Junkieturtle said, No you are wrong. You wear a seat belt not to protect your car but to protect your body. And it is law. Your body has to be seat belted in. You can't tell the officer that pulls you over .it is my right to either protect my body or not. The law is in place and it has to do with bodies A hooker can't say to an police officer..gee I can do what I want with my own body. The law says you can't sell your body for sex. That has to do with personal ownership with your personal body. If abortion has to do with ones body and the rights to it then you should be able to do ANYTHING WITH YOUR BODY. That only makes sense. And you can only donate body parts after your dead for the most part with few exceptions. Compromise? LMAO I though you said it was a woman's choice to do what she wants with HER BODY. So it makes no sense that you pro-aborts would DENY HER THAT RIGHT. Your position does not fly with the excuses you use to legalize it. ITS HER RIGHT. How hypocritical of you to then turn around and deny her,,,her rights. You are wrong. You can't take illegal drugs even on your personal property. You can't use it or make it. I can't have people over for a crack party .even if its my home where its taking place. I can have people over for an aspirin party or a tylenol party .but nothing illegal. And if someone needed medical assistance and they came and found evidence I would be in trouble. Why should all this be hidden? If its someones own body then they should have the right to do this even around children. Cause whats so bad about it? People can drink around kids at home. People can drink with kids in a restaurant or bar, or sports event. We are talking about double standards here and restrictions that the government places on its citizens. You can only drink and smoke .certain places. So its ok to kill something cause it doesn't know its getting killed? So all the murders that happened to people who did not know they were getting killed are ok? Shoot someone in the back of the head and they won't feel it they won't know. Kill someone who is mentally retarded .they have less rights because they are stupid. Pain should not matter. This is an issue about killing a separate living human being. And you champion that right. Nothing means anything to you about this. Do I think your horrible? For thinking that abortion is ok to do yes. On other issues who knows. I think the abortion issues and what someone believes affects their entire worldview. I could make a profile for you just knowing you want abortion legal and I bet I would be pretty close. You are standing up for killing human beings. End of story. Oh wait wait. You said they have rights to their bodies until when? Half way through their pregnancies.??????? Then you want to strip women of these rights. Wow. How consistent are you? LMAO You have rights .no you don't ..you had rights ..you lost rights .you people are all over the place with excuses and justifications and things that don't make sense. You said the unborn does not know does not feel pain you think of it as a rock some inanimate object that well is nothing. Then you tell the women she can't get rid of the rock. LOL Feelings? Do you have them? You said you support abortion and the woman's right to kill a living human being. Right? What emotions could you possible have regarding this? LOL Abortion is nothing .right? Certainly nothing immoral for petes sake. Why, you wouldn't condone something you think is immoral would you? LOL Why should it be the mans responsibility? Its the woman's body. She should take full responsibility she is inviting the sex act. Its a party and she should provide the favors. The man (father) should she get pregnant has nothing to do with the decision whether to keep it or not he is a nonissue. No the woman has full responsibility she is the one who took the risk. The unborn of course is the one who pays the ultimate price for her mishap. Would you care if I took your underaged daughter who got pregnant for an abortion? Just curious. Would you be ticked off or happy I paid and took care of it for you? And toots your decisions can affect me and those around me. And I have every right to protest something I find wrong. Clooney just got arrested for butting his nose into something that does not concern him. Are you suggesting no one can stand up for what they think is right and wrong? Or people who oppose abortion the only ones that can't stand up and protest? WEll honey tell that to Obama and the government who want citizens to pay for birth control and abortions. Why should I have to buy condoms or birth control pills for people. And if I oppose abortion, why should I be forced to pay for it. Right now the government gives millions to Planned Parenthood from tax money they collect. This is not right. It affects my life because I am morally opposed to it. And if morals did not matter this would not be such a huge issue today in our society. Morals and doing what matter is important for some and as we see here for some it simply does not matter. Do you have morals? Like what do you find immoral just curious? Our laws in the country are in place to make living easier and humane, they are in place to provide structure and order. As I showed earlier there are laws in place that restrict what people can and can't do. They are in place so that society is protected from those who want to harm people. Homosexuality and same sex marriage has always been illegal. Why? To protect the institution of marriage and the family that is why. The traditional family unit is the father the mother and the children they reproduce. How sad it is when you come across people who disregard human life I can only wonder what else you condone .How proud you are at even the thought of a human life being destroyed. That says mountains about your character. No, the LEFT IS DESTROYING AMERICA. People who have values that you champion. Moderate . Being pro-abortion does not come from a moderate person on any level. Your positions and morals ..have a lot to do with the survival of America. You are however if you want abortion legal. Human life starts at conception. Whether or not it can think, dance, read, feel does not matter. IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY ..A LIVING HUMAN BEING. There is nothing potential about a life already started. But you don't care this fact does not matter to you. You are proud that you are pro-abortion. It is not hard to figure you out. As I said I could make a profile picture of you on probably all issues. You fit that mold.
