Ben Carson has one of the best arguments RE abortion...

[Rusha]

It's an inept analogy. A baby is a parasite, feeding off the mother's body as it develops. A dog is not. A baby cannot survive apart from the mother's body prior to the 24th week of development (the cut-off point for a legal abortion). A dog can. Babies are not dogs, and so do not equate to dogs legally, morally, or logically.

That is something I would expect from a pro-abortion advocate. "It's not a baby, it's a parasite".

Well, that child that you so kindly refer to as "parasite" didn't hide in the bushes outside of some innocent, virgins window, wait until she was asleep and then climb inside her. In almost all cases of pregnancy, women consent to sex ... which is consenting to the absolute possibility of pregnancy.

 

[Town Heretic]

That is something I would expect from a pro-abortion advocate. "It's not a baby, it's a parasite".

Lucky for them their parents didn't share their opinion.

 

[PureX]

That is something I would expect from a pro-abortion advocate. "It's not a baby, it's a parasite".

Well, that child that you so kindly refer to as "parasite" didn't hide in the bushes outside of some innocent, virgins window, wait until she was asleep and then climb inside her. In almost all cases of pregnancy, women consent to sex ... which is consenting to the absolute possibility of pregnancy.

Punishing women for having sex without taking proper precautions against an unwanted pregnancy is not a good reason to force them to have unwanted babies. I think you need to separate these two issues before you can think reasonably about either one of them.

 

[PureX]

Lucky for them their parents didn't share their opinion.

"Parasite" is just a word describing a biological relationship. And why pregnancy is not anything like owning a dog. You may not like the word, but it does apply to the relationship, and to why women have the right to decide to allow this parasitic biological relationship to occur, or not to. And why her decision overrules yours or mine.

 

[republicanchick]

The problem is alternatively poor training in, or availability of, reliable contraceptives. Self discipline, especially when imposed by others, is not the unique problem here.

artificial contraception is basically what primarily or essentially is to blame for legalized abortion, and the subsequent disrespect for human life it has caused... and which is plaguing our once great nation



____

 

[republicanchick]

"Parasite" is just a word describing a biological relationship. And why pregnancy is not anything like owning a dog. You may not like the word, but it does apply to the relationship, and to why women have the right to decide to allow this parasitic biological relationship to occur, or not to. And why her decision overrules yours or mine.

women have become God, Folks!

geez... considering some of the women i have known

this is Totally NOT good...



___

 

[republicanchick]

That is something I would expect from a pro-abortion advocate. "It's not a baby, it's a parasite".

Well, that child that you so kindly refer to as "parasite" didn't hide in the bushes outside of some innocent, virgins window, wait until she was asleep and then climb inside her. In almost all cases of pregnancy, women consent to sex ... which is consenting to the absolute possibility of pregnancy.

yeh, 4 sure

out of the mouths of libs... :idea:



___

 

[gcthomas]

artificial contraception is basically what primarily or essentially is to blame for legalized abortion, and the subsequent disrespect for human life it has caused... and which is plaguing our once great nation

Abortion became popular as soon as a safe technique became available, since women had been experimenting with unsafe methods for a long time. The advent of reliable contraceptives has allowed the abortion rate to halve over the last four decades.

Stopping free access to contraceptives because it offends your sensibilities would return us to the bad old days and more abortions.

 

[republicanchick]

Abortion became popular as soon as a safe technique became available, since women had been experimenting with unsafe methods for a long time. The advent of reliable contraceptives has allowed the abortion rate to halve over the last four decades.

Stopping free access to contraceptives because it offends your sensibilities would return us to the bad old days and more abortions.

This is UNTRUE

and since you are progagating a falsehood, possibly deliberately, that is all i will bother saying (dont talk to people who promote falsehood)



__

 

[gcthomas]

This is UNTRUE

and since you are progagating a falsehood, possibly deliberately, that is all i will bother saying (dont talk to people who promote falsehood)



__

So the population of women is up, birth rates are down, pregnancies are down, abortions are down, the number of women using long term contraception, especially in high birth rate demographics and the under 30s, are up.

You tell me what is doing that.

If Pro-life ideals had caused it we'd see birth rates up. Which is exactly what we don't see.

What is your take on the data?

 

[THall]

But it's just fine and dandy if the child she bears is born into abject poverty, hunger,malnutrition , poor, unsanitary housing , leck of medical care and good education ? This is why women have abortions .
Right to life ? What about the right to decent food, shelter, medical care and education ? And what about the rights of babies who grow up to be gay ? If you're opposed to abortion but want babies who grow up to be gay to be denied rights, you are a hypocrite of the worst kind .

You just made a great argument to kill
the disadvantaged, and your mind is
quite sick. Seek help.

