Oh...it's not a 'baby' or a 'person' - it's just a FETUS...a clump of tissue!

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Thanx Bonnie,
I'm not to good with words but I feel the same way.

 

[ajwps]

AJ:

"You want proof that human cloning has ALREADY been accomplished."

Yes, I do. YOU STATED IT AS A FACT. You offered it as refutation of my points. You danced around gleefully as if you had sprung some devilishly clever trap. Once again, when you've been shut down by the truth, you've attempted to present the hypothetical as actual - and, when you got called on it, you tried to slither away with, "you missed my point." The truth is not in you, AJ. I DEFY you to get through one debate without resorting to these slimy tactics. I, personally, don't think you can do it.

It seems that you find only yourself as having difficulty finding proof or evidence for 'human life' in the fetus. The fact that mamalian cellular cloning is well documented but that human cloning has been claimed but not demonstrated has no bearing on the topic but you slip and slide around.

Hypothetically or in reality the fact remains that you hold the unborn fetus as a helpless human being. You chose to err rather than to defend your premise.

To keep you from slithering away with your unprovable position, a valid incline has been placed in front of you as you will continue to slide backward if you try to climb truth.

Your false abortion opinions are like traps, struck first by foolishness and thereafter circulated by honest people who perpetuate this erred concept without knowing what they are doing.

Your malicious accusations against me just illustrate your own self-doubt.

 

[ajwps]

Here... I'll make it simple.
Boy meets girl
blah blah blah
They get an abortion.
Are they not a part of society???

Yes the boy and girl are part of the society of living human beings.

Is that not one step further for social acceptance of abortion???

NO

Have we allowed a young couple to believe that it is alright to
have all the careless sex in the world because you can always get an abortion???

"WE" haven't allowed anyone to believe anything. You must mean casual sex as apposed to careless sex which would indicate tripping over a brick and falling into a woman resulting in a pregnancy.

You must have forgotten that abortions have been done as long as history has been recorded. Neither society nor the fact that women have always been able to obtain abortions has anything to do with societies approval.

What a "person" decides does have an effect on others around them, even if you don't know it.

If a person decides to become a pilot, jump off of a building or get an abortion, how exactly does that effect others around them to follow the leader?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It seems that you find only yourself as having difficulty finding proof or evidence for 'human life' in the fetus. The fact that mamalian cellular cloning is well documented but that human cloning has been claimed but not demonstrated has no bearing on the topic but you slip and slide around.

Hypothetically or in reality the fact remains that you hold the unborn fetus as a helpless human being. You chose to err rather than to defend your premise.

To keep you from slithering away with your unprovable position, a valid incline has been placed in front of you as you will continue to slide backward if you try to climb truth.

Your false abortion opinions are like traps, struck first by foolishness and thereafter circulated by honest people who perpetuate this erred concept without knowing what they are doing.

Your malicious accusations against me just illustrate your own self-doubt.

You're an intellectually dishonest joke of a human without a shred of credibility left. Your many lies and switching of arguments are apparent. First you tried to use science to justify your abominable position. Then you switched to a biblical defense. You're the one squirming like a snake, the prince of the air.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Yes the boy and girl are part of the society of living human beings.



NO



"WE" haven't allowed anyone to believe anything. You must mean casual sex as apposed to careless sex which would indicate tripping over a brick and falling into a woman resulting in a pregnancy.

You must have forgotten that abortions have been done as long as history has been recorded. Neither society nor the fact that women have always been able to obtain abortions has anything to do with societies approval.



If a person decides to become a pilot, jump off of a building or get an abortion, how exactly does that effect others around them to follow the leader?

Man you really are that dense huh???
So you are saying that personal decisions have no influence on anyone else in
this world??? Bullshit, If me and my wife got an abortion, what would that tell
my daughter when she turns 16? It would tell her that it's ok to have "careless"
sex with no consiquenses. Hmmm Actions without consiquence. That means I
could kill someone and since I chose to do it, it will not have an effect on
anyone else right???

