What causes pregnancy?

[alkemyst]

storks cause pregancy.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll be sure to tell them you advocate them actually using their guns.

I don't advocate that at all, but that's because I don't believe abortion is murder. If they do, taking life to protect life is a perfectly reasonable action to take. (note: we will still throw them in jail for it)

I'm just saying that they don't believe their own rhetoric.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I don't advocate that at all, but that's because I don't believe abortion is murder. If they do, taking life to protect life is a perfectly reasonable action to take. (note: we will still throw them in jail for it)

I'm just saying that they don't believe their own rhetoric.

It's just a testament to the non-violent and pacifist ways that define modern day Christians. ()

 

[Paratus]

Here's a heart warming Pro-Life story:
Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil's Catholic Church

The case of the pregnant 9-year-old was shocking enough. But it was the response of the Catholic Church that infuriated many Brazilians. Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. "They took the life of an innocent," Sobrinho told TIME in a telephone interview. "Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored."

 

[HAL9000]

Here's a heart warming Pro-Life story:
Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil's Catholic Church

Gah religion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Rather than utterly hijack Gigantopithecus' thread about third party candidates, I will create this topic instead.

My argument on abortion.

A woman does not have the right to kill anyone except in self-defense. Killing your unborn child, then, is only permissable when you've been raped or in any event did not consent to the act which brought about pregnancy.

Abortion is self-defense, in all cases.

The response from the pro-choice side: Sex doesn't cause pregnancy.

Then what does? The implantation of a fertilized egg? In other news, guns don't cause deaths. Bullets aimed at hearts do.

Um, guns don't cause deaths, and neither does sex cause pregnancy. I had sex with my girlfriend today. You wanna take bets on whether or not she's pregnant?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think a mother can claim the principle of self-defense in saying that she has the right to abort a child conceived from rape.

She can claim self-defense if she killed her rapist if she can demonstrate that she had no reasonable alternative to protect herself from being violated.

The sense in which you are using self-defense is absolutely inconsistent with the way it is applied in the law.

 

[HAL9000]

Abortion is self-defense, in all cases.

..

The sense in which you are using self-defense is absolutely inconsistent with the way it is applied in the law.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Can someone please explain how it's hypocritical for a small government conservative to be against murder?

We're not talking about murder. Nevertheless, the prohibition of killing persons is based on the defense of those persons' rights not to be killed.

The legality of abortion is also principled upon the rights of person's to defend their bodies against unwanted intrusions.

It is completely inconsistent to advocate for "small government" yet to advocate for the denial of the liberties of certain persons to protect their body from unwelcome invaders.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

..

So? Abortion is self-defense, but it is the defense against the fetus. He suggested that self-defense against a rapist should be justification for killing (what he believes to be) a different person entirely. The latter doesn't make any sense. A person does not have a right to kill person A on the basis that person B poses a threat to his person.

You simply could not see the distinction because you are an imbecile.

 

[JD50]

We're not talking about murder. Nevertheless, the prohibition of killing persons is based on the defense of those persons' rights not to be killed.

The legality of abortion is also principled upon the rights of person's to defend their bodies against unwanted intrusions.

It is completely inconsistent to advocate for "small government" yet to advocate for the denial of the liberties of certain persons to protect their body from unwelcome invaders.

Sorry, that question wasn't directed towards you, you're kinda crazy.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's because in the one case the woman made a choice to have sex and risk getting pregnant

In the other the woman made no choice. If the woman made no choice she shouldn't be forced to carry a baby, if she made a choice then she chose and the baby should have to die because she made the wrong choice.

I've already refuted this nonsense a long time ago. It is the epitome of dishonesty to continue to repeat it.

The core issue is that sex is not a negligent act. No woman owes a legal duty to a fetus for consenting to have sex.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Sorry, that question wasn't directed towards you, you're kinda crazy.

Nothing I have said is false. It isn't my problem that the actual facts are unsuitable for you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The same can be said about any pro human life thread.

Human life is not protected under the US Constitution.

 

[fskimospy]

Human life is not protected under the US Constitution.

It actually is, in the 5th Amendment.

