Roe Vs. Wade Roe is jumping ship

[Yax]

Well, another pointless abortion debate. Here's some stupid points for ya. Don't read it unless you're ready to accept reality.

1. Women and their morals. Its okay to get fncked before you get married, but its not okay to get an abortion when you're pregnant. Isn't it not okay for both?

2. So, does a baby have rights? There were people saying that you need to be an American Citizen to have rights. That was the reasoning for detaining non citizens for any reason for any amount of time. To be a Citizen you'd have to be born first! There goes the baby's rights.

3. Okay, so lets say you don't agree with number 2. You can argue those people were wrong and everyone has rights in the US. They don't need to be born first, the fact that they are alive should do it. Fine, stop killing your sperm by having xes and/or jack hoffing. You're killing millions of your own babies. Sperm cells are living beings and should have rights too damntt!

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: gopunk

A child in the third trimester is in many cases able to survive outside of the mother's womb(with substantial care, mind you). So tell me, what is the difference to the child whether it is dismembered 6 weeks before or 6 weeks after it is born?

exactly! hell, what's the difference between destroying it 9 months before or 9 months after it's born?!

There are none. They are both living beings that are 100% dependant on others to survive. What's that saying? A rose under a different name still smells as sweet? It doesn't matter if you call it a fetus, or a baby, or a thingamabob, you are still ending a life. THAT is the real issue. It doesn't matter when, or where, or how it's done. Having an abortion is ending a human life. If you disagree with that, I would hate to see what kind of father or mother you would ever become. Pregnant women are treated different because they are carrying a thing that will eventually turn into their child. If that thing in their belly was not alive or didn't matter, those women would not care at all what happened to them. No matter what you think, it's still homicide. You are ending a human life. All other points are moot. It's not like a fetus just magically appears in a mother's stomach one day and she must live with it. She made a choice and that choice was to have sex. So the woman's choice point is completely irrelevent because she already made the choice to have sex, and that always carries the risk of having a child (contraceptives are never 100% effective). Anyone who makes the stupid arguement involving rape should be shot. Of course those are special circumstances, duh. We are arguing the rule here, not the exception. That's a completely different topic that should be discussed separately. I have never seen a good, valid arguement supporting abortion. Just people complaining about religion and women's right's crap (both of which can be easily refuted). People who have abortions done should be prosecuted as murderer, and the people who perform the abortions should be prosecuted as acessories to murder (or visa-versa).

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Life is tough, people do stupid things and should take responsibility for their actions. The impetus is not on me to take responsibility for their actions. I am not responsible for their actions, I am responsible for my own. The whole "you can't oppose abortion because you won't adopt their babies" is ridiculous. Perhaps if they had to use a coat hanger in a back alley to murder their child, they'd be less likely to be screwing around before they are ready to handle the great power to create life they are wielding between their legs.

personal responsibility is great and all, but the damage done to society through an unwanted child whom the mother is unable to raise properly, is far greater than the damage from this one instance of allowing personal responsibility to slip. as a member of society, i do not want to have to pay taxes for police protection from their children when they grow up, welfare, or whatever. you can argue that i shouldn't have to pay welfare in the first place, but the fact of the matter is is that no matter what, poor and impoverished people will always be a burden on society in a multitude of ways. now tell me, WHY THE F*CK should i pay for this?

I wholly disagree with your entire argument that because an un-aborted unborn child can possibly do more damage than an aborted one, that makes it morally and ethically ok to murder the child. basically you are saying it is ok to intentionally murder an innocent because of something that may or may not happen.

and also

ethics/morality > money

 

[CrazyDe1]

I'd rather the woman have an abortion than have more jacked up people with uncaring parents in this world...
Say whatever you want, but I will never ever see a fetus as a full blown human. You don't call an egg a chicken do you? No, an egg is an egg, a chicken is a chicken. You're not saying oh, I had scrambled chicken for breakfast this morning....

