the many thousands of years?

 

[slash196]

What does "pain" even mean for an embryo? They don't have a functional central nervous system. Some of the pain receptors in the skin may synapse but there's no brain to interpret those signals.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JD50
If you said that sex does not always cause pregancy than you would be correct. But you stated that "sex does not cause pregnancy" which is factually incorrect. Can you show us something that proves that sex does not cause pregnancy?

If Sex isnt the leading cause of pregnancy, I question how our species continues to survive? How did we get through the many thousands of years?

Thank God for all those crazy zygotes running around and viciously implanting themselves in womens uterine wall against their will, if it wasn't for those wily little bastards none of us would be here.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

And declaring them to BE facts doesn't make them so either.

Good thing I didn't. I explained what causes pregnancy -- implantation of the zygote on the uterine wall. As a matter of fact, that fails to happen more often than it succeeds, and it's failure necessarily follows intercourse as much as does it's success. Should we say that sex causes natural abortions?

You must be a law student. Only a wanabe lawyer would continue to defend this fringe/radical line of logic.

Do you ever attempt a substantive argument, or do you just take pot-shots?

Heh... Law student. What did you get on your LSAT?

You declared, in fact, that sex does not cause pregnancy. In FACT, barring medical intervention, pregnancy is impossible without sex. You may want to dice this up into a semantic argument over when the pregnancy starts (at fertilization or at uterine attachment) but the simple fact is that without sex, there is no zygote to attach to the uterine wall.

Now you're trying to equate a miscarriage or failure of attachment to abortion? Try again. An abortion is a medical procedure. A miscarriage is not. A zygote that fails to attach and passes during menstruation is not. If you're trying to equate the two because the end result is the same, you're wrong.

And none of this is really relevant to your argument that a woman has a right to an abortion for the simple fact that she did not consent to that zygote attaching itself to her uterine wall. Genx87 made a great point when he said that she waived her consent when she engaged in an activity that she knew could possibly result in the creation of a zygote that could potentially attach itself to her uterine wall.

I also object to your portrayal of a baby as a parasite. A parasite is an invasive creature, of alien origin, unrelated to the host. More important, a parasite is not the creation of the host. A baby is the culmination of a natural process whereby parts of two individuals of a species join together to create a third individual that did not exist prior. A parasite exists prior to invasion.

 

[Todd33]

I love all the phony "conviction" from the right. As if they care one bit for some fetus in some poor black woman's womb... You fight the fight because it wins elections. You fight the fight because you like to fight. You fight the fight because it helps keep groups of people in their place. I don't see hordes of middle class uppity conservative born again hypocrites adopting crack babies.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: slash196
What does "pain" even mean for an embryo? They don't have a functional central nervous system. Some of the pain receptors in the skin may synapse but there's no brain to interpret those signals.

The thalamus is needed to feel pain and it's functioning at 8 weeks.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I love all the phony "conviction" from the right. As if they care one bit for some fetus in some poor black woman's womb... You fight the fight because it wins elections. You fight the fight because you like to fight. You fight the fight because it helps keep groups of people in their place. I don't see hordes of middle class uppity conservative born again hypocrites adopting crack babies.

I didn't read where anyone said no to abortions in this thread. In fact, most of this thread has been a few of us arguing over the context in which Garth places human life and the radical positions he is taking re: procreation.

So should I say I love all the phoney "conviction" from the left that there is even an argument about abortion happening here?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
You declared, in fact, that sex does not cause pregnancy. In FACT, barring medical intervention, pregnancy is impossible without sex. You may want to dice this up into a semantic argument over when the pregnancy starts (at fertilization or at uterine attachment) but the simple fact is that without sex, there is no zygote to attach to the uterine wall.

Now you're trying to equate a miscarriage or failure of attachment to abortion? Try again. An abortion is a medical procedure. A miscarriage is not. A zygote that fails to attach and passes during menstruation is not. If you're trying to equate the two because the end result is the same, you're wrong.

