Pro-lifers, please explain this to me

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Genx87
We had this discussion with cerpin taxt months ago. Apparently he spent his better years of law school trying to piece together the most insane argument that sex doesnt lead to pregnancy.

In fact, I claimed that sex doesn't cause pregnancy, and it doesn't. Pregnancy is caused by the implantation of a zygote into a uterine wall.

Anybody who can put that together then repeat over and over isnt worth arguing with.

Well, it isn't worth arguing against, since it is demonstrably true. Why you guys insist on denying the truth despite it's obviousness is beyond me.

<snip>

It was those damned sperm. And it isnt a baby but a parasite.

Actually, it is not a baby, it is a fetus, and fetuses are parasitic.

When was the last time an unwanted pregnancy was caused by an act other than sex, cerpin?

Every single one of them. Pregnancy is caused by implantation of a zygote into a uterine wall, not sex. Please learn what it means to cause something. Hint: it has to do with necessary and sufficient conditions.

At what point does a fetus become a baby?

Live birth.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hahahahahahaha

If the things I've said were false, it would be in your interest to refute them. When you do not, we can only surmise that you realize that they are not false, but refuse disingenuously to acknowledge it.

I laughed because your response is just so classic. I couldnt have asked you to write it more to the T.

I am addicted to posting facts in refutation of pro-life BS. Guilty.

I'd suggest taking your head out of the law book and come back to reality. Where everybody acknowledges sex leads to pregnancy.

Lots of things "lead to" lots of other things. Driving leads to car wrecks. Swimming leads to drowning. Living leads to dying. Just because something "leads to" something else does not make it a cause. THAT is the reality which pro-lifers are either too stupid or dishonest to acknowledge.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Genx87
We had this discussion with cerpin taxt months ago. Apparently he spent his better years of law school trying to piece together the most insane argument that sex doesnt lead to pregnancy.

In fact, I claimed that sex doesn't cause pregnancy, and it doesn't. Pregnancy is caused by the implantation of a zygote into a uterine wall.

Anybody who can put that together then repeat over and over isnt worth arguing with.

Well, it isn't worth arguing against, since it is demonstrably true. Why you guys insist on denying the truth despite it's obviousness is beyond me.

<snip>

It was those damned sperm. And it isnt a baby but a parasite.

Actually, it is not a baby, it is a fetus, and fetuses are parasitic.

When was the last time an unwanted pregnancy was caused by an act other than sex, cerpin?

Every single one of them. Pregnancy is caused by implantation of a zygote into a uterine wall, not sex. Please learn what it means to cause something. Hint: it has to do with necessary and sufficient conditions.

At what point does a fetus become a baby?

Live birth.

Okay, I'll rephrase.

When was the last time an unwanted pregnancy occured without the act of sex preceding it? Can an unwanted pregnancy occur without sex?

Regarding the baby, what do you define as live birth? Entirely out of the woman's body?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hahahahahahaha

If the things I've said were false, it would be in your interest to refute them. When you do not, we can only surmise that you realize that they are not false, but refuse disingenuously to acknowledge it.

I laughed because your response is just so classic. I couldnt have asked you to write it more to the T.

I am addicted to posting facts in refutation of pro-life BS. Guilty.

I'd suggest taking your head out of the law book and come back to reality. Where everybody acknowledges sex leads to pregnancy.

Lots of things "lead to" lots of other things. Driving leads to car wrecks. Swimming leads to drowning. Living leads to dying. Just because something "leads to" something else does not make it a cause. THAT is the reality which pro-lifers are either too stupid or dishonest to acknowledge.

Dude, when you hold the argument that sex doesn't cause pregnancy, you lack precisely the understanding of causal effect of which you accuse Genx. It's no surprise he doesn't take you seriously.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

When was the last time an unwanted pregnancy occured without the act of sex preceding it? Can an unwanted pregnancy occur without sex?

Artificial inseminations come to mind, but now you've diverted the discussion to a red herring in your desperation. The point, if you'll recall, is that the having sex is not negligent, so there is no duty owed as a consequence of it. Pregnancy necessarily involves a violation to the fundamental bodily rights of the mother, and it is well-established in case law that waiver to said rights must be explicit. I've already made this point earier in this thread, and if you had taken the time to actually exercise the contents of that cantaloupe sitting on top of your neck I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.

