PDA

View Full Version : Abortion Topic



SomeRandomGuy
11-18-2014, 08:09 PM
This type of question shows how messed up our party system is. Someone can be liberal or conservative on almost everything but if they don't follow stereotypical party lines on everything there their "allegiance" to the party is questioned.

The stances of each party don't even follow logic.

The party that supports killing people (abortion) wants to limit your gun rights in the name of saving lives.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-18-2014, 08:33 PM
The stances of each party don't even follow logic.

The party that supports killing people (abortion) wants to limit your gun rights in the name of saving lives.

Even worse, there are liberals that will kill a fetus, but not a convicted murderer.

Someone please explain that one to me.

I have what some people call liberal views on many issues, but I'll split from the left on some.

Abortion and capital punishment being two of them.

MERC8401
11-19-2014, 03:28 AM
Saying people who are Pro Choice believe it's alright to kill a fetus, is like saying Pro Gun people believe it's alright to kill people. They are bigger issues than that. If you asked me if I would abort a baby of my own...I would say no, but I believe in a person's right to chose for themselves. If you asked if I owned a gun...I'd say no, but I believe that people should be able to own guns. You can't simplify these issues down to whether or not you believe people (or fetuses) can be killed, because that doesn't really speak to the issue.

SomeRandomGuy
11-19-2014, 12:24 PM
Saying people who are Pro Choice believe it's alright to kill a fetus, is like saying Pro Gun people believe it's alright to kill people. They are bigger issues than that. If you asked me if I would abort a baby of my own...I would say no, but I believe in a person's right to chose for themselves. If you asked if I owned a gun...I'd say no, but I believe that people should be able to own guns. You can't simplify these issues down to whether or not you believe people (or fetuses) can be killed, because that doesn't really speak to the issue.

Oh yeah? Wouldn't it be more like you personally wouldn't kill a person with a gun but you believe others should have the right to do so?

Absinthe Anecdote
11-19-2014, 02:17 PM
Saying people who are Pro Choice believe it's alright to kill a fetus, is like saying Pro Gun people believe it's alright to kill people. They are bigger issues than that. If you asked me if I would abort a baby of my own...I would say no, but I believe in a person's right to chose for themselves. If you asked if I owned a gun...I'd say no, but I believe that people should be able to own guns. You can't simplify these issues down to whether or not you believe people (or fetuses) can be killed, because that doesn't really speak to the issue.

That is so convoluted that I'm having trouble following it. I'm not sure why you added gun control to my comparison either. Talk about that later.

Let me rephrase my question slightly.

There are some liberals who support the killing of fetuses, as a matter of personal choice.
They call themselves Pro Choice advocates, sounds harmless, but they are legally sanctioning the termination of life.

Some of these same liberals vehemently oppose capital punishment of convicted murderers because they deem it cruel and inhumane.

This is what I don't understand.

They will support killing a fetus, but not a hardened criminal?

Sorry, but that is bonkers in my opinion.

Kill both, or let both live. That makes sense to me.

If only one gets to live it should be the baby.

Killing the baby, and letting the criminal live is just plain bonkers.

Which is why I have a hard time understanding liberals who are Pro Choice, but opposed to the death penalty.

Explain that twisted viewpoint if you can.

Measure Man
11-19-2014, 03:20 PM
That is so convoluted that I'm having trouble following it. I'm not sure why you added gun control to my comparison either. Talk about that later.

Let me rephrase my question slightly.

There are some liberals who support the killing of fetuses, as a matter of personal choice.
They call themselves Pro Choice advocates, sounds harmless, but they are legally sanctioning the termination of life.

Some of these same liberals vehemently oppose capital punishment of convicted murderers because they deem it cruel and inhumane.

This is what I don't understand.

They will support killing a fetus, but not a hardened criminal?

Sorry, but that is bonkers in my opinion.

Kill both, or let both live. That makes sense to me.

So, you think someone who is against abortion, but for the death penalty is a hypocrite...or what?

That is some twisted logic, you have, methinks. Surely someone in favor of the death penalty does not need to be in favor of all killing...


If only one gets to live it should be the baby.

Killing the baby, and letting the criminal live is just plain bonkers.

Which is why I have a hard time understanding liberals who are Pro Choice, but opposed to the death penalty.

Explain that twisted viewpoint if you can.

I'll take a stab at it.

The abortion issue...is not a matter being in favor of killing babies, it's a matter of a woman's freedom over the most basic of all things someone needs freedom for...her own body.

I'll try to put this in another light to see if you can grasp the concept.

Let's say you have a brother who has failing kidneys. He desperately needs a kidney to be able to survive and you are identified as the only possible donor. Should you be compelled by the law to give up one of your kidneys to ensure your brother's life is saved? Yes, most of us would want to save our brother's life, if we could...but, that's not the question of whether most people would do it. Maybe you'd be a horrible person for letting your brother die, I don't know...maybe you hate the guy, maybe he destroyed his kidneys using drugs...blah blah...none of that matters. If it helps, pretend it's a stranger and not your brother....maybe it's bone marrow and not a kidney...the details don't matter, it's whether or not the govt. has the right to order you what to do with your body. The question is, should the LAW require you to give up that kidney against your will, does your brother have the "right to life" or should you have the "right to choose"?

Rather than waste everyone's time explaining why this isn't a perfect analogy...just answer the question. We know it's not a perfect analogy, but the underlying principle is what liberals see as the central issue in abortion...freedom over her own body, and not the death of the fetus. It is an unfortunate fact of biology that a fetus needs another's body to survive...similarly, it might be an unfortunate fact for your brother, or some random stranger, knock on wood, god forbid.

How about a medically dead person...should the govt. be able to force everyone to be organ donors to save lives? I personally believe in being an organ donor...but some people don't. Would you support a law that makes everyone mandatory organ donors because someone esle has a "right to live" using available technology?

my personal opinion, is if you're going to have an abortion, do it in the first couple weeks...I guess I don't see that as a human life yet. I'm not in favor of late-term abortions...that really turns my stomach...I struggle with the outlawing part though because freedom of one's own body is the most basic freedom out there. If we don't have that...we don't have any freedoms

I'm not sure of your position...but one I would love to get an explanation from is people who believe abortion is killing, but are okay with it in the case of rape and incest. THAT is some twisted logic...you either believe it's killing or it isn't...why is it okay to kill someone whose mother was raped? If you believe killing a fetus is the same as killing a person living outside the womb, why is it okay for a rape? If the child is 4 years old before you discover he is the child of a rape, is it still okay to kill him?

OTOH...if you are against all abortions in any circumstances...how do you justify legally compelling a woman to carry a baby to term after being raped by the father?

Yes...twisted logic on all counts.

The death penalty...I'm not necessarily against the death penalty, so I can't really argue compassionately against it. I could be wrong, but I think most people against the death penalty are against it because the legal system makes mistakes...and once you kill someone you can't "make it right"...not that you really can after someone served 20 of their prime years either, but you can try. I am sort of in that camp.

Personally, I think there needs to be a higher burden of proof before we sentence someone to death. I don't think proof beyond a reasonable doubt is good enough. There needs to be proof beyond any shadow of doubt...as in, the guy was caught in the act...or witnessed by someone who knows him...I'm talking cases where this is no doubt a crime was committed and we grabbed the guy at the scene doing it, type of proof. Even eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable...which is why I say the eyewitness needs to know the person...not enough that this looks like the guy that did it. It should be, I know Bob, and I saw Bob stabbing his wife, and I shouted "Bob, stop"...whatever.

For example, the Scott Peterson guy who was convicted and sentenced to death for killing his wife Laci Peterson...I believe he did it, I believe he deserves life in prision, but I'm not comfortable with the level of proof enough to sentence him to death. He wasn't caught "red-handed" so to speak...and while there may not be reasonable doubt, there is some unreasonable doubt....unreasonable things happen sometimes.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-19-2014, 04:14 PM
Measure Man

Thanks for taking the time to give such a detailed response.

I'm in a bit of a rush, so I can't dissect your response line by line. However, I don't think I need to.

My personal opinion on abortions isn't that far off from yours, but that is beside the point.

My observation has more to do with how the planks of a political platform are selected, and how they aren't consistent.

I noticed how you shifted the salient point in the abortion issue from the death of a developing baby, to a woman's personal choice. That is a great debate tactic, you are shifting the discussion to focus on a aspect of the issue that you can better defend.

I don't fault you for that, but I would like to point out that the baby pays the price for the woman's right to choose when she opts for abortion. The baby pays with its life every time an abortion happens, and there is no way around that.

Which is why I don't get how a Pro Choice advocate can vehemently oppose the death penalty.

Sure, there are intricate variables in these issues, but ultimately we are talking about extinguishing human life.

A person who is willing to allow a baby to be aborted should be ok with executing a criminal.

However, there is a substantial block of the left wing that will not support the death penalty under any circumstance, yet they will go to great lengths to support abortion.

That is what I find absurd.

Measure Man
11-19-2014, 04:41 PM
Measure Man

Thanks for taking the time to give such a detailed response.

I'm in a bit of a rush, so I can't dissect your response line by line. However, I don't think I need to.

My personal opinion on abortions isn't that far off from yours, but that is beside the point.

My observation has more to do with how the planks of a political platform are selected, and how they aren't consistent.

I would agree that Conservatives are not consistently conservative and Liberals are not consistently liberal. In fact, I would most of what people assign to "Liberals" today is not liberal at all...quite the opposite, in fact. Many of the steadfast political positions of the different "sides" have more to do with opposing an opponent than sticking with principles. Which is why conservatives who argued for Romney-care type healthcare now feel the same thing under the Obama name is the worst thing to ever happen to America.

Likewise...why Conservatives who claim to be for small government and minimal govt interference want the govt. to tell people what they can do with their bodies and who they can marry and have sex with, etc.


I noticed how you shifted the salient point in the abortion issue from the death of a developing baby, to a woman's personal choice. That is a great debate tactic, you are shifting the discussion to focus on a aspect of the issue that you can better defend.

I would disagree that this is a "debate tactic"...it is the central issue for liberals. You asked for how liberals can believe the way they do and I told you. They view the important point as freedom to choose what to do with your own body without government interference. hence the term "pro choice"

I might not be personally in favor of aborting babies...but, don't think I have to right to impose that on other's.

I could be "Pro Freedom of Speech" but detest the fact that some people use that to burn the US Flag and espouse Nazism. I may be uncomfortable or even morally opposed to their message, but be Pro Choice in the freedom to do so.


I don't fault you for that, but I would like to point out that the baby pays the price for the woman's right to choose when she opts for abortion. The baby pays with its life every time an abortion happens, and there is no way around that.

This is the crux of the debate I suppose. You do not argue over the government's ability to tell someone what to do with their body because you can't defend it. You know it would be an inconscionable imposition for the govt to force you to give up a kidney, so you don't answer that question...shifting the debate instead to the "killing of babies" when there is no moral consensus that this is what abortion is.

It comes to the matter of whether or not the blastocyst, embryo, or fetus qualifies as a "human life" or not. You are assuming that liberals hold the same definition as you do...that abortion of a fetus equals killing of a human life. I don't think they hold that same belief. If your feelings are similar to mine, I would gather you do not consider the group of cells 5 days after conception to be a human life...not everyone agrees with us there.

If we can not covince each other from a moral perspective on what constitutes a human life...outlawing abortion is merely government intervention into the use of one's body.

Look at it this way...being for Anti-Abortion legislation is akin to saying, "We have failed to convince everyone with a moral argument, so we must impose our beliefs under coercion of the law"...not a very conservative position.


Which is why I don't get how a Pro Choice advocate can vehemently oppose the death penalty.

Some people believe human life starts at conception, some people don't. But, I'm pretty sure all people believe a grown adult is a human life.


Sure, there are intricate variables in these issues, but ultimately we are talking about extinguishing human life.

I don't think "we" are all talking about that...that is the problem. Conservatives are talking about that...Liberals are talking about the freedom to use the life they have been given as they see fit.


A person who is willing to allow a baby to be aborted should be ok with executing a criminal.

However, there is a substantial block of the left wing that will not support the death penalty under any circumstance, yet they will go to great lengths to support abortion.

That is what I find absurd.

Well, I gave it my best shot to explain the logic.

Do you have to support govt harvesting of organs to oppose the death penalty too?

Sgt HULK
11-19-2014, 04:58 PM
wtf, I click on first page, we have 1 mistake air force advocates bitching about a pt test, skip to last page we are killing fetus's wtf

Measure Man
11-19-2014, 05:01 PM
wtf, I click on first page, we have 1 mistake air force advocates bitching about a pt test, skip to last page we are killing fetus's wtf

Funny stuff, right there.

USN - Retired
11-19-2014, 06:23 PM
The abortion issue...

Whenever you (and the rest of society) talk about child custody issues and child support issues, you (and the rest of society) like to use the phrase "in the best interest of the child". Interestingly, whenever you (and the rest of society) talk about abortion rights, the phrase "in the best interest of the child" is never used.


... it's a matter of a woman's freedom over the most basic of all things someone needs freedom for...her own body.


If it really is HER body and HER choice, then shouldn't the child be HER financial responsibility?

The only thing a man contributes to the pregnancy is one sperm. A sperm is not even a complete cell. Why should one sperm equal 18 years of child support?

Measure Man
11-19-2014, 06:31 PM
Whenever you (and the rest of society) talk about child custody issues and child support issues, you (and the rest of society) like to use the phrase "in the best interest of the child". Interestingly, whenever you (and the rest of society) talk about abortion rights, the phrase "in the best interest of the child" is never used.

Once again..revolves around the question of when it becomes a child.


If it really is HER body and HER choice, then shouldn't the child be HER financial responsibility?

Her body, her choice, their child. What's so hard about that? When we can figure a way for men to carry a baby to term, then we can talk about his choice in doing so.


The only thing a man contributes to the pregnancy is one sperm.

That's all it takes.


A sperm is not even a complete cell. Why should one sperm equal 18 years of child support?

So, your argument is that the woman should solely be financially responsible for children?

sandsjames
11-19-2014, 06:34 PM
So, your argument is that the woman should solely be financially responsible for children?If they don't want the man in the picture, then yes.

USN - Retired
11-19-2014, 06:40 PM
So, your argument is that the woman should solely be financially responsible for children?

Sure. If it is her body and her choice, then why shouldn't it be her financial responsibility?

Mata Leao
11-19-2014, 06:43 PM
If they don't want the man in the picture, then yes.

What if the man wants to stay in (the childs) picture?

USN - Retired
11-19-2014, 06:48 PM
Her body, her choice, their child.


Let's break the word "their" down into "his" and "her"...

When talking about who gets custody of the child - it is HER child.

When talking about who should pay the child support - it is HIS child.

Is that fair and just? I don't think it is.

USN - Retired
11-19-2014, 06:49 PM
What if the man wants to stay in (the childs) picture?

The man and woman should decide that together, without any interference from the government (family courts)

If a woman wants the freedom to decide what to do with her body, then a man should have the freedom to decide what to do with his paycheck...

Mata Leao
11-19-2014, 06:56 PM
The man and woman should decide that together, without any interference from the government (family courts)

If a woman wants the freedom to decide what to do with her body, then a man should have the freedom to decide what to do with his paycheck...

I'm not sure if you're trying to scold me or not, but I agree with you.

USN - Retired
11-19-2014, 07:03 PM
I'm not sure if you're trying to scold me or not, but I agree with you.

I'm not scolding you. I have no children, and I got snipped years ago, so I don't have a dog in this fight. I do find the subject fascinating though.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-19-2014, 07:04 PM
Once again..revolves around the question of when it becomes a child.

Well, if it is left the fuck alone, and not vacuumed out of her uterus, it will become a child.

Speaking of abortions, we sure as hell aborted old "weak-chin" Colonel Grannan and his crybaby editorial, didn't we?

Rusty Jones
11-19-2014, 07:10 PM
The man and woman should decide that together, without any interference from the government (family courts)

If a woman wants the freedom to decide what to do with her body, then a man should have the freedom to decide what to do with his paycheck...

Ah yes, the "financial abortion." As much as I'd love to see that happen, it's not going to.

How about the male birth control pill? Supposedly, that's been around for over a decade, but the FDA won't approve it. That alone should tell you a couple of things.

The MGTOW movement was the only thing left to resort to.

USN - Retired
11-19-2014, 07:11 PM
Is it fair and accurate to say that an abortion is not in the best interest of the unborn child?