And none of this is really relevant to your argument that a woman has a right to an abortion for the simple fact that she did not consent to that zygote attaching itself to her uterine wall. Genx87 made a great point when he said that she waived her consent when she engaged in an activity that she knew could possibly result in the creation of a zygote that could potentially attach itself to her uterine wall.

I also object to your portrayal of a baby as a parasite. A parasite is an invasive creature, of alien origin, unrelated to the host. More important, a parasite is not the creation of the host. A baby is the culmination of a natural process whereby parts of two individuals of a species join together to create a third individual that did not exist prior. A parasite exists prior to invasion.

So you are basically invalidating the Virgin Birth in Christianity, interesting.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
You declared, in fact, that sex does not cause pregnancy. In FACT, barring medical intervention, pregnancy is impossible without sex. You may want to dice this up into a semantic argument over when the pregnancy starts (at fertilization or at uterine attachment) but the simple fact is that without sex, there is no zygote to attach to the uterine wall.

Now you're trying to equate a miscarriage or failure of attachment to abortion? Try again. An abortion is a medical procedure. A miscarriage is not. A zygote that fails to attach and passes during menstruation is not. If you're trying to equate the two because the end result is the same, you're wrong.

And none of this is really relevant to your argument that a woman has a right to an abortion for the simple fact that she did not consent to that zygote attaching itself to her uterine wall. Genx87 made a great point when he said that she waived her consent when she engaged in an activity that she knew could possibly result in the creation of a zygote that could potentially attach itself to her uterine wall.

I also object to your portrayal of a baby as a parasite. A parasite is an invasive creature, of alien origin, unrelated to the host. More important, a parasite is not the creation of the host. A baby is the culmination of a natural process whereby parts of two individuals of a species join together to create a third individual that did not exist prior. A parasite exists prior to invasion.

So you are basically invalidating the Virgin Birth in Christianity, interesting.

I'm not invalidating anything. For those that believe, that was a one time only intervention by God. The rest of us have kids the old fashioned way: Doggie style while watching the hockey game!

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Todd33
I love all the phony "conviction" from the right. As if they care one bit for some fetus in some poor black woman's womb... You fight the fight because it wins elections. You fight the fight because you like to fight. You fight the fight because it helps keep groups of people in their place. I don't see hordes of middle class uppity conservative born again hypocrites adopting crack babies.

I didn't read where anyone said no to abortions in this thread. In fact, most of this thread has been a few of us arguing over the context in which Garth places human life and the radical positions he is taking re: procreation.

So should I say I love all the phoney "conviction" from the left that there is even an argument about abortion happening here?

Perhaps not here, but in the Pro Life movement in general has the goal of making it illegal almost all the time. Some of the bills floated around in the last few years don't even have a provision if the woman is raped, which is pretty obscene.

The problem with most Pro Lifers is that on the one hand they want to stop 99% of abortions on the other hand they want to pretty much abolish social programs that help raise the kids.

You can't have it both ways, if you make abortion illegal, you will have an increase in unwanted births, many by poor, single women. This will necessitate an increase in federal dollars spent to raise these children. That's a sad fact that very few seem to acknowledge.

Oh yeah and let's not forget the abstinence education only folks, most of them are Pro Lifers too.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I love all the phony "conviction" from the right. As if they care one bit for some fetus in some poor black woman's womb... You fight the fight because it wins elections. You fight the fight because you like to fight. You fight the fight because it helps keep groups of people in their place. I don't see hordes of middle class uppity conservative born again hypocrites adopting crack babies.

Try again, many politicians may feel this way, but many of us feel the procedure is barbaric and shows how far as a civilization we havent come. We are making Hitlers genocide look like a joke.

 

[Enig101]

Pain is merely a response of the nervous system to a stimulus. I wouldn't have thought the brain needs to be concious for it to function. I'm not an expert on biology though.