 

[republicanchick]

So the population of women is up, birth rates are down, pregnancies are down, abortions are down, the number of women using long term contraception, especially in high birth rate demographics and the under 30s, are up.

You tell me what is doing that.

If Pro-life ideals had caused it we'd see birth rates up. Which is exactly what we don't see.

What is your take on the data?

none of the data, assuming any of it is for r eal, something i do NOT assume

proves that artifical b/ control did not lead to abortion

Logic dictates that when you insert soemthing artificial into a natural act, werid things will happen in consequence...

when you send women the message that children are to be avoided at all cost... ditto


___

 

[republicanchick]

You just made a great argument to kill
the disadvantaged, and your mind is
quite sick. Seek help.

yeh, that was what i was thinking...



___

 

[gcthomas]

none of the date, assuming any of it is for r eal, something i do NOT assume

proves that artifical b/ control did not lead to abortion

Logic dictates that when you insert soemthing artificial into a natural act, werid things will happen in consequence...

when you send women the message that children are to be avoided at all cost... ditto


___

So although abortion has dropped at the same time effective contraception use has gone up, you are convinced still that contraception causes abortion? If you were right the life birth date should be climbing.

(the data is all public - you should find it easy to locate of you want to demonstrate me wrong with me than offended rhetoric.)

 

[PureX]

You just made a great argument to kill
the disadvantaged, and your mind is quite sick. Seek help.

Let's be honest, capitalism is designed to "kill the disadvantaged", and conservative Christians love it. They can't deprive the disadvantaged fast enough! They vote for republicans to do just exactly that.

 

[PureX]

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

Why are any of those in competition?

That's a good question. Why are they?

Why are the same people who shout the loudest about the unborn's right to life the same people who cry the loudest about the idea of "entitlement"? It seems we love human life right up to the moment it becomes a reality, and the human being starts needing things to live that life, then we don't want anything to do with them. Then their lives suddenly become worthless, and we're happy to sacrifice them to the misfortunes of a society governed by selfishness and greed.

 

[Rusha]

That's a good question. Why are they?

Why are the same people who shout the loudest about the unborn's right to life the same people who cry the loudest about the idea of "entitlement"? It seems we love human life right up to the moment it becomes a reality, and the human being starts needing things to live that life, then we don't want anything to do with them. Then their lives suddenly become worthless, and we're happy to sacrifice them to the misfortunes of a society governed by selfishness and greed.

That's actually a valid question. While I only speak for myself, I think it makes sense to give temporary support to struggling families. Of course that would mean the receiver is obligated to do whatever is necessary (education, on the job training, etc.) to become financially independent.

 

[Town Heretic]

That's a good question. Why are they?

I don't believe they are. I think he was mistaken.

Why are the same people who shout the loudest about the unborn's right to life the same people who cry the loudest about the idea of "entitlement"?

Some to most, you mean. By no means all. But I suppose the anger at entitlements is mostly a disdain for the open ended sort that can foster dependency instead of encouraging independence.

It seems we love human life right up to the moment it becomes a reality, and the human being starts needing things to live that life, then we don't want anything to do with them.

I don't think that's the case.

Then their lives suddenly become worthless, and we're happy to sacrifice them to the misfortunes of a society governed by selfishness and greed.

I'd say that's more the liberal rhetorical stereotype but as with most stereotypes it fails in the particular. I'd bet that you could survey most of the right wingers here and they'd be fine with helping people in need get on their feet.

 

[PureX]

I'd say that's more the liberal rhetorical stereotype but as with most stereotypes it fails in the particular. I'd bet that you could survey most of the right wingers here and they'd be fine with helping people in need get on their feet.

You're missing my point.

If a human life is so precious, even before it's being defined by autonomous thoughts and actions, then why aren't all human beings DESERVING of all the essentials necessary to live and define that human life? Why all the animosity toward the concept of "entitlement"? Why all the resentment against providing every human being on this planet with a basic education, basic health care, basic security and justice, an opportunity to earn a living, and the right to live freely and to pursue their own bliss?

The answer to this question is that we are all too afraid that we won't get or keep these things for ourselves, and so we're willing to deny them to others. We call it "free enterprise" as we disdain sharing, and we call sharing "communism" as we spit out the word like it was a foul curse.

We show little respect for human life among the living, so why should we pay it so much respect while still unborn? You may not like the question, or the overtones it generates, but it is born in the sad truth of things. Children all over the world are suffering and dying, daily. Where is all the outrage for them?

 

[quip]

did Buddha believe in murdering unborn humans?



___

I dunno. God apparently does though.

What's your point? Can't you tell a canine embryo from a human one?