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: gopunk

A child in the third trimester is in many cases able to survive outside of the mother's womb(with substantial care, mind you). So tell me, what is the difference to the child whether it is dismembered 6 weeks before or 6 weeks after it is born?

exactly! hell, what's the difference between destroying it 9 months before or 9 months after it's born?!

There are none. They are both living beings that are 100% dependant on others to survive. What's that saying? A rose under a different name still smells as sweet? It doesn't matter if you call it a fetus, or a baby, or a thingamabob, you are still ending a life. THAT is the real issue. It doesn't matter when, or where, or how it's done. Having an abortion is ending a human life. If you disagree with that, I would hate to see what kind of father or mother you would ever become. Pregnant women are treated different because they are carrying a thing that will eventually turn into their child. If that thing in their belly was not alive or didn't matter, those women would not care at all what happened to them. No matter what you think, it's still homicide. You are ending a human life. All other points are moot. It's not like a fetus just magically appears in a mother's stomach one day and she must live with it. She made a choice and that choice was to have sex. So the woman's choice point is completely irrelevent because she already made the choice to have sex, and that always carries the risk of having a child (contraceptives are never 100% effective). Anyone who makes the stupid arguement involving rape should be shot. Of course those are special circumstances, duh. We are arguing the rule here, not the exception. That's a completely different topic that should be discussed separately. I have never seen a good, valid arguement supporting abortion. Just people complaining about religion and women's right's crap (both of which can be easily refuted). People who have abortions done should be prosecuted as murderer, and the people who perform the abortions should be prosecuted as acessories to murder (or visa-versa).

I love how all the pro-life sentiment in this thread is entirely focused on the women and completely discounts the role of the men. Where's the accoutability for their actions? Why aren't their feet being held to the fire for getting someone pregnant? Why isn't there a SWAT team hunting down the millions of men who impregnate these millions of women so they can support the child they helped create?

 

[gopunk]

There are none. They are both living beings that are 100% dependant on others to survive. What's that saying? A rose under a different name still smells as sweet? It doesn't matter if you call it a fetus, or a baby, or a thingamabob, you are still ending a life. THAT is the real issue. It doesn't matter when, or where, or how it's done.

you can't possibly expect me to believe that there exists any two cell organism is the same as a human being. that is simply false. it doesn't even have a f*cking brain, limbs, or ANYTHING.

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Well, another pointless abortion debate. Here's some stupid points for ya. Don't read it unless you're ready to accept reality.

1. Women and their morals. Its okay to get fncked before you get married, but its not okay to get an abortion when you're pregnant. Isn't it not okay for both?

2. So, does a baby have rights? There were people saying that you need to be an American Citizen to have rights. That was the reasoning for detaining non citizens for any reason for any amount of time. To be a Citizen you'd have to be born first! There goes the baby's rights.

3. Okay, so lets say you don't agree with number 2. You can argue those people were wrong and everyone has rights in the US. They don't need to be born first, the fact that they are alive should do it. Fine, stop killing your sperm by having xes and/or jack hoffing. You're killing millions of your own babies. Sperm cells are living beings and should have rights too damntt!

1.) you are absolutely correct, both are immoral. but fornication and murder are by nature, very different.

2.) Constitutional rights != human rights Citizens of a nation are the only ones protected by constitutional rights, being human qualifies you for human rights

3.)Ummm, Sperm != developing embrio

Sperm, in and of themselves have no way of naturally developing into a human being without fertilizing an egg. That argument is so fallacious it is incredible that you would even consider posting it.

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
I'd rather the woman have an abortion than have more jacked up people with uncaring parents in this world...
Say whatever you want, but I will never ever see a fetus as a full blown human. You don't call an egg a chicken do you? No, an egg is an egg, a chicken is a chicken. You're not saying oh, I had scrambled chicken for breakfast this morning....