Mata Leao
11-19-2014, 07:21 PM
I'm not scolding you. I have no children, and I got snipped years ago, so I don't have a dog in this fight. I do find the subject fascinating though.

It is fascinating. I honostly never thought of it from a man's rights point of view until a friend of mine brought it up several years ago.

USN - Retired
11-19-2014, 07:21 PM
Ah yes, the "financial abortion." As much as I'd love to see that happen, it's not going to.

I do agree with you on that point (seriously). It is a great idea that will never happen.



How about the male birth control pill? Supposedly, that's been around for over a decade, but the FDA won't approve it. That alone should tell you a couple of things.

The MGTOW movement was the only thing left to resort to.

A vasectomy is always an option. I got one many years ago. The military wouldn't give me a vasectomy because I have no children. I had to go to a civilian doctor to get the vasectomy.

sandsjames
11-19-2014, 07:28 PM
A vasectomy is always an option. I got one many years ago. The military wouldn't give me a vasectomy because I have no children. I had to go to a civilian doctor to get the vasectomy.It is definitely an option. However, as birth control goes, it's pretty permanent. Of course, it can be reversed, but that's another surgery.

I think the government should force my healthcare company to cover the cost of condoms.

The other option? Don't bang chicks you don't want to get pregnant.

LogDog
11-19-2014, 07:28 PM
Is it fair and accurate to say that an abortion is not in the best interest of the unborn child?
This is a good example of a "loaded" question because it presupposes the fetus is a child. At what point does the fetus become a child; when the fertilized egg divides into two cells, a hundred cells, when it can be seen on a sonogram or x-ray, etc?

Some people believe the point conception is when the "fetus" becomes a child while others believe the fetus has to be more fully developed to be considered a child and still others believe the fetus becomes a child only upon birth.

How do you write laws that are strict enough to discourage abortions but are still flexible enough allow women to decide if an abortion is in their best interests. I support the right of women to determine the abortion question for themselves but I also think at a certain point there is a "point of no return" where the fetus is developed to the point it could survive outside the womb. I can't define at what point that is so I would defer to medical expertise.

This is still a woman's decision and I doubt there are many women who made the decision to have an abortion didn't think it through. You and I may agree or disagree with their decision but we're not the one who have to make that decision or live with the consequences of it.

sandsjames
11-19-2014, 07:41 PM
This is a good example of a "loaded" question because it presupposes the fetus is a child. At what point does the fetus become a child; when the fertilized egg divides into two cells, a hundred cells, when it can be seen on a sonogram or x-ray, etc?

Some people believe the point conception is when the "fetus" becomes a child while others believe the fetus has to be more fully developed to be considered a child and still others believe the fetus becomes a child only upon birth.

How do you write laws that are strict enough to discourage abortions but are still flexible enough allow women to decide if an abortion is in their best interests. I support the right of women to determine the abortion question for themselves but I also think at a certain point there is a "point of no return" where the fetus is developed to the point it could survive outside the womb. I can't define at what point that is so I would defer to medical expertise.

This is still a woman's decision and I doubt there are many women who made the decision to have an abortion didn't think it through. You and I may agree or disagree with their decision but we're not the one who have to make that decision or live with the consequences of it.

You are wrong about this. We are the ones who also have to live with the consequences. If the couple stays together, the guy is still a would-be father who may have wanted children very much. If the couple does not stay together, the father is responsible for paying the bills. The question is, is the financial responsibility associated with the man on the same level as the emotional issues related with the woman (in general)? The are definitely consequences associated with each person.

Here's another question. Do you think women would be so quick to get an abortion if the men were the ones who gained custody the majority of the time? Do they generally choose that rout because the are afraid of the responsibilities of raising the child alone?

There are so many issues to this topic that go in so many different directions: Men's vs. women's rights; scientific definitions; the baby's right; the religious arguments; the discussion on what's best for different situations based on the ability of the parent/s to raise the child properly; etc. It goes on and on.

There's only one way to avoid these arguments altogether. Don't get someone pregnant in the first place if the two of you aren't ready to have a child together. There are too many ways to avoid it for it to still be an "oops" situation.

LogDog
11-19-2014, 08:05 PM
You are wrong about this. We are the ones who also have to live with the consequences. If the couple stays together, the guy is still a would-be father who may have wanted children very much. If the couple does not stay together, the father is responsible for paying the bills. The question is, is the financial responsibility associated with the man on the same level as the emotional issues related with the woman (in general)? The are definitely consequences associated with each person.
You missed the point of what a loaded question is. USN_Retired said: Is it fair and accurate to say that an abortion is not in the best interest of the unborn child? and he is defining the fetus as a child. By making that assumption he is saying everyone agrees the fetus is a child.

Another good example of a loaded question is "Do you still beat your wife." The question isn't whether you beat your wife but it assumes you have beaten your wife. So with USN_Retired, he is saying the issue of a fetus is a child is settled when it is not.

As for your economic question, those are social and legal issues aside from the issue of abortion and addresses issues after the fetus has been born.

You also imply the woman is operating on an emotional level throughout this process whereas the man is operating on a rational level. Your implications are not supported with any facts or logic.


Here's another question. Do you think women would be so quick to get an abortion if the men were the ones who gained custody the majority of the time? Do they generally choose that rout because the are afraid of the responsibilities of raising the child alone?
I don't know so how about you finding out if there are studies that address that question and report back to us on your findings?


There are so many issues to this topic that go in so many different directions: Men's vs. women's rights; scientific definitions; the baby's right; the religious arguments; the discussion on what's best for different situations based on the ability of the parent/s to raise the child properly; etc. It goes on and on.
I agree. Humans makes things so messy and after thousands of years of civilization you'd think we would have solved these problems.


There's only one way to avoid these arguments altogether. Don't get someone pregnant in the first place if the two of you aren't ready to have a child together. There are too many ways to avoid it for it to still be an "oops" situation.
Ideally, that's a great idea but when you're dealing with humans, especially males and females of child bearing ages, logical behavior gives way to hormonal urges.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-19-2014, 08:27 PM
The second an egg is fertilized by sperm it is life.

If you kill those rapidly developing cells, you are terminating a human life. Why the fuck should it matter that the human in question is at the very early stages of development?

We all know abortion is killing. Let's all stop being cowards and admit to at least that much.

Is it ever honorable to kill? Sometimes.

Is it ever honorable to kill a newborn baby?

Never, in my book.

Is it ever honorable to kill a baby in the very early stages of development? Nope.

However, I do acknowledge that there are a few, very rare, circumstances where I would say it is not dishonorable.

That is just my personal view, the question of legality is a different matter.

But let's stop this bullshit about an embryo not being life. That is just coward talk that enables baby killers.

If you want to be a baby killer, fine, just admit to it. You'll be in good company, even the Christian god is a baby killer. Heck, god has slaughtered tens of thousands of babies, maybe millions.

Go read the bible if you don't believe me.

Just have to courage to admit that you are killing.

USN - Retired
11-19-2014, 08:27 PM
You missed the point of what a loaded question is. USN_Retired said: Is it fair and accurate to say that an abortion is not in the best interest of the unborn child? and he is defining the fetus as a child. By making that assumption he is saying everyone agrees the fetus is a child.

Then I'll change my question....

Is it fair and accurate to say that an abortion is not in the best interest of the unborn human offspring?

Is it still a loaded question?

SomeRandomGuy
11-19-2014, 08:37 PM
The second an egg is fertilized by sperm it is life.

If you kill those rapidly developing cells, you are terminating a human life. Why the fuck should it matter that the human in question is at the very early stages of development?

We all know abortion is killing. Let's all stop being cowards and admit to at least that much.

Is it ever honorable to kill? Sometimes.

Is it ever honorable to kill a newborn baby?

Never, in my book.

Is it ever honorable to kill a baby in the very early stages of development? Nope.

However, I do acknowledge that there are a few, very rare, circumstances where I would say it is not dishonorable.

That is just my personal view, the question of legality is a different matter.

But let's stop this bullshit about an embryo not being life. That is just coward talk that enables baby killers.

If you want to be a baby killer, fine, just admit to it. You'll be in good company, even the Christian god is a baby killer. Heck, god has slaughtered tens of thousands of babies, maybe millions.

Go read the bible if you don't believe me.

Just have to courage to admit that you are killing.

Saw a meme on Facebook that says pretty much what you just said....

"If a single living cell was found on a distant planet, scientists would exclaim that we have found life elsewhere in the universe. So why is a single living cell found in the womb not considered life?"


This goes back to my original point that de-railed this thread. Liberals are supposed to be the party that believes in science. They would absolutely consider a single cell on another plant life. Yet, they would say that if that cell exists within the body of another living organism the parent organism gets to decide the fate of that cell.

sandsjames
11-19-2014, 08:45 PM
I don't know so how about you finding out if there are studies that address that question and report back to us on your findings? It was rhetorical...when did forums get to the point of having to have a research paper before posing a question? Before you answer, that was also rhetorical.



Ideally, that's a great idea but when you're dealing with humans, especially males and females of child bearing ages, logical behavior gives way to hormonal urges.Which is why I have no sympathy when it comes to any of those issues.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-19-2014, 09:03 PM
Saw a meme on Facebook that says pretty much what you just said....

"If a single living cell was found on a distant planet, scientists would exclaim that we have found life elsewhere in the universe. So why is a single living cell found in the womb not considered life?"


This goes back to my original point that de-railed this thread. Liberals are supposed to be the party that believes in science. They would absolutely consider a single cell on another plant life. Yet, they would say that if that cell exists within the body of another living organism the parent organism gets to decide the fate of that cell.

Don't beat yourself up over derailing the thread, besides it was really another person who was complaining about me that derailed it.

Be it the matter of Colonel Grannan's fat assed/weak-chin editorial or the mealy mouthed talk about embryos not being life, the common denominator is cowardly thinking.

I can't stand cowards, that's why I fuck with them so much.

I would say cowards should be aborted, but that would be a little crazy.

Mjölnir
11-19-2014, 10:30 PM
Should this thread be split to let the abortion discussion continue separate and distinct from the OP?

SomeRandomGuy
11-19-2014, 10:38 PM
Should this thread be split to let the abortion discussion continue separate and distinct from the OP?

There are only six of us that still use these forums. It's probably fine the way it is.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-19-2014, 11:51 PM
I can't help but wonder what Colonel Grannan would say about abortion.

I imagine it would go something like this:


I have proudly served our Air Force all of my adult life, so I truly didn't understand. Although I wasn't in this embryo's chain of command, I've known this young zygote throughout it's career. I tried to reflect on this from a professional, albeit admittedly biased, point of view. What would make this superstar mass of cells believe we didn't care if it stayed or not?

What I don't understand is how the fuck a Colonel knows so much about a Staff Sergeant that isn't in his chain of command.

What the hell was he doing, stalking her? Having her over to his house for mentoring sessions?

It sounds fishy, or made up.

The whole damn story is flimsy as hell, and don't try to say he nailed the big picture issue with his made up examples.

He didn't.

The examples of how this "superstar" was treated badly don't even hold water.

He didn't nail shit, lousy editorial.

Mata Leao
11-20-2014, 12:28 PM
It was rhetorical...when did forums get to the point of having to have a research paper before posing a question? Before you answer, that was also rhetorical.



That's awesome.

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 12:34 PM
What I don't understand is how the fuck a Colonel knows so much about a Staff Sergeant that isn't in his chain of command.

This makes sense. A Colonel shouldn't even know that much about a Staff Sergeant in his OWN chain of command, unless she's on his staff (no pun intended).

SomeRandomGuy
11-20-2014, 12:46 PM
This makes sense. A Colonel shouldn't even know that much about a Staff Sergeant in his OWN chain of command, unless she's on his staff (no pun intended).

Why not? As an Airman I had a Colonel who knew this much and more about me as an A1C. I happened to coach the squadron softball team and he played on the team. We often hung around at the fields after the game and had a few beers. Was the Colonel supposed to ignore everyone at these events? Should he have braindumped anything he heard. By the way the squadron softball team was open to everyone and even people who weren't good at softball would come hang out sometimes. It was open to everyone. This same commander also invitited all the Airmen over to his house for christmas dinner and board games. Not everyone took the invitation but those with nowhere else do go normally did.

With that being said I kind of agree with AA that this Colonel seems to know a lot about this SSgt who isn't in his chain of command. In my mind there is some other connection here that he isn't mentioning. My guess is that he has some connections with this girl outside the AF through a membership in a common group or event. It's possible that he attends the same church as this girl. If that were the case he may have gotten to know her over the years and watched her from afar. Someone had to tell him about the car accident. It's possible she approached him at church and asked for advice knowing he was a high ranking officer who could possibly help. As far as the other stuff, it would make sense for him to remember her (if he helped with the car accident) and talk to her at the airport and ALS graduation where he learned about the other issues. He is still assuming quite a bit though if he is indeed just a casual acquaintance looking on from afar.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-20-2014, 01:00 PM
Why not? As an Airman I had a Colonel who knew this much and more about me as an A1C. I happened to coach the squadron softball team and he played on the team. We often hung around at the fields after the game and had a few beers. Was the Colonel supposed to ignore everyone at these events? Should he have braindumped anything he heard. By the way the squadron softball team was open to everyone and even people who weren't good at softball would come hang out sometimes. It was open to everyone. This same commander also invitited all the Airmen over to his house for christmas dinner and board games. Not everyone took the invitation but those with nowhere else do go normally did.

With that being said I kind of agree with AA that this Colonel seems to know a lot about this SSgt who isn't in his chain of command. In my mind there is some other connection here that he isn't mentioning. My guess is that he has some connections with this girl outside the AF through a membership in a common group or event. It's possible that he attends the same church as this girl. If that were the case he may have gotten to know her over the years and watched her from afar. Someone had to tell him about the car accident. It's possible she approached him at church and asked for advice knowing he was a high ranking officer who could possibly help. As far as the other stuff, it would make sense for him to remember her (if he helped with the car accident) and talk to her at the airport and ALS graduation where he learned about the other issues. He is still assuming quite a bit though if he is indeed just a casual acquaintance looking on from afar.

A somewhat plausible explanation, but if Colonel Grannan wrote such an excellent editorial as some are claiming, then all of this would be clear.

It is a crappy editorial.

Even the pitfalls that his "superstar" encountered don't make sense.

A true superstar doesn't get bent out of shape and give up in the face of adversity.

Much less, over not getting an end-of-tour medal, or a minor car accident with a gruffy MSgt.

BENDER56
11-20-2014, 02:38 PM
Saw a meme on Facebook that says pretty much what you just said....

"If a single living cell was found on a distant planet, scientists would exclaim that we have found life elsewhere in the universe. So why is a single living cell found in the womb not considered life?"

Interesting.

The most obvious difference in your example is between a cell that represents some form of life, and a cell (or cells) that represent human life.

For the most part, we have no qualms about obliterating non-human life. We routinely snuff out the lives of countless plants and animals. (Yes, plants are living things. We're talking about organisms that can reproduce themselves.) But, frankly, I'm beginning to doubt we even hold human life to be sacrosanct -- in addition to blithely killing humans via abortion and criminal execution, we wipe each other out in wars and genocides, and of course, it's perfectly acceptable to kill another to defend oneself or others against the threat of deadly force. So, life is precious ... unless it isn't.

I guess that's how I view abortion; it's the killing of human life, but apparently that doesn't matter to many people.

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 02:59 PM
Saw a meme on Facebook that says pretty much what you just said....

"If a single living cell was found on a distant planet, scientists would exclaim that we have found life elsewhere in the universe. So why is a single living cell found in the womb not considered life?"

This goes back to my original point that de-railed this thread. Liberals are supposed to be the party that believes in science.

Do you not believe in science?


They would absolutely consider a single cell on another plant life.

Of course...don't you?


Yet, they would say that if that cell exists within the body of another living organism the parent organism gets to decide the fate of that cell.

Okay...so you're point now is that all cells deserve protection since they are life...or are you only pro-life for cells that you choose?

Do you not consider bacteria life? Are you guilty of murder for using hand sanitizer? Why gives you the right to decide the fate of those organisms?

Hashtag Absurd

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 03:04 PM
The second an egg is fertilized by sperm it is life.

If you kill those rapidly developing cells, you are terminating a human life. Why the fuck should it matter that the human in question is at the very early stages of development?

We all know abortion is killing. Let's all stop being cowards and admit to at least that much.

Is it ever honorable to kill? Sometimes.

Is it ever honorable to kill a newborn baby?