Regarding the baby, what do you define as live birth? Entirely out of the woman's body?

I'm not particularly concerned with deciding on a moment-point of birth, because it isn't particularly relevant. I'll defer to any qualified medical professional to declare it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Dude, when you hold the argument that sex doesn't cause pregnancy, you lack precisely the understanding of causal effect of which you accuse Genx. It's no surprise he doesn't take you seriously.

It isn't an argument, it is a fact. I've already given you the cause of pregnancy, and it isn't sex. Pregnancy isn't even a significantly probable result of sex. Do you have any idea what the ratio must be between instances of sex and instances of pregnancy?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Dude, when you hold the argument that sex doesn't cause pregnancy, you lack precisely the understanding of causal effect of which you accuse Genx. It's no surprise he doesn't take you seriously.

It isn't an argument, it is a fact. I've already given you the cause of pregnancy, and it isn't sex. Pregnancy isn't even a significantly probable result of sex. Do you have any idea what the ratio must be between instances of sex and instances of pregnancy?

Yes, incredibly slim.

Nonetheless. Sex is an unavoidable cause of unintended pregnancies. Without it, unintended pregnancies wouldn't happen.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Dude, when you hold the argument that sex doesn't cause pregnancy, you lack precisely the understanding of causal effect of which you accuse Genx. It's no surprise he doesn't take you seriously.

It isn't an argument, it is a fact. I've already given you the cause of pregnancy, and it isn't sex. Pregnancy isn't even a significantly probable result of sex. Do you have any idea what the ratio must be between instances of sex and instances of pregnancy?

Yes, incredibly slim.

Nonetheless. Sex is an unavoidable cause of unintended pregnancies. Without it, unintended pregnancies wouldn't happen.

Without breathing, unwanted pregnancies wouldn't happen either, because we'd all be dead. Hence, breathing causes unwanted pregnancies.

Causes are necessary and sufficient conditions which are met to produce an effect. Sex is neither necessary nor sufficient to result in pregnancy. You need ejaculation, fertilization, and most importantly implantation before you get pregnancy.

THINK.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Dude, when you hold the argument that sex doesn't cause pregnancy, you lack precisely the understanding of causal effect of which you accuse Genx. It's no surprise he doesn't take you seriously.

It isn't an argument, it is a fact. I've already given you the cause of pregnancy, and it isn't sex. Pregnancy isn't even a significantly probable result of sex. Do you have any idea what the ratio must be between instances of sex and instances of pregnancy?

Yes, incredibly slim.

Nonetheless. Sex is an unavoidable cause of unintended pregnancies. Without it, unintended pregnancies wouldn't happen.

Without breathing, unwanted pregnancies wouldn't happen either, because we'd all be dead. Hence, breathing causes unwanted pregnancies.

Causes are necessary and sufficient conditions which are met to produce an effect. Sex is neither necessary nor sufficient to result in pregnancy. You need ejaculation, fertilization, and most importantly implantation before you get pregnancy.

THINK.

A cause is a reason or source of an event.

Implantation isn't the cause of pregnancy. It is pregnancy. It is the event, not the cause.

Breathing is first of all involuntary, and secondly a prerequisite to pregnancy, but not the cause. You can't get pregnant by breathing or not breathing. You CAN get pregnant by having sex.

Sex is a voluntary act, which alone and to the exclusion of all other acts is capable of causing the chain reaction which leads to pregnancy.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

A cause is a reason or source of an event.

Fucking Christ will you educate yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Logic

Implantation isn't the cause of pregnancy. It is pregnancy. It is the event, not the cause.

Don't be stupid. Pregnancy is a 9 month process in gestation of a fetus. Pregnancy doesn't stop once implantation is over. Implantation is a brief process which initiates (i.e. causes) pregnancy.

Breathing is first of all involuntary, and secondly a prerequisite to pregnancy, but not the cause.

Red herring. The point remains. Your reasoning is peurile and pathetic.

You can't get pregnant by breathing or not breathing. You CAN get pregnant by having sex.

Not if there isn't any implantation. How do you think contraceptives work? Do they stop sex or do they stop the cause of pregnancy?