Yes, it does constitute proof of a mutual understanding across the scientific community. And yet again, despite being told that your argument is invoking a logical fallacy, you continue to invoke that same logical fallacy. Grannie and others on your side of the debate persistently post links from pro-choice websites as evidence, you don't see me whining about their bias. Why is that? Because unlike your position, mine is aware of how illogical, ludicrous and downright stupid it is to call "foul" on a source just because of its bias. You either address the information within the source or you concede that you are unable to. It's really quite simple--at least for most. That wasn't the argument. Obviously there's no consensus in the scientific community about when a human life has "rights." Science isn't able to objectively make that distinction. There is, however, a consensus on when human life begins, which is what we were debating, we were not debating personhood, when something is a human "being" or when it is a "human being with rights." You are now twisting the debate to match your own failed arguments. You have your opinion, which you feel entitled to force on all men. I'm fighting for equal rights, you're fighting for continued sexism. That much has already clearly been shown.
What are these measures Cady? Planned Parenthood does not want to reduce abortions. THEY LIKE YOU DONT THINK THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH ABORTION. ABORTION PAYS THEIR BILLS AND THEIR SALARIES. WITHOUT ABORTION THEY WOULD HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR DOORS. What don't you get? Is there something wrong with abortion Cady? This is not about vengeance. This is about right and wrong and obviously you don't get that. I think abortion is wrong because it kills you think its right, that killing does not matter. Could you please site documentation showing how many abortionists were killed last year by out of control pro-lifers? How many? We have millions of abortions being performed all over the country. How many were killed? And how many abortion clinics were bombed? LMAO We for the most part are the most docile group of protesters anywhere. Most of us pray outside the buildings. Most of us do not call names or even carry signs. We are peaceful people. But peace for you people is abortion. You think its a peaceful solution to problems. How sad that violence against a tiny human life you find acceptable. As I said that says way more about your character then mine. I think you know that.
Locke said, And I would think that men would stand up in numbers against abortion. Pro-choicers don't see the father as an issue .and our government backs this position up .until the child is born whether he wanted it or not. He is screwed because the government will come after him for child support. Unfair and tragic. But the pro-choice crowd does not care .its about killing that is their total focus.
Pro-choicers don't care about this and their positions are all over the place. Somewhere around .20 weeks .21 weeks .22 22 1/2 ..23 weeks. They have no clue but they don't care. That which is in the womb is basically never human and certainly not worthy of protection to them. They do not see it as a human child .more like a blob of cells.
Nooo, it does not. There is no such "mutual understanding." From an online biology textbook, Devbio: http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf Wrong, I do not force my opinion on anyone. No one who is pro-life is being forced to abort. Fighting for the right to control decisions about one's own body is not sexist. Men have that right.
