Parents Throwing Babies In Front Of Cars/You Cannot Survive Without My Body

[mixedmedia]

I think that you're equating accepting an idea with accepting the person who holds that idea, when you should not be associating the two (which narrows down one thing that drives me crazy about liberals :lol: ).

That's funny, because I could have sworn that was what you were doing.

I have no problem accepting those who hold different opinions than I do. They are people and have the same rights that I do, regardless of their opinions. However, I will not pretend to support their holding of those opinions. This does not mean that I am opposed to them, personally, just their ideas.

And so you support them holding those ideas you are opposed to? Or is it that you only supporting them now, or patronizing their existence rather, in the interim before they are coerced into submission by legislation from the right.

I think you will find that anyone who considers the killing of animals to be murder will, indeed, be opposed to these things.

Um, no, I have met vegans who are quite passive when it comes to the rights of those who choose to eat meat.

Whether or not it is consistent with people's "feelings" is irrelevant. Could you honestly tell me that someone who is pro-choice on rape is not pro-rape?

If rape were legal? Then yes, but it is not so it doesn't make a good analogy. I think my vegan one is more accurate, but you are free to propose any other act which is currently legal but controversial.

To begin with, people are sentient from the late embryonic stage, which is irrelevant to whether or not killing someone is murder.

As you must know, by far most abortions are performed within the first trimester.

Secondly, you are looking at abortion from the perpetrator's point of view to say that it's done willingly, while looking at rape from the victim's point of view to say that it's "inflicted" on an individual. I could just as easily turn that around and say that all rapes are performed willingly on a victim who may be drugged and/or unconscious, while abortion is a lethal and equally traumatic experience inflicted on the most helpless individuals known to humanity.

You lost me there with the drugged and unconscious bit, but I do understand where you are coming from. And I foresaw it coming when I wrote it.

Yes, abortion involves two people, at least just two directly. And perhaps it is indicative of people's ignorance and/or shallowness, but unless you are intently opposed to abortion for religious reasons, most people have more dire concerns for the folks who are walking around in their lives every day. People that they can relate to and empathize with because of blood or friendship or similarities. Thus my reference to people's feelings and the scenario of a father's concern for his daughter regarding two scenarios they might be confronted with.

I understand that, when confronted with death, most people will fight to survive and if able to speak for themselves, unborn children would have the same concerns about self-preservation that we all have. I believe that abortion is wrong and that our society will be healthier if we can make it a part of our history. So there, that is how I feel, if you can remember way back to my first contribution to this thread. That said, we have vastly different views about tolerance for the people who, feel differently than I do. I guess because I have been there. Because I am a woman who has felt the fear and despair of an unexpected pregnancy under prohibitive circumstances. Because I am a liberal humanist living in a conservative age.

The fact is that both rape and abortion are terrible violations of a person's rights and one cannot support the legality of either without supporting the practices themselves.

Well, all this started because I quibbled about the term pro-abortion. Which was ironic, because I started that post with a little hand-slap to you for your quibbling about the word "living." I thought for sure I was gonna get called for that and be done with it....little did I know.
Yes, rape and abortion are violations of a person's rights. SO ARE OTHER TERRIBLE THINGS WHICH I WILL NOT MENTION HERE IN ORDER NOT TO GO OFF TOPIC. But some people support those things.

The average father that I know, regardless of "religious aversions," would consider each to be serious crimes, but I guess that all depends on where one lives.

Where are you, Texas I think? Well guess what, there's a whole big world out there where many, many people live and feel and think differently than those you know. I lived in Texas-lite for a couple of years, Louisiana, I know from whence I speak. They are very insular societies.

In terms of the kind of people that they are, not all rapists and murderers are in the same social strata. However, their acts are definitely in the same "strata."

Touche. You are right about that, rapists and murderers not being in the same strata, I mean. I lacked a more appropriate word at the time. Would it really hurt to admit that most women who have abortions are not out to intentionally hurt someone for their own pleasure?
Going OT to address your earlier question about American soldiers being murderers, I do not think our soldiers are murderers. At least not most of them, I have no doubt that some of them are. I do think that those who make decisions, such as the decision to bomb an apartment building full of innocent civilians in order to get one guy on our hit list, as we did in Baghdad during shock and awe, have committed murder. Not the guys in the plane who are LEGALLY following orders. I could go much further into my thoughts about this on another thread.

Uh, why, exactly?

Because the streets are crawling with murderous womenfolk.

No, I don't see how I'm dodging the question. In the middle of a paragraph equating conventional war with terrorism, you asked if I would prefer "to lose the unborn child of a loved one to a bomb or an abortion." I wouldn't want to lose the child of a loved one to either one, as both carry the same result. This is why our war against terrorism and the fight against abortion is necessary.

