Proof for the pro abortion crowd

[LuvRPgrl]

ACTUALLY, it's brain function or lack there of.

Nope. Actually, its both, however, we do sometimes see people who are braindead, but their body continues to live. However, if the heart stops, opppps.

 

[MissileMan]

Nice dodge.
The right to vote on an issue should never be dictated by a citizens involvement or lack of, in the issue.

There was no dodge on my part. I'm still waiting for your explanation.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Explain how reducing unwanted pregnancies is NOT the most effective way to prevent abortions. .

Never said it was or wasnt.

If those opposed to abortion aren't willing to employ any and all available methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies, IMO it demonstrates that they are more concerned with sexual morality, not preventing abortion. .

Again, so that means if I oppose murder, then I am responsable for employing any and all available methods fro preventing situations that would cause someone to want to murder somebody?

How does opposistion to abortion make people restrict their sexual immorality?

In such cases, they should just STFU.

 

[MissileMan]

Again, so that means if I oppose murder, then I am responsable for employing any and all available methods fro preventing situations that would cause someone to want to murder somebody?

If you truly oppose murder, you shouldn't be opposed to the employment of any legal method available to prevent murders.

How does opposistion to abortion make people restrict their sexual immorality?

I am of course referring to the "abstinence-only sex education" crowd, the very ones who are the most vocal about stopping abortion.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If you truly oppose murder, you shouldn't be opposed to the employment of any legal method available to prevent murders..

You didnt answer the question.
Not being opposed to methods to prevent an action is NOT the same as doing any and all things possible to prevent it.
Not being opposed is passive, doing any and all things is assertive.

I am of course referring to the "abstinence-only sex education" crowd, the very ones who are the most vocal about stopping abortion.

so?

Enviormentalists are the most vocal for saving forests,
most vegetarians are enviormentalists. Therefor enviormentalists oppose eating meat. Doesnt correlate.

 

[MissileMan]

You didnt answer the question.
Not being opposed to methods to prevent an action is NOT the same as doing any and all things possible to prevent it.
Not being opposed is passive, doing any and all things is assertive.

You're being a bit too literal in paraphrasing my argument. When I said willing to do what ever is necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancies I was referring to sex education and access to birth control. Since my original wording seems to have clouded my meaning, I'll restate it with greater clarity.

Since preventing unwanted pregnancies would be the most effective method to reduce the number of abortions, those who are opposed to abortion should not oppose anything that would contribute to the reduction of unwanted pregnancies.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You're being a bit too literal in paraphrasing my argument. When I said willing to do what ever is necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancies I was referring to sex education and access to birth control..

Imagine that, I actually interpeted what I THOUGHT you meant was what you actually said. Us conservatives have a habit of doing that,

Since my original wording seems to have clouded my meaning, I'll restate it with greater clarity..

Thats implying there was any clarity to begin with.

Since preventing unwanted pregnancies would be the most effective method to reduce the number of abortions, those who are opposed to abortion should not oppose anything that would contribute to the reduction of unwanted pregnancies.

Well, you know, some people just happen to think that sex outside marriage is sinful, and they dont think they should do anything to promote that. Yep, those rascally Christians. So, now ,,,,if a Christian thinks sex outside marriage is immoral, and refuse to do anything to promote it, then they are "forcing" their sexual morals on others?

And I will bet you are one of those who is always screaming how Christians dont practice their own Christianity so well themselves.

So, lets sumize,,,if a Christian thinks abortion is immoral, and sex outside marriage is immoral, then:

By refusing to promote sex outside marriage in order to prevent more unwanted pregnancies, that makes them hypocrites and that they really are only trying to force their sexual morality on others?

What you do with your logic is FORCE them to compromise on one of their beliefs.
On the other hand, the Christians merely say, we believe abortion is immoral, sex outside of marriage is immoral, and that the best way to prevent abortions is not to have sex unless you are married.
That is consistent.

But you call them hypocrites and liars unless they are willing to compromise on one of their beliefs. And, by the way, it is very simple for both of their beliefs to practiced at the same time, while the legal abortion crowd claims to believe in "live and let live", but dont seem to be so willing to bestow the "...let live..." part on unborn children.

And you know, if you want to resort to the pedantric idea that the unborn chld isnt an individual human being, that only lowers your credibility in the scientific, biologic realm.

DNA is the legal and biological method of identifying an individual, and every unborn child has his or her own different DNA than the mother, at the moment of conception.