The seat belt laws do not govern your body. What about a seat belt law tells you that you can or cannot make a choice about your body, and specifically about the internal function of your body? Also, you can't be pulled over for not wearing your seat belt, at least in my state. It's an offense that you only get ticketed for if a cop notices while you're pulled over for something else or perhaps during a police traffic checkpoint. People donate organs all the time to loved ones and even people they don't know, while they are still alive. Yes, compromise. You see, for a democracy to work right, it can't always be one side saying "my way or the highway" buddy. It means giving something up you believe in, or part of it, so that other stuff you believe in can happen. You don't understand compromise and it's necessity in a nation full of hugely varied people? I find that hard to believe. Personally, I believe there ought to be limits, but if it came down to a black or white issue like you want it to be, I'd side with unlimited abortion over no abortion. Yes you can. As long as you don't get violent, or give the officers another reason(another way that you're breaking the law) to arrest you, they aren't going to haul you in on suspicion of being on drugs, not if they found you in your house. There are other charges they can use which all rely on external factors(children, being in public, operating a motor vehicle, possession of drugs, parole violation) but they aren't charging you with drug intoxication. And don't be dense, it's illegal to use drugs around children because drugs affect your consciousness and your ability to properly supervise them, not to mention exposing them to the drugs and their use itself. All those examples you list involve someone who was already born. If you're trying to extend my beliefs on abortion to cover people already born, you're deliberately taking my position out of context. I'll make it easy to sum up my beliefs. Fetus = Not a person, belongs to the mother's body, and thus, her. Born = A person, deserving of all legal rights afforded to a person, the way the system works currently. I'll give you a second to wipe the foam away from your mouth here. All better? There comes a point where my own discomfort with something isn't a justification for not allowing somebody else to do it. You'd be better off if you remembered that. Not to mention the fact that it goes completely against everything I believe in to make a law about woman's body. That's the issue. Also, I never said it was okay to kill a living human being. See above where I said after you're born, all laws apply. It's the man's responsibility too because if the mother chooses to keep the baby, the man will be responsible for child support. I'm not a toots, I'm a guy. And yes, I would care every much, unless it was something we had discussed beforehand. Besides, if my daughter's situation was such that abortion was the best option, I'd take her myself and pay for it myself. You're a stranger on the internet, why would I let you do anything for my family? Would you even take her for an abortion? Probably not. I'd imagine she'd end up at one of those fake abortion clinics designed to scare and fool women into not having an abortion. Or locked in your basement to protect that unborn baby that you won't give a crap about once it's born. You DO have every right to protest and power to you in that respect. I never said you shouldn't speak out, I asked what actual effects on your own personal life outside of having a sad face, abortion has on YOU. Now I never said anything about believing the government should be paying for contraception and abortion, did I? That's another debate entirely. And again, your conclusion that I have no morals based on my position here is, quite obviously, based on nothing but your own prejudice against those who disagree with you. Continue to say those things and make those judgments all you'd like, but just remember that what YOU think of ME has no affect on anything other than your own psyche. I believe in basic human respect, and that things would be a lot better if people could respect others, even when they don't agree with them. And don't give me that garbage about homosexuality and marriage. That's also another debate. It's very sad. I generally stand against anything that does not respect human life. But, as I have already stated, before you're born, you're a part of your mothers body, and you don't have rights. That's where I draw the line. Proud of human life being destroyed? Where in all of this did I say I "like" abortion? That I'm proud of it? The dial on my assumptionometer has almost lapped itself after your post. You don't know anything about me. If you want to know something, just ask, I'll be happy to tell you and maybe you'll stop imagining me as the boogeyman. Darnit, and I enjoyed being a moderate, but I guess since you say I can't possibly be one....Tis a sad day for me indeed. Science does not classify a zygote as a living human being. It will potentially become one, but it is not one until it DOES become one. But yes, I am proud to be pro-choice. You are right on that count. Make me a picture, I likey pictures.