The egg you eat in the morning (99% of the time) is UNFERTILIZED therefor it is an egg and and a chicken

 

[gopunk]

I wholly disagree with your entire argument that because an un-aborted unborn child can possibly do more damage than an aborted one, that makes it morally and ethically ok to murder the child. basically you are saying it is ok to intentionally murder an innocent because of something that may or may not happen.

and also

ethics/morality > money

MY money > YOUR ethics/morality

if you want to think that abortion is murder, blah blah blah, great, you go ahead and make sure they don't rob me when i'm 80. don't tell me what to do with MY money.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: gopunk

A child in the third trimester is in many cases able to survive outside of the mother's womb(with substantial care, mind you). So tell me, what is the difference to the child whether it is dismembered 6 weeks before or 6 weeks after it is born?

exactly! hell, what's the difference between destroying it 9 months before or 9 months after it's born?!

There are none. They are both living beings that are 100% dependant on others to survive. What's that saying? A rose under a different name still smells as sweet? It doesn't matter if you call it a fetus, or a baby, or a thingamabob, you are still ending a life. THAT is the real issue. It doesn't matter when, or where, or how it's done. Having an abortion is ending a human life. If you disagree with that, I would hate to see what kind of father or mother you would ever become. Pregnant women are treated different because they are carrying a thing that will eventually turn into their child. If that thing in their belly was not alive or didn't matter, those women would not care at all what happened to them. No matter what you think, it's still homicide. You are ending a human life. All other points are moot. It's not like a fetus just magically appears in a mother's stomach one day and she must live with it. She made a choice and that choice was to have sex. So the woman's choice point is completely irrelevent because she already made the choice to have sex, and that always carries the risk of having a child (contraceptives are never 100% effective). Anyone who makes the stupid arguement involving rape should be shot. Of course those are special circumstances, duh. We are arguing the rule here, not the exception. That's a completely different topic that should be discussed separately. I have never seen a good, valid arguement supporting abortion. Just people complaining about religion and women's right's crap (both of which can be easily refuted). People who have abortions done should be prosecuted as murderer, and the people who perform the abortions should be prosecuted as acessories to murder (or visa-versa).

I love how all the pro-life sentiment in this thread is entirely focused on the women and completely discounts the role of the men. Where's the accoutability for their actions? Why aren't their feet being held to the fire for getting someone pregnant? Why isn't there a SWAT team hunting down the millions of men who impregnate these millions of women so they can support the child they helped create?

There is; it's called The Texas State Attorney General's Office. They will hunt you down and take 20% of your income even if you are disabled and making minimum wage. You got a job? We got your money. :evil:

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: gopunk

A child in the third trimester is in many cases able to survive outside of the mother's womb(with substantial care, mind you). So tell me, what is the difference to the child whether it is dismembered 6 weeks before or 6 weeks after it is born?

exactly! hell, what's the difference between destroying it 9 months before or 9 months after it's born?!

There are none. They are both living beings that are 100% dependant on others to survive. What's that saying? A rose under a different name still smells as sweet? It doesn't matter if you call it a fetus, or a baby, or a thingamabob, you are still ending a life. THAT is the real issue. It doesn't matter when, or where, or how it's done. Having an abortion is ending a human life. If you disagree with that, I would hate to see what kind of father or mother you would ever become. Pregnant women are treated different because they are carrying a thing that will eventually turn into their child. If that thing in their belly was not alive or didn't matter, those women would not care at all what happened to them. No matter what you think, it's still homicide. You are ending a human life. All other points are moot. It's not like a fetus just magically appears in a mother's stomach one day and she must live with it. She made a choice and that choice was to have sex. So the woman's choice point is completely irrelevent because she already made the choice to have sex, and that always carries the risk of having a child (contraceptives are never 100% effective). Anyone who makes the stupid arguement involving rape should be shot. Of course those are special circumstances, duh. We are arguing the rule here, not the exception. That's a completely different topic that should be discussed separately. I have never seen a good, valid arguement supporting abortion. Just people complaining about religion and women's right's crap (both of which can be easily refuted). People who have abortions done should be prosecuted as murderer, and the people who perform the abortions should be prosecuted as acessories to murder (or visa-versa).

