"Spiritual" in this context means something deeper than just a bodily connection. Something much deeper than just an emotional one. It was not intended to be taken literally. I am not a mystic, so I do not think that man has an actual spirit. I don't. Yeah, of course that is your view. I am glad that you have finally admitted that your view on abortion is all religious superstition and has absolutely nothing to do with science.
No, I don't. So why TF don't you and show me what that looks like. Oh, for pete's sake... Pro-Choice is about ABORTION....so YES, it's about preserving rights for women!!! WHO TF ELSE has abortions?? Pro-Choice is not all about all the issues in the world...it's about abortion.. We , all individuals, have a right to bodily autonomy... THAT is why I always say that women have a right to bodily autonomy JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.. NOW, when MEN start getting pregnant I will fight for their right to abortion, too, if someone tries to take it away... YOU ignored a point I made in Post 240..... see, it isn't really that Anti-Choicers care about the fetus , is it?? I'm used to Anti-Choicers ignoring my remarks because they can't answer them but you ???
Gee, have to ignore my posts ? Maybe because I gave answers that were inconvenient Ya, that happens a lot with me and Anti-Choicers who have NO GOOD ARGUMENTS Who said ""having sex is one of the only things which one shouldn't be held accountable for the consequences?"" ? Can you show an example ?
Yes, you do. Even in this very post you do it later on, further below. Just read my posts. Yes, it is true that women are the ones who are having abortions, but that them being women is not why they should have the right to have an abortion. Their gender is absolutely irrelevant and completely isiginificant to the argument. "Women" are not one big, homogenous and monolithic blob with shared judgement, goals and values. Abortion only concerns the individual woman and not "women" as a whole. Exactly. Whether we are women or not is completely uninteresting. Exactly. You regard gender as the primary unit of existence and thus as what is essential to the issue of abortion. I do not agree with that premise because I am not a collectivist. Then you would be doing the same mistake as you are making right now - Gender is completely irrelevant to the matter. Quite clearly they do. I normally only address what I find worthy of being addressed. If I leave somethign out it either means that I found it completely uninteresting and irrelevant.
You discount faith and you discount God yet you use terms like "spiritual connection". I get it. I will honor your superstitious thinking and let you go your way.
THIS IS THE ABORTION FORUM. No, I don't...just because YOU say I do doesn't mean I do. Quite clearly, and through years of debating Anti-Choicers it ALWAYS ends up as "punish the women for having sex", they are NOT concerned about the fetus. LOL, that's as good of an excuse as any...
FoxHastings said: ↑ Who said ""having sex is one of the only things which one shouldn't be held accountable for the consequences?"" ? Can you show an example ? But women ARE held accountable, they decide if they want an abortion or want to gestate. By "hold accountable" do you mean "forcing women to gestate"...ya, I think that may be it. Now, can you address post # 245 ?
FoxHastings said: ↑ Who said ""having sex is one of the only things which one shouldn't be held accountable for the consequences?"" ? Can you show an example ? But women ARE held accountable, they decide if they want an abortion or want to gestate. By "hold accountable" do you mean "forcing women to gestate"...ya, I think that may be it. Now, can you address post # 245 ? Why? Please don't do the "she asked for it" crap. Consent to one act (sex) is not consent to ANY OTHER ACT such as getting pregnant. Now, can you address post # 245 ?
I am Pro Life too which is why I am not against abortion. This is the firs time I have ever heard anyone say this.
I don’t believe that changes anything. The baby is still an innocent human life. However, I can understand the rape exemption. That doesn’t mean I agree.
You can’t be both pro life and pro abortion. If you don’t oppose abortion, you are comfortable with the choice being abortion in every case for any reason.
So, do not pretend as if your standard is "force" because clearly you think a woman should be forced to carry out pregnancy. I am on the side of the only human life in the calculation, namely the woman's. Hence, I am Pro Life. You are just Anti-Abortion. It is time to point out the utter stupidity of these terms and call a spade a spade.
That zyogote will necessarily become a baby if we do not interfere is simply not true. . The odds of a zygote making it quite low .. over 70% will not survive Gestation - odds get better after that. The statement "It may become a baby" is correct. The Moral question depends on where along the process we are .. a process which begins long prior to conception. If we take it right back to the beginning .. say to the twinkle in your fathers eye when his gaze beset upon your mother. - perhaps we should look at this moment as "The Beginning" - the process has started - such that I must now take this women and procreate the species. I tell you true that I felt the movement of "The Spirit" when my gaze alighted on this woman (and I do believe this follows from your logic - with a few minor abstractions) The question I have asked is "When does the soul arrive" - where did it come from prior to entering the fleshy abode - and where will it go after. and 2) can we say a person exists - prior to the soul entering the flesh ? - assuming one believes in a soul.
About 3,000 babies are killed each day. 1,000 of those babies are black babies. That sounds like an attempt at genocide.
Just because a zygote may not survive, doesn’t make it any less human. Most Christians believe you are born with original sin. Sin is a spiritual concept as I believe a soul is. If you’re born with original sin you must be born with a soul. Since a soul can’t be measured I prefer to base my pro-life stance on the science of when you become human.
Please figure out the difference between the noun and descriptive adjective form of the word "human" as one is "A Human" and the other is not. No - it doesn't mean that at all .. or at least not necessarily. .. and being "Born" with original Sin - you are talking the time of Birth .. not the time of conception. Is a zygote capable of Sin .. ? I think not - The folks that came up with Original Sin Dogma .. referring to the zygote in anyway. Is the sperm a sinner too ? There a Catholic pronouncement somewhere - "ensoulment" which claims the soul comes at conception .. but then one of the Pope's one time declared Cats to be agents of the Devil and cats were summarily tortured and killed on this basis .. so I do not put much stock in there. "Science" ? There is no science that can be of any help - Heck .. there are 5 different perspectives on when human life begins - only one putting the beginning at conception - and that one is no longer favored by Scientists - in part because of the rammifications to the soul The 5 main scientific perspectives are Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological What do you mean "not measured" ? "I think therefor I am" ... can we not measure cognition ? So once again .. when do you think the soul arrives .. and why .. according to science ?
A zygote is not an actualised human and it not being viable does in fact make it significantly much less of life than what even the most radical reality-evader could claim. By all means, worship your God, but please, please, please do not impose your faith into lawmaking.
Where? What? Sounds like a trag.... Oooooooh.... You are talking about abortion. Pfffff. Instead of making emotionalist, race-based arguments, try to make some that actually make sense. Thanks.