That article is plain and simply wrong. http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W0805.pdf
I'm not going to post the entire article up there, but the link is clearly available for you or anyone else to read for yourself. Medical professionals, medical dictionaries, scientific professionals, scientific fact, etc. all with external sources cited at the end of the article. As for this: Wrong. There is another body in the equation and it was created by both the woman AND a man. The biological father should either be granted some say in the decision of whether to carry to term or he should not be forced legally to pay child support for his biological offspring if the woman decides to carry to term. End of story. You have said nothing of this. It would seem that the way you want things is for men to continue to be forced to pay for child support even if they didn't want a child, and you want them to be forced to stand idly by while the woman decides to have their offspring killed even if they wanted the opportunity and joy of fatherhood. That is incredibly sexist. The whole "it's the woman's body" argument just doesn't work. That's biology and nature dictates that the woman carries the offspring, but appealing to that with the argument that that inherently makes it right for the woman to have all say is a form of the naturalistic logical fallacy and to argue that men should continue to be forced to pay child support when they don't want children, but allow women the opposite option--kill the offspring (even if the father wanted the chance to be a father)--is sexist at the core.
Again, when a man shares the physical burdens of carrying a child to term, and the after effects, they can have a say in what happens on the inside of the woman's body. You're trying to force equality on something that is inherently not equal, and can't be equal without changing human anatomy. And this whole natural fallacy crap is getting old. I was born with two arms, those are my arms. They don't belong to anyone else. Same with my feet, nose, mouth, lips, teeth, hair, leg, butt, penis, stomach, colon, bladder, kidney, throat, tongue, esophagus, fingers, elbows, ankles, shins, knees, skin, blood, nerves, brain, skull, fingernails, toenails, liver, pancreas, prostate, pituitary gland, xyphoid process, mandible, ear drum, lungs, pelvis, femoral artery, jugular vein, collarbone, even my tacky sideburns. Those are all parts of my body and belong to me. Taking them away from me or hurting them without my consent is a crime. So the same list for women(minus the prostate and penis) would include everything but her womb, aye? Her womb is not hers. Should women get to charge their womb's rent when they get pregnant?
If it's getting "old" seeing the naturalistic fallacy being called out, perhaps the best solution to that problem of yours would be to stop invoking it. Hmm... What a logical solution applied directly to a real world "problem"--if that's what you consider to be a problem, anyway. The woman already gave consent. She had sex, which resulted in pregnancy. I would argue that it's no different from a suicidal patient who is forced into a state care facility against their will, yet the records show because they are suicidal, it's a form of consent and they are then billed for treatment which they did not ask for or even agree to. It's causality plain and simple. Our society values life and frowns on suicide. Therefore, someone who threatens suicide or attempts to harm his or her self is aware that there is the possibility of institutionalization. In the same way, a woman has sex (maybe unprotected) with a man. She gets pregnant. This is an after-effect of sexual intercourse, it doesn't always happen, but all educated people are aware of the distinct possibility and probability of pregnancy as a result. I believe that she has given the same kind of consent that a suicidal person gives when they are institutionalized and later billed for it. By standards of causality, she has allowed a life to start growing inside her. She should not be able to play God and say "rewind, I didn't want that to happen, back up, undo please" and kill an innocent human life in the process. And if she is able to make that choice, she should certainly not be able to sue the biological father for child support if she decides to carry to term. If women are so independent, if it's an issue of what is in their body is their property, then that shouldn't be an issue at the very least. Because if it belongs solely to her, if destruction or development of the life inside her is solely in her hands, whether the father likes it or not, then he should not be legally burdened with child support in the event that she decides to carry to term. That's only fair. As it stands right now, he IS legally burdened with child support. Your argument suggests that as women endure the pregnancy in an independent fashion--it's their body--therefore they should be able to kill what's growing inside or let it live. The father has no say according to your argument, as it's not really even his child, because it's her body. So why then should he have to be burdened with helping the mother through the pregnancy emotionally, physically, financially, or doing any of the above after the pregnancy if she decides to keep the child? That would be the fair non-sexist solution, but I have a feeling you'll disagree with that as well.
