[TruthSetsFree]

Originally Posted by quip

Why are anti-ers disposed to overstate the virtues of life? Life is suffering, I would've avoided it all together if only given a choice. Wouldn't you/fetus rather rest in heaven - by the foot of God or remain within the toils of (so-revered) life?

irrelevent

we dont want to create a society of murderers

and yet we already have

now we see women killing their born children

and men as well...

Scott Peterson

Christian Longo

Andrea Yates

etc...

[TruthSetsFree]

Originally Posted by Rusha

Because killing an unborn baby is the equivalent of making sure THAT child has decent food, shelter, education and medical care ...

Got it!

well it certainly makes sure s/he wont need it...

therefore... end of responsibility

clear conscience...

not hardly, but some can... dream on

[Rusha]

Originally Posted by highlife

Men have been getting the short end of the stick now for some 30-40 years,

Sour grapes ...

it drives alot of men to "scumbag" behavior.

WRONG ... regardless of what circumstances and events happen in your life, YOU choose how to react and behave. We all do. The idea that any man or woman would even *want* to avoid supporting their child speaks volumes ...

When men have a statisticly much harder time forming a meaningful relationship with a member of the opposite sex AND get the shaft in family law courts less than desirable behavior should be expected. Its a big part of the reason prositution is a BOOMING buisness.

TRANSLATION: Poor widdle men get picked on and forced into having wild sexual encounters with prostitutes.

Wowza ... I am convinced.

Men HAVE to operate in a shrewd and cleaver manner in the USA if they want any semblance of a quality of life, Jesus teaches us to be shrewd so its not scum bag behavior.

So it's the fault of Jesus that certain men and women behave like scum by *choosing* to be a deadbeat parent? Way to take responsibility

Abortion is against the bible but I doubt anyone could show me where giving up a child for adoption is, of course the religious never fail to show their non biblical personal opinions as if it were gospel.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with intentionally withholding support from one's own child.

[TruthSetsFree]

i am confused

about how this conversation got onto child support and men's bad behavior

of course it reminds me that men are mostly who want abortion

not hard 2 figure out why...

they want to have their fun and no responsibility

[quip]

Originally Posted by TruthSetsFree

irrelevent

What's irrelevant; certainly not 'life'?!

we dont want to create a society of murderers

and yet we already have

now we see women killing their born children

and men as well...

Scott Peterson

Christian Longo

Andrea Yates

etc...

Well, "murder" is a debatable term here..not to mention emotionally wrought and bombastic. Do you debate the issue of abortion or simply proclaim an opinion?

[Nick M]

Originally Posted by Eeset

So it is gravely sinful for a fetus to kill its mother?

With what, a shot gun? Are you really this stupid?

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by The Horn

What about the right to decent food,shelter,
education and medical care ?

Who says we have the right to any of these things?

I mean, the right to sustenance goes hand in hand with the right to life, so you've got that one. Shelter and education are privileges for which one must work. Medical care depends on whether it is a life or death issue, yet it must still be paid for.

And if a parent will not work to provide for their children said children should be taken away.

Poor women have abortions because they know that if they give birth, their children are doomed to lives of
abject misery .

No they aren't. These women do not have to keep these children.

Don't you idiot anti-choicers get this simple fact ? The only way to prevent abortion is to make sure that poor pregnant women will be able to provide for their children .

Nope. If they can't provide they should give the child to someone who can. Or their families should help them. But only because the little children cannot help themselves. Do it for the children, not the irresponsible adults who are too lazy, or stupid, to provide for the children they have.

But right-wingers don't care about this. They don't think further about the catastrophic consequences of government-ordered compulsory childbearing for pregnant women .

This is your only argument and you've never been able to show any evidence for it.

But you don't want the US government to take the necessary moves to prevent poor women from having abortions.

Insofar as we are supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people I actually do. I think we the people should take all the necessary moves to make sure these children not only get to live but get to live a healthy life and make it to adulthood with all the necessary tools.

And don't give me the same old self-serving,disingenuous crap about how much conservatives supposedly contribute to charities as well as the straw man of adoption.

How is adoption a straw man?

Because if Roe is overturned, and women lose reproductive rights, it will be a bloodbath ! Back-alley abortionists willl instantly spring into action AND WOMEN WILL DIE ! tHE POOREST WILL DIE USING COAT HANGERS AND OTHER MAKESHIT DEVICES .

1. Abortion will not become illegal if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
2. Illegal abortion ≠ unsafe abortion; the most likely people to perform back alley abortions in such a scenario are the ones who have the training and equipment, like Michael King or Martin Haskell.*

Abortion in America will be unsafe, illegal and COMMON .
Anti-choicers, beware of what you ask for !!!!!!

See above.

*Abortionists in the Midwest.

Originally Posted by highlife

I dont consider it unfounded unless you can articulatly refute it.