Sex is a voluntary act, which alone and to the exclusion of all other acts is capable of causing the chain reaction which leads to pregnancy.

Don't be fucking ridiculous. I can think of a multitude of acts which can produce semen, and another multitude of acts which can produce a fertilized ovum, and still another multitude of acts which can result in the implantation of that zygote in a uterine wall.

And guess what, Poindexter? Nobody is pregnant until there's implantation. God, your arguments in this thread alone should disqualify any and all of your voting privledges.

 

[JD50]

Holy sh1t is Cerpin Text serious?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: JD50
Holy sh1t is Cerpin Text serious?

Absolutely.

It's a bit of a diversion, however. The issue which led to this dispute was the erroneous implication that women are consenting to become and remain pregnant when they consent to have sex. That idea is patently false, no matter what you believe about the cause of pregnancy. Waivers to bodily rights must be explicit, and that fact is well-established in precedent.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

A cause is a reason or source of an event.

Fucking Christ will you educate yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Logic

Implantation isn't the cause of pregnancy. It is pregnancy. It is the event, not the cause.

Don't be stupid. Pregnancy is a 9 month process in gestation of a fetus. Pregnancy doesn't stop once implantation is over. Implantation is a brief process which initiates (i.e. causes) pregnancy.

Breathing is first of all involuntary, and secondly a prerequisite to pregnancy, but not the cause.

Red herring. The point remains. Your reasoning is peurile and pathetic.

You can't get pregnant by breathing or not breathing. You CAN get pregnant by having sex.

Not if there isn't any implantation. How do you think contraceptives work? Do they stop sex or do they stop the cause of pregnancy?

Sex is a voluntary act, which alone and to the exclusion of all other acts is capable of causing the chain reaction which leads to pregnancy.

Don't be fucking ridiculous. I can think of a multitude of acts which can produce semen, and another multitude of acts which can produce a fertilized ovum, and still another multitude of acts which can result in the implantation of that zygote in a uterine wall.

And guess what, Poindexter? Nobody is pregnant until there's implantation. God, your arguments in this thread alone should disqualify any and all of your voting privledges.

Educate myself?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cause

Implantation is a phase of pregnancy, cerpin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implantation

Pregnancy encompasses implantation.

A multitude of acts excluding sex lead to unplanned pregnancies? Name them.

Cerpin, if Genx was right in that you went to law school, you'd think a law grad would know more about arguing than throwing insults for lack of a coherent refutation.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: JD50
Holy sh1t is Cerpin Text serious?

Absolutely.

It's a bit of a diversion, however. The issue which led to this dispute was the erroneous implication that women are consenting to become and remain pregnant when they consent to have sex. That idea is patently false, no matter what you believe about the cause of pregnancy. Waivers to bodily rights must be explicit, and that fact is well-established in precedent.

If you have unprotected sex you know that you run the risk of getting pregnant, because as everyone (except you apparently) knows, unprotected sex causes pregnancy. If you have unprotected sex, knowing that sex causes pregnancy, you are most certainly consenting to becoming pregnant. You are going to great lengths to argue against common sense.

I'm pro choice by the way.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Educate myself?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cause

Did you read your own link?

To set off an event or action.

Sex does not set off pregnancy. Implantation does.

Implantation is a phase of pregnancy, cerpin.

Are you claiming that a woman is pregnant before an zygote implants itself? So, if I were to remove a fertilized ovum from a woman's uterus before it implanted itself, she'd still be pregnant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implantation

Pregnancy encompasses implantation.

So what? A woman isn't pregnant until implantation, because implantation causes pregnancy. Without implantation, there isn't pregnancy. Implantation is a necessary and sufficient condition for pregnancy, i.e. it's cause.

A multitude of acts excluding sex lead to unplanned pregnancies? Name them.

Ah note the goal-post shifting. Earlier, your claim was that only sex "alone and to the exclusion of all other acts" leads to pregnancy (with no distinction between planned v. unplanned), and now you want me to list acts that lead only to unplanned pregnancies. Why so disingenuous? Did you think I wouldn't notice or are you simply too stupid to even realize what you were doing?

Cerpin, if Genx was right in that you went to law school, you'd think a law grad would know more about arguing than throwing insults for lack of a coherent refutation.