I love how all the pro-life sentiment in this thread is entirely focused on the women and completely discounts the role of the men. Where's the accoutability for their actions? Why aren't their feet being held to the fire for getting someone pregnant? Why isn't there a SWAT team hunting down the millions of men who impregnate these millions of women so they can support the child they helped create?

because in our fvcked up system, it's ultimately not the man's choice to end the child's life, it is the mother's, the man has little or no say in the decision.

that being said, deadbeat dads are the scum of the earth

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
I'd rather the woman have an abortion than have more jacked up people with uncaring parents in this world...
Say whatever you want, but I will never ever see a fetus as a full blown human. You don't call an egg a chicken do you? No, an egg is an egg, a chicken is a chicken. You're not saying oh, I had scrambled chicken for breakfast this morning....

The egg you eat in the morning (99% of the time) is UNFERTILIZED therefor it is an egg and and a chicken

so that 1%, are you eating a chicken? if you have it sunny side up, are you having a fried chicken?

 

[alkemyst]

I wonder how much they have/are paying her...

Also like above I really think it is messed up that in reality the woman holds the cards in the whole relationship / baby thing and they still think they aren't being treated fair.

They have say in abortion, they get child support, they get half of assets almost everytime in divorce...along with custody...

Not that I advocate it, but explains the growing trend of mysteriously murdered/missing spouses.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: gopunk

A child in the third trimester is in many cases able to survive outside of the mother's womb(with substantial care, mind you). So tell me, what is the difference to the child whether it is dismembered 6 weeks before or 6 weeks after it is born?

exactly! hell, what's the difference between destroying it 9 months before or 9 months after it's born?!

There are none. They are both living beings that are 100% dependant on others to survive. What's that saying? A rose under a different name still smells as sweet? It doesn't matter if you call it a fetus, or a baby, or a thingamabob, you are still ending a life. THAT is the real issue. It doesn't matter when, or where, or how it's done. Having an abortion is ending a human life. If you disagree with that, I would hate to see what kind of father or mother you would ever become. Pregnant women are treated different because they are carrying a thing that will eventually turn into their child. If that thing in their belly was not alive or didn't matter, those women would not care at all what happened to them. No matter what you think, it's still homicide. You are ending a human life. All other points are moot. It's not like a fetus just magically appears in a mother's stomach one day and she must live with it. She made a choice and that choice was to have sex. So the woman's choice point is completely irrelevent because she already made the choice to have sex, and that always carries the risk of having a child (contraceptives are never 100% effective). Anyone who makes the stupid arguement involving rape should be shot. Of course those are special circumstances, duh. We are arguing the rule here, not the exception. That's a completely different topic that should be discussed separately. I have never seen a good, valid arguement supporting abortion. Just people complaining about religion and women's right's crap (both of which can be easily refuted). People who have abortions done should be prosecuted as murderer, and the people who perform the abortions should be prosecuted as acessories to murder (or visa-versa).

I love how all the pro-life sentiment in this thread is entirely focused on the women and completely discounts the role of the men. Where's the accoutability for their actions? Why aren't their feet being held to the fire for getting someone pregnant? Why isn't there a SWAT team hunting down the millions of men who impregnate these millions of women so they can support the child they helped create?

because in our fvcked up system, it's ultimately not the man's choice to end the child's life, it is the mother's, the man has little or no say in the decision.

that being said, deadbeat dads are the scum of the earth

My point is that some in this thread (yourself included) are railing on the women for "not keeping their legs closed" while ignoring all the men out there who will do/say anything to get those legs open. It may ultimately be the woman's decision to end a pregnancy, but the man has 50% of the input when it comes to starting one. Being a deadbeat dad is a whole other issue further down the road.