 

[HAL9000]

I've already refuted this nonsense a long time ago. It is the epitome of dishonesty to continue to repeat it.

The core issue is that sex is not a negligent act. No woman owes a legal duty to a fetus for consenting to have sex.

Human life is not protected under the US Constitution.

To both of these my response is: I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about morality. I don't care about legality.

 

[matt0611]

I'm pretty libertarian on almost every issue, so I don't like government interference in our personal lives.

However, I do not think its hypocritical of people who are for small government to oppose abortion because they view it as taking a life. It has nothing to do with religion either.

I believe that each person owns their own body and can do whatever you want to it. Take drugs, prostitute yourself, kill yourself et. However, things get complicated when we are dealing with another life (if we consider it one).

The first question is: do we consider this fetus a human life in that it has rights?
Does it have the right to life? If we do consider it life may it be terminated by the woman because it is living inside her and she has domain over her body?

A part of me says the woman does have the right because she has domain over her body so she is free to do so but then I think that this is another life, with its own DNA, that was willfully created by two humans. I have domain over my house and I may invite you in, I may order you to leave because it is my house and my property. So if the woman wants her baby to leave thats fine but the baby die if it leaves. Herein lies the problem.

Part of my says that the woman cannot do this because she has willfully created this life form that will mature into a human if she does not kill it, so although it is her body since she created a new life she must honor this decision and go through with the pregnancy.

The other part of me says, since it is her body she may change her decision about having the baby at any time and abort the baby if it cannot survive outsider her womb.

Its really tough. Currently I hold the view that abortion is wrong and that it is destroying a life that the mother willfully created. So that women should not have the right to abort the baby unless it will do harm to her to have it or if in case of rape.

Abortion is one of the toughest issues for me, I still struggle with it and my view may change in time. I won't call anyone names for having a different view though because I can definitely see both sides.

 

[soulcougher73]

I am unaware of anyone who thinks sex does not cause pregnancy.

I'm aware of quite a large number of people who think that an embryo isn't afforded the same status as a person.

/thread

This. No one is THAT stupid to think otherwise about sex.

NM i take that back. Apparently the OP has heard otherise.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It actually is, in the 5th Amendment.

No, it isn't. Persons are the objects of rights and duties under the United States Constitution. Tissues samples, sperm samples, HeLa cell cultures and fetuses are among the examples of human life which are not persons, and therefore not protected. They are casually wasted every day in laboratories across the globe and you do not hear so much as a peep in objection to it -- with the exception of course being fetuses.

 

[fskimospy]

No, it isn't. Persons are the objects of rights and duties under the United States Constitution. Tissues samples, sperm samples, HeLa cell cultures and fetuses are among the examples of human life which are not persons, and therefore not protected. They are casually wasted every day in laboratories across the globe and you do not hear so much as a peep in objection to it -- with the exception of course being fetuses.

Now we're just quibbling over what constitutes human life (as is usual in abortion threads).

 

[HAL9000]

No, it isn't. Persons are the objects of rights and duties under the United States Constitution. Tissues samples, sperm samples, HeLa cell cultures and fetuses are among the examples of human life which are not persons, and therefore not protected. They are casually wasted every day in laboratories across the globe and you do not hear so much as a peep in objection to it -- with the exception of course being fetuses.

Doesn't really effect the moral side of the argument.

 

[JD50]

Now we're just quibbling over what constitutes human life (as is usual in abortion threads).

:thumbsup:

 

[Newbian]

Tell you what... men can pass a law making it illegal for women to do this as long as women get a law passed making it illegal for men to jerk off.

This way men stop killing millions of babies whenever they jerk off.

 

[HAL9000]

Tell you what... men can pass a law making it illegal for women to do this as long as women get a law passed making it illegal for men to jerk off.

This way men stop killing millions of babies whenever they jerk off.

:hmm: No.

 

[Tom]

Doesn't really effect the moral side of the argument.

Do you think "Give me liberty or give me death" is an immoral expression ?

How is denying one innocent person's liberty to possibly save another person's life, moral ?

Unless you want to make a woman having sex a crime..