Never, in my book

Is it ever honorable to kill a baby in the very early stages of development? Nope.

However, I do acknowledge that there are a few, very rare, circumstances where I would say it is not dishonorable.

When is is not dishnorable, in your view? Is there a stage of development where it becomes dishonorable no matter what? What's the difference between that day and the day before?


That is just my personal view, the question of legality is a different matter.

But let's stop this bullshit about an embryo not being life. That is just coward talk that enables baby killers.

If you want to be a baby killer, fine, just admit to it. You'll be in good company, even the Christian god is a baby killer. Heck, god has slaughtered tens of thousands of babies, maybe millions.

Go read the bible if you don't believe me.

Just have to courage to admit that you are killing.

sandsjames
11-20-2014, 03:06 PM
Hashtag AbsurdPlease, please don't do that. I beg of you. The only thing in life that annoys me more that every statement starting with the word "hashtag" (not even sure what that is or how it works, other than something to do with twitter) is someone using the term "BOOM" after a phrase.

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 03:08 PM
Please, please don't do that. I beg of you. The only thing in life that annoys me more that every statement starting with the word "hashtag" (not even sure what that is or how it works, other than something to do with twitter) is someone using the term "BOOM" after a phrase.

That's what she said <drops mic, walks away>

Absinthe Anecdote
11-20-2014, 03:27 PM
When is is not dishnorable, in your view? Is there a stage of development where it becomes dishonorable no matter what? What's the difference between that day and the day before?

There are some circumstances when the pregnancy would be an extreme risk to the mother. I think those cases are rare but they do happen. I wouldn't call a woman dishonorable for making such a decision.

Personally, I think if you get pregnant, you need to step up to the plate and give it your best shot, or consider letting someone adopt the child.

I don't make any distinction about the stage of development in my personal view.

What I think the law should be is another matter.

Start a new thread if you want to ask about that.

This was Colonel Grannan's thread before a certain someone derailed it.

Hashtag Fuddyduddy derailed it

SomeRandomGuy
11-20-2014, 03:58 PM
Do you not believe in science?



Of course...don't you?



Okay...so you're point now is that all cells deserve protection since they are life...or are you only pro-life for cells that you choose?

Do you not consider bacteria life? Are you guilty of murder for using hand sanitizer? Why gives you the right to decide the fate of those organisms?

Hashtag Absurd

I agree with all of this. We both agree that a fetus is a life or at least will become a life without outside intervention. So the question becomes what types of life should we value as a society. This might be a stretch but I'm going to try it anyways. Let's say that I see a wild raccoon in my neightborhood and he keeps getting into my trash. I can legally kill this animal (most places) and no one except enviromentalists will care. Now let's say your dog keeps getting into my trash. If I kill your dog that is going to be a much bigger issue. Why the difference? Both are living animals. The answer is pretty obvious. The raccoon is not something that we place value on. The dog is valued by you. While science considers both living animals society says it is ok to kill one and not the other.

So, I'm going to extrapolate this a little further, and yes I know I'm stretching. It appears to me that we allow women to kill a living fetus because we as a soceity do not assign any value to that life until it is born. We are giving the mother complete power to decide whether the living cell has any value or not. If she wants to keep the baby society gives it value (you can be charged with double murder if you kill the mother) however, if she doesn't not value the life it becomes meaningless to soceity. Akin to basically a nuisance that can be exterminated with no care whatsoever.

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 04:20 PM
I agree with all of this. We both agree that a fetus is a life or at least will become a life without outside intervention. So the question becomes what types of life should we value as a society. This might be a stretch but I'm going to try it anyways. Let's say that I see a wild raccoon in my neightborhood and he keeps getting into my trash. I can legally kill this animal (most places) and no one except enviromentalists will care. Now let's say your dog keeps getting into my trash. If I kill your dog that is going to be a much bigger issue. Why the difference? Both are living animals. The answer is pretty obvious. The raccoon is not something that we place value on. The dog is valued by you. While science considers both living animals society says it is ok to kill one and not the other.

So, I'm going to extrapolate this a little further, and yes I know I'm stretching. It appears to me that we allow women to kill a living fetus because we as a soceity do not assign any value to that life until it is born. We are giving the mother complete power to decide whether the living cell has any value or not. If she wants to keep the baby society gives it value (you can be charged with double murder if you kill the mother) however, if she doesn't not value the life it becomes meaningless to soceity. Akin to basically a nuisance that can be exterminated with no care whatsoever.

Yes, I would agree with this.

So...if a man has kidney failure...is his life valued by society? Is it valued enough to mandate by law that you donate one of your kidneys to him? Or are you, as the owner/keeper of your kidneys the sole arbiter of whether or not his life is valuable enough to use your body to maintain it?

USN - Retired
11-20-2014, 04:21 PM
Okay...so you're point now is that all cells deserve protection since they are life...or are you only pro-life for cells that you choose?

Do you not consider bacteria life? Are you guilty of murder for using hand sanitizer? Why gives you the right to decide the fate of those organisms?

Hashtag Absurd


So are you saying that a human fetus has no more value than bacteria?

From Wikipedia:

In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development may be defined as beginning at the eleventh week in gestational age, which is the ninth week after fertilization. In biological terms, however, prenatal development is a continuum, with no clear defining feature distinguishing an embryo from a fetus. The use of the term "fetus" generally implies that a mammalian embryo has developed to the point of being recognizable as belonging to its own species, and this is usually taken to be the 9th week after fertilization. A fetus is also characterized by the presence of all the major body organs, though they will not yet be fully developed and functional, and may not all be situated in their final anatomical location.

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 04:25 PM
So are you saying that a human fetus has no more value than bacteria?

No, I didn't say that.


From Wikipedia:

In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development may be defined as beginning at the eleventh week in gestational age, which is the ninth week after fertilization. In biological terms, however, prenatal development is a continuum, with no clear defining feature distinguishing an embryo from a fetus. The use of the term "fetus" generally implies that a mammalian embryo has developed to the point of being recognizable as belonging to its own species, and this is usually taken to be the 9th week after fertilization. A fetus is also characterized by the presence of all the major body organs, though they will not yet be fully developed and functional, and may not all be situated in their final anatomical location.

I clearly stated there is a point in development that I am personally morally opposed to aborting. I could not put a specific day or week to it...but, I know it's there somewhere. I've had no reason to make that call in my own life.

USN - Retired
11-20-2014, 04:41 PM
No, I didn't say that.

But you did imply it.



I clearly stated there is a point in development that I am personally morally opposed to aborting. I could not put a specific day or week to it...but, I know it's there somewhere. I've had no reason to make that call in my own life.

So are you saying that a woman has the moral right to have her unborn son or unborn daughter killed if she so desires (as long as the murder takes place before the development of the unborn son or unborn daughter reaches some defined point)?

SomeRandomGuy
11-20-2014, 04:42 PM
Yes, I would agree with this.

So...if a man has kidney failure...is his life valued by society? Is it valued enough to mandate by law that you donate one of your kidneys to him? Or are you, as the owner/keeper of your kidneys the sole arbiter of whether or not his life is valuable enough to use your body to maintain it?

I think your example of a kidney transplant works well. Maybe even better than you originally imagined. It is a salient point. Basically, it is impossible to look at this issue without examining one's own worldview. Human beings are the only species that is self aware. In nature there are various examples of a mother killing her own offspring. If you believe in evolution and survival of the fittest then you wouldn't have an objection to a mother killing her offspring. In that case the mother has her reasons for killing the offspring. Some of them could even compare to a human not being able to care for her own offspring.

However, if examined through the lense of the christian worldview things are different. A christian believes that God created life and thus a person who chooses abortion is playing God. This person only has an objection to killing a fetus but not other life.

I'm not saying I disagree with your point that the mother should be left with the choice. As you said though, the issue is more difficult when deciding how long the mother has to make that choice. In nature the mother can even kill the offspring after birth. Obviosuly no one is advocating that in humans but I can see where someone who does not believe in God would be ok with abortion.

Afterall, without a beliefe in God there really is no universal law. We only have the laws of nature and science plus those impose on ourselves as a society. Looked at through that lense if society deems abortion ok there is no ground to oppose it. The only way to oppose it is to take the "moral ground" approach but relies on invoking other laws besides those of nature and science.

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 05:15 PM
But you did imply it.

No I didn't. We were talking about the cell on a foreign planet, a bacterium and a cell in the womb. None of these are fetuses by the wikipedia defintion you provided.


So are you saying that a woman has the moral right to have her unborn son or unborn daughter killed if she so desires (as long as the murder takes place before the development of the unborn son or unborn daughter reaches some defined point)?

Yes...has this not been clear?

I mean, I could disagree and quibble with the language you've used "murder" "son" daugther"...but that would just futher confiscate the issue down another tangent we don't need..

If a woman takes a morning after pill that prevents a zygote from implanting in her uterus, I do not consider this the murder of a child.

USN - Retired
11-20-2014, 05:22 PM
I mean, I could disagree and quibble with the language you've used "murder" "son" daugther"...but that would just futher confiscate the issue down another tangent we don't need..
.

Go ahead. Disagree. Quibble. What is wrong with my use of the words "murder" "son" and daugther"...?

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 05:35 PM
Go ahead. Disagree. Quibble. What is wrong with my use of the words "murder" "son" and daugther"...?

Since you like wikipedia so much:

"Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of another human. Malice aforethought, or a premeditated state of mind, distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).[1][2]"

A morning after pill is not unlawful.

We can argue back and forth over whether the second an egg is fertilized it qualifies as "another human"...maybe you think it does, I don't--which is why I don't think it is murder.

We can also quibble over whether a woman who has just been raped is acting with malice by taking a morning after pill...and you will say "well it's malice toward the baby"...leaving us in the same place.

Like I said...this will be another tangent on this thread that will get us nowhere

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 05:47 PM
Since you like wikipedia so much:

"Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of another human. Malice aforethought, or a premeditated state of mind, distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).[1][2]"

A morning after pill is not unlawful.

We can argue back and forth over whether the second an egg is fertilized it qualifies as "another human"...maybe you think it does, I don't--which is why I don't think it is murder.

We can also quibble over whether a woman who has just been raped is acting with malice by taking a morning after pill...and you will say "well it's malice toward the baby"...leaving us in the same place.

Like I said...this will be another tangent on this thread that will get us nowhere

Hey, speaking of Wiki (maybe we can get another thread started down the road) last Sunday night someone changed Sergio Brown's Wiki page....

They added a date and place of death and this reference.............."“He was murdered by Rob Gronkowski during the Colts v. Patriots game on November 16, 2014″

Funny shyte.

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 06:08 PM
Hey, speaking of Wiki (maybe we can get another thread started down the road) last Sunday night someone changed Sergio Brown's Wiki page....

They added a date and place of death and this reference.............."“He was murdered by Rob Gronkowski during the Colts v. Patriots game on November 16, 2014″

Funny shyte.

Man...when that Gronk guys is healthy, he's pretty tough to stop.

USN - Retired
11-20-2014, 06:13 PM
"Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of another human. Malice aforethought, or a premeditated state of mind, distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).[1][2]"

A thought for discussion...

So let's say a woman, who was not raped and is not the victim of incest, becomes pregnant. Also, let's say that woman is not married to the man who got her pregnant, and it is her first pregnancy (i.e. she has no other children). And let's say that the woman at the forth month of pregnancy decides to get an abortion. Would it be correct to refer to that abortion as a lawful homicide of the fetus?

Now let's examine the child support issue. If the woman had not got an abortion, she would have been entitled to 18 years of child support payments from the man who got her pregnant. Why should that woman now not receive the 18 years of child support payments from the man who got her pregnant just because that woman decided to get an abortion? It is HER body and HER choice. The abortion was the woman's decision. The man who got the woman pregnant had no legal or moral right to interfere with the woman's decision to get the abortion; therefore, why should that man now have the legal right to avoid paying child support just because the woman decided to get an abortion? It sounds like the woman is a victim of financial coercion.

sandsjames
11-20-2014, 06:26 PM
Since you like wikipedia so much:

"Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of another human. Malice aforethought, or a premeditated state of mind, distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).[1][2]"

A morning after pill is not unlawful.

We can argue back and forth over whether the second an egg is fertilized it qualifies as "another human"...maybe you think it does, I don't--which is why I don't think it is murder.

We can also quibble over whether a woman who has just been raped is acting with malice by taking a morning after pill...and you will say "well it's malice toward the baby"...leaving us in the same place.

Like I said...this will be another tangent on this thread that will get us nowhere

I'm glad to see that educated people are now using Wikipedia for references.

sandsjames
11-20-2014, 06:27 PM
A thought for discussion...

So let's say a woman, who was not raped and is not the victim of incest, becomes pregnant. Also, let's say that woman is not married to the man who got her pregnant, and it is her first pregnancy (i.e. she has no other children). And let's say that the woman at the forth month of pregnancy decides to get an abortion. Would it be correct to refer to that abortion as a lawful homicide of the fetus?

Now let's examine the child support issue. If the woman had not got an abortion, she would have been entitled to 18 years of child support payments from the man who got her pregnant. Why should that woman now not receive the 18 years of child support payments from the man who got her pregnant just because that woman decided to get an abortion? It is HER body and HER choice. The abortion was the woman's decision. The man who got the woman pregnant had no legal or moral right to interfere with the woman's decision to get the abortion; therefore, why should that man now have the legal right to avoid paying child support just because the woman decided to get an abortion? It sounds like the woman is a victim of financial coercion.

Ummmmmm...because there is no child? Just a thought.

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 06:28 PM
A thought for discussion...

So let's say a woman, who was not raped and is not the victim of incest, becomes pregnant.

Curious about this qualifier...do think whether or not a woman was raped matters as to whether or not her abortion is moral or should be legal?


Also, let's say that woman is not married to the man who got her pregnant, and it is her first pregnancy (i.e. she has no other children). And let's say that the woman at the forth month of pregnancy decides to get an abortion. Would it be correct to refer to that abortion as a lawful homicide of the fetus?

Fourth month...so that's like 16-18 weeks? I think so.


Now let's examine the child support issue. If the woman had not got an abortion, she would have been entitled to 18 years of child support from the man who got her pregnant.

SHE is not entitled to child support...the CHILD is.

It makes no difference whether the payer or payee is the mother or the father. Child support is normally based of a mathematical formula that includes the percentage each parent has custody and the income each parent makes.


Why should that woman now not receive the 18 years of child support from the man who got her pregnant just because that woman decided to get an abortion?

Huh? Are you saying the man should pay the woman child support if she had an abortion?


It is HER body and HER choice. The abortion was the woman's decision. The man who got the woman pregnant had no legal or moral right to interfere with the woman's decision to get the abortion; therefore, why should that man now have the legal right to avoid paying child support just because the woman decided to get an abortion? It sounds like the woman is a victim of financial coercion.

...because you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that the support is for the child, not the woman.

You think biology is not fair...but, I'm afraid the law can not help you with that until we figure out a way for a man to carry a baby to term.

Let me ask you this:

Since you seem to believe that a newly fertilized egg is a child...should the man begin paying child support the moment the woman gets pregnant?

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 06:30 PM
Gotta love wikipedia. We bash it when someone uses it to make a point that doesn't suit us, but then we'll use it ourselves the next time around.

Filterbing
11-20-2014, 06:30 PM
The talk about murdering a cell can go further than a fertilized egg. A human egg is a cell and the human sperm is a cell as well. Is it murder for you to toss some into your sock? I agree that until the collection of cells begins to be distinguishable as a growing human, you are not "murdering" anything.

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 06:35 PM
I'm glad to see that educated people are now using Wikipedia for references.

I think it generally works pretty well for casual discussion...not like we're submitted term papers here.

Is there something incorrect about the definition I posted?

sandsjames
11-20-2014, 06:41 PM
I think it generally works pretty well for casual discussion...not like we're submitted term papers here.

Is there something incorrect about the definition I posted?

No...not at all. I was just making a general statement. I guess I should have just posted it without quoting.

sandsjames
11-20-2014, 06:43 PM
Curious about this qualifier...do think whether or not a woman was raped matters as to whether or not her abortion is moral or should be legal? Personally, yes. I think that when one makes the choice to have sex they give up the "right" to terminate.

sandsjames
11-20-2014, 06:45 PM
Since you seem to believe that a newly fertilized egg is a child...should the man begin paying child support the moment the woman gets pregnant?If they both want to keep the child then yes. Medical care, appointments, pre-natal, etc. Definitely, if they both want/agree to be a part of the child's life.