 

[gopunk]

Sperm, in and of themselves have no way of naturally developing into a human being

neither do fertilized eggs

 

[Amorphus]

not sure what your implying. of course a fetus is human. but to equate having an abortion and dismembering your 6wk old child is..... just wow.

haw. you're right. they're totally on different planes.

how about this:

I'm going to make the equation level now -
having an abortion is like disabling his brain by removing it, while the baby is still alive, showing no sympathy towards the baby, acting indignant that people are saying that you have no sympathy, not burying the child, and throwing him/her into a glass jar, without any sory of respect for the sanctity of life.




for the people that say a woman can do what she wants with her body -

yes. she can. but not when it infringes upon the rights of the body of another. this is EXACTLY how american law works. we have the ability, the right, and the freedom of speech granted to us, but when we start infringing upon the personal security, well being, and comfort, (that means, among others, THEIR LIFE), of others, then we are to be stopped.
whether or not the baby is inside of her is of no regard.
the woman should take responsibility for her actions, and murdering (note, NOT "killing", but "murdering" - the unlawful killing of another) the unborn, innocent, and defenseless child is NOT taking responsibility.

If I bought some crack, and I knew that the police were coming for me on a given day, I do not throw away the crack and kill everyone who knew I bought the crack. I will own up to it. (this is hypothetical. really. )

likewise, if the woman had sex (ooo, taboo word...) (...), then she should face the music.



if the birth would endanger the life of the woman? then we get into the iffy parts. however, there is a nifty little thing called a "Cesarean Section" (aka a C-Section) (where the baby is surgically removed from the womb before the birth, just in case someone doesnt know). safe for the mother, safe for the baby.

(mind you, if the birth would be life-threatening, by all means, do it, but if not, then try to do it naturally, as C-sections cause discomfort for the mother and make raising the child slightly more awkward)


also, if the child is born, and the mother doesnt want it - "adoption", foo! Even if you say living a life in the foster system is harsh, I think a hard life is better than no life, wouldn't you?


and for those who support pro-life - word up. if this were IRL, I would shake your hand. (and, just for dramatic effect, give dirty looks to the abortionist crowd. )

 

[Vernor]

I hear Brown now wishes she had gone to a segregated school.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: gopunk

A child in the third trimester is in many cases able to survive outside of the mother's womb(with substantial care, mind you). So tell me, what is the difference to the child whether it is dismembered 6 weeks before or 6 weeks after it is born?

exactly! hell, what's the difference between destroying it 9 months before or 9 months after it's born?!

There are none. They are both living beings that are 100% dependant on others to survive. What's that saying? A rose under a different name still smells as sweet? It doesn't matter if you call it a fetus, or a baby, or a thingamabob, you are still ending a life. THAT is the real issue. It doesn't matter when, or where, or how it's done. Having an abortion is ending a human life. If you disagree with that, I would hate to see what kind of father or mother you would ever become. Pregnant women are treated different because they are carrying a thing that will eventually turn into their child. If that thing in their belly was not alive or didn't matter, those women would not care at all what happened to them. No matter what you think, it's still homicide. You are ending a human life. All other points are moot. It's not like a fetus just magically appears in a mother's stomach one day and she must live with it. She made a choice and that choice was to have sex. So the woman's choice point is completely irrelevent because she already made the choice to have sex, and that always carries the risk of having a child (contraceptives are never 100% effective). Anyone who makes the stupid arguement involving rape should be shot. Of course those are special circumstances, duh. We are arguing the rule here, not the exception. That's a completely different topic that should be discussed separately. I have never seen a good, valid arguement supporting abortion. Just people complaining about religion and women's right's crap (both of which can be easily refuted). People who have abortions done should be prosecuted as murderer, and the people who perform the abortions should be prosecuted as acessories to murder (or visa-versa).