 

[musicman]

You're an intellectually dishonest joke of a human without a shred of credibility left. Your many lies and switching of arguments are apparent. First you tried to use science to justify your abominable position. Then you switched to a biblical defense. You're the one squirming like a snake, the prince of the air.

Good afternoon, RWA. How are you?

 

[musicman]

Just a quick observation, to no one in particular (or to everyone):

While abortion, or the termination of pregnancy by some other means, has been practiced all throughout history, we, who live in these times, are seeing something unique. That is, in no other civilization in history did this practice enjoy universal acceptance. Indeed - the option of abortion on demand now has, conferred upon it, the status of a "right".

It is, therefore, ludicrous to use the fact that abortion is not new, to argue that it has no ill effect on society. The widespread acceptance of the practice is what must be gagued. And common sense tells me that the cheapening of human life - the outright subordination of the right to life to the dictates of personal convenience - does not bode well for humanity.

I cannot say, with absolute, precise certainty, when life begins. Moreover, I never claimed to be able to. But, my point is, no one can. We can toss hypotheticals and philosophies around until we're blue in the face. It won't change the fact that we just don't know.

Since we don't know, I ask you: What is the prudent thing to do? What is the decent thing to do? What is the life-affirming thing to do?

 

[dilloduck]

While pro-choice like to deny the existence of a life or a soul in a fetus, this argument in merely a red herring ! This is an attempt by feminine activism to have CONTROL. When oppressed people fight for thier rights they inevitably want MORE rights than those who oppressed them. To defeat pro-choice one needs to focus on challenging thier right to control. Ask any pro-choice woman if she would be willing to share that "right" with a male partner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Good afternoon, RWA. How are you?

Hey mm. Doing good. Trying to find a way to get over the pain of being put on ignore by aj.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Hey mm. Doing good. Trying to find a way to get over the pain of being put on ignore by aj.

Might I suggest jumping over to the "Beer Baby" topic in the "Chat" Room.
Beer always cheers me up

 

[r2200t]

While pro-choice like to deny the existence of a life or a soul in a fetus, this argument in merely a red herring ! This is an attempt by feminine activism to have CONTROL. When oppressed people fight for thier rights they inevitably want MORE rights than those who oppressed them. To defeat pro-choice one needs to focus on challenging thier right to control. Ask any pro-choice woman if she would be willing to share that "right" with a male partner.

If abortion is to be performed, i think both partners must agree.

 

[r2200t]

More abortions = less humans on over-populated unsustainable planet = good for society.

then again, this also means killing other people is justifiable...

 

[Bonnie]

If abortion is to be performed, i think both partners must agree.

That's not going to happen if the NAG gang has naything to do with it, because their whole agenda from the beginning starting from the language that's alway used is designed to isolate the woman and baby from having any outside influence from legalities, partners, religious institutions, and now parents. It's classic control from top to bottom.

 

[r2200t]

how about mastubate and read a good book?

masturbatting gets boring after a while.. not like the real thing. So although it can help make abstenance last longer between real sex, it's also a temporary solution.

reading books is and excellent idea, so is playing video games etc... But i find that fewer people are finding reading good enough, they are more like pass time activities, I did read some books, and play some video games, but they were not sufficient in reducing the need for anti-depressants (when needed).

 

[Bonnie]

masturbatting gets boring after a while.. not like the real thing. So although it can help make abstenance last longer between real sex, it's also a temporary solution.

reading books is and excellent idea, so is playing video games etc... But i find that fewer people are finding reading good enough, they are more like pass time activities, I did read some books, and play some video games, but they were not sufficient in reducing the need for anti-depressants (when needed).

Temporary solutions are just that. Anything you do in any measure used as an escape will ultimately become boring no matter how passionate you are at the beginning, because the reason for turning to all those things is vacant and not rooted in any real substance.
Anti-depressants can at least help to bring you to a level playing field to start with, so that you can approach the pleasurable things in life with true heart, same holds true for people. Im sure that sounds very cliche' but I beleive it to be true.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well, your partner in idiocy insists they're not alive. Babies are totally dependant on the mother too. Are their lives less important? You're beaten, bested, and dismissed. Two snaps up!