USN - Retired
11-20-2014, 07:21 PM
Curious about this qualifier...do think whether or not a woman was raped matters as to whether or not her abortion is moral or should be legal?


That is one of those million dollar questions.



SHE is not entitled to child support...the CHILD is.

...because you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that the support is for the child, not the woman.


(*giggle*) The child support check is not payable to the child, even if the child is 17 years old. And the person who receives the child support check (usually the mother of the child) is not at all legally accountable to prove that the money is actually spent on the child. Do we need to start another thread for that topic?



It makes no difference whether the payer or payee is the mother or the father. Child support is normally based of a mathematical formula that includes the percentage each parent has custody and the income each parent makes.


Translation: Rich guys pay big bucks in child support. If a woman gets pregnant and a rich guy is the father of her child, then that woman will be receiving many large checks for many years.



Are you saying the man should pay the woman child support if she had an abortion?


/Sarcasm back on/

Well, let's see..

If a man can avoid paying child support just because a woman decided to get an abortion, then doesn't the man have a significant patriarchy tool to financially coerce the woman? The man can "threaten" to withhold money (18 years of child support payments) if the woman gets an abortion. 18 years of child support is a significant amount of money, especially if the man is rich. The decision whether the woman gets an abortion is hers and hers alone. The woman shouldn't have to worry about whether she will or will not get 18 years of child support payments when she is deciding to get an abortion. The only way we can ensure that a man does not financially coerce a woman is to have laws that say that a man's legal obligation to pay 18 years of child support do not hinge on the abortion decision that the woman alone will make. Only those who hate women will disagree with that line of thought.

/sarcasm back off/



Since you seem to believe that a newly fertilized egg is a child...should the man begin paying child support the moment the woman gets pregnant?

I answer that question with a question. Do the family courts have the power to order a man to pay a woman some form of financial support under those circumstances? That is a serious question. The power of the family courts is pretty much unlimited, so I suspect that they do.

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 07:52 PM
That is one of those million dollar questions.

Yes...and it is worth that much because people arguing that a fertilized egg=human life can not justify killing it in the case of rape. They likewise can not reconcile forcing a raped woman to carry it to full term.


(*giggle*) The child support check is not payable to the child, even if the child is 17 years old.

I'm not sure this is always the case. My daughter has friends who receive their parent's support check directly. Not sure if it is court ordered that way or not. Doesn't matter though...without the child, there is no child support.


And the person who receives the child support check (usually the mother of the child) is not at all legally accountable to prove that the money is actually spent on the child. Do we need to start another thread for that topic?

Perhaps...child support is a completely separate issue, really, and has nothing to do with whose decision it is to have an abortion, IMO.

Whether or not the mother should have to account for where the support money goes, I think, is a possible process improvement, but does not change the basic rightness or wrongness of support.

To go back to the kidney donation. Let's say, the person needing the kidney is a child. If you are the only possible donor, and therefore the decision as to whether the child lives or dies is solely yours...does this mean if you choose to donate your kidney, you should now be solely responsible financially for the child?

What if it is your child...would your decision to donate a kidney mean the mother is no longer financially responsible for it? What if she doesn't want you to save the child's life?


Translation: Rich guys pay big bucks in child support. If a woman gets pregnant and a rich guy is the father of her child, then that woman will be receiving many large checks for many years.

/Sarcasm back on/

Well, let's see..

If a man can avoid paying child support just because a woman decided to get an abortion, then doesn't the man have a significant patriarchy tool to financially coerce the woman?

People with a lot of money always have a tool to coerce people who don't into a lot of actions


The man can "threaten" to withhold money (18 years of child support payments) if the woman gets an abortion. 18 years of child support is a significant amount of money, especially if the man is rich. The decision whether the woman gets an abortion is hers and hers alone. The woman shouldn't have to worry about whether she will or will not get 18 years of child support payments when she is deciding to get an abortion. The only way we can ensure that a man does not financially coerce a woman is to have laws that say that a man's legal obligation to pay 18 years of child support do not hinge on the abortion decision that the woman alone will make. Only those who hate women will disagree with that line of thought.

/sarcasm back off/

Man...you think girls try to trap a man by getting pregnant now? Imagine if they could get an abortion and still get child support!!

We'd probably have women with no kids getting 20 child support checks...lol


I answer that question with a question. Do the family courts have the power to order a man to pay a woman some form of financial support under those circumstances? That is a serious question. The power of the family courts is pretty much unlimited, so I suspect that they do.

I suspect they probably have the power to do so, as well. I honestly don't know if this takes place or not...can't say I've ever heard of it, but doesn't sound all that far-fetched when you think about it.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-20-2014, 07:57 PM
The talk about murdering a cell can go further than a fertilized egg. A human egg is a cell and the human sperm is a cell as well. Is it murder for you to toss some into your sock? I agree that until the collection of cells begins to be distinguishable as a growing human, you are not "murdering" anything.

Not so fast!

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found
Every sperm is wanted
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighborhood
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon
Spill theirs just anywhere
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 07:59 PM
Personally, yes. I think that when one makes the choice to have sex they give up the "right" to terminate.

I remember a few years ago, Variable Wind gave one of the best explanations of this that I've ever seen. I'm sure that thread is long since archived and I don't remember how it went, really, I just remember it being very impactful.

garhkal
11-20-2014, 08:16 PM
Even worse, there are liberals that will kill a fetus, but not a convicted murderer.

Someone please explain that one to me.


I can't. I am actually the opposite. I firmly support Capital punishment, but only believe abortion should be legal for
A) rape or sexual assault (also paedophillia)
B) in cases where having the birth would put the mother's life in jeopardy.


So, you think someone who is against abortion, but for the death penalty is a hypocrite...or what?

I guess i am then..


I'll take a stab at it.

The abortion issue...is not a matter being in favor of killing babies, it's a matter of a woman's freedom over the most basic of all things someone needs freedom for...her own body.


But in this case, it IS killing a baby to support her right to choose over her own body? BUT as a q.. Why is the father's rights rarely considered in this equation?
In the military, a wife has to be consulted for a guy to get a vasectomy. BUT a wife not only doesn't need her husbands permission to get an abortion, they don't even need to be told about it. Same with kids and parents. Heck some states allow a kid to go through the courts to bypass their parents. So why is "Her right to choose" overriding the fathers (or parents rights), when in everything else a parent is responsible for said kid?



Let's say you have a brother who has failing kidneys. He desperately needs a kidney to be able to survive and you are identified as the only possible donor. Should you be compelled by the law to give up one of your kidneys to ensure your brother's life is saved? Yes, most of us would want to save our brother's life, if we could...but, that's not the question of whether most people would do it. Maybe you'd be a horrible person for letting your brother die, I don't know...maybe you hate the guy, maybe he destroyed his kidneys using drugs...blah blah...none of that matters. If it helps, pretend it's a stranger and not your brother....maybe it's bone marrow and not a kidney...the details don't matter, it's whether or not the govt. has the right to order you what to do with your body. The question is, should the LAW require you to give up that kidney against your will, does your brother have the "right to life" or should you have the "right to choose"?

I find this analogy interesting. IIRC on the old board we DID have a longish (iirc 4+ page) discussion about whether organ donation should be mandated. Though for the life of me i can't remember what the #s were for or against.


my personal opinion, is if you're going to have an abortion, do it in the first couple weeks...I guess I don't see that as a human life yet. I'm not in favor of late-term abortions...that really turns my stomach...I struggle with the outlawing part though because freedom of one's own body is the most basic freedom out there. If we don't have that...we don't have any freedoms

Isn't that hypocritical in and of itself though? If a woman has the right to choose, why should there be a time limit on it?


Whenever you (and the rest of society) talk about child custody issues and child support issues, you (and the rest of society) like to use the phrase "in the best interest of the child". Interestingly, whenever you (and the rest of society) talk about abortion rights, the phrase "in the best interest of the child" is never used.

Great point. If the child's best interest is taken into account in one angle, why not all where a child's rights are hit on?


If it really is HER body and HER choice, then shouldn't the child be HER financial responsibility?

The only thing a man contributes to the pregnancy is one sperm. A sperm is not even a complete cell. Why should one sperm equal 18 years of child support?

Agreed. If the man has no choice or input into whether the kid gets brought to term or aborted, why does he have to support her financially.


So, your argument is that the woman should solely be financially responsible for children?

MY preferred way of this would be both the father AND mother's input into whether a kid should be aborted or kept, means both have legal responsibility for it should they bring it to term.
IF the woman is not giving the father any chance in making the choice of whether it is being brought to term or she wants to abort it), then why should he then be held financially responsible should she choose to keep it?
To me it can't be both ways. Either the father is responsible (financially), but then should also have the right to decide (or at least have input) into whether the kid is kept or not.
If the father should not have ANY choice in that matter (its only the woman's body so should only be her choice) then he should also have no responsibility after the fact.


Should this thread be split to let the abortion discussion continue separate and distinct from the OP?

Mj. To me, they can't be separated though. To properly discuss abortion, you also need to go into
A) when is a Fetus a person
B) who has more rights, the mother or father
C) who has the more responsibility, the mother or father..



Personally, I think if you get pregnant, you need to step up to the plate and give it your best shot, or consider letting someone adopt the child.

Which kind of brings up the related question of;
we have so many kids awaiting adoption, should we be providing IVF services or not?


Human beings are the only species that is self aware

That we know of or acknowledge.


The talk about murdering a cell can go further than a fertilized egg. A human egg is a cell and the human sperm is a cell as well. Is it murder for you to toss some into your sock? I agree that until the collection of cells begins to be distinguishable as a growing human, you are not "murdering" anything.

I can't remember where i saw it, but i do remember a comical quote that said "every time a guy jacks off he is aborting thousands of potential kids".


(*giggle*) The child support check is not payable to the child, even if the child is 17 years old. And the person who receives the child support check (usually the mother of the child) is not at all legally accountable to prove that the money is actually spent on the child. Do we need to start another thread for that topic?

I do find it screwed up that legally the checks are for the support of the child, but no proof that the kid is actually being taken care of is required or needed.

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 08:41 PM
I can't. I am actually the opposite. I firmly support Capital punishment, but only believe abortion should be legal for
A) rape or sexual assault (also paedophillia)

Do you have a time limit? If a child is 4 years old when it is determined he is the product of rape, can he then be killed?


But in this case, it IS killing a baby to support her right to choose over her own body?

If you are of this opinion...how can you be in favor of killing a baby that is the product of rape?


BUT as a q.. Why is the father's rights rarely considered in this equation?
In the military, a wife has to be consulted for a guy to get a vasectomy. BUT a wife not only doesn't need her husbands permission to get an abortion, they don't even need to be told about it. Same with kids and parents. Heck some states allow a kid to go through the courts to bypass their parents. So why is "Her right to choose" overriding the fathers (or parents rights), when in everything else a parent is responsible for said kid?

I would agree that the man should have the right to get a vasectomy if he wants to.

I don't believe the consult with the wife is a "legal requirement"...I don't know if the military docs would flat our refuse to do one? Either way...it's not illegal for them to do one without consulting the wife I don't believe...


I find this analogy interesting. IIRC on the old board we DID have a longish (iirc 4+ page) discussion about whether organ donation should be mandated. Though for the life of me i can't remember what the #s were for or against.

I don't recall that one...would be interested to see what people thought. On this thread, everyone has dodged the question so far.


Isn't that hypocritical in and of itself though? If a woman has the right to choose, why should there be a time limit on it?

Yes...it is contradictory, which is why I said it was a struggle for me.


MY preferred way of this would be both the father AND mother's input into whether a kid should be aborted or kept, means both have legal responsibility for it should they bring it to term.

I think everyone would love it if everybody involved always agreed.


IF the woman is not giving the father any chance in making the choice of whether it is being brought to term or she wants to abort it), then why should he then be held financially responsible should she choose to keep it?
To me it can't be both ways. Either the father is responsible (financially), but then should also have the right to decide (or at least have input) into whether the kid is kept or not.

Well, no one said he shouldn't have input.


If the father should not have ANY choice in that matter (its only the woman's body so should only be her choice) then he should also have no responsibility after the fact.

I disagree with this. If a child of his is born, he has a responsibility for it.


Mj. To me, they can't be separated though. To properly discuss abortion, you also need to go into
A) when is a Fetus a person
B) who has more rights, the mother or father
C) who has the more responsibility, the mother or father..

He was talking about separating from the discussion on the Airman and her PT test...lol.


Which kind of brings up the related question of;
we have so many kids awaiting adoption, should we be providing IVF services or not?

That we know of or acknowledge.

I can't remember where i saw it, but i do remember a comical quote that said "every time a guy jacks off he is aborting thousands of potential kids".

I do find it screwed up that legally the checks are for the support of the child, but no proof that the kid is actually being taken care of is required or needed.

I'm sure we can come up with a lot of ways to improve child support execution...but doesn't change the right or wrong of it as a concept and it's relationship to abortion decisions.

There are some things about biology we can not change...so it will always be unfair that the woman has to carry the baby the the man can not. There is no way to make this situation completely fair and equal, at least not with today's technology.

Both the man and woman have control over their own body. If their decisions result in a child, both of them are legally responsible for it.

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 10:23 PM
Man...when that Gronk guys is healthy, he's pretty tough to stop.

Truthfully it was a bit of a dirty play but according to him, Brown had been talking shit for awhile. Besides I am a Pats fan so Gronk can do no wrong.

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 10:40 PM
Truthfully it was a bit of a dirty play but according to him, Brown had been talking shit for awhile. Besides I am a Pats fan so Gronk can do no wrong.

I didn't see that particular game or the play you are referencing...was just making a general comment about him...at his best, I don't see any way to stop him...he's too big for the fast guys, too fast for the big guys, and has great hands.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 12:05 AM
I didn't see that particular game or the play you are referencing...was just making a general comment about him...at his best, I don't see any way to stop him...he's too big for the fast guys, too fast for the big guys, and has great hands.

It was a late hit. Well, more accurately a late push. He pushed him past the sidelines then gave him a final shove. During the next drive he demonstrated what you are referring to.

http://giant.gfycat.com/CapitalSickDromaeosaur.mp4

This is more fun than talking about abortion. Maybe I will carry this over to Rusty's inane discussion about Jesus being a homosexual (although his description is a bit more colorful.........go figure)

garhkal
11-21-2014, 06:15 AM
Do you have a time limit? If a child is 4 years old when it is determined he is the product of rape, can he then be killed?

No, that's being stupid. BUT if a rape causes pregnancy, then the woman should be allowed to abort it.. IMO.




If you are of this opinion...how can you be in favor of killing a baby that is the product of rape?

Cause unlike consensual sex, the woman had no choice in getting pregnant via rape.




I would agree that the man should have the right to get a vasectomy if he wants to.

I don't believe the consult with the wife is a "legal requirement"...I don't know if the military docs would flat our refuse to do one? Either way...it's not illegal for them to do one without consulting the wife I don't believe...

He should. But i know many in the navy, who wanted to get one, who had to have their wives sign off on getting it. If the Missus didn't sign off, no snippy snippy.
Checking bing for it, i come across the following site when searching for "Legal requirements for getting a vasectomy"

http://goodmenproject.com/newsroom/are-men-legally-required-to-ask-their-spouses-permission-for-a-vasectomy/

That one mentions that the reporter started checking, and though he couldn't at the time find an over arching law, many clinics have it as a requirement in their practice that a man gets his wife's consent before having one.

All the others were either asking about legal age, or the like, and were NOT military specific. So at this time i can't quote you the rule the military uses.
BUT the point is, since (at least in many clinics it seems) that it IS a requirement for a man to get his wife's consent before getting snipped, why is it ok in many peoples minds that a woman can choose to abort a kid without their spouses consent? Why is it "Her body, her choice" in regards to abortions, but NOT 'his body, his choice' for Vasectomies?
That's where i see the hypocrisy in this.



I don't recall that one...would be interested to see what people thought. On this thread, everyone has dodged the question so far.

If one of the mods can check to see if that was one of the many threads that got saved, i would love to see it re-posted.
As for me, i feel that requiring everyone to donate organs is a little much. While leaving it where it is, where people opt "IN", causes people awaiting an organ to die, i don't agree we should change it to where everyone is considered to be a doner, unless they opt out.



Well, no one said he shouldn't have input.


Not in this thread at least (well yet). BUT in society there are many who seem to be calling for a woman to have the choice, even if she has to go AROUND her family without their knowledge. Which to me IS saying that people are ok with it.