I love how all the pro-life sentiment in this thread is entirely focused on the women and completely discounts the role of the men. Where's the accoutability for their actions? Why aren't their feet being held to the fire for getting someone pregnant? Why isn't there a SWAT team hunting down the millions of men who impregnate these millions of women so they can support the child they helped create?

because in our fvcked up system, it's ultimately not the man's choice to end the child's life, it is the mother's, the man has little or no say in the decision.

that being said, deadbeat dads are the scum of the earth

My point is that some in this thread (yourself included) are railing on the women for "not keeping their legs closed" while ignoring all the men out there who will do/say anything to get those legs open. It may ultimately be the woman's decision to end a pregnancy, but the man has 50% of the input when it comes to starting one. Being a deadbeat dad is a whole other issue further down the road.

great, so those men are wrong too. that's wonderful. it doesn't make abortion right though.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Sperm, in and of themselves have no way of naturally developing into a human being

neither do fertilized eggs

yes but if nature runs its course a fertilized egg becomes a human.

not so with a lonely sperm cell. this whole "masturbate and you kill billions of babies" argument is so ridiculous.

 

[Yax]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Well, another pointless abortion debate. Here's some stupid points for ya. Don't read it unless you're ready to accept reality.

1. Women and their morals. Its okay to get fncked before you get married, but its not okay to get an abortion when you're pregnant. Isn't it not okay for both?

2. So, does a baby have rights? There were people saying that you need to be an American Citizen to have rights. That was the reasoning for detaining non citizens for any reason for any amount of time. To be a Citizen you'd have to be born first! There goes the baby's rights.

3. Okay, so lets say you don't agree with number 2. You can argue those people were wrong and everyone has rights in the US. They don't need to be born first, the fact that they are alive should do it. Fine, stop killing your sperm by having xes and/or jack hoffing. You're killing millions of your own babies. Sperm cells are living beings and should have rights too damntt!

1.) you are absolutely correct, both are immoral. but fornication and murder are by nature, very different.

2.) Constitutional rights != human rights Citizens of a nation are the only ones protected by constitutional rights, being human qualifies you for human rights

3.)Ummm, Sperm != developing embrio

Sperm, in and of themselves have no way of naturally developing into a human being without fertilizing an egg. That argument is so fallacious it is incredible that you would even consider posting it.

You, my friend, are taking this abortion debate way too seriously. Need I remind you that you will not change anyone's mind? Their minds will be changed on their own. What everyone here has to say has already been said millions of times before. People will believe what they want and change their minds when their experiences enlightened them to. Again, don't take this debate too serious. It was just posted by someone who wanted a long flame fest to their credit.

To say I shouldn't post point 3 on this forum, you fail to see the humor in it. Cheers.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: gopunk

A child in the third trimester is in many cases able to survive outside of the mother's womb(with substantial care, mind you). So tell me, what is the difference to the child whether it is dismembered 6 weeks before or 6 weeks after it is born?

exactly! hell, what's the difference between destroying it 9 months before or 9 months after it's born?!

There are none. They are both living beings that are 100% dependant on others to survive. What's that saying? A rose under a different name still smells as sweet? It doesn't matter if you call it a fetus, or a baby, or a thingamabob, you are still ending a life. THAT is the real issue. It doesn't matter when, or where, or how it's done. Having an abortion is ending a human life. If you disagree with that, I would hate to see what kind of father or mother you would ever become. Pregnant women are treated different because they are carrying a thing that will eventually turn into their child. If that thing in their belly was not alive or didn't matter, those women would not care at all what happened to them. No matter what you think, it's still homicide. You are ending a human life. All other points are moot. It's not like a fetus just magically appears in a mother's stomach one day and she must live with it. She made a choice and that choice was to have sex. So the woman's choice point is completely irrelevent because she already made the choice to have sex, and that always carries the risk of having a child (contraceptives are never 100% effective). Anyone who makes the stupid arguement involving rape should be shot. Of course those are special circumstances, duh. We are arguing the rule here, not the exception. That's a completely different topic that should be discussed separately. I have never seen a good, valid arguement supporting abortion. Just people complaining about religion and women's right's crap (both of which can be easily refuted). People who have abortions done should be prosecuted as murderer, and the people who perform the abortions should be prosecuted as acessories to murder (or visa-versa).

