Pro-lifers, please explain this to me

[JohnOfSheffield]

I've gotta go now but i'll be back in a couple of days if all goes well.

Cheerio.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Pro-life individuals believe that life begins at the time of conception, and is to be valued as a human life and respected as such-to terminate it is murder. Could be religious reasons or whatever, but it's fair to say this is what y'all believe, right?

Most of you, however, feel that exceptions should be made in the case of rape and incest. In fact, it's really only the outliers who feel that abortion should still be illegal for victims of rape.

My question is, how can you be pro-life for the above reasons, but only in cases where the chick was having a good time? Is the life that develops as the product of rape no longer a life? Should it not be valued?

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, it's a legitimate question. Why is the sanctity of life only in place when it's the product of voluntary sexual intercourse?

EDIT: I didn't say anything about the damn death penalty!

Me and Jonks got into this awhile back.

You're right in that it's inconsistent to believe in humanity at conception AND that abortion is permissable in cases of rape.

I don't excuse abortion in cases of rape. The simple question in such a case is, "Who is at fault?" Certainly not the mother, but certainly not the child either. The fault lies squarely on the part of the rapist. Why, then, is it permissable to murder the child, who is just as innocent as a child conceived consensually?

I think what you see most often is pro-life people who mean that they are much quicker to forgive someone who aborts after being raped, then someone who aborts after consensually having sex in full knowledge of the consequences.

You are right except for one thing. What you call a child is collection of cells that have no consciousness and are not alive and human by law. They aren't innocent or guilty. They are nonentities. The human life you want to protect is all in your head. Your mental imagination does not make a bunch of cells legally human. You have create your own mental prison and can only go round and round in your cell. You are saying a woman shouldn't be able to abort a rock. Again, the fetus is a rock or a woman is a slave. The woman is definitely human so the fetus is not. Law is a means by which we make sense out of absolutist prisons.

Slavery? I assume you mean that, since things can happen to women against their will, that they are a slave.

A slave only to nature. Men are subject to the same slavery. If you're body gets sick, you very likely had no choice in the matter. Yet you are bound to the outcome. You could equally say we are slaves to life. We didn't choose to be born.

What you call slavery, I call gifts.

At what point do you define a fetus as becoming a child?

 

[Genx87]

This is a good question.

It is an issue I struggle with a lot being pro-lifer. And I cant really say with certaintly what my views are because they change.

But I will freely admit on the days that I feel those cases should be exempt I am a hypcrite.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
In which lab did you observe life beginning? As far as I was aware, the scientific concensus was that life likely began some several billion years ago, and has been in continuous reproduction and diversification since then.

Washing State University. The life I saw start didnt happen billions of years ago. It staarted when the egg was introduced to the sperm.

Really? So the gametes weren't living themselves? How did they fuse?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I fit your profile and don't see a contradiction. I believe that you choosing to have sex is your choice to accept the consequences of that action which could include having a child. In the case of rape, the woman is not choosing to have a child, thus abortion would be an option. ...

I see no problems with my point of view.

So, you basically are pro-life because the mother should be punished for having sex and getting pregnant?

How is she being punished? Did you even read what I wrote?

Being unwillingly compelled to endure an unwanted and unnecessary consequence is pretty much a punishment by definition -- at least it is in our language.

That is aside from the fact that your reasoning itself is abysmal on its face. Accepting potential consequences is not the same thing as consenting to each and every one of those potential consequences -- especially when a particular consequence invovles a violation of one's fundamental bodily rights. For example, driving a car in traffic implicitly assumes the potential consequence of being involved in an injury collision, but you do not automatically waive your rights to seek restitution to such injury every time you get behind the wheel.

Waivers to bodily rights must be explicit. That fact is well established in precedent.

I disagree with your analogy.

But you apparently do not disagree that pro-lifers weild pregnancy as a punishment.

When you get behind the wheel, are you consenting to the risk of injury, and you definitely have the right to seek restitution if you are injured however this is not the same as keeping a child. In one case, two people consent to the direct risks of their actions. In the other case, one person is injuring another and the one is seeking restitution for that injury. One has nothing to do with the other.

Absolute gibberish -- the legal principles are the same. I can construct more analogies if you're too dense to get it the first time. For example, leaving your front door unlocked you accept the possibility that an intruder will enter your home and steal your property or attack your person -- but accepting that possibility does not mean you have consented to the theft and assault.

