Pro-Life Bill......

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by Moi
My opinion is the same as it is for any type of abortion.

Well, if you can hold your ground and be against abortions even in the case of rape/incest or health of the mother, then I at least applaud you for your consistency in your stance.


Personally, I never have, or never intend to ever have an abortion. So, on that basis, I agree with you. And, on the other hand, I'm not so sure that I want government to legislate that decision. I'd prefer for people to be able to make that decision based on their own morality.

Within the walls of your personal religious institutions is the most appropriate place to be conducting that moral decision.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Well, if you can hold your ground and be against abortions even in the case of rape/incest or health of the mother, then I at least applaud you for your consistency in your stance.


Personally, I never have, or never intend to ever have an abortion. So, on that basis, I agree with you. And, on the other hand, I'm not so sure that I want government to legislate that decision. I'd prefer for people to be able to make that decision based on their own morality.

Within the walls of your personal religious institutions is the most appropriate place to be conducting that moral decision.

Too bad you have decided to believe that I am against abortion without a shred of evidence.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by Moi
Too bad you have decided to believe that I am against abortion without a shred of evidence.

Heh heh....
That's exactly why I phrased it in the form of "If". I noticed you were being a bit elusive in your response.

So, now here's your chance. Let's see if you'll clarify your stance on abortion.

 

[Avatar4321]

"So, you'de support banning a morning-after pill and birthe control pills which prevent the blastocyst from implaning in the uterine wall? If you don't, be aware that is where that line of reasoning will take you"

And there is something wrong with not being in favor of this? We are talking about life and death here. Why on earth should innocent children suffer because there is no self restraint on the part of the parents?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Hypocrite!

Current laws are sufficient for gay marriages too.

No, they're not.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
And there is something wrong with not being in favor of this? We are talking about life and death here. Why on earth should innocent children suffer because there is no self restraint on the part of the parents?

Self restraint...Uh hunh. A woman's already borne two, three or more children, yet beacuse she doesn't have access to birth control, or her birth control fails she is expected to bear, unquestioningly another child? The morning after pill prevents the blasocyst, an undifferentiated mass of cells that can in no way be mistaken for a human being, from implanting in the uterine wall. How does this contribute to the suffering of children? If anything, preventing or terminating an unwanted pregnancy early on on contributes to the well-being of the children the parents already have.

As for the suffering of innocent children, they already suffer in America's inner cities...In the teeming slums of Rio de Janerio...IN the shanty towns surrounding Bombay...In the garbage dumps outside of Manila. Don't talk to me about the supposed suffering of a few cells when compared the suffering that already exists. You equate the potential with the actual. There is no comparison. Do something about the suffering that already exists, instead of worrying about that which doesn't.

Try as you might, "God will provide..." does not justify your stance. God clearly isn't providing.

 

[jon_forward]

Bully,if a woman has had 2 or3 kids she KNOWS how they are made and the consequences of her actions. after 2 or 3 kids the tubes ought to be tyed or papa snipped!! as for what ails the world...lets worry about abortion and baby killing here first..
quote..."an undifferentiated mass of cells" , not in the eyes of the law...to hear you go on Bully...hell lets party, take a pill in the morning, dont worry bout it...it aint life...men going down on men...big deal...sick man, thats what it is, you take being liberal to a new low!!!no wonder the Democratic party is so screwed up...

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jon_forward
Bully,if a woman has had 2 or3 kids she KNOWS how they are made and the consequences of her actions. after 2 or 3 kids the tubes ought to be tyed or papa snipped!! as for what ails the world...lets worry about abortion and baby killing here first..
quote..."an undifferentiated mass of cells" , not in the eyes of the law...to hear you go on Bully...hell lets party, take a pill in the morning, dont worry bout it...it aint life...men going down on men...big deal...sick man, thats what it is, you take being liberal to a new low!!!no wonder the Democratic party is so screwed up...

The law is wrong.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
No, they're not.

So it's ok to redefine marriages but it's not ok to redefine birth and abortions.

Hypocrite!

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
The law is wrong.

How can you possible assert that it's wrong to prosecute someone for violently causing a pregnant woman to lose her child? You think it's okay that people could hurt a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry and just walk away with an assault charge?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Self restraint...Uh hunh. A woman's already borne two, three or more children, yet beacuse she doesn't have access to birth control, or her birth control fails she is expected to bear, unquestioningly another child?

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! If you don't want more children you take the proper precautions!

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Heh heh....
That's exactly why I phrased it in the form of "If". I noticed you were being a bit elusive in your response.

So, now here's your chance. Let's see if you'll clarify your stance on abortion.

This thread isn't about abortion.

 

[jon_forward]

paints the picture so it favors his wayout-screwed views and then causes hate and mis-content when faced with conflicting views from the MAJORITY...why not err on the side of life and save a baby that might grow up to save the world..we are NOT a third world country so dont go there..

 

[Avatar4321]

"A woman's already borne two, three or more children, yet beacuse she doesn't have access to birth control, or her birth control fails she is expected to bear, unquestioningly another child?"

And what the heck is wrong with having children????

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Self restraint...Uh hunh. A woman's already borne two, three or more children, yet beacuse she doesn't have access to birth control

I'm sorry, but this is an absurd statement. Every single woman on the face of the earth has access to birth control- it's called abstinence.

In the case of birth control failing and rape/incest, I understand the distinction.

But come on, your saying that in the ordinary course of business an orgasm is worth a baby's life WITHOUT question?

 

[jon_forward]

warped sense of reality....must have this to be a liberal..glad mines not warped...just burnt a lil bit

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Moi
How can you possible assert that it's wrong to prosecute someone for violently causing a pregnant woman to lose her child? You think it's okay that people could hurt a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry and just walk away with an assault charge?

Nothing wrong with that, it's defining life as beginning at conception that is wrong.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Nothing wrong with that, it's defining life as beginning at conception that is wrong.

Your opinion is duly noted, and now it's been dismissed. Looks like the court agrees with us normal people, AGAIN.

I'll say a special prayer just for you this evening.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Nothing wrong with that, it's defining life as beginning at conception that is wrong.

If you really think it's not alive than what's the problem with a man causing a miscarriage to be rid of the support payments?

 

[jon_forward]

your science book is wrong bully...are you saying that a mass of dividing cells isnt life??if its dividing its growing, if its growing its alive...when you terminate something that is alive you kill it...killing something in side a woman that is alive is wrong...the law isnt..I have to disagree 100%...