You were refuted days ago, and since then your posts have been met with the derision that they deserve.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: JD50

If you have unprotected sex you know that you run the risk of getting pregnant, because as everyone (except you apparently) knows, unprotected sex causes pregnancy.

Y'know how many times I've had unprotected sex? Probably hundreds. Guess how many pregnancies I've caused? Zero. Gee, that's weird. You say that unprotected sex causes pregnancy. How can these two facts be true?

If you have unprotected sex, knowing that sex causes pregnancy, you are most certainly consenting to becoming pregnant.

Patently false and rediculous for reasons already mentioned. Waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit.

You are going to great lengths to argue against common sense.

Common sense is a notoriously bad judge of reality.

I'm pro choice by the way.

That doesn't make you any better informed about the facts, apparently.

 

[JD50]

Cerpin text is basically arguing that if you shoot someone and they die, you are not guilty of murder, for several reasons. One, the act of pulling the trigger did not kill them, the bullet entering their brain is what killed them. Two, because people have been killed by things other than being shot, then that means that being shot does not cause someone to die. And three, because people have been shot before and survived, the act of shooting them did not cause their death. Ridiculous.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JD50
Cerpin text is basically arguing that if you shoot someone and they die, you are not guilty of murder, for several reasons. One, the act of pulling the trigger did not kill them, the bullet entering their brain is what killed them. Two, because people have been killed by things other than being shot, then that means that being shot does not cause someone to die. And three, because people have been shot before and survived, the act of shooting them did not cause their death. Ridiculous.

Dude, you have no idea how glad I am to see you.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Those that believe that life begins at conception...

What are your views on contraception such as the Pill. That is, those methods that allow conception, but not implantation. The Pill allows conception, but not implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus, resulting in the death of that fertilized egg. So, I would assume you support legislation that would ban the Pill?. I would assume your conclusion is that any woman who is taking the Pill and everytime they engage in sex, they are killing babies?. Do you believe the Pill is a method of abortion and should be banned?.

But if you cared about life you would work towards making a fair and just society where women didn't so often have to make the choice to abort a child they could not care for. Where women knew how to and had access to contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Repsect for life would mean respect for the woman making a difficult decision to end a pregancy because of her or the babies issues which are not your business and shouldn't be subject to your scrutiny.

But you and your fellow propagandists love to talk about life but do everything you can to disempower women from receiving safe legal medical care including contraception and sex education.

Thats not exactly right

Most birth control pills are "combination pills" containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn't ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.

Thats correct. Many pro-lifers think differently . What is your view. Is the Pill a form of abortion?. Do you believe woman taking this contraception are killing babies?

In the case of RU-486, yes. If conception has occurred, taking RU-486 is as immoral as any other abortion. If the egg and sperm are not allowed to meet, then no abortion takes place, and no human was destroyed.

I'm curious to see what happens when we go to the opposite extreme. Do you oppose partial-birth abortions?

I love this argument because it basically shows how little the poster has thought through his position. If I understand the poster correctly he's saying anything a women does to interfere with an egg after fertilization is basically an abortion and tantamount to child murder.

Well if RU486 fits that bill so does the following:

Plan B
Hormonal contraceptives
(I'm sure a lot of pro-lifers have no problems lumping those with RU486 and other methods of abortion. But how about these

Breast Feeding
Exercise
Getting Older
Doing Nothing at All

All of those increase the risk that a fertilized embryo does not implant itself and is flushed from a womens body.

Following along with Cerpin Taxts argument as you get older the chances of unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy shift from implantation to expulsion of the conceived "child". So it is more likely that unprotected sex ends in natural abortion rather than pregnancy.

I don't really expect anyone to respond to this as it means either they are wrong or evolution and/or god depending on your beliefs designed us to abort children. So please let your cognitive dissonance hold sway.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: JD50

If you have unprotected sex you know that you run the risk of getting pregnant, because as everyone (except you apparently) knows, unprotected sex causes pregnancy.

Y'know how many times I've had unprotected sex? Probably hundreds. Guess how many pregnancies I've caused? Zero. Gee, that's weird. You say that unprotected sex causes pregnancy. How can these two facts be true?