Spell check is a good tool to have, FYI.

Now, is there a reason you didn't offer any evidence, whatsoever, to support your accusations against me?

At which point have I posted anything to give the idea that I support such things?

Is it in the posts where I state that I am opposed to them?

Originally Posted by TruthSetsFree

this is what you are saying:

I am opposed to murder. I am, however, also opposed to making it illegal

I already covered that.

[jgarden]

Originally Posted by TruthSetsFree

its not a matter of a mere "single issue"

LIFE is THE issue of all time

with abortion ALL a person's rights are taken away from him/her in ONE act of mutilation/murder

key word: murder

even if a woman is raped and gets pregantn (extremely rare because the trauma/ stress usually is not conducive to impregnation...)

the child is still innocent and the woman is NOT forced to raise the child... many people want to adopt and there are NO babies to adopt anymore... But even if that were not the case... its still MURDER to destroy innocent human life for ANY reason

uh... so called reason..

If "LIFE is THE issue of all time" then "TruthSetsFree" would also be a pacifist.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by jgarden

If "LIFE is THE issue of all time" then "TruthSetsFree" would also be a pacifist.

Te right to life can be forfeit.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by alwight

OK “person” then if you prefer, so how do you define a "person" bearing in mind my original question concerning a nervous system or more specifically the lack of one in a zygote?


Is it? By whom exactly?
What you have shown here is the developmental stages toward becoming a fly, a maggot isn’t actually a fly.


Yes I accept what you say about DNA but I don’t accept that what I would consider to be like the blueprint for a life (DNA) actually makes the cell that contains it the thing it could potentially become.


But let’s get back to my zygote shall we, and your explanation of how a specific DNA resulting from two previous sources became a “person” from the moment of conception and not a potential person yet to develop human features including a nervous system?
I contend that until at least a basic nervous system has begun to form there is no material place for what I at least consider a “person” to be, rather than perhaps a more spiritual, dogmatic or doctrinal version.



Are you talking about “life” or “a life” here, there is a subtle distinction imo? Some of what you say here I will agree with but my concerns for a zygote (say) are not particularly great and that here there is plenty of scope to consider the wishes and rights of a woman at such an early stage. If however you are adamant that an actual “person” exists from conception then presumably you will not agree. If so then I suggest that what you have is a spiritual belief and not science and not one that I share.


Does it have a nervous system, what about arms and legs? I don’t think so.
At some point during gestation I too will consider it reasonable to assume that a person may exist but until that point afaic it may well have the code of a potential person but the blueprints for a Ferrari are not the actual car.

All of your so-called arguments about nervous system, arms & legs, etc., are the same old rationalizations abortion advocates have used to try and shed guilt for killing another weak, innocent human being. The fact is that I have known several individuals who were multiple amputees, quadraplegics on life support, or many with severe developmental dysorders. By your definition they would also not be persons. So at what specific moment in time, at what particular point in development, does that life magically "become" human? As I said before, all of the arguments you have named are very recent excuses invented for the convenience of the powerful, as a method of trying to legitimize exercising their will over the less powerful. At one time Blacks were both socially and legally considered to be less than human so that the more powerful could legitimize controlling and killing them.

Also, as I said before, nothing is added to the fertilized egg to make it human. All that you might point out as being added changes nothing in the essence of that being. It is merely nutrition and an environment conducive to growth. Essentially that egg grows on its own to maturity using what nutrition is present in its environment. If that nutrition is cut off then it doesn't keep it from "becoming" human; it simply starves to death the same way you would if your food or oxygen supply were cut off. As far as your "who says" questions go, science has always said. For example, when specifying what kind of egg something is, it is referred to as a fly egg, or a chicken egg, or a human egg. The species is already determined from conception. Never is there a generic egg that becomes a species at some later point. In fact, every egg is more specifically the egg of the individual. One chicken egg does not change genetically somewhere down the line. What you have is simply a stage of growth no different than growing from an infant into an adolescent, into an adult.

Originally Posted by highlife

Men have been getting the short end of the stick now for some 30-40 years, it drives alot of men to "scumbag" behavior. When men have a statisticly much harder time forming a meaningful relationship with a member of the opposite sex AND get the shaft in family law courts less than desirable behavior should be expected. Its a big part of the reason prositution is a BOOMING buisness.

Men HAVE to operate in a shrewd and cleaver manner in the USA if they want any semblance of a quality of life, Jesus teaches us to be shrewd so its not scum bag behavior. Abortion is against the bible but I doubt anyone could show me where giving up a child for adoption is, of course the religious never fail to show their non biblical personal opinions as if it were gospel.