By the way. Being how sometimes me and you have seemed at "Logger heads" on certain issues i am glad we see somewhat eye to eye here.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 10:40 AM
By the way. Being how sometimes me and you have seemed at "Logger heads" on certain issues i am glad we see somewhat eye to eye here.Interesting. I always thought it was "Lager heads". Damn homophones.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 01:38 PM
Interesting. I always thought it was "Lager heads". Damn homophones.

Please use another word that doesn't have homo in it. We have enough polluted threads as it is.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 01:44 PM
Please use another word that doesn't have homo in it. We have enough polluted threads as it is.

I will check to see if there is a synonym for homophone.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 02:07 PM
No, that's being stupid. BUT if a rape causes pregnancy, then the woman should be allowed to abort it.. IMO.

I would agree, but even I have a certain point of development where I think it should be considered too late to abort it.

By thinking this question "stupid", you are tacitly implying that there is a difference between a "child" in the womb and a child outside the womb...and considering them the same thing is "stupid"


Cause unlike consensual sex, the woman had no choice in getting pregnant via rape.

So...it's less about abortion being "killing" and more about "accountability" and "fault"?...I find it hard to reconcile this position. If one believes abortion is murder...I don't see how the murder of an innocent party can be acceptable because the mother happened to have no fault

[quote]He should. But i know many in the navy, who wanted to get one, who had to have their wives sign off on getting it. If the Missus didn't sign off, no snippy snippy.
Checking bing for it, i come across the following site when searching for "Legal requirements for getting a vasectomy"

http://goodmenproject.com/newsroom/are-men-legally-required-to-ask-their-spouses-permission-for-a-vasectomy/

That one mentions that the reporter started checking, and though he couldn't at the time find an over arching law, many clinics have it as a requirement in their practice that a man gets his wife's consent before having one.

All the others were either asking about legal age, or the like, and were NOT military specific. So at this time i can't quote you the rule the military uses.
BUT the point is, since (at least in many clinics it seems) that it IS a requirement for a man to get his wife's consent before getting snipped, why is it ok in many peoples minds that a woman can choose to abort a kid without their spouses consent? Why is it "Her body, her choice" in regards to abortions, but NOT 'his body, his choice' for Vasectomies?
That's where i see the hypocrisy in this.

I think it's important to note the difference between a specific doctor's or clinics...or medical service's policy vs. a legal requirement.

A doctor might personally believe it's good medicine to involve the family in this kind of decision. Maybe there is a significant decrease in the "regrets" if the spouse is involved...so while not a legal requirement, a doctor thinks it's a good idea to involve the family...and maybe they believe that so much that they won't do one if the family is not involved. I don't see anything wrong with that really...I think for an elective procedure like this, a professional doctor taking care to ensure the patient wont' regret it is probably a good thing. I don't think a doctor has to do whatever the patient wants in terms of elective surgery. Like if a patient came in and wanted plastic surgery, let's say, and the doc took extra care to make sure there wouldn't be regrets...maybe the woman was getting a boob job, or a preventive mastectomy like Angelina Jolie...would it be cool for the doc to say, "well, I would like to speak with your husband too"...I think that's practicing good medicine.

So...part of me feels consulting with the man's family to good policy, but I don't believe it should be a legal requirement.


If one of the mods can check to see if that was one of the many threads that got saved, i would love to see it re-posted.
As for me, i feel that requiring everyone to donate organs is a little much. While leaving it where it is, where people opt "IN", causes people awaiting an organ to die, i don't agree we should change it to where everyone is considered to be a doner, unless they opt out.

I actually think that makes some sense.


Not in this thread at least (well yet). BUT in society there are many who seem to be calling for a woman to have the choice, even if she has to go AROUND her family without their knowledge. Which to me IS saying that people are ok with it.

Well, I think it is evident that the "pro-choice" side has pretty strong advocacy groups. I put that in quotes because it does seem like a lot of them are more "pro-abortion" to me. I would consider myself pro-choice, but not pro-abortion.


By the way. Being how sometimes me and you have seemed at "Logger heads" on certain issues i am glad we see somewhat eye to eye here.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 02:21 PM
I think it's important to note the difference between a specific doctor's or clinics...or medical service's policy vs. a legal requirement.

A doctor might personally believe it's good medicine to involve the family in this kind of decision. Maybe there is a significant decrease in the "regrets" if the spouse is involved...so while not a legal requirement, a doctor thinks it's a good idea to involve the family...and maybe they believe that so much that they won't do one if the family is not involved. I don't see anything wrong with that really...I think for an elective procedure like this, a professional doctor taking care to ensure the patient wont' regret it is probably a good thing. I don't think a doctor has to do whatever the patient wants in terms of elective surgery. Like if a patient came in and wanted plastic surgery, let's say, and the doc took extra care to make sure there wouldn't be regrets...maybe the woman was getting a boob job, or a preventive mastectomy like Angelina Jolie...would it be cool for the doc to say, "well, I would like to speak with your husband too"...I think that's practicing good medicine. I'm surprised you didn't mention abortion as an elective procedure, or giving birth control to children as an elective procedure. Those are all elective, yet some are required to notify family members while others are not.






Well, I think it is evident that the "pro-choice" side has pretty strong advocacy groups. I put that in quotes because it does seem like a lot of them are more "pro-abortion" to me. I would consider myself pro-choice, but not pro-abortion.I like the way you phrased that, and I agree. "Choice" is the key. Unfortunately, when many make the "choice" to choose the opposite rout of the trend, they are labeled. Not to tangent too far, but it also happens with stay-at-home moms, etc, where the "feminist" movement will criticize those who choose to be "traditional". Pretty sad, IMO. If it's about choice then that choice should be accepted, no matter what it is.

BENDER56
11-21-2014, 02:25 PM
I will check to see if there is a synonym for homophone.

When I learned about homophones back in the '60s, they were called homonyms. But that still has homo in it.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 02:25 PM
I'm surprised you didn't mention abortion as an elective procedure, or giving birth control to children as an elective procedure. Those are all elective, yet some are required to notify family members while others are not.

I see the contradiction and agree with you. I am not arguing for the status quo on this.


I like the way you phrased that, and I agree. "Choice" is the key. Unfortunately, when many make the "choice" to choose the opposite rout of the trend, they are labeled.

Not sure what label you are talking about here... "baby keeper"? I don't recall seeing much criticism for women who choose to have babies...unplanned or otherwise.


Not to tangent too far, but it also happens with stay-at-home moms, etc, where the "feminist" movement will criticize those who choose to be "traditional". Pretty sad, IMO. If it's about choice then that choice should be accepted, no matter what it is.

You won't see me criticizing stay-at-home moms.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 02:30 PM
I will check to see if there is a synonym for homophone.

Motorola Razr

BENDER56
11-21-2014, 02:30 PM
"Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of another human. Malice aforethought, or a premeditated state of mind, distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).[1][2]"

... and also distinguishes it from all the other lawful forms of killing another human; war, execution, abortion and self-defense.

As I mentioned earlier, we all like to say life is precious, but our actions show otherwise. I think the only people who really treat life as precious are the Buddhists.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 02:37 PM
When I learned about homophones back in the '60s, they were called homonyms. But that still has homo in it.They are different. Homonyms have the same spelling and pronunciation. Homophones MAY have different spelling with the same pronunciation.

"Bear", for instance, has two different meanings, so is a homonym, as well as a homophone.

"Bear" and "bare" are homophones, but not homonyms.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 02:38 PM
When I learned about homophones back in the '60s, they were called homonyms. But that still has homo in it.They are different. Homonyms have the same spelling and pronunciation. Homophones MAY have different spelling with the same pronunciation.

"Bear", for instance, has two different meanings, so is a homonym, as well as a homophone.

"Bear" and "bare" are homophones, but not homonyms.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 02:47 PM
Not sure what label you are talking about here... "baby keeper"? I don't recall seeing much criticism for women who choose to have babies...unplanned or otherwise.I was talking more about how those who push the "right to choose" will criticize women who choose to become a housewife/stay at home mom, or who choose to let the guy be the "head" of the house as if they are somehow discrediting the "feminist movement". So not so much as it relates to abortion, but in everything else as well. Probably an entire different topic.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 02:50 PM
... and also distinguishes it from all the other lawful forms of killing another human; war, execution, abortion and self-defense.

As I mentioned earlier, we all like to say life is precious, but our actions show otherwise. I think the only people who really treat life as precious are the Buddhists.

Just as MM pointed out with the term "pro-choice" seeming to mean "pro-abortion" to many, I think that "pro-life" should probably be referred to as anti-abortion instead. The big difference, I think, being that the child/fetus has no say in any of it where in war and homicide, etc, there is at least comprehension, to some degree, of what is happening. I do think we'd be better off if the two common terms (pro choice/life) were referred to in another way.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 02:52 PM
They are different. Homonyms have the same spelling and pronunciation. Homophones MAY have different spelling with the same pronunciation.

"Bear", for instance, has two different meanings, so is a homonym, as well as a homophone.

"Bear" and "bare" are homophones, but not homonyms.

I think you are all a little gay for discussing this.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 03:07 PM
I think you are all a little gay for discussing this.It doesn't make me gay, but it does show that I'm not a homo-phobe.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 03:27 PM
It doesn't make me gay, but it does show that I'm not a homo-phobe.

But possibly able to be duped.

((ok, you go then we're done))

BENDER56
11-21-2014, 05:33 PM
They are different. Homonyms have the same spelling and pronunciation. Homophones MAY have different spelling with the same pronunciation.

"Bear", for instance, has two different meanings, so is a homonym, as well as a homophone.

"Bear" and "bare" are homophones, but not homonyms.

Huh. Didn't know that. Thanks.

garhkal
11-21-2014, 07:20 PM
I would agree, but even I have a certain point of development where I think it should be considered too late to abort it.

By thinking this question "stupid", you are tacitly implying that there is a difference between a "child" in the womb and a child outside the womb...and considering them the same thing is "stupid"

[quote]Cause unlike consensual sex, the woman had no choice in getting pregnant via rape.

So...it's less about abortion being "killing" and more about "accountability" and "fault"?...I find it hard to reconcile this position. If one believes abortion is murder...I don't see how the murder of an innocent party can be acceptable because the mother happened to have no fault


In essence, yes. Man and woman shack up and do the dirty. And she feels having the kid will ruin her partying days. IMO is not a good reason to kill the kid (abort it). Man rapes said woman, though i do, as i don't feel its right to make the woman have to carry the result of the rape to term.



I think it's important to note the difference between a specific doctor's or clinics...or medical service's policy vs. a legal requirement.

A doctor might personally believe it's good medicine to involve the family in this kind of decision. Maybe there is a significant decrease in the "regrets" if the spouse is involved...so while not a legal requirement, a doctor thinks it's a good idea to involve the family...and maybe they believe that so much that they won't do one if the family is not involved. I don't see anything wrong with that really...I think for an elective procedure like this, a professional doctor taking care to ensure the patient wont' regret it is probably a good thing. I don't think a doctor has to do whatever the patient wants in terms of elective surgery. Like if a patient came in and wanted plastic surgery, let's say, and the doc took extra care to make sure there wouldn't be regrets...maybe the woman was getting a boob job, or a preventive mastectomy like Angelina Jolie...would it be cool for the doc to say, "well, I would like to speak with your husband too"...I think that's practicing good medicine.

So...part of me feels consulting with the man's family to good policy, but I don't believe it should be a legal requirement.

So if its clinic based, why then is it ok for clinic A which services men for Vasectomies to need wifies permission, while clinic B which services women for abortion to not even need hubbies knowing of it/parents knowing of it let alone consent? Its a dichotomy i find absurd. Either all clinics should require it, or none should.

Also, as Sandjames mentions, since both abortions and vasectomies are Elective proceedures. What else that is elective should require the consent of a spouse/family? It seems our laws are so patchwork in this, to where a kid in many states doesn't even need parents to be informed before getting contraception, let alone an abortion.



I actually think that makes some sense.

Thanks.

Measure Man
01-23-2015, 10:59 PM
So if its clinic based, why then is it ok for clinic A which services men for Vasectomies to need wifies permission, while clinic B which services women for abortion to not even need hubbies knowing of it/parents knowing of it let alone consent? Its a dichotomy i find absurd. Either all clinics should require it, or none should.

Obviously, if it just a matter of clinic policy, then different clinics will do things differently. If Clinic A wants to talk to the wife before doing vasectomies, a man would be free to shop elsewhere if he didn't want his wife to know.

I can not understand the "either all should or none should" argument...then it is no longer a clinic choice.

So, you are a doctor and man comes in for a vasectomy...you are like, cool I'll do it...but unfortunately the clinic down the street requires a consult with the wife, so I can't do it unless I talk with your wife.

That doesn't make sense...if, as a matter of conscience or good medicine, a doctor decided he would not perform a vasectomy or abortion without consulting both partners...I don't see a down side to that.

What you are angry about, it seems, is that many doctors won't perform vasectomies without talking to the wife...while many other doctors will perform abortions without talking to the father. I could be wrong, but I would guess that a doctor may refuse to perform an abortion on a 17 year old without involving the parents. It may just not be the current tendency.


Also, as Sandjames mentions, since both abortions and vasectomies are Elective proceedures. What else that is elective should require the consent of a spouse/family?

I'm not saying any of them should require consent...but, I do think there are certain procedures where consulting with the family makes for good medicine....and if a doctor believes it's good medicine, he should have the option to insist on it to provide for the what is in his judgement the best medical care.


It seems our laws are so patchwork in this, to where a kid in many states doesn't even need parents to be informed before getting contraception, let alone an abortion.

I think policies like that are an attempt to manage the chaos a little...kids getting pregnant because they were afraid to talk to their parents about birth control.

Reality is not always perfect.

USN - Retired
01-24-2015, 01:24 AM
Then I'll change my question....

Is it fair and accurate to say that an abortion is not in the best interest of the unborn human offspring?

Is it still a loaded question?

I'm still waiting for a response.

USN - Retired
01-24-2015, 01:43 AM
For some reason, I am thinking about the movie Logan's Run.


Once again..revolves around the question of when it becomes a child.


I mean, I could disagree and quibble with the language you've used "murder" "son" daugther"...but that would just futher confiscate the issue down another tangent we don't need..

If a woman takes a morning after pill that prevents a zygote from implanting in her uterus, I do not consider this the murder of a child.

Those thoughts by MM remind me of these lines from Logan's Run:

"He was killed. Like the others." ~Jessica 6

"Killed? Why do you use that word?" ~Logan 5

"Isn't that what you do? Kill?" ~Jessica 6

"I've never killed anyone in my life. Sandmen terminate runners." ~Logan 5


Abortion doctors don't "kill" unborn human offspring. They "terminate" fetuses. As long as we use the politically correct words, then we don't need to feel guilty.

Well,... I'm past thirty, so I need to run.

Measure Man
01-28-2015, 03:26 PM
For some reason, I am thinking about the movie Logan's Run.





Those thoughts by MM remind me of these lines from Logan's Run:

"He was killed. Like the others." ~Jessica 6

"Killed? Why do you use that word?" ~Logan 5

"Isn't that what you do? Kill?" ~Jessica 6

"I've never killed anyone in my life. Sandmen terminate runners." ~Logan 5


Abortion doctors don't "kill" unborn human offspring. They "terminate" fetuses. As long as we use the politically correct words, then we don't need to feel guilty.

Well,... I'm past thirty, so I need to run.


“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” --Mark Twain

"Words mean things--go figure." -- Measure Man

sandsjames
01-28-2015, 03:49 PM
Abortion doctors don't "kill" unborn human offspring. They "terminate" fetuses. As long as we use the politically correct words, then we don't need to feel guilty.



Right, because if I kill someone's wife, I'm not committing murder...I'm terminating a marriage. As long as I do it for that reason it should be ok.

Rainmaker
01-28-2015, 04:57 PM
Right, because if I kill someone's wife, I'm not committing murder...I'm terminating a marriage. As long as I do it for that reason it should be ok.

Whoa...slow down Folks, We only have like 5 days left untill AA and Rusty nutz get out the virtual MTF Gulag. So, Rainmaker recommend peeps hold off till then, before we get back in to the never ending circular debate of whether abortion is just a secular, scientific, termination of a fetus with a high dose of Estrogen or If it's The Hidden Holocaust, of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ's unborn Children by those Communist, Luciferian, Self-hating, masturbating-homicidal lunatics. We've already lost too many Posters Gnomsayin?...