 

[MissileMan]

Imagine that, I actually interpeted what I THOUGHT you meant was what you actually said. Us conservatives have a habit of doing that,


Thats implying there was any clarity to begin with.




Well, you know, some people just happen to think that sex outside marriage is sinful, and they dont think they should do anything to promote that. Yep, those rascally Christians. So, now ,,,,if a Christian thinks sex outside marriage is immoral, and refuse to do anything to promote it, then they are "forcing" their sexual morals on others?

And I will bet you are one of those who is always screaming how Christians dont practice their own Christianity so well themselves.

So, lets sumize,,,if a Christian thinks abortion is immoral, and sex outside marriage is immoral, then:

By refusing to promote sex outside marriage in order to prevent more unwanted pregnancies, that makes them hypocrites and that they really are only trying to force their sexual morality on others?

What you do with your logic is FORCE them to compromise on one of their beliefs.
On the other hand, the Christians merely say, we believe abortion is immoral, sex outside of marriage is immoral, and that the best way to prevent abortions is not to have sex unless you are married.
That is consistent.

But you call them hypocrites and liars unless they are willing to compromise on one of their beliefs. And, by the way, it is very simple for both of their beliefs to practiced at the same time, while the legal abortion crowd claims to believe in "live and let live", but dont seem to be so willing to bestow the "...let live..." part on unborn children.

And you know, if you want to resort to the pedantric idea that the unborn chld isnt an individual human being, that only lowers your credibility in the scientific, biologic realm.

DNA is the legal and biological method of identifying an individual, and every unborn child has his or her own different DNA than the mother, at the moment of conception.

Education in birth control is NOT promoting pre-marital sex any more than education in safe driving is promoting street racing. It's been proven again and again and again that abstinence-only sex education doesn't work. The expectation that it can is as unrealistic as the ideology that spawns such nonsense.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Education in birth control is NOT promoting pre-marital sex any more than education in safe driving is promoting street racing. .

Thats an odd analogy coming from you.,

So, it appears that the similarities are: education in birth control = education in safe driving, and pre marital sex = street racing.

I TOTALLY agree.

Street racing is dangerous, selfish, and immoral,

It's been proven again and again and again that abstinence-only sex education doesn't work. The expectation that it can is as unrealistic as the ideology that spawns such nonsense.

During a vast majority of our countries history, pre marital sex was NOT the norm. If we were to get back to where pre marital sex was unusual and rare, then certainly the numbers of abortions would have to decrease dramatically.
But of course the desire for non marital sex is so strong, that allowing the killing of innocent unborn children by the millions is a small price to pay, as far as the heartless liberals and feminists are concerned,

ITs part of the reversal of values, where the created are put above the creator, where animals and the enviorment become more valuable than people. This all eminates from the delusional minds of liberals, where brutal, vile and evil rapists, torturers and murderers of 7 year old girls, lives are given more value than those of innocent babies who are butchered by abortionists who suck out their brains, then cut off their arms and legs to make removal easier. WHere aborted babies manage to survive, but then, WHILE OUTSIDE THE WOMB, are tossed aside to die, crying, begging for their lives, pleading to the very ones who are suppose to protect and nurture the life of the helpless and innocent, but who in fact torture and kill them instead. Yes, torture, as no anathesia is used, but torturing mass murderers to save the lives of other innocents is inhumane.

Where it is not considered abnormal for a man to be unable to attain an erection when viewing a stripping Angela Jolie, but the guy can become aroused by the thought of another man putting his penis up his ass.

WHere millions of Africans have died because of malaria when the enviormentalists stopped the use of DDT, because their concern for the enviorment was prioritized ahead of the lives of little boys, girls, their mothers and fathers.

Where common sense is non existent inso that the so, soooooooo obvious needs of children to have a mother and father is rejected by the left, who claim a child only needs loving parents, and their gender is irrelvant. WHich also follows from the false concept that there is no differences between men and women.

Where guns are labeled as evil, but the person who used it to murder innocent women and children is considered a product of his enviorment and no more evil than a lion that kills and eats its prey.

Where God is considered evil because He gave us the choice to love or to do evil, and when WE choose evil, God is blamed and reviled instead of the one who is choosing to commit the evil, and then when a person does do something extraordinary, the person and his followers beat their chests declaring what a magnificent person he/she is, look at the great things they have done, all the while refusing to acknowledge that those things were only accomplished because God had given the person the skills, physical and mental to be able to carry it out.