Sorry boyo. A baby is not dependent ex utero upon the life and health of the mother as a fetus is. Some one can take over the care of the baby in the mothers abscence. Your analogy is false, your argument is flawed...But that is to be expected.

 

[musicman]

Sorry boyo. A baby is not dependent ex utero upon the life and health of the mother as a fetus is. Some one can take over the care of the baby in the mothers abscence. Your analogy is false, your argument is flawed...But that is to be expected.

So is the baby's life less valid in utero, because it is dependent upon the life and health of the mother?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sorry boyo. A baby is not dependent ex utero upon the life and health of the mother as a fetus is. Some one can take over the care of the baby in the mothers abscence. Your analogy is false, your argument is flawed...But that is to be expected.

But what you cite as your test is dependancy. Dependancy on whom is irrelevant. Your oversimplified litmust test fails again, nardboy.

 

[ajwps]

Man you really are that dense huh???
So you are saying that personal decisions have no influence on anyone else in this world??? Bullshit, If me and my wife got an abortion, what would that tell my daughter when she turns 16?

Duh..... Is your 16 year old daughter all of society? If you and your wife got an abortion or if 3 million people get abortions does that give society a lesson? That's what nice about society, it doesn't play follow the leader in the case of moral and ethical personal decisions.

It would tell her that it's ok to have "careless" sex with no consiquenses. Hmmm Actions without consiquence. That means I
could kill someone and since I chose to do it, it will not have an effect on
anyone else right???

Yes you or your daughter's careless sex has no consequences except for yourself and your daughter. Human beings are individuals, everyone with their own opinions and desires which have consequences for each and every person. There is no societal moral equivalency relating to your actions.

If you choose to go out and kill someone, the person you murder will suffer the consequence. And you will probably suffer the consequences in a crminal court of law.

I'll bet you still don't understand a word I have said.

 

[ajwps]

Just a quick observation, to no one in particular (or to everyone):

While abortion, or the termination of pregnancy by some other means, has been practiced all throughout history, we, who live in these times, are seeing something unique. That is, in no other civilization in history did this practice enjoy universal acceptance. Indeed - the option of abortion on demand now has, conferred upon it, the status of a "right".

Here is another quick observation. Actually you are wrong once again. Almost every previous civilization in 'recorded' history practiced abortion on demand which is no more unique or different than that practiced to this very day. There is no such thing as universal acceptance of anything 'on demand' because we live on planet earth and not out there among the multitude of galaxies.

There has always been people who chose to bring to term their babies and those who chose to terminate their fetus before full term. That 'right' to abortion is no different today than it was in any other civilization including the 1st century ACE.

Abortion has always been an individual choice and except for rare exception been banned by any laws. Even with those civilizations who banned abortion, the practice was continued unabated simply in back rooms which often resulted in death of the mother and unborn fetus.

It is, therefore, ludicrous to use the fact that abortion is not new, to argue that it has no ill effect on society. The widespread acceptance of the practice is what must be gagued. And common sense tells me that the cheapening of human life - the outright subordination of the right to life to the dictates of personal convenience - does not bode well for humanity.

Common sense tells you that abortion cheapens human life. But who are you with self-righteous common sense that no other's common sense is allowed. Who tells you that your common sense is not flawed? You also seem to think that your common sense and reasoning does not err in the favor of cell mass which bodes well for humanity or civilization!

I cannot say, with absolute, precise certainty, when life begins. Moreover, I never claimed to be able to. But, my point is, no one can. We can toss hypotheticals and philosophies around until we're blue in the face. It won't change the fact that we just don't know.

Finally you admit the obvious. You don't know with any certainty when life begins. But you choose not to err with your lack of certainty while placing your lack of knowing for sure on everyone who may have uncertainty but choose for themselves to decide intead of putting social religious law into the US Constitution.

Also says the US Supreme Court.

Since we don't know, I ask you: What is the prudent thing to do? What is the decent thing to do? What is the life-affirming thing to do?

What is prudent, decent or life-affirming to you, your personal or anti-abortion groups is not the only prudent, decent or life-affirming thing for all people. Everyone has a right to make up their own minds and not to think first, what does musicman say?