I wasn't referring specifically to terrorism when I wrote that. I meant any kind of bomb regardless of whose markings it carries. My point is that whether an unborn child is killed by a bomb or an abortion doctor, the moral consequences for the world are the same. And you should perhaps know at this juncture that I believe in the brotherhood of man and in the interconnectedness of our thoughts and actions. I believe that when a women is raped in Sudan, or a suicide bomber blows up a bus in Haifa or a child is aborted here in Orlando, these acts hold consequences for us all. And no, I am not a Christian, at least not in an established sense. I do believe that Jesus was a rare and gifted individual with a true insight into truths not evident to most of us. It is not imperative to me to give it a name.

The commandment actually says (in modern English) "thou shalt not murder." Furthermore, there are numerous passages from the same book (Exodus) and others throughout the Old Testament where God specifically orders certain people to be killed for their actions, as well as passages that list situations where a person will not be punished for killing (such as self-defense and the defense of others). There are even parts where God orders His people (the Israelites) to go to war and blesses them in it. So, to answer the question of whether it does justice to the Ten Commandments, I would say yes.

It's not exactly fine print, but you can find it all over the Old Testament.

Since you are obviously educated about the teachings of the Bible, can you find me some examples from the New Testament? Some examples of Jesus supporting the necessity of killing some of the people, some of the time?

I would be happy to mail you a Bible if you want.

I already have one. Thanks though.

Yes, you have most certainly failed. And, no, my screenname does not "beg" to be attacked. Attacking one's screenname is usually a sign of immaturity that I would not associate with someone who can write as well as you can.

That's funny I don't feel like I failed. Hmmmm...
You haved named yourself after a tool of death - an axe that was invented for no practical purpose other than lopping off heads and extremities so you might want to slow down before you start calling people immature. I have an exuberant sense of humor. Lighten up.

Maybe you should think more. (Sorry, you set yourself up for that one.)

I was being facetious.

Yet another blanket statement about conservatives. I don't speak for every single conservative. I only speak for me and those who I know well enough and I don't make such blanket statements.

However, their acts are definitely in the same "strata."

Ummm.....isn't that a blanket statement?

I disagree with your opinions. What exactly is the problem with that?

No problem, dude, just conversing. But can you tell me what the problem is with opposing state-sanctioned killing, no matter who is being killed? Conservatives seem to have a real problem with extending the precious right of life to those who are already breathing,

So it's un-human to be confident about what one says? In order to act human, I must be unsure of what I'm saying? Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

No, dude. Just that it is human to reflect on your own feelings and opinions and to question them even. It is what feeds the human mind.

 

[mixedmedia]

BTW, I'd like to have your ideas on what we do to make abortion obsolete. What are your thoughts on birth control?

 

[mixedmedia]

Oh okay, I just now understand your drugged/unconscious rape reference. As to say that the unsentience of the fetus implies complicity. Okay. I understand. Duh.

 

[battleax86]

Well, technically that would be possible. Being supportive of a person's right to chose some action doesn't mean that you are promoting the action.

Yes, you are. If you did not support rape, you would not want it to be legal.

An outright falsehood. I wonder what prolife lie-site you got that from? The Thalamocortical tract doesn't connect until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, which is MANY MONTHS after the embryonic stage transitions into the fetal stage. And sentience simply isn't physically possible until then.

No, sir, your statement is an outright falsehood (and a hypocritical one at that). To begin with, you have said in another forum that this tract does not connect until the 24th week. Furthermore, the connection of the thalamocortical tract is not necessary for sentience. Some scientists believe that it is necessary to feel pain (an assertion which is still in doubt). However, it has been proven that embryos are capable of movement and conscious reaction to stimuli at around seven and a half weeks of gestation, about three and half months before the time you claim that consciousness begins. You know, for someone who claims to be so well informed and readily accuses pro-life advocates of lying, you don't really seem to know what you're talking about. To borrow a phrase:

Please don't make such claims before actually checking them. Then we can avoid these many episodes where I need to correct your blatantly false claims

Hmm, is it possible to "murder" something that isn't sentient?

To begin with, most abortions are performed between the eighth and twelfth weeks of pregnancy, when the child is, indeed, sentient. Secondly, yes, it is possible to murder someone who is not sentient. Sentience is not required to be a human individual.

After all, "murder" is the illegal killing of a person.

It is also defined as any wanton slaughter, meaning unjustified killing.

So there is a point to that. Ah, prolife revisionist linguistic hate speak.

Translation: Dammit, he's using facts and the definitions of words to prove his point. I can't counter with any facts or logic, so I'll just accuse him of using revisionist linguistic hate speak.

Army-of-God uses such tricks all the time. Are you from Army-of-God?

Translation: I still can't disprove what he's saying, so I'll try to imply that he's a terrorist.

But that would be a lie, as the mebryo is not an individual to begin with.
The embryo is not a person.