Is this seriously your argument? I think I hit the nail on the head pretty well with my previous analogy, I even wrote that before you came up with this gem.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JD50
Cerpin text is basically arguing that if you shoot someone and they die, you are not guilty of murder, for several reasons. One, the act of pulling the trigger did not kill them, the bullet entering their brain is what killed them. Two, because people have been killed by things other than being shot, then that means that being shot does not cause someone to die. And three, because people have been shot before and survived, the act of shooting them did not cause their death. Ridiculous.

Dude, you have no idea how glad I am to see you.

I can't believe that this guy is actually getting us to try and convince him that sex causes pregnancy.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Those that believe that life begins at conception...

What are your views on contraception such as the Pill. That is, those methods that allow conception, but not implantation. The Pill allows conception, but not implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus, resulting in the death of that fertilized egg. So, I would assume you support legislation that would ban the Pill?. I would assume your conclusion is that any woman who is taking the Pill and everytime they engage in sex, they are killing babies?. Do you believe the Pill is a method of abortion and should be banned?.

But if you cared about life you would work towards making a fair and just society where women didn't so often have to make the choice to abort a child they could not care for. Where women knew how to and had access to contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Repsect for life would mean respect for the woman making a difficult decision to end a pregancy because of her or the babies issues which are not your business and shouldn't be subject to your scrutiny.

But you and your fellow propagandists love to talk about life but do everything you can to disempower women from receiving safe legal medical care including contraception and sex education.

Thats not exactly right

Most birth control pills are "combination pills" containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn't ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.

Thats correct. Many pro-lifers think differently . What is your view. Is the Pill a form of abortion?. Do you believe woman taking this contraception are killing babies?

In the case of RU-486, yes. If conception has occurred, taking RU-486 is as immoral as any other abortion. If the egg and sperm are not allowed to meet, then no abortion takes place, and no human was destroyed.

I'm curious to see what happens when we go to the opposite extreme. Do you oppose partial-birth abortions?

I love this argument because it basically shows how little the poster has thought through his position. If I understand the poster correctly he's saying anything a women does to interfere with an egg after fertilization is basically an abortion and tantamount to child murder.

Well if RU486 fits that bill so does the following:

Plan B
Hormonal contraceptives
(I'm sure a lot of pro-lifers have no problems lumping those with RU486 and other methods of abortion. But how about these

Breast Feeding
Exercise
Getting Older
Doing Nothing at All

All of those increase the risk that a fertilized embryo does not implant itself and is flushed from a womens body.

Following along with Cerpin Taxts argument as you get older the chances of unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy shift from implantation to expulsion of the conceived "child". So it is more likely that unprotected sex ends in natural abortion rather than pregnancy.

I don't really expect anyone to respond to this as it means either they are wrong or evolution and/or god depending on your beliefs designed us to abort children. So please let your cognitive dissonance hold sway.

Plan B doesn't interrupt fertilized eggs. Believe me, I've had enough pregnancy scares to have looked at that.

The logic, to me, is simple. If a fertlized egg is a human being at the earliest stage of development, than destroying it without due cause or an otherwise good reason is wrong.

If you kill someone on accident, as in the case of natural abortion, you're not guilty of murder. That's nature taking its course. If you do so deliberately, as in the case of abortion or RU-486, you are guilty.

 

[Peelback79]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: JD50
Holy sh1t is Cerpin Text serious?

Absolutely.

It's a bit of a diversion, however. The issue which led to this dispute was the erroneous implication that women are consenting to become and remain pregnant when they consent to have sex. That idea is patently false, no matter what you believe about the cause of pregnancy. Waivers to bodily rights must be explicit, and that fact is well-established in precedent.

If you have unprotected sex you know that you run the risk of getting pregnant, because as everyone (except you apparently) knows, unprotected sex causes pregnancy. If you have unprotected sex, knowing that sex causes pregnancy, you are most certainly consenting to becoming pregnant. You are going to great lengths to argue against common sense.

I'm pro choice by the way.

Even with a condom you run the risk of pregnancy and std's. Your best bet is to use a condom and some other form of contraceptive to prevent pregnancy.

From Cerpin
Causes are necessary and sufficient conditions which are met to produce an effect. Sex is neither necessary nor sufficient to result in pregnancy. You need ejaculation, fertilization, and most importantly implantation before you get pregnancy.