I don't think you understand what sexism actually is. Sexism only works when the situations are the same, and only the people are different. For example, a man making more money performing the same job as a woman who is paid less for the same work. Saying a woman is not able to be in the military but men can, when both are able to perform their duties just as well as the other. Saying women can't be as good at sports as a man. Same situation with standards applied differently to each sex. With pregnancy it's completely different. The man cannot be equal to the woman. It's anatomically impossible right now. Yes, the man does participate in the creation of that child but that's where his role effectively ends. It's not his body that must endure the burdens of pregnancy. It's not his health that is at risk from that pregnancy. It's not his body that will bear the scars and health affects that can result from pregnancy, and it's most certainly NOT his body that could potentially die during child birth from complications. These situations are NOT the same. If you're truly arguing for equality, you'd be arguing in favor of the woman because right now, the entire route of pregnancy after the first act rests solely on the woman. The man gets off easy. You're completely ignoring the entire nine months that occur after the intercourse that leads to conception. You're also ignoring the fact that whatever logical ninjitsu you want to use doesn't change the fact that the child before it's born is an inherent part of it's mother. But, to satisfy your craving for equality, I propose a new type of operation. We won't call it abortion, we'll call it a fetal transfer. In this operation, the mother's womb is opened and the child removed, but not aborted. The man can then have the fetus surgically inserted within himself to continue the pregnancy, satisfying both parties desires. That won't work you say? Why not? I thought both parties were equal? Obviously my example is ridiculous and disgusting. But that's where you're heading with this, at least logically until you can bring yourself to acknowledge the unquestionable differences between the genders when you're specifically talking about pregnancy.
And by the way, the idea that the woman gave consent for pregnancy by having sex is utterly ridiculous. When I get in my car and drive to work, am I giving my consent for another driver to run into me in his car just because that can potentially result from people driving cars? I don't think so. If it was, we wouldn't need car insurance. The woman gave her consent for the intercourse. That's it. She is not entering into a contract that says she must carry a child to term. That right there is a blatant logical fallacy, though I'm going to have to apologize in that I don't know the genus, family, and species of which logical fallacy it is.
I don't think your position understands how to conduct itself in a reasonable and courteous manner. That's a blatant and stupid ad hominem attack on me and what you perceive to be my "lack of knowledge" regarding something. It's dishonest, petty and pathetic. Sexism is defined as the "discrimination on the basis of sex [gender]," it says nothing about "only working when the situations are the same, and only the people are different." Giving a woman complete and utter control over pregnancy and what to do with it while forcing the man to financially support the woman and her offspring in the hypothetical event that the woman decides to go through with it is sexism. It is unfair treatment (discrimination) of a man because he is not the woman in the relationship. Then respond to my arguments regarding how he's forced to pay child support once his role is "over" (according to your argument). Okay, but your position has utterly ignored the portion of my argument which I was emphasizing most--forced child support. I know not of this "logical ninjitsu." Are you a Ninja of Logic? Strawman logical fallacy. Your position has taken my argument, skewed the hell out of it into something which you dishonestly claim is where my logic was headed, then post it here as if that's what my argument is actually claiming. Sorry, bub, it doesn't work like that.
When you get into a car, you are consenting to the possibility and probability of an accident, yes. You are hoping for the best, but hopefully you are also prepared for the worst. However, that would be the false analogy logical fallacy, because you're not responsible for another driver hitting you as long as you were driving safely. The woman in the other hypothetical is indeed responsible for the result of her actions. I never said she's entering into a contract that says she must carry a child to term, that would be another strawman logical fallacy. I said I think that's the way it should be. That's the way I believe it should be regarded and that's the way I see it. I was very clear about it being my opinion and belief. Obviously that's not how it is right now, because abortion is legal. I have to wonder if your position is even paying attention to the actual arguments being made, or if it's content just being an example of how not to debate with standards of logic and decency.