My point is EXTREMELY simple, so do not make additional assumptions about it.

And it is extremely wrong.

A woman HAS A RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Having sex is the choice. When you choose to have sex, you are choosing to fully accept the consequences of what could happen.

Balderdash. What an absolutely asinine assertion. Accepting potentiality is not the same as consenting to the realities. Good lord you pro-lifers are dense.

If she doesn't want to have a child growing inside of her, then she should not have sex.

Again we see the real reason pro-lifers oppose abortion -- they want to control others' sex lives and punish people that transgress their personal morality. What a bunch of douchebags.

It's a very simple position and it's my own oppinion.

Yeah well you can believe the moon is made of green cheese... it doesn't make you any less wrong.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I fit your profile and don't see a contradiction. I believe that you choosing to have sex is your choice to accept the consequences of that action which could include having a child. In the case of rape, the woman is not choosing to have a child, thus abortion would be an option. ...

I see no problems with my point of view.

So, you basically are pro-life because the mother should be punished for having sex and getting pregnant?

How is she being punished? Did you even read what I wrote?

Being unwillingly compelled to endure an unwanted and unnecessary consequence is pretty much a punishment by definition -- at least it is in our language.

That is aside from the fact that your reasoning itself is abysmal on its face. Accepting potential consequences is not the same thing as consenting to each and every one of those potential consequences -- especially when a particular consequence invovles a violation of one's fundamental bodily rights. For example, driving a car in traffic implicitly assumes the potential consequence of being involved in an injury collision, but you do not automatically waive your rights to seek restitution to such injury every time you get behind the wheel.

Waivers to bodily rights must be explicit. That fact is well established in precedent.

I disagree with your analogy.

But you apparently do not agree that pro-lifers weild pregnancy as a punishment.

When you get behind the wheel, are you consenting to the risk of injury, and you definitely have the right to seek restitution if you are injured however this is not the same as keeping a child. In one case, two people consent to the direct risks of their actions. In the other case, one person is injuring another and the one is seeking restitution for that injury. One has nothing to do with the other.

Absolute gibberish -- the legal principles are the same. I can construct more analogies if you're too dense to get it the first time. For example, leaving your front door unlocked you accept the possibility that an intruder will enter your home and steal your property or attack your person -- but accepting that possibility does not mean you have consented to the theft and assault.

My point is EXTREMELY simple, so do not make additional assumptions about it.

And it is extremely wrong.

A woman HAS A RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Having sex is the choice. When you choose to have sex, you are choosing to fully accept the consequences of what could happen.

Balderdash. What an absolutely asinine assertion. Accepting potentiality is not the same as consenting to the realities. Good lord you pro-lifers are dense.

If she doesn't want to have a child growing inside of her, then she should not have sex.

Again we see the real reason pro-lifers oppose abortion -- they want to control others' sex lives and punish people that transgress their personal morality. What a bunch of douchebags.

It's a very simple position and it's my own oppinion.

Yeah well you can believe the moon is made of green cheese... it doesn't make you any less wrong.

Dude, if you consent to an action, you consent to consequences. That's how rational thought works.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Dude, if you consent to an action, you consent to consequences. That's how rational thought works.

Patently ridiculous, and it would seem rational thought is totally foreign to you. See any of my earlier analogies: you do not consent to car wrecks when you get behind the wheel. You don't consent to burglaries when you leave your front door unlocked. You don't consent to rape when you dress provocatively. You don't consent to assault when you insult the belligerent drunk guy. Waivers to bodily rights must be explicit.

Having sex isn't negligent. Therefore, there is no one to whom a duty is owed as a conseqeunce of having sex. When a zygote subverts a woman's immune system and implants itself into her uterus it violates her right to protect herself from such an unwelcomed invasion. Abortion is her vehicle for restoring the status quo ante before her rights were violated.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ you guys are ignorant.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

"You don't have to protect unborn children. That's 'good works.' You don't have to 'work' for your salvation. Paul says Jesus told him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee". Abortion. You don't have to protect unborn children."

If the above theological argument sounds foolish to them, it should. It has been made by religious pro-lifers with regards to animal rights: not harming or not killing animals is dismissed as 'good works,' whereas not harming or not killing the unborn is a Christian duty.

