If your sister were pregnant, would you correct her if she refered to it as her baby?
I don't have a sister.
If your sister were pregnant, would you correct her if she refered to it as her baby?
Will you agree to use the terms sodomy and sodomite if the situation arises? Seems only fair that you use such terms, given you affinity for propriety.I don't have a sister.However, when I was pregnant indeed I did refer to, and in fact think of, my babies as 'babies'. I was slightly surprised to see the term 'foetus' used on the medical notes, too, particularly when the term is used to report on the condition of the child immediately after delivery. So, whilst I am content to think of babies as 'babies', when thinking in terms of those women who have chosen a termination, I think it is much more appropriate to use the medical term. It doesn't really help the woman to bandy around phrases such as 'murder' and 'slaughter'. But I fully support someone's right to campaign respectfully for whatever they believe is ethically right regarding this very difficult and complex issue. I personally believe that abortion should remain legal, but that the limit should be reduced, and I fully respect the right to opinion and respectful free speech of those who are anti-abortion.
Will you agree to use the terms sodomy and sodomite if the situation arises? Seems only fair that you use such terms, given you affinity for propriety.
I haven't seen a thread on sex yet, so you're safe there. However, sodomites often come up in conversations on morality on TOL, or in any thread to which aSeattleConservative contributes.:rotfl:I can't see myself contributing to a thread on sex, jmdeets!
However, if you are asking me what I assume you're asking me: to refer to homosexuals as 'sodomites'? then I can assure you I won't be doing that.
If you could answer a hypothetical on point, would you?I don't have a sister.![]()
Why?So, whilst I am content to think of babies as 'babies', when thinking in terms of those women who have chosen a termination, I think it is much more appropriate to use the medical term.
Doesn't really help the unborn to distance the act with a less horrific word choice. So you're more of a mans-laughter sort of person. Or, to put it more succinctly, why the oddly one sided sensitivity?It doesn't really help the woman to bandy around phrases such as 'murder' and 'slaughter'.
I don't respect the choice to kill an infant, though I almost always object civilly enough.But I fully support someone's right to campaign respectfully for whatever they believe is ethically right regarding this very difficult and complex issue.
I rather thought so. Aiding and abetting is the phrase that comes to mind.I personally believe that abortion should remain legal,
This isn't trout season. Are you one of those PETA people who can't distinguish between pet and person? :squint:but that the limit should be reduced,
I respect the respect of respect...there, topped you.and I fully respect the right to opinion and respectful free speech of those who are anti-abortion.
There is a wealth of info on the web about the connection.
The connection makes a ton of sense if you think about it... here is an easy to read page that explains why there would be a connection between breast cancer and abortion.
If your sister were pregnant, would you correct her if she refered to it as her baby?
With 50 million unborn babies murdered in the womb in a 37 year period, there are going to be scores of women battling a disease that basically says "You reap what you sow".
It isn't a matter of "belief," but merely of affirming an emprirically-based fact:Breast cancer and abortion: do you believe there is a connection?
1) Adoption ensures (or dramatically improves the chance that) that babies and children are wanted.50 million unwanted babies aborted? Had they been born, we'd have millions of unwanted children
:squint: Excuse me??? What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that all babies who are not planned wind up being unwanted for all their lives? That's asinine. And this:and adults
will need support from a cited study - one that eliminates the influence of poverty (since poverty is the number one marker for troubled childhood). So pony-up, derwood.many of whom would have had horrible lives (many studies have shown that unwanted children suffer from all sorts of problems at higher rates than wanted ones),
as I thought - your source didn't separate the two things (lack of planning and poverty) which makes it a poor study yielding absolutely no trustworthy information.born into poor families
What's wrong with community support? What's wrong with soup kitchens and homeless shelters and for that matter, what's wrong with adoption?- would you support helping these families out? with maybe welfare, or WIC?
But killing the baby is better? Is that your position? Why not kill all the poor then if they have such horrible lives? Put them out of their misery.I suspect not.