Measure Man
01-28-2015, 09:46 PM
Right, because if I kill someone's wife, I'm not committing murder...I'm terminating a marriage. As long as I do it for that reason it should be ok.

Yes, let's argue the absurd....which is why if you feel a woman should be allowed to take the morning after pill if she is raped...you should still allow her to kill a 5 yr old child that she discovers is the product of rape...because abortion and child murder is the same.

USN - Retired
01-29-2015, 03:18 AM
Yes, let's argue the absurd....which is why if you feel a woman should be allowed to take the morning after pill if she is raped...you should still allow her to kill a 5 yr old child that she discovers is the product of rape...because abortion and child murder is the same.

"I've never killed anyone in my life. Sandmen terminate runners." ~Logan 5

sandsjames
01-29-2015, 10:45 AM
Yes, let's argue the absurd....which is why if you feel a woman should be allowed to take the morning after pill if she is raped...you should still allow her to kill a 5 yr old child that she discovers is the product of rape...because abortion and child murder is the same.

And this IS the argument. Let's take religion out of it so we can avoid that part of the conversation that will go nowhere. It comes down to whether a person feels that an unborn baby/fetus is a person or not. For those who feel that it is, then abortion and a 5 year old and a 30 year old are the same thing. For those who feel it's not, then it would seem absurd.

To call the argument "absurd" is kinda funny. It is THE ONLY argument that's NOT absurd, scientifically.

Measure Man
01-29-2015, 01:44 PM
And this IS the argument. Let's take religion out of it so we can avoid that part of the conversation that will go nowhere.

You might be surprised...I can't quote chapter and verse off the top of my head, but I seem to recall an Old Testament verse where if someone causes pregnant mother to lose the baby...they don't get the same punishment as murder. I'd have to research a little to find it again.


It comes down to whether a person feels that an unborn baby/fetus is a person or not. For those who feel that it is, then abortion and a 5 year old and a 30 year old are the same thing. For those who feel it's not, then it would seem absurd.

Yes...it does come down to that....and for all the people saying it is the same...I've not yet seen one that says a 14 year old girl who is forcibly raped should be forced to carry the baby to term.

If someone does say that...then at least they are consistent.

For the rest, no one has stepped up to explain why "murder of an innocent child" becomes morally okay if its mother was raped...because deep down inside, you know a 5 day old zygote is not the same as a 5 year old child.


To call the argument "absurd" is kinda funny. It is THE ONLY argument that's NOT absurd, scientifically.

Huh?

When I first asked this question a few pages ago...Garkhal called it "stupid"

sandsjames
01-29-2015, 02:09 PM
You might be surprised...I can't quote chapter and verse off the top of my head, but I seem to recall an Old Testament verse where if someone causes pregnant mother to lose the baby...they don't get the same punishment as murder. I'd have to research a little to find it again. I'm trying to avoid the religious viewpoint in this for the obvious reason that it then turns into an emotional discussion.




Yes...it does come down to that....and for all the people saying it is the same...I've not yet seen one that says a 14 year old girl who is forcibly raped should be forced to carry the baby to term.

If someone does say that...then at least they are consistent. As I've stated, I support it being a woman's choice. I'm mainly trying to discuss what is considered "life".


For the rest, no one has stepped up to explain why "murder of an innocent child" becomes morally okay if its mother was raped...because deep down inside, you know a 5 day old zygote is not the same as a 5 year old child. I think the hardcore anti-abortion people don't care how the baby was conceived, whether it was rape or not. I personally feel that making the choice to have sex should impact the decision making towards aborting.




Huh?

When I first asked this question a few pages ago...Garkhal called it "stupid"

As you are big on phrasing and terminology, often pointing out how important it is, I'll say it this way. The argument about abortion (non-religious) comes down to whether or not a fetus is considered a life. The key word, IMO, being "life". What determines what "life" is? that's the big question. Science tells us that life came from single cell organism. It wasn't breathing, it wasn't capable of sufficiently taking care of itself. Yet when they talk of "life" on other planets, they are often speaking of single cell organisms, bacteria, etc, being able to survive. So if we are to focus on the terminology, as you like to do, then a fetus is definitely "alive", and aborting it is taking that life.

What I have a hard time understanding is how they determine a "cut-off" point for abortion. What makes it ok at 2 months but not at 6 months or 9 months?

As far as the morning after "Plan B" (plan A for most, of course) pill, I have more of a problem with the social side of that then the abortion related issue. To me, it's about lack of responsibility and making good decisions, but that's just my personal opinion...right or wrong.

Measure Man
01-29-2015, 03:03 PM
I'm trying to avoid the religious viewpoint in this for the obvious reason that it then turns into an emotional discussion.



As I've stated, I support it being a woman's choice. I'm mainly trying to discuss what is considered "life".

I think the hardcore anti-abortion people don't care how the baby was conceived, whether it was rape or not. I personally feel that making the choice to have sex should impact the decision making towards aborting.

As you are big on phrasing and terminology, often pointing out how important it is, I'll say it this way. The argument about abortion (non-religious) comes down to whether or not a fetus is considered a life. The key word, IMO, being "life". What determines what "life" is? that's the big question.

The abortion question goes beyond that...what is considered a human life...and perhaps an independent human life. I'm staying away from viable, for now. I'm not sure I'm okay with abortion just because a fetus can not survive on its own. I don't think anyone is arguing that all life is the same...lest they get the death penalty for sanitizing their hands. Likewise...no one is arguing that a fertilized egg is not a living cell.


Science tells us that life came from single cell organism. It wasn't breathing, it wasn't capable of sufficiently taking care of itself. Yet when they talk of "life" on other planets, they are often speaking of single cell organisms, bacteria, etc, being able to survive. So if we are to focus on the terminology, as you like to do, then a fetus is definitely "alive", and aborting it is taking that life.

yes...of course. A lot of things are "alive" that taking that life is not akin to murder of a human. What is not only considered "life"...but human life...and maybe even independent human life...or whatever the best term might be.

The inconsistency you seek in the life in outer space vs. abortion argument is not there.

Realize, too...that "fetus" is a certain point in development that starts sometime during the second trimester...taking the morning after pill does not kill, terminate or otherwise to a fetus, since it is not a fetus yet.

No one in suggesting that the cells are not living cells and if found on another planet would be considered the discovery of life. This does not place them on the same plane as an independent living human.

We also could not argue that they are not human...because they clearly are human cells. So, there must be some more qualifiers. Which maybe some would say is more "PC language" games...but if you are horseplaying with your buddy and accidently scratch his arm...you clearly killed some livings cells, which are human...but no serious person would call this a "murder of a human being"


What I have a hard time understanding is how they determine a "cut-off" point for abortion. What makes it ok at 2 months but not at 6 months or 9 months?

The exact "cut-off" and why is a difficult question. As I've stated, for me personally, I believe there is one, though I could not clearly define it nor explain why the day before is different than the day after...if ever I was in a position to need to make that choice for real, it would take some serious soul-searching. It being such a difficult question, I can not claim the authority to make such a difficult decision for other people and compel them to comply.

If someone were to get an abortion, me personally, I have little problem with it if done within the first couple weeks. Defintely a problem with it in the 20s of weeks...where in between the line is, I'm not sure.


As far as the morning after "Plan B" (plan A for most, of course) pill, I have more of a problem with the social side of that then the abortion related issue. To me, it's about lack of responsibility and making good decisions, but that's just my personal opinion...right or wrong.

I'm not in the dating scene anymore, but, I don't think too many people use it as their plan A. It's not recommended as such and is not as effective as other contraception.

Rainmaker
01-29-2015, 03:36 PM
Ok, I warned you Bitchez. But, Before we go down this road. Let's start with Rainmaker is not God and so fortunately he is no man's judge.

But, My personal opinion is that if people want to practice abortion as form of birth control, than the state should not force others that consider it to be infanticide to pay for it.

As for the Biblical verse you're looking for Weatherman it's Exodus 21:22-24

"If men who are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." New International Version

The problem is When does it become murder? This is a difficult question. If you punch a woman in the stomach and she loses the baby, but is otherwise not harmed is that a serious injury? and when does that become a murder to the expecting Parents? 5 days? 5 weeks? 5 months? 5 years?

Abortions are intentionally forced miscarriages. 24 weeks is the medical cutoff and at that point it's no longer "officially" considered a miscarriage .

I'm not sure how much different a 24 week and 1 day old baby looks than a 24 week old baby. But, as someone who has held a stillborn baby (at 26 weeks) I am here to tell you that the baby (before he died) at that point anyway was as much a "human being" as the other 5 healthy children we were blessed by GOD to have that went to full term and lived.

And Of the 46 Million American abortions since, Roe V. Wade was forced on us by these Internationalist judges, how many of those do you think were actually rape victims? Talk about arguing the absurd. Once again. Thankfully, I am no man's judge.

Rainmaker
01-29-2015, 04:38 PM
I'm still waiting for a response.

It's a lost cause....Because, This is where these Libtards will always go next....

"But, what about all these Rape Victims!?"

So the Progressives would rather use our tax dollars to pay for abortions and then to import 30 Million 3 world immigrant indentured servants (with basically limited rights), than have 46 Million Naturally born American Citizens that can vote and actually demand representation from their government.

It has nothing to do with what's best for society. It's all a Globalist smoke screen. Kill off all the American Babies, that would want a living wage and replace them with cheaper labor that will be happy with peanuts.

SomeRandomGuy
01-29-2015, 05:18 PM
And this IS the argument. Let's take religion out of it so we can avoid that part of the conversation that will go nowhere. It comes down to whether a person feels that an unborn baby/fetus is a person or not. For those who feel that it is, then abortion and a 5 year old and a 30 year old are the same thing. For those who feel it's not, then it would seem absurd.

To call the argument "absurd" is kinda funny. It is THE ONLY argument that's NOT absurd, scientifically.


I don't think you can take religion out of this topic. Let's assume that tomorrow you decide to become an athiest. You no longer believe that things are wrong or immoral simply because god (whichever one you previously believe in) said so. At that point what do you base your morality on? Aren't we pretty much just left with the laws of nature at that point? You know, survival of the fittest, that type of thing?

If you beleive there is no universal higher being than you mostly just believe in the laws of nature and the laws of society. The laws of society are not binding in any way. These are simply laws we as a society decide are best for the group. They only exist so we can maintain order.

In nature, it isn't uncommon for a mother to kill her young even after it is born. She may do this for various reasons. One of them may be that she simply cannot provide for the offspring. This is really no different than abortion except it is happening after the offspring is born. In the human world we don't allow this because we as a society have deemed it immoral. We do allow the mother to kill it before that point. The cutoff for when an abortion is ok and not ok isn't really based on anything. These are societal laws and we can change them anytime we want as long as the majority will agree it's best for the entire group.

Without evoking religion, you can't give me a valid reason why murder is wrong. Sure, society has laws againstit, but those laws exist so we can maintain order. That is not to say that athiests don't believe murder is wrong. They just believe it's wrong for a different reason. A christian will tell you that murder is wrong because god said so. An athiest will tell you murder is wrong because it hinders our societal goal to continue evolving.

When you ask about abortion, the athiest doesn't really see a fetus as a tangible life, so he has no problem ending that life. Even if he doesn't want to admit that is exaclty what he has done.

sandsjames
01-29-2015, 05:49 PM
I don't think you can take religion out of this topic. Let's assume that tomorrow you decide to become an athiest. You no longer believe that things are wrong or immoral simply because god (whichever one you previously believe in) said so. At that point what do you base your morality on? Aren't we pretty much just left with the laws of nature at that point? You know, survival of the fittest, that type of thing? I can take religion out of it. If this were a religious discussion, I'd be making completely different points about why it's right or wrong.



If you beleive there is no universal higher being than you mostly just believe in the laws of nature and the laws of society. The laws of society are not binding in any way. These are simply laws we as a society decide are best for the group. They only exist so we can maintain order. As are the laws of religion.


In nature, it isn't uncommon for a mother to kill her young even after it is born. She may do this for various reasons. One of them may be that she simply cannot provide for the offspring. This is really no different than abortion except it is happening after the offspring is born. In the human world we don't allow this because we as a society have deemed it immoral. We do allow the mother to kill it before that point. The cutoff for when an abortion is ok and not ok isn't really based on anything. These are societal laws and we can change them anytime we want as long as the majority will agree it's best for the entire group. In nature, it's normal for dogs to lick their balls and eat their own shit. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.


Without evoking religion, you can't give me a valid reason why murder is wrong. So an atheist can't be against murder? I'm sure there are a few who would disagree with this. Murder is wrong because it's taking another person's life from them. That seems pretty valid. You also impact the lives of everyone they knew. That's pretty valid.


A christian will tell you that murder is wrong because god said so. An athiest will tell you murder is wrong because it hinders our societal goal to continue evolving. So are you saying that the atheist reasoning for it being wrong isn't valid? And I disagree with your assessment of why a Christian would believe it's wrong. Christianity says it's wrong because God said so. A Christian, as I am, can believe it's wrong for many reasons, a couple of which I've already stated.


When you ask about abortion, the athiest doesn't really see a fetus as a tangible life, so he has no problem ending that life. Even if he doesn't want to admit that is exaclty what he has done.Again, I don't see this as an Atheist vs Christian thing. And yet I'm letting you suck me in to a religious debate while trying to avoid it. If your reasoning is correct, that means that there would be ZERO Atheist's who are anti-abortion. That's not even close to being true.

You're also missing the point as to why Christianity, as a whole, is anti-abortion. It's about the reason that life is brought to be, not whether or not it is a life. Two different things.

Either way, there are several non-religion based reasons to think that murder is wrong. If there's anything the people on the forum can agree with about, I feel pretty safe that this is one.

Measure Man
01-29-2015, 06:22 PM
I don't think you can take religion out of this topic. Let's assume that tomorrow you decide to become an athiest. You no longer believe that things are wrong or immoral simply because god (whichever one you previously believe in) said so.

..not simply because god said so...but that doesn't meant you no longer believe things are wrong.


At that point what do you base your morality on? Aren't we pretty much just left with the laws of nature at that point? You know, survival of the fittest, that type of thing?

No...atheists still have morality.


If you beleive there is no universal higher being than you mostly just believe in the laws of nature and the laws of society. The laws of society are not binding in any way. These are simply laws we as a society decide are best for the group. They only exist so we can maintain order.

I still believe lying, cheating, stealing are wrong...even if no one is watching. Even if there is zero chance of ever being caught or known.


In nature, it isn't uncommon for a mother to kill her young even after it is born. She may do this for various reasons. One of them may be that she simply cannot provide for the offspring. This is really no different than abortion except it is happening after the offspring is born. In the human world we don't allow this because we as a society have deemed it immoral. We do allow the mother to kill it before that point. The cutoff for when an abortion is ok and not ok isn't really based on anything. These are societal laws and we can change them anytime we want as long as the majority will agree it's best for the entire group.

Okay...I'm not sure that means they aren't based on anything, but okay. Maybe some people base it on viability...maybe some base it on when it starts to look like a baby human...or when the heart starts beating...or brain waves start.

I honestly don't know what the current laws are, but I'm sure they are based on something...though we might disagree with it.


Without evoking religion, you can't give me a valid reason why murder is wrong. Sure, society has laws againstit, but those laws exist so we can maintain order. That is not to say that athiests don't believe murder is wrong. They just believe it's wrong for a different reason. A christian will tell you that murder is wrong because god said so. An athiest will tell you murder is wrong because it hinders our societal goal to continue evolving.

...first you say without invoking religion there can be no valid reason murder is wrong...and then you go on to provide a reason. ???


When you ask about abortion, the athiest doesn't really see a fetus as a tangible life, so he has no problem ending that life.

This is completely false.


Even if he doesn't want to admit that is exaclty what he has done.

Many atheists oppose abortion. Many christians are pro-choice.

That you don't understand and/or represent atheism or atheists very well...is an understatement.

sandsjames
01-29-2015, 06:29 PM
That you don't understand and/or represent atheism or atheists very well...is an understatement. Right? Almost like those who claim to understand/represent Christianity when they aren't a part of it. Though I think this is the first time I've heard you refer to Atheism/Atheists as a collective.