The pro-life movement desperately needs religious diversity. Pro-lifers should welcome people of all faiths and those of no faith. Not everyone in the United States is a Christian. This country wasn't founded by Christians only; many of America's founding fathers were Deists. There are other faiths besides the Abrahamic faiths. There are other holy books out there besides the Bible or the Koran, like the Bhagavad-gita, which also claim to be the word of God.

Many pro-life Christians adhere to a double-standard: i.e., they insist that their stand against abortion be applied to everyone, including those who may not share their faith, but then they embrace moral relativism when it suits them, e.g.: "Your religion says its wrong to kill animals for food, clothing, or sport - mine doesn't."

Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at the time. This was positive proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.

Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as: "Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."

Again, the pro-life movement desperately needs religious diversity. It's already stereotyped as being predominately Christian (Catholic, fundamentalist, born again, etc.) and will need to become completely secular as it attempts to convince the courts, legislatures, universities, philosophers, ethicists, etc. that human zygotes and embryos should be regarded as legal persons.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Dude, if you consent to an action, you consent to consequences. That's how rational thought works.

Patently ridiculous, and it would seem rational thought is totally foreign to you. See any of my earlier analogies: you do not consent to car wrecks when you get behind the wheel. You don't consent to burglaries when you leave your front door unlocked. You don't consent to rape when you dress provocatively. You don't consent to assault when you insult the belligerent drunk guy. Waivers to bodily rights must be explicit.

Having sex isn't negligent. Therefore, there is no one to whom a duty is owed as a conseqeunce of having sex. When a zygote subverts a woman's immune system and implants itself into her uterus it violates her right to protect herself from such an unwelcomed invasion. Abortion is her vehicle for restoring the status quo ante before her rights were violated.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ you guys are ignorant.

You consent to the risk of accidents when you engage in driving. If you are at fault, you must deal with the consequences. If you are not, you are exempt from such payments.

Pregnancy is no different. Due to negligence, you made a mistake.

Having unprotected sex when you don't want the consequences is deliberately playing the odds, and is therefore negligent. The zygote wouldn't subvert the woman's immune if the woman hadn't directly attempted to create the zygote.

Further, if the fetus is commiting a crime agains the woman by invading her body, aren't children who are already born guilty of at one time invading their mother's bodily integrity? Aren't they as guilty of this grievous crime after birth as they were before, and shouldn't they be subject to the same punishment if this is true?

If a crime has been committed, then it doesn't matter how much time has transpired between the present and the time of the crime, and therefore all children, adults, or any human, having transgressed their mother's body, are guilty and punishable by death.

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Dude, if you consent to an action, you consent to consequences. That's how rational thought works.

Patently ridiculous, and it would seem rational thought is totally foreign to you. See any of my earlier analogies: you do not consent to car wrecks when you get behind the wheel. You don't consent to burglaries when you leave your front door unlocked. You don't consent to rape when you dress provocatively. You don't consent to assault when you insult the belligerent drunk guy. Waivers to bodily rights must be explicit.

Having sex isn't negligent. Therefore, there is no one to whom a duty is owed as a conseqeunce of having sex. When a zygote subverts a woman's immune system and implants itself into her uterus it violates her right to protect herself from such an unwelcomed invasion. Abortion is her vehicle for restoring the status quo ante before her rights were violated.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ you guys are ignorant.

You consent to the risk of accidents when you engage in driving. If you are at fault, you must deal with the consequences. If you are not, you are exempt from such payments.

Pregnancy is no different. Due to negligence, you made a mistake.

What negligence?

Having unprotected sex when you don't want the consequences is deliberately playing the odds, and is therefore negligent. The zygote wouldn't subvert the woman's immune if the woman hadn't directly attempted to create the zygote.

You do not understand what negligence is or how it works. Like I said, you're ignorant, but that doesn't stop you from pontificating from your posterior anyway.

Negligence is the breach of a duty, and duties are owed to people. Now, knowing that, pleaes explain to me in what possible manner sex could be considered negligent?

Further, if the fetus is commiting a crime agains the woman by invading her body, aren't children who are already born guilty of at one time invading their mother's bodily integrity?

Yes, but they did so with her provisional consent which carried them to term. Fucking DUH.

Aren't they as guilty of this grievous crime after birth as they were before, and shouldn't they be subject to the same punishment if this is true?

Abortion isn't punishment against the fetus. It is the defense of the mother's rights.

If a crime has been committed, then it doesn't matter how much time has transpired between the present and the time of the crime, and therefore all children, adults, or any human, having transgressed their mother's body, are guilty and punishable by death.