It just appeared to me that you may not have understood it. I did not imply it was fact, I said "I don't think" implying it was my opinion. It most certainly was not meant as an insult, and I apologize if it did appear that way. Talking with you for the short time we have today has reminded me that sometimes I let my subtle sarcasm get the best of me. Of course he's not the woman. If he was, he wouldn't have been able to get the woman pregnant. You can't apply standards of equality to situations that aren't the same. And the law does not declare that the man has to "completely support" the woman and her offspring, only contribute towards it, and even then only according to his means. His role in the pregnancy is over. After the child is born is a completely new set of circumstances. The child, by law, now has rights. If the man can make a legit case that he shouldn't have to pay child support, power to him, but the circumstances are different now that the child is actually in the world and will need supported. I would agree that a man should not have to pay child support for a child in the womb. Some say I'm a ninja of love.... Oh yes, I went there. Regarding my earlier comments in this thread and the other. You were right to call me out on the ad hominem comments I made. I shouldn't go there. I have never had a discussion with you before and was unprepared for the way you debate, which I perceived to be a little obnoxious. I am not calling you obnoxious, but that was the impression I had. I will do my best to refrain from the personal attacks and the sarcasm(which is usually what gets me in trouble), which should be easy, as I haven't seen you engage in it either, to your credit. My apologies.
I see pro-lifers trying to change the law and make abortion illegal. That seems to be their goal. Would be a pretty effective means of reducing abortions don't you think? The sum of your argument seems to consist of nothing more than ad hominem attacks against those who don't share your view. As with any issue that people feel passionate about, there's bound to be those on both sides that engage in deplorable tactics. But isn't it possible that some pro-lifers, dare I say most, generally speaking, aren't hypocrites, liars, misogynists, or vengeful puritans but rather just decent, thoughtful people who believe life begins at conception?
As long as you'll concede the same about those who may disagree with those thoughtful people, the ones that aren't engaging in deplorable tactics.
I think most pro-choicers are likely thoughtful honest people as well. But you're simply not being honest by saying they're not engaging in some deplorable tactics. One need look no further than this thread to find them.
No, that isn't the case. This is what I've been telling you... http://womensenews.org/story/the-world/041128/illegal-abortions-rampant-latin-america http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/opinion/06fri3.html Pro-lifers are actively attempting to destroy Planned Parenthood in spite of the fact that PP offers sex education and affordable contraception, the only policies found to reduce the abortion rate. In addition, it offers cancer screening, prenatal health care and other services to women who otherwise could not afford them. But because 3% of PP's services is legal abortion, conservatives have vowed to destroy it. Mitt Romney has just promised to get rid of it. If that isn't acting out of vengeance, what is it?
This presupposes an attempt to outlaw PP. Are to we supposed to deduce from your claim that Republicans are trying to outlaw PP?
Well first, comparing the US with Latin America is really apples and oranges, and many would argue that you've got a whole host of other factors to consider rather than just the legality of abortions to explain the number that are being performed. But that's really beside the point I was trying to make. Pro-lifers believe, whether you agree or not, that making abortion illegal will reduce them, and therefore this is their goal. Which led to my second question. I think it's most likely acting on principle. If you remove the abortion component, many would likely have no problem with it. And bear in mind that many pro-choicers oppose taxpayer dollars going to PP. Are they acting out of vengeance? I'm thinking you just may not understand what the word means.
No it doesn't, there are other ways to (attempt to) destroy. http://www.religiondispatches.org/d...push_defund_planned_parenthood_won't_go_away/
Pro-lifers WANT to believe that it is as simple as making abortion illegal to reduce them, they WANT to believe so badly that they ignore all the EVIDENCE to the contrary or rationalize it away as you just did with the Latin America statistics. The evidence from all over the world indicates that the legality of abortion has little to do with abortion rate, so if you are SINCERE about lowering the abortion rate, you must look at other methods, and some other methods have been proven effective. Do you have evidence that pro-choicers oppose tax money going to PP? Since the law (Hyde Amendment) clearly states no taxpayer money be spent to fund abortions, and PP is rigorously audited to make sure that is the case, it is purely a case of vengeance to withhold PP funding. Wanting to shut down PP regardless of the health benefits provided to men and women who could not otherwise afford them is purely vengeance.