SomeRandomGuy
01-29-2015, 06:39 PM
sandsjames and @MeasureMan I think you both missed my point. I probably didn't do a good job of communicating it. What I am saying is that without religion you cannot make a case for why it is wrong for me to murder you. Sure, it's against the laws of scoiety. It also isn't very nice, and I'm a nice person so I wouldn't murder you. Plus I think you deserve to live.

What if someone else wants to murder you though? Let's say they decide they want all of your stuff and they are going to come take it and kill you. Society says this is wrong and has laws against such a thing. What is the reasoning behind those laws though? Realistically those laws exist to maintain order. If I could simply come murder you and take your stuff no would would be safe anywhere and we couldn't organize as communities. So without using religion, if you asked me why murder is wrong I would say because it goes against the goal of society so we have made a law against it.

I'm not saying athiests are pro-murder. Most, in fact probably 99.9999% are against murder. Not because God told them it was wrong, but simply because they care about their fellow human being. For whatver reason, the majority of society has decided that a fetus under 20 weeks isn't important enough to care about. Some will say that fetus isn't a life, others will say it doesn't matter and that the mother decides if it is a life or not. As long as the majority of society has rationalized abortion being right it will continue to be legal. If at some point enough people in society care about the rights of unborn abortion would become illegal. To me, abortion being illegal or legal doesn't change what it is. What would have become a human life is being ended. The only disucssion to be had is whether we want to align the laws of society with the laws of God or the laws of nature.

SomeRandomGuy
01-29-2015, 06:47 PM
That you don't understand and/or represent atheism or atheists very well...is an understatement.


Right? Almost like those who claim to understand/represent Christianity when they aren't a part of it. Though I think this is the first time I've heard you refer to Atheism/Atheists as a collective.


For the record, I don't intend for my statements to represent athiests. I'm not sure there is a word to describe my theology or lack thereof. Quite honestly, I could sum it all up as, "I don't give a shit" I don't know if there is a God. There might be. There might not be. One of these days, most likely when I die, I will find out the answer to this question. For now, I'm happy just living my life and treating others how I want to be treated.

Rainmaker
01-29-2015, 06:53 PM
I don't think you can take religion out of this topic. Let's assume that tomorrow you decide to become an athiest. You no longer believe that things are wrong or immoral simply because god (whichever one you previously believe in) said so. At that point what do you base your morality on? Aren't we pretty much just left with the laws of nature at that point? You know, survival of the fittest, that type of thing?

If you beleive there is no universal higher being than you mostly just believe in the laws of nature and the laws of society. The laws of society are not binding in any way. These are simply laws we as a society decide are best for the group. They only exist so we can maintain order.

In nature, it isn't uncommon for a mother to kill her young even after it is born. She may do this for various reasons. One of them may be that she simply cannot provide for the offspring. This is really no different than abortion except it is happening after the offspring is born. In the human world we don't allow this because we as a society have deemed it immoral. We do allow the mother to kill it before that point. The cutoff for when an abortion is ok and not ok isn't really based on anything. These are societal laws and we can change them anytime we want as long as the majority will agree it's best for the entire group.

Without evoking religion, you can't give me a valid reason why murder is wrong. Sure, society has laws againstit, but those laws exist so we can maintain order. That is not to say that athiests don't believe murder is wrong. They just believe it's wrong for a different reason. A christian will tell you that murder is wrong because god said so. An athiest will tell you murder is wrong because it hinders our societal goal to continue evolving.

When you ask about abortion, the athiest doesn't really see a fetus as a tangible life, so he has no problem ending that life. Even if he doesn't want to admit that is exaclty what he has done.

Agree with most of what you say but, you lose me with this....

"These are societal laws and we can change them anytime we want as long as the majority will agree it's best for the entire group". No we can't. Not legally anyway. And not without consequence.

What you write here describes an Absolute Democracy (i.e. Mob rule). This is NOT what we were left with by the founders or what we supposed to have. We are supposed to have a Constitutional Republic ( guaranteed by Article 4 section 4).

I agree that we are in actual practice (for generations now) a Majority rule Democracy. But, that is unconstitutional (read illegal). There is a process to change the constitution. Simply ignoring it is against the law. The Natural Law (not to be confused with the Law of Nature)Which Comes from God and not from the society. That is why God has to be in the debate.

How has this been allowed to exist then you ask? In a word Greed. We have an economic system based on Usury. It is no coincidence that as soon as we went off the gold standard, we started killing our children and importing third world illegal aliens en masse.

Congress has abdicated its right to Coin money. The citizenry has allowed this to exist because they are bought off by the politicians with handouts. This only occurs because, the central bank allows them to print money backed by nothing and the politicians get to turn the Citizenry into debt slaves in exchange for their proverbial 30 shekels of silver.

America is nation currently under judgment. We got the harbinger and we planted a Sycamore tree of hope in its place... That tree is dead now too.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

We are sowing the wind by standing by for 2 generations and allowing 46 Million babies to be murdered just because, they would be an inconvenience to us. We have to turn back or We will reap the whirlwind Bitchez.

sandsjames
01-29-2015, 06:54 PM
sandsjames and @MeasureMan I think you both missed my point. I probably didn't do a good job of communicating it. What I am saying is that without religion you cannot make a case for why it is wrong for me to murder you. Sure, it's against the laws of scoiety. It also isn't very nice, and I'm a nice person so I wouldn't murder you. Plus I think you deserve to live. This still doesn't make sense to me. I apologize.


What if someone else wants to murder you though? Let's say they decide they want all of your stuff and they are going to come take it and kill you. Society says this is wrong and has laws against such a thing. What is the reasoning behind those laws though? Realistically those laws exist to maintain order. If I could simply come murder you and take your stuff no would would be safe anywhere and we couldn't organize as communities. So without using religion, if you asked me why murder is wrong I would say because it goes against the goal of society so we have made a law against it.Sounds valid to me.


I'm not saying athiests are pro-murder. Most, in fact probably 99.9999% are against murder. Not because God told them it was wrong, but simply because they care about their fellow human being. Again, sounds valid, without being a religious reason.


For whatver reason, the majority of society has decided that a fetus under 20 weeks isn't important enough to care about. Some will say that fetus isn't a life, others will say it doesn't matter and that the mother decides if it is a life or not. As long as the majority of society has rationalized abortion being right it will continue to be legal. If at some point enough people in society care about the rights of unborn abortion would become illegal. To me, abortion being illegal or legal doesn't change what it is. What would have become a human life is being ended. The only disucssion to be had is whether we want to align the laws of society with the laws of God or the laws of nature.Not sure what the difference is between the laws of God and the laws of nature. The laws of nature say that for humans to coexist successfully they need to follow some sort of structure that doesn't lead to mayhem. The laws of God are no different.

Rainmaker
01-29-2015, 06:57 PM
Laws of Nature are but one subset of the laws of God (The Alpha and the Omega)


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Natural+Law


"The influence of divine natural law pervaded the colonial period of U.S. law. In 1690 English philosopher John Locke wrote that all people are born with the inherent rights to life, liberty, and estate. These rights are not unlimited, Locke said, and may only be appropriated according to the fair share earned by the labor of each person. Gluttony and waste of individual liberty are not permitted, Locke argued, because "[n]othing is made by God for man to spoil or destroy." In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, borrowing from Locke, wrote that "all men are created equal … and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights


It's very confusing. Hope this helps.

sandsjames
01-29-2015, 07:38 PM
Laws of Nature are but one subset of the laws of God (The Alpha and the Omega)


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Natural+Law


"The influence of divine natural law pervaded the colonial period of U.S. law. In 1690 English philosopher John Locke wrote that all people are born with the inherent rights to life, liberty, and estate. These rights are not unlimited, Locke said, and may only be appropriated according to the fair share earned by the labor of each person. Gluttony and waste of individual liberty are not permitted, Locke argued, because "[n]othing is made by God for man to spoil or destroy." In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, borrowing from Locke, wrote that "all men are created equal … and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights


It's very confusing. Hope this helps.

Yes, he wrote that "all men are created equal..." while drinking a cup of tea made for him by one of his slaves.

Rainmaker
01-29-2015, 07:58 PM
For the record, I don't intend for my statements to represent athiests. I'm not sure there is a word to describe my theology or lack thereof. Quite honestly, I could sum it all up as, "I don't give a shit" I don't know if there is a God. There might be. There might not be. One of these days, most likely when I die, I will find out the answer to this question. For now, I'm happy just living my life and treating others how I want to be treated.

You're what's known as an Agnostic.

Measure Man
01-29-2015, 08:02 PM
Right? Almost like those who claim to understand/represent Christianity when they aren't a part of it. Though I think this is the first time I've heard you refer to Atheism/Atheists as a collective.


For the record, I don't intend for my statements to represent athiests. I'm not sure there is a word to describe my theology or lack thereof. Quite honestly, I could sum it all up as, "I don't give a shit" I don't know if there is a God. There might be. There might not be. One of these days, most likely when I die, I will find out the answer to this question. For now, I'm happy just living my life and treating others how I want to be treated.

I didn't mean to imply that you were speaking for Atheists. My use of the term "represent" was more of a synonym for "describe", not "to speak for"

Your description of atheists and what they believe is not an accurate depiction...is what I meant.

Being not a Christian myself, I wouldn't claim to represent (speak for) Christians...having been one formerly, I can sometimes represent (describe) their beliefs with some accuracy.

garhkal
01-29-2015, 08:15 PM
Yes, let's argue the absurd....which is why if you feel a woman should be allowed to take the morning after pill if she is raped...you should still allow her to kill a 5 yr old child that she discovers is the product of rape...because abortion and child murder is the same.

IMO the absurdity there is that any one would take that long to figure out that the kid they are carrying is a product of rape.

Measure Man
01-29-2015, 08:17 PM
sandsjames and @MeasureMan I think you both missed my point. I probably didn't do a good job of communicating it. What I am saying is that without religion you cannot make a case for why it is wrong for me to murder you. Sure, it's against the laws of scoiety. It also isn't very nice, and I'm a nice person so I wouldn't murder you. Plus I think you deserve to live.

Call it Laws of Nature, Human Nature, Natural Law...I dunno. I think it is human nature to determine that murder is morally wrong. How that came to be, I'm not sure...maybe it was an evolutionary neessity, a developed instinct, perhaps. I think we can all assume that it is a necessity for survival...

I believe that "Law" against murder predates the recording of it in the 10 commandments. I don't think Moses and Jews thought it was perfectly fine to murder each other until Moses brought back the 10 commandments from Mt Sinai...and then they're like "Oh, wow, yeah, that might make things more sensible around here...good tip, God."

It would take some research, but I'd bet 10 internet dollars that the vast majority of codes, laws, rules from people who have never heard of Judeo-Christian God, still have some kind of issue with murder.


What if someone else wants to murder you though? Let's say they decide they want all of your stuff and they are going to come take it and kill you. Society says this is wrong and has laws against such a thing. What is the reasoning behind those laws though? Realistically those laws exist to maintain order. If I could simply come murder you and take your stuff no would would be safe anywhere and we couldn't organize as communities. So without using religion, if you asked me why murder is wrong I would say because it goes against the goal of society so we have made a law against it.

Okay...once again you provide an answer where you say none is possible...I don't get what you're trying to say.


I'm not saying athiests are pro-murder. Most, in fact probably 99.9999% are against murder. Not because God told them it was wrong, but simply because they care about their fellow human being. For whatver reason, the majority of society has decided that a fetus under 20 weeks isn't important enough to care about. Some will say that fetus isn't a life, others will say it doesn't matter and that the mother decides if it is a life or not. As long as the majority of society has rationalized abortion being right it will continue to be legal. If at some point enough people in society care about the rights of unborn abortion would become illegal. To me, abortion being illegal or legal doesn't change what it is. What would have become a human life is being ended. The only disucssion to be had is whether we want to align the laws of society with the laws of God or the laws of nature.

Following...

This is also why I've said in the past that if the Christian community can not convince people from a moral standpoint that abortion is wrong...then simply banning it legislatively has not accomplished anything of spiritual value and has not brought "'Merica back to God" in any way.

BENDER56
01-29-2015, 08:22 PM
I'm not sure there is a word to describe my theology or lack thereof. Quite honestly, I could sum it all up as, "I don't give a shit" I don't know if there is a God. There might be. There might not be. One of these days, most likely when I die, I will find out the answer to this question. For now, I'm happy just living my life and treating others how I want to be treated.

Believe it or not, there is an -ism that might comprise your theological views and it isn't agnosticism as Rainmaker suggested. It's apatheism. Yes, that is a thing.

Check the link and see if you agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

sandsjames
01-29-2015, 08:25 PM
This is also why I've said in the past that if the Christian community can not convince people from a moral standpoint that abortion is wrong...then simply banning it legislatively has not accomplished anything of spiritual value and has not brought "'Merica back to God" in any way.

This is a great point, and one that is often overlooked by, for lack of a better term, right wing Christians. Forcing people to follow "God's Law" does not make the country any more Godly. In fact, it creates more rebellion and defeats the entire purpose.

Rainmaker
01-29-2015, 08:29 PM
Yes, he wrote that "all men are created equal..." while drinking a cup of tea made for him by one of his slaves.

Yes, This is true. The enlightenment wasn't an instant event. it took a 150+ years to unfold.

And the Constitution does not grant rights. it enumerates them. It only applies to the Citizens of the United States. Since, At the time slaves were considered his private property (which he inherited) and not men and therefore they were not covered (other than property rights). So, Does this somehow invalidate the Declaration of Independence and wisdom of the US Constitution then?

And By the way...not all of the founders were slave owners. Rainmaker's 5th great grandfather (a revolutionary war pensioner) had none. So, Tonight while you're watching Django Unchained from the comfort of your taxpayer funded lazy-boy, and smugly judging these Giants of History (who risked everything to give us everything we have) Try picking up a history book( preferably one written before 1965) and see what else you might find out.

Rainmaker
01-29-2015, 08:31 PM
This is a great point, and one that is often overlooked by, for lack of a better term, right wing Christians. Forcing people to follow "God's Law" does not make the country any more Godly. In fact, it creates more rebellion and defeats the entire purpose.

Part of "God's Law" is that acceptance of God (the being) can't be forced. It's what's known as free-will. ... But, the law (consequences) still can.

Measure Man
01-29-2015, 08:37 PM
This is a great point, and one that is often overlooked by, for lack of a better term, right wing Christians. Forcing people to follow "God's Law" does not make the country any more Godly. In fact, it creates more rebellion and defeats the entire purpose.

...and another thing.

Common Christian wisdom states that babies who die go to heaven by default.

So, all these millions of abortions are really saving souls, who, if born and lived to maturity, would probably have a better than average chance of winding up in Hell.

It's like when that Yates lunatic killed her 5 children...she was afraid that they would sin and fall short of heaven, so was doing them a favor by killing them while they were still young and untainted from the world and before they could mess up their salvation...I mean, if you believe that young children go to Heaven, you must admit she has a pretty good point.

For Andrea Yates so loved her children, that she gave up her one and only soul to perish forever so that they could live forever...seems like it might even be a greater love than God had for the World...He never sacrificed his own or his Son's eternal life...what's 3 days of suffering in the grand scheme of things?

Rainmaker
01-29-2015, 08:39 PM
...and another thing.

Common Christian wisdom states that babies who die go to heaven by default.

So, all these millions of abortions are really saving souls, who, if born and lived to maturity, would probably have a better than average chance of winding up in Hell.

It's like when that Yates lunatic killed her 5 children...she was afraid that they would sin and fall short of heaven, so was doing them a favor by killing them while they were still young and untainted from the world and before they could mess up their salvation...I mean, if you believe that young children go to Heaven, you must admit she has a pretty good point.

For Andrea Yates so loved her children, that she gave one and only soul to perish forever so that they could live forever...seems like it might even be a greater love than God had for the World...He never sacrificed his own or his Son's eternal life...what's 3 days of suffering in the grand scheme of things?

You're doing a good job carrying the water for ABS.

Rainmaker
01-29-2015, 08:50 PM
Believe it or not, there is an -ism that might comprise your theological views and it isn't agnosticism as Rainmaker suggested. It's apatheism. Yes, that is a thing.


Check the link and see if you agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Agree. Rainmaker stands corrected.

sandsjames
01-29-2015, 08:53 PM
So, Tonight while you're watching Django Unchained from the comfort of your taxpayer funded lazy-boy, and smugly judging these Giants of History (who gave us everything we have) Try picking up a history book, written before 1965 and see what you might find out.Never seen it, paid for my own lazy-boy, and it'll have to be my Encyclopedia Britannica. Should I look under "F" for founders or "H" for hypocrites?

sandsjames
01-29-2015, 08:59 PM
...and another thing.