I wish you would take the time to think before you post.

 

[Moonbeam]

Let's look at this again. Do a patient have a right to go to a doctor and have a tumor removed? Can a person give blood. Are you allowed to cut your toenails?

If you are then you can also get an abortion.

When the absolute and vital concept of the sanctity of life is hijacked by absolutists and applied to the fetus at the moment of conception a woman who can get pregnant becomes slave or prisoner to an abstract concept that has no reality beyond the strength of opinion with which it is held. Once you, in your egotistical demand for pure justice and the sanctity of every fetal life, purely out of mental abstraction, and generally as a result of a religious book, decide that the fetus is a human being you deny that same humanity to a pregnant woman to trim her toes or have a tumor removed. You have given rights to something as unconsciouses as a stone and denied the conscious human her rights.

Only in your imagination is the fetus a human with rights to exist despite the one whose egg it unwillingly sprang from. We are not helpless animals condemned to our nature. We are intelligent beings who can direct our own destiny despite our mechanical being.

The impartation of life to a fetus is a religious fanatical belief. Take your religious fanatical belief and live your own life by it. Leave women who are not religious fanatics and who have to deal with their own real and unique situations alone. You so want to be good and you are so evil. Make the world a place where nobody would ever feel a need for an abortion.

The practical judicial wisdom of legal minds concurs with me.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

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?

So if a embryo being fertilized is the start of life, and it is immoral to kill that embryo, does that mean a women who has her period with a fertilized egg is a serial murder?

As said abouve over 80% of fertilized eggs are flushed out of the body.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Dude, if you consent to an action, you consent to consequences. That's how rational thought works.

Patently ridiculous, and it would seem rational thought is totally foreign to you. See any of my earlier analogies: you do not consent to car wrecks when you get behind the wheel. You don't consent to burglaries when you leave your front door unlocked. You don't consent to rape when you dress provocatively. You don't consent to assault when you insult the belligerent drunk guy. Waivers to bodily rights must be explicit.

Having sex isn't negligent. Therefore, there is no one to whom a duty is owed as a conseqeunce of having sex. When a zygote subverts a woman's immune system and implants itself into her uterus it violates her right to protect herself from such an unwelcomed invasion. Abortion is her vehicle for restoring the status quo ante before her rights were violated.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ you guys are ignorant.

You consent to the risk of accidents when you engage in driving. If you are at fault, you must deal with the consequences. If you are not, you are exempt from such payments.

Pregnancy is no different. Due to negligence, you made a mistake.

Having unprotected sex when you don't want the consequences is deliberately playing the odds, and is therefore negligent. The zygote wouldn't subvert the woman's immune if the woman hadn't directly attempted to create the zygote.

Further, if the fetus is commiting a crime agains the woman by invading her body, aren't children who are already born guilty of at one time invading their mother's bodily integrity? Aren't they as guilty of this grievous crime after birth as they were before, and shouldn't they be subject to the same punishment if this is true?

If a crime has been committed, then it doesn't matter how much time has transpired between the present and the time of the crime, and therefore all children, adults, or any human, having transgressed their mother's body, are guilty and punishable by death.

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.

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

This is where he responds with "This is an argument somebody who doesnt know the facts or cant argue the facts".

The rest of the world will continue to have sex and get pregnant like we have for thousands of years. He will continue to live in a world were the act didnt create the pregnancy. It was those damned sperm. And it isnt a baby but a parasite.

 

[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.

 

[Genx87]

Hahahahahahaha

 

[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.

 

[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'd suggest taking your head out of the law book and come back to reality. Where everybody acknowledges sex leads to pregnancy. I dont expect you to take this advice and will continue on your crusade. Bet you are a blast at the bar with a few drinks in ya.

 

[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?

At what point does a fetus become a baby?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

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?

So if a embryo being fertilized is the start of life, and it is immoral to kill that embryo, does that mean a women who has her period with a fertilized egg is a serial murder?

As said abouve over 80% of fertilized eggs are flushed out of the body.

A serial murderer, no. Guilty of negligent homicide, yes.

You say 80% of fertilized eggs are flushed out of the body. If this is occurs naturally, the woman bears no responsibility. If it occurs because she deliberately induced it, then she is to blame.

 

[Atreus21]

DP

 

[Robor]

Wow, after reading some of the posts in this thread I sure hope we don't get another conservative judge on the supreme court.