If a man feels that he has to put himself ahead of his wife or child he is extremely selfish, and that wife or child probably do deserve better than him. That being said, manhood is not determined by physical parts. A child is born totally selfish. If a male does not mature beyond that selfishness then he is, in fact, childish and not a real "man". Men display courage and are williing to sacrifice of themselves for others.

Referring to emphasized portion above:

1 Timothy 5:8
Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by jgarden

If "LIFE is THE issue of all time" then "TruthSetsFree" would also be a pacifist.

Then

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

Te right to life can be forfeit.

People living in a war zone forfeit their right to live?

The point that some have been trying to make is that Republicans, with one hand say that they are against abortion because it is evil (even though they do not back up their rhetoric with action), yet with the other hand they do everything in their power to make living miserable for the majority, taking away any support and security they have and taxing them to where they can't afford the necessities so that they can then give it to those who already have more than enough. It's much like the grocery store that puts a few pretty red strawberries on top to keep you from noticing all the moldy ones underneath.

[TomO]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

If a man feels that he has to put himself ahead of his wife or child he is extremely selfish, and that wife or child probably do deserve better than him. That being said, manhood is not determined by physical parts. A child is born totally selfish. If a male does not mature beyond that selfishness then he is, in fact, childish and not a real "man". Men display courage and are williing to sacrifice of themselves for others.

1 Timothy 5:8

Referring to emphasized portion above:

BAM!!!

[TruthSetsFree]

Originally Posted by alwight

@OP "abortion a single issue????!!!"

Care to explain exactly how (say) a zygote is actually a "child" having no nervous system or even specifically human features and is not simply your theistic assumptions, belief and dogma such as a supposed soul perhaps?

science has shown that life begins at the beginning, conception... which woiuld seem logical even is science did not say so

if it is not alive

why does it grow

if it is not human

jwhat is it?

if it is not alive and human... why do we have to use sharp instruments and poisons to destroy it and make it not live anymore?

how would u like to undergo abortion?

[TruthSetsFree]

interesting how the anti lifers

call the pro lifers childish, insulting names

but the pro lifers do not

more evidence if any is needed, that... legalized abortion has virtually wiped out any respect for human life... wherever it may reside

[alwight]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

All of your so-called arguments about nervous system, arms & legs, etc., are the same old rationalizations abortion advocates have used to try and shed guilt for killing another weak, innocent human being.

There may indeed be some feelings of guilt involved sometimes, while my argument is about an honest attempt to make the best or least worst choice from a purely human point of view considering all of the relevant specific facts. Attempting to rationalise what is actually going on within a specific given situation instead of just dogmatically making a blanket assumption based on nothing but a spiritual/higher power doctrinal view, rather minimises any such guilt concerns, for me anyway. I do not doubt that a zygote is a potential human being but imo it is no more an actual human being at that stage than is any number of potential human beings, in the shape of specific human organic matter, is that will never make it more naturally. I would feel far more guilt about compelling a raped woman to gestate and give birth to a rapist’s child than of feelings I might have about one particular potential human being.

Originally Posted by Morpheus

The fact is that I have known several individuals who were multiple amputees, quadraplegics on life support, or many with severe developmental dysorders. By your definition they would also not be persons. So at what specific moment in time, at what particular point in development, does that life magically "become" human? As I said before, all of the arguments you have named are very recent excuses invented for the convenience of the powerful, as a method of trying to legitimize exercising their will over the less powerful. At one time Blacks were both socially and legally considered to be less than human so that the more powerful could legitimize controlling and killing them.

I don’t think you can have read or understood at all what I’ve been saying, going by this. My comments all along have been to do with the bald assumption that a human person exists and is sacred from the moment of conception. Instead I consider that to be spiritualistic rubbish and without at least a nervous system there simply can be no human person within say a zygote, all of which simply doesn’t apply to anything you say here which all do have one.

Originally Posted by Morpheus

Also, as I said before, nothing is added to the fertilized egg to make it human. All that you might point out as being added changes nothing in the essence of that being. It is merely nutrition and an environment conducive to growth. Essentially that egg grows on its own to maturity using what nutrition is present in its environment. If that nutrition is cut off then it doesn't keep it from "becoming" human; it simply starves to death the same way you would if your food or oxygen supply were cut off. As far as your "who says" questions go, science has always said. For example, when specifying what kind of egg something is, it is referred to as a fly egg, or a chicken egg, or a human egg. The species is already determined from conception. Never is there a generic egg that becomes a species at some later point. In fact, every egg is more specifically the egg of the individual. One chicken egg does not change genetically somewhere down the line. What you have is simply a stage of growth no different than growing from an infant into an adolescent, into an adult.

Now you seem to be agreeing with me in at least that a human person has to develop over time. When a nervous system starts to form then I will begin to worry more for its welfare and less for (say) a raped woman and her extant and future life.
BTW a fly egg is not a fly, nor a maggot, it is an egg, a potential maggot/fly egg.