I love how all the pro-life sentiment in this thread is entirely focused on the women and completely discounts the role of the men. Where's the accoutability for their actions? Why aren't their feet being held to the fire for getting someone pregnant? Why isn't there a SWAT team hunting down the millions of men who impregnate these millions of women so they can support the child they helped create?

because in our fvcked up system, it's ultimately not the man's choice to end the child's life, it is the mother's, the man has little or no say in the decision.

that being said, deadbeat dads are the scum of the earth

My point is that some in this thread (yourself included) are railing on the women for "not keeping their legs closed" while ignoring all the men out there who will do/say anything to get those legs open. It may ultimately be the woman's decision to end a pregnancy, but the man has 50% of the input when it comes to starting one. Being a deadbeat dad is a whole other issue further down the road.

great, so those men are wrong too. that's wonderful. it doesn't make abortion right though.

My greater point was that BOTH genders need to have a very clear idea of what they're getting into when they have sex and how to properly use contraception. Accomplish this and you'll put a huge dent in the number of unwanted pregnancies every year and thereby the number of abortions and the flames of this discussion would drop about six feet. You guys were making it sound like all the blame is on the women for being "loose".

EDIT- I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't understand why pro-lifers spend 99% of their energy on the abortion issue and not the contraception/education issue. No unwanted pregnancies = no abortions.

 

[Kev]

To say I shouldn't post point 3 on this forum, you fail to see the humor in it. Cheers.

yes but there are people out there who actually use that argument and take it seriously

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: gopunk

Sperm, in and of themselves have no way of naturally developing into a human being

neither do fertilized eggs

yes but if nature runs its course a fertilized egg becomes a human.

not so with a lonely sperm cell. this whole "masturbate and you kill billions of babies" argument is so ridiculous.

well of course, but if nature runs its course, spermazoid will fertilize eggs to eventually yield a human being. it's not any more rediculous than calling a few cells a human being.

 

[josphII]

differentiating between humans and persons, eh? They did the same thing with black people in colonial times. "Hey, those humans are black, let's consider them 3/5ths of a person" You just substitute race with age and there you go. That's incredibly arbitrary of you.

this is probably the most ridiculous post yet. not only do you equate abortions with somebody dismembering a 6wk old child but now your comparing slavery to abortions. the difference between a fetus and a person is simple - a fetus is in the mothers womb moron! i certainly dont refer to a fetus as a person, who does? a fetus has no name, fingerprints, hell might not even have a brain yet - and this is a person? of course a fetus is going to be human in nature, what else would it be? and your "quote" is simply hilarious - "Hey, those humans are black, let's consider them 3/5ths of a person". you need to replace "3/5ths of a person" w/ "3/5ths of a human" for your own argument to even make sense! substitute race with age? i dont know about you but ive never heard anybody refer to fetus or what not in a mothers womb as having age. how old was somebody one week before they were born, -1wk old??

So, smart guy, who determines what the "age of personhood" is? Where is that drawn. If you say "when the child is born", what about the babies that could in fact survive when born prematurely? Are they not a person until they've reached their ninth month of development? Where is the line and how do you determine precisely which child is or is not before or after that point in their development? Set it to anytime before the third trimester? What if the baby develops faster than average? Again, how do you determine for sure, whether or not the "human" you are killing is or is not a "person"?

so simple... you dont become a person until you are born. if the baby has been born, independent on weather or not they could have survived a birth at an earlier time, then they are a person and their age starts at that point. it is not arbitrary in any way shape or form. ...and if you dont believe me then try claiming your wifes pregnancy as a child tax credit!

 

[Kev]

well of course, but if nature runs its course, spermazoid will fertilize eggs to eventually yield a human being

not unless 2 people choose to have sex. sperm on its own has no potential to grow into a human being whatsoever.

it's not any more rediculous than calling a few cells a human being.

as per my previous 2 statements, yes it is.