Common Christian wisdom states that babies who die go to heaven by default.

So, all these millions of abortions are really saving souls, who, if born and lived to maturity, would probably have a better than average chance of winding up in Hell.

It's like when that Yates lunatic killed her 5 children...she was afraid that they would sin and fall short of heaven, so was doing them a favor by killing them while they were still young and untainted from the world and before they could mess up their salvation...I mean, if you believe that young children go to Heaven, you must admit she has a pretty good point. I have actually pondered this scenario several times before (not doing it myself, but the actions of others) even though I recognize the sarcasm.


For Andrea Yates so loved her children, that she gave up her one and only soul to perish forever so that they could live forever...seems like it might even be a greater love than God had for the World...He never sacrificed his own or his Son's eternal life...what's 3 days of suffering in the grand scheme of things? It's kind of like the "go back and kill Hitler when he was a child" thing. Do the ends justify the means? Not my responsibility to judge.

Rainmaker
01-29-2015, 09:05 PM
Never seen it, paid for my own lazy-boy, and it'll have to be my Encyclopedia Britannica. Should I look under "F" for founders or "H" for hypocrites?

Were Rainmaker comes from They taught us that The H stands for Heroic. You been sniffing Feinstein's cunt too long out there in the People's Republic of Commifornia.

Measure Man
01-29-2015, 09:06 PM
I have actually pondered this scenario several times before (not doing it myself, but the actions of others) even though I recognize the sarcasm.

...not really sarcasm. I mean, I don't personally believe in eternal life...but if someone does, and that someone also believes that babies go to heaven if they die...how can you be against killing babies...I mean, in the big picture, aren't you doing them a huge favor in the long run?

also, makes me wonder if all the babies God killed in the OT went to heaven?


It's kind of like the "go back and kill Hitler when he was a child" thing. Do the ends justify the means? Not my responsibility to judge.

Do we really want Hitler in heaven though?

Maybe we aborted someone worse already...doing us and him a huge favor.

sandsjames
01-29-2015, 09:22 PM
Were Rainmaker comes from They taught us that The H stands for Heroic. You been sniffing Feinstein's cunt too long out there in the People's Republic of Commifornia.I live in Texas.

sandsjames
01-29-2015, 09:28 PM
...not really sarcasm. I mean, I don't personally believe in eternal life...but if someone does, and that someone also believes that babies go to heaven if they die...how can you be against killing babies...I mean, in the big picture, aren't you doing them a huge favor in the long run? Who knows? We don't know the outcome if they had lived. Maybe they would have been psychopaths...maybe they would have been the ones who cured cancer, helped create world peace, etc.


also, makes me wonder if all the babies God killed in the OT went to heaven? And this is why I was trying to avoid turning this into a religion debate...because of the standard jab like this one.




Do we really want Hitler in heaven though? We'll never know.


Maybe we aborted someone worse already...doing us and him a huge favor.It's very possible. Again, we'll never know. Maybe Hitler wasn't as bad as someone else in his position. Maybe that guy creates the Nuke first and uses it on the rest of the world. Or, maybe that guy never gets us in that position. Would you want a "Minority Report" legal system?

BENDER56
01-29-2015, 09:46 PM
It's kind of like the "go back and kill Hitler when he was a child" thing.

"Take it easy on the kid, SilverFox316; everybody kills Hitler on their first trip."

Measure Man
01-29-2015, 09:56 PM
Would you want a "Minority Report" legal system?

Never saw that.

Measure Man
01-29-2015, 10:03 PM
Who knows? We don't know the outcome if they had lived. Maybe they would have been psychopaths...maybe they would have been the ones who cured cancer, helped create world peace, etc.

Maybe...but who would really care what they would be on this earth in this lifetime?

If we're dealing with eternal life questions here...whether they cured cancer or created world peace in the teeny tiny little stretch of time that is his/her life on earth is so incredibly negligible in the grand scheme as to render its importance completely irrelevant.

You don't get to heaven by accomplishing great things on Earth.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36)

sandsjames
01-30-2015, 12:28 AM
You don't get to heaven by accomplishing great things on Earth.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36)

Wrong...you only get to Heaven by accomplishing great things on Earth. Unfortunately, "great things" to most people now means making a lot of money and having a lot of stuff.

edit: To avoid an irrelevant point about aborted babies not doing great stuff on Earth, I'm referring to those who actually have a chance to do so.

And I'm done with this conversation, as I knew this is exactly where getting into the religious side of things on this topic would lead us to this point/counter point situation.

Measure Man
01-30-2015, 12:34 AM
Wrong...you only get to Heaven by accomplishing great things on Earth. Unfortunately, "great things" to most people now means making a lot of money and having a lot of stuff.

Hmmmm...I thought, "saved by grace, not of your own doing"...and all that.


edit: To avoid an irrelevant point about aborted babies not doing great stuff on Earth, I'm referring to those who actually have a chance to do so.

And I'm done with this conversation, as I knew this is exactly where getting into the religious side of things on this topic would lead us to this point/counter point situation.

Okay.

Rainmaker
01-30-2015, 01:32 AM
I live in Texas.

Texas! Holy Dogshit! The only thing from Texas are Steers and Queers..

Rainmaker
01-30-2015, 01:53 AM
Wrong...you only get to Heaven by accomplishing great things on Earth. Unfortunately, "great things" to most people now means making a lot of money and having a lot of stuff.

edit: To avoid an irrelevant point about aborted babies not doing great stuff on Earth, I'm referring to those who actually have a chance to do so.

And I'm done with this conversation, as I knew this is exactly where getting into the religious side of things on this topic would lead us to this point/counter point situation.

Don't let the Ersatz Secular Cultural Marxists get to you SJ. This is part of the big lie. That we have to have 46 Million of our own Children murdered and then pay for the privilege of having them replaced with a foreign colonization of 30 Million slaves all to maximize profits for the Rothschilds.

Rollyn01
01-30-2015, 06:55 PM
I live in Texas.

Don't you mean the Republic of Texas? You guys and your "I can succeed the Union anytime I want" rules. I tell you, these Texans are out of there minds sometimes...

sandsjames
01-30-2015, 07:25 PM
Don't you mean the Republic of Texas? You guys and your "I can succeed the Union anytime I want" rules. I tell you, these Texans are out of there minds sometimes...

Luckily, I'm not a Texan. I'm a Californian.

Measure Man
01-30-2015, 07:29 PM
Don't you mean the Republic of Texas? You guys and your "I can succeed the Union anytime I want" rules. I tell you, these Texans are out of there minds sometimes...

Secede...

...or was that on purpose?

Rollyn01
01-31-2015, 03:22 PM
Secede...

...or was that on purpose?

I would have corrected it, but every time I go to there, that seems to be the vibe I get from them... and it's funnier. Although, many of the Texans I meet tend to be nice people.

Rusty Jones
02-02-2015, 03:37 PM
Don't you mean the Republic of Texas? You guys and your "I can succeed the Union anytime I want" rules. I tell you, these Texans are out of there minds sometimes...

Which is a lie. Texas cannot secede. They tried before, just like alot of other states, and look what happened. What IS true, is that they can fly their state flag at the same height as the US flag. You know something else? All other 49 states can do it too!

The only thing "unique" about Texas is that they can split into smaller states if they want to. However, if they did it, they wouldn't be the first. Far from it. "Virginia" was once Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky. "Carolina" was once both Carolinas and Tennessee. "Dakota" was once one state. There are numerous other examples.

Rusty Jones
02-02-2015, 03:48 PM
Whoa...slow down Folks, We only have like 5 days left untill AA and Rusty nutz get out the virtual MTF Gulag. So, Rainmaker recommend peeps hold off till then, before we get back in to the never ending circular debate of whether abortion is just a secular, scientific, termination of a fetus with a high dose of Estrogen or If it's The Hidden Holocaust, of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ's unborn Children by those Communist, Luciferian, Self-hating, masturbating-homicidal lunatics. We've already lost too many Posters Gnomsayin?...

Personally, I really don't give two shits about the definition of a human life. It's all semantics, nothing more. If it was up to me, states would only be able to make aborition legal if father's cannot be ordered to pay child support. If a woman can terminate her responsibilities just because she wants to, a man should be able to do the same.

But I know that will never happen.

Rollyn01
02-02-2015, 04:19 PM
Which is a lie. Texas cannot secede. They tried before, just like alot of other states, and look what happened. What IS true, is that they can fly their state flag at the same height as the US flag. You know something else? All other 49 states can do it too!

The only thing "unique" about Texas is that they can split into smaller states if they want to. However, if they did it, they wouldn't be the first. Far from it. "Virginia" was once Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky. "Carolina" was once both Carolinas and Tennessee. "Dakota" was once one state. There are numerous other examples.

Fresh out of ban jail... he's already kicking down doors and shooting at anything that moves. Glad to see that ban camp hasn't dull you any. Welcome back to the land of the living.

Rollyn01
02-02-2015, 05:40 PM
Personally, I really don't give two shits about the definition of a human life. It's all semantics, nothing more. If it was up to me, states would only be able to make aborition legal if father's cannot be ordered to pay child support. If a woman can terminate her responsibilities just because she wants to, a man should be able to do the same.

But I know that will never happen.

Oddly enough, that actually sounds like a fair compromise. Not that many people would see it that way due to the resources a woman would have to go through bringing a child to term (which is drawn from her own body).

Rainmaker
02-02-2015, 06:05 PM
Fresh out of ban jail... he's already kicking down doors and shooting at anything that moves. Glad to see that ban camp hasn't dull you any. Welcome back to the land of the living.

Don't Fuck with em. Rusty prolly a little salty from that White QB winning the super-bowl lass night. Gotta love the NWA avatar.Thug Life coming Straight from the undergrount. Nomsayin.

Rusty Jones
02-02-2015, 06:16 PM
Don't Fuck with em. Rusty prolly a little salty from that White QB winning the super-bowl lass night. Gotta love the NWA avatar.Thug Life coming Straight from the undergrount. Nomsayin.

Uh... whaaat?

Rainmaker
02-02-2015, 06:31 PM
Uh... whaaat?

Diggin' the scene with the gangsta lean....

SomeRandomGuy
02-02-2015, 06:36 PM
Personally, I really don't give two shits about the definition of a human life. It's all semantics, nothing more. If it was up to me, states would only be able to make aborition legal if father's cannot be ordered to pay child support. If a woman can terminate her responsibilities just because she wants to, a man should be able to do the same.

But I know that will never happen.

Interesting....So, the man would just fill out paperwork saying he is "aborting" his child? At that point, if the woman carries it to term (her choice of course), she is the mother but the child has no father? Wouldn't it be weird having people walking around who as far as the state is concerned have no father? I imagine it would put a human face on abortion. I also have to imagine the amount of children aborted by their fathers would be far higher than the number that have been aborted by their mothers.

You do bring up an interesting point though Rusty. If abortion isn't an option for fathers maybe we could allow adoption. "I don't want to support my child, would anyone else like to? If you pay child support you can legally become his father and even get visitation/custody rights"

BENDER56
02-02-2015, 10:57 PM
Diggin' the scene with the gangsta lean....

Be thankful for what you got.

Rusty Jones
02-03-2015, 01:33 PM
I also have to imagine the amount of children aborted by their fathers would be far higher than the number that have been aborted by their mothers.

I doubt it. I'm willing to bet that if the man financially aborts the child then, more often than not, the woman is going to ahead and abort the child herself.

sandsjames
02-03-2015, 02:26 PM
I doubt it. I'm willing to bet that if the man financially aborts the child then, more often than not, the woman is going to ahead and abort the child herself.

I think the overall abortion rate would drop, as would the pregnancy rate. Women would be much more careful when they can't milk the guy for 18 years of paycheck.

SomeRandomGuy
02-03-2015, 02:53 PM
I think the overall abortion rate would drop, as would the pregnancy rate. Women would be much more careful when they can't milk the guy for 18 years of paycheck.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm assuming the abortion rate and pregnancy rates you are talking about are those for women who are not married to the father. In those cases, I bet 95% of the time the woman wasn't thinking, "I'm going to get pregnant and trap this guy. I can get 18 years of child support". Most of the time these pregnancies are accidents. I don't think that changing the consequences of an accident will automatically make people think about the decision ahead of time.

Just look at this dude who has 34 kids with 17 different women. I highly doubt women 10-17 were thinking, I hope I get pregnant with this guy's kid. That's 18 years of child support.

http://thegrio.com/2014/10/15/iyanla-vanzant-father-34-children-daughter-letter/

Rusty Jones
02-03-2015, 08:40 PM
I'm not so sure about that. I'm assuming the abortion rate and pregnancy rates you are talking about are those for women who are not married to the father. In those cases, I bet 95% of the time the woman wasn't thinking, "I'm going to get pregnant and trap this guy. I can get 18 years of child support". Most of the time these pregnancies are accidents. I don't think that changing the consequences of an accident will automatically make people think about the decision ahead of time.

Regardless of whether or not it's an accident, the legalization of financial abortion for men will still affect a woman's decision whether or not terminate the pregnancy.


Just look at this dude who has 34 kids with 17 different women. I highly doubt women 10-17 were thinking, I hope I get pregnant with this guy's kid. That's 18 years of child support.

http://thegrio.com/2014/10/15/iyanla-vanzant-father-34-children-daughter-letter/

You're assuming that these women all knew about each other at the time.

USN - Retired
02-04-2015, 02:00 AM
Regardless of whether or not it's an accident, the legalization of financial abortion for men will still affect a woman's decision whether or not terminate the pregnancy.

Legalization of "financial abortion for men" is a great idea that will never happen.

When it comes to paying child support, men will probably never be treated fairly...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/michigan-man-faces-jail-over-child-support-even-though-dna-tests-prove-hes-not-the-father/

Rainmaker
02-04-2015, 03:54 PM
Interesting....So, the man would just fill out paperwork saying he is "aborting" his child? At that point, if the woman carries it to term (her choice of course), she is the mother but the child has no father? Wouldn't it be weird having people walking around who as far as the state is concerned have no father? I imagine it would put a human face on abortion. I also have to imagine the amount of children aborted by their fathers would be far higher than the number that have been aborted by their mothers.

You do bring up an interesting point though Rusty. If abortion isn't an option for fathers maybe we could allow adoption. "I don't want to support my child, would anyone else like to? If you pay child support you can legally become his father and even get visitation/custody rights"

"I don't want to support my child, would anyone else like to?

We already have this with the Socialist Welfare state we have now. Take away Welfare and a lot of this goes away. Abortion on demand is a part of the Communist agenda to destroy the Family.

This Government doesn't value Fatherhood. This Government has replaced the Father with the Welfare state. This Government considers a Child the property of the Mother and the Father is only required to partially fund them, with everyone else picking up the balance of the tab.

What kind of Irresponsible piece of Shit wants to abort or will abandon his own child?

If a Father wants to parent his child then, the mother should be forced to Carry it to term and then hand over custody to the Father.

WILDJOKER5
04-25-2016, 01:27 PM
"I don't want to support my child, would anyone else like to?

We already have this with the Socialist Welfare state we have now. Take away Welfare and a lot of this goes away. Abortion on demand is a part of the Communist agenda to destroy the Family.

This Government doesn't value Fatherhood. This Government has replaced the Father with the Welfare state. This Government considers a Child the property of the Mother and the Father is only required to partially fund them, with everyone else picking up the balance of the tab.

What kind of Irresponsible piece of Shit wants to abort or will abandon his own child?

If a Father wants to parent his child then, the mother should be forced to Carry it to term and then hand over custody to the Father.I don't think women are in their right mind to make a decision like abortion since the baby is already screwing with her hormones which control her thought processes. We treat women for post partum depression and kills the baby in the crib, don't you think that same hormone imbalance isn't going on when a woman wants to end the life of her baby in utero? Another example of the left being anti-science.

garhkal
04-25-2016, 05:10 PM
I don't think women are in their right mind to make a decision like abortion since the baby is already screwing with her hormones which control her thought processes. We treat women for post partum depression and kills the baby in the crib, don't you think that same hormone imbalance isn't going on when a woman wants to end the life of her baby in utero? Another example of the left being anti-science.

Never thought of that angle there WJ.. I agree in part, that women's hormones are imbalanced all to heck when in pregnancy (see all their weird eating habits), but whether that means they are not of sound mind and judgement to make a consent or not i don't know.