 

[Hamiltonian]

During a vast majority of our countries history, pre marital sex was NOT the norm. If we were to get back to where pre marital sex was unusual and rare, then certainly the numbers of abortions would have to decrease dramatically.
But of course the desire for non marital sex is so strong, that allowing the killing of innocent unborn children by the millions is a small price to pay, as far as the heartless liberals and feminists are concerned,

Do you have any sort of proof for this? I've seen historical data analysis done on the Puritans when they came to America. They compared the date of birth of the first child of a married couple with their marriage date, and found a surprising result. This result is that about 1/3 of the babies were born less than nine months after the marriage, which would seem to indicate there was always premarital sex, and it was even rather prevalent in the so "morally righteous" Puritan community.

Now this data was from a textbook which I had so long ago, and no longer own, so I'm unable to cite its source to you. I was wondering if I could see those statistics you had that asserted the supposedly sexually repressed Puritans did not have prevalent premarital sex.

 

[MissileMan]

Thats an odd analogy coming from you.,

So, it appears that the similarities are: education in birth control = education in safe driving, and pre marital sex = street racing.

I TOTALLY agree.

Street racing is dangerous, selfish, and immoral,

Are you then abandoning the fallacious argument that sex-education promotes pre-marital sex?

During a vast majority of our countries history, pre marital sex was NOT the norm. If we were to get back to where pre marital sex was unusual and rare, then certainly the numbers of abortions would have to decrease dramatically.

I don't know what planet you live on, but pre-marital sex has never been rare. What you did see however was pregnancy leading to a quick marriage. To suggest pre-marital sex is some new-fangled social disorder is ridiculous and baseless.

You can argue until your head explodes, but you can't refute this fact: The most effective way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. The most effective way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is through effective use of contraception.

 

[Gurdari]

One cannot discuss what to do with something inside a woman's body without infringing on her right to sovereignty over her person.

Any discussion of unborn babies, fetuses, genetic material, cellular masses, unformed life, human potential, etc. are irrelevant until the woman's body is no longer the 'arena'.

Anything inside my body is nobody else's beeswax. Well, except for those coke-filled condoms I swallowed, those I have to return.

 

[glockmail]

One cannot discuss what to do with something inside a woman's body without infringing on her right to sovereignty over her person.

Any discussion of unborn babies, fetuses, genetic material, cellular masses, unformed life, human potential, etc. are irrelevant until the woman's body is no longer the 'arena'.

Anything inside my body is nobody else's beeswax. Well, except for those coke-filled condoms I swallowed, those I have to return.

So the man who donated the sperm has no right to the child?

 

[Gurdari]

So the man who donated the sperm has no right to the child?

Not while it's in someone elses body.

 

[glockmail]

Not while it's in someone elses body.

Like you have no right to your money when its in the bank?

 

[Gurdari]

Like you have no right to your money when its in the bank?

It does feel that way sometimes...
But if I pulled it out right now, the bank, and my money would be in the same shape.

I wouldn't be infringing on the bank's rights by taking my money out at any time. Plus... the money is 100% mine, I only keep it in their system.
Now if a man conceived a child, and lent it to a woman to hold, it would be his right to decide the fate.

 

[glockmail]

It does feel that way sometimes...
But if I pulled it out right now, the bank, and my money would be in the same shape.

I wouldn't be infringing on the bank's rights by taking my money out at any time. Plus... the money is 100% mine, I only keep it in their system.
Now if a man conceived a child, and lent it to a woman to hold, it would be his right to decide the fate.

So the man should be able to take out his fetus at any time, right? Or at least his portion. Even if the woman wanted to keep hers.

 

[Gurdari]

So the man should be able to take out his fetus at any time, right? Or at least his portion. Even if the woman wanted to keep hers.

? I think my example made sense... money was MY property, not mine and the bank's. Pulling money out would do anything to the money, nor would dividing the money into smaller pieces.

So, it's not HIS fetus, it's all hers - like everything else that's part of her body is hers.

 

[glockmail]

? I think my example made sense... money was MY property, not mine and the bank's. Pulling money out would do anything to the money, nor would dividing the money into smaller pieces.

So, it's not HIS fetus, it's all hers - like everything else that's part of her body is hers.

But it wouldn't be in there if not for him. So technically he has 1/2 of the rights.

 

[Gurdari]

But it wouldn't be in there if not for him. So technically he has 1/2 of the rights.

It wouldn't be there if not for him, so because it is entirely part of her body, like everything else that is part of her body, it belongs to her. Technically.

Any part of you that isn't yours?