THINK.

No one can possibly deny that you can have sex without pregnancy, but why should either of the involved parties be able to destroy the life once it's there? Just because it can't vote doesn't mean it doesn't have rights. If you don't want raise a child, give it up for adoption.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Those that believe that life begins at conception...

What are your views on contraception such as the Pill. That is, those methods that allow conception, but not implantation. The Pill allows conception, but not implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus, resulting in the death of that fertilized egg. So, I would assume you support legislation that would ban the Pill?. I would assume your conclusion is that any woman who is taking the Pill and everytime they engage in sex, they are killing babies?. Do you believe the Pill is a method of abortion and should be banned?.

But if you cared about life you would work towards making a fair and just society where women didn't so often have to make the choice to abort a child they could not care for. Where women knew how to and had access to contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Repsect for life would mean respect for the woman making a difficult decision to end a pregancy because of her or the babies issues which are not your business and shouldn't be subject to your scrutiny.

But you and your fellow propagandists love to talk about life but do everything you can to disempower women from receiving safe legal medical care including contraception and sex education.

Thats not exactly right

Most birth control pills are "combination pills" containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn't ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.

Thats correct. Many pro-lifers think differently . What is your view. Is the Pill a form of abortion?. Do you believe woman taking this contraception are killing babies?

In the case of RU-486, yes. If conception has occurred, taking RU-486 is as immoral as any other abortion. If the egg and sperm are not allowed to meet, then no abortion takes place, and no human was destroyed.

I'm curious to see what happens when we go to the opposite extreme. Do you oppose partial-birth abortions?

I love this argument because it basically shows how little the poster has thought through his position. If I understand the poster correctly he's saying anything a women does to interfere with an egg after fertilization is basically an abortion and tantamount to child murder.

Well if RU486 fits that bill so does the following:

Plan B
Hormonal contraceptives
(I'm sure a lot of pro-lifers have no problems lumping those with RU486 and other methods of abortion. But how about these

Breast Feeding
Exercise
Getting Older
Doing Nothing at All

All of those increase the risk that a fertilized embryo does not implant itself and is flushed from a womens body.

Following along with Cerpin Taxts argument as you get older the chances of unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy shift from implantation to expulsion of the conceived "child". So it is more likely that unprotected sex ends in natural abortion rather than pregnancy.

I don't really expect anyone to respond to this as it means either they are wrong or evolution and/or god depending on your beliefs designed us to abort children. So please let your cognitive dissonance hold sway.

Plan B doesn't interrupt fertilized eggs. Believe me, I've had enough pregnancy scares to have looked at that.

The logic, to me, is simple. If a fertlized egg is a human being at the earliest stage of development, than destroying it without due cause or an otherwise good reason is wrong.

If you kill someone on accident, you're not guilty of murder. If you do so deliberately, you are guilty.

By law if you kill someone on accident your are guilty of involuntary manslaughter. By your reasoning a fertilized egg, even before implantation, is a child.
By scientific tests a portion of all fertilized eggs are not implanted after unprotected sex. That portion increases if your wife is breast feeding, exercises regularly or is older.

If I accidentally leave my 3 year old in place where there is a 30% chance of her death, like a parked car for an hour in the summer, I would be charged with child endangerment. If she died I would be charged with involuntary manslaughter or worse.

How do you reconcile these facts? The logic you put forward is inescapable. You are saying that I, in my efforts to have a family, have most likely accidentally killed several "children". In fact every parent has except those who've had sex only once and it resulted in a born child.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JD50
Cerpin text is basically arguing that if you shoot someone and they die, you are not guilty of murder, for several reasons. One, the act of pulling the trigger did not kill them, the bullet entering their brain is what killed them. Two, because people have been killed by things other than being shot, then that means that being shot does not cause someone to die. And three, because people have been shot before and survived, the act of shooting them did not cause their death. Ridiculous.

Like I said earlier he spent his better years at law school coming up with this insanely amusing defense. Or he read a few cases and is playing lawyer for the day. Either way you explained it perfectly.

Maybe some day he will realize how silly it looks to argue having unprotected sex doesnt lead to pregnancy. Sometimes common sense prevails over arguing the finer details.