This is emotion-baiting if I've ever seen it. :nono: Miscarriage has nothing to do with killing the unborn.Of course, 50 million elective abortions pales in comparison to the nuber of spontaneous abortions - i.e., little babies killed by God in the womb....
It isn't a matter of "belief," but merely of affirming an emprirically-based fact:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
What I have heard is that giving birth decreases the risk because of chemicals released during childbirth. So abortion decreases childbirth and therefore the risk for breast cancer is not decreased.There is no increased risk according to any peer reviewed study. Nor does any major medical body accept that Abortion causes increased breast cancer risk. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be anti-abortion, anyway.
Can you prove it's not a baby?Just to be accurate, it's 'foetus', not baby.
Actually murder, by definition, is immoral, unethical, or illegal killing. It does not have to be all three to be murder. And abortion is certainly immoral and unethical killing. It is the intentional taking of an innocent life.Again, here we can see the use of imprecise language in order to elicit an emotional response. A mother does not 'murder' her child since 'murder' is unlawful killing. Since abortion is legal (within a limited timespan) then a legal abortion cannot be simultaneously within the law and unlawful. This is why it is misleading to refer to it as 'murder'.
1) Adoption ensures (or dramatically improves the chance that) that babies and children are wanted.
2) You have seriously underestimated the charm of a baby - his ability to worm his way into the hearts of his parents.
3) All are wanted by someone... God, for instance.
:squint: Excuse me??? What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that all babies who are not planned wind up being unwanted for all their lives? That's asinine. And this:
will need support from a cited study - one that eliminates the influence of poverty (since poverty is the number one marker for troubled childhood). So pony-up, derwood.
as I thought - your source didn't separate the two things (lack of planning and poverty) which makes it a poor study yielding absolutely no trustworthy information.
What's wrong with community support? What's wrong with soup kitchens and homeless shelters and for that matter, what's wrong with adoption?
But killing the baby is better? Is that your position? Why not kill all the poor then if they have such horrible lives? Put them out of their misery.
This is emotion-baiting if I've ever seen it. :nono: Miscarriage has nothing to do with killing the unborn.
According to this study, yes. Also, as my posted source states: "...it’s the fourth study performed in fourteen months that found such a link."Wow. A 40% increased chance?
Again, here we can see the use of imprecise language in order to elicit an emotional response. A mother does not 'murder' her child since 'murder' is unlawful killing. Since abortion is legal (within a limited timespan) then a legal abortion cannot be simultaneously within the law and unlawful. This is why it is misleading to refer to it as 'murder'.
Here's Apple's the entry for "fetus" in Mac OS X's Dictionary application.Just to be accurate, it's 'foetus', not baby.
Wow. A 40% increased chance?
:BRAVO:Here's Apple's the entry for "fetus" in Mac OS X's Dictionary application.
fetus |ˈfētəs| ( Brit. (in nontechnical use) also foetus)Go figure.
noun ( pl. -tuses )
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
1) Adoption ensures (or dramatically improves the chance that) that babies and children are wanted.
2) You have seriously underestimated the charm of a baby - his ability to worm his way into the hearts of his parents.
3) All are wanted by someone... God, for instance.
:squint: Excuse me??? What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that all babies who are not planned wind up being unwanted for all their lives? That's asinine. And this:
will need support from a cited study - one that eliminates the influence of poverty (since poverty is the number one marker for troubled childhood). So pony-up, derwood.
as I thought - your source didn't separate the two things (lack of planning and poverty) which makes it a poor study yielding absolutely no trustworthy information.
What's wrong with community support? What's wrong with soup kitchens and homeless shelters and for that matter, what's wrong with adoption?
But killing the baby is better? Is that your position? Why not kill all the poor then if they have such horrible lives? Put them out of their misery.
This is emotion-baiting if I've ever seen it. :nono: Miscarriage has nothing to do with killing the unborn.