An embryo is, indeed, both an individual and, therefore, a person. The child's unique DNA and bodily systems constitute a biological individuality. That individuality makes the embryo a person.

You are outright lying, spewing deceptive sophistry. Is the PL position so weak and indefensible that it needs to be propped up with such outright lies?

Really, you would get further in debates if your arguments were based on actual facts, not just false accusations of pro-life dishonesty.

(Yeah, well. That was a rhetorical question, in case you wondered.)

No s**t, Sherlock. :2razz:

Well, if all your friends are rabid prolifer Army-of-God fundies, then they likely would find the abortion to be worse than having their daughter re-traumatized every day from the rape-induced pregnancy that he won't let her get rid off.

Yes, anyone who considers the murder of an innocent human being to be worse than their daughter carrying a rape-induced pregnancy must be a terrorist. :roll:

So let a few of the little girls commit suicide instead. As long as they don't have an abortion, what does a prolifer care?

Do you have any real-life example of a raped girl committing suicide because she couldn't get an abortion? If not, then STFU.

But what you so cowardly ran from was your indication that the woman who abort is no different than the rapists and murderers. Your cowards retreat here, can that be taken as you agreeing that you were wrong, that these women are NOT akin to rapists and murderers?

Cowards are people who reflexively accuse the people they disagree with of lying without using any facts to support their accusations. I didn't "run" from anything. My point was that while the personality of a woman who commits an abortion might or might not be the same as your stereotypical rapist or murderer, there actions are on the same level. Hell, not even all rapists and murderers fit the stereotypical personality type.

Ah, so if a loved one seeks an abortion, then you will fight abortions to prevent her from having one. Talk about wanting to control women's bodies. SHEESH!

Once again, this is not about controlling women's bodies. It's about preventing them from killing other human bodies.

And there are passages there, where the fetus is described as merely a thing and not a person, which contradicts your earlier claim.

Where, exactly? The first chapters of Jeremiah and Luke describe the unborn as persons.

So are you one of those who picks God's word when it fits your politics and rejects it when it goes against your fundie misogynistic goal of oppressing women?

Do you even follow God's Word?

Such blasphemous behavior is what we saw in the Pharisee. Are you a Pharisee?

Seriously, boy, do a little research on the Pharisees before you accuse me of being one. :lol:

And God even instructs to cut open pregnant women. The prolifers kind of frown on that, right? So are you against God?

Please show me the verse where God instructs people to cut open pregnant women.

So I can't be supporting the idea of heart bypass surgery without supporting people getting the surgery, without being pro-surgery?

Exactly. If you support the idea of heart bypass surgery for people who need it, then you are supporting the practice itself.

The libertarians are officially pro-choice. Hmm....

And I disagree with them in that. However, I agree with them on some things (more than I do the Democrats) and the Republicans on most everything else. So, if the Democrats disappeared tomorrow, temporarily leaving the Republicans as the only party until the Libertarians could drum up enough support, then I wouldn't have any problem with it.

Ah, yes. Then we can get rid of the pseudo-republican Democratic Party and get a real Social-Democrat party in its place. Or perhaps a real Socialist party?

We've already got a Socialist Party. I don't think it has much of a future. :wink:

mixedmedia, I'll get to your posts later on. You're the one person here on the other side who is actually capable of having a civil discussion.

 

[vergiss]

To begin with, most abortions are performed between the eighth and twelfth weeks of pregnancy, when the child is, indeed, sentient. Secondly, yes, it is possible to murder someone who is not sentient. Sentience is not required to be a human individual.

Firstly, what sources can you provide to prove that foetuses are sentient by the 8th week of pregnancy? I must have been a bloody slow developer, because I know I didn't float around in the womb thinking "Geez, it's dark in here." :lol:

Secondly, if sentience is not required to make it murder, what is? Human DNA? Let's not forget that primates share 98 percent of their DNA with humans. Even mice share 80 percent. Is killing mice, which obviously aren't sentient but share most of our DNA, murder as well?

 

[mixedmedia]

mixedmedia, I'll get to your posts later on. You're the one person here on the other side who is actually capable of having a civil discussion.

Well it's a "hot" issue. Folks get all riled up and I understand why. But, I see hypocrisies on both sides. And I see stubbornness and quibbling. And I see people trying to "own" the issue when really its about women, and girls, who don't have freedom over their bodies. Which in thinking about this issue, a lot!, has led me to believe that we need to modernize and re-think our systems for providing sex education and birth control. To give women real control over their reproductive systems - what the fight has really been about for pro-choicers all along anyway.

My personal feeling is that if we want to have a truly more civilized society, we should come up with alternatives to some of our more barbaric, for lack of a better word this morning, habits. Thus the equanimity of my feelings regarding, abortion, war and the death penalty. And to go even further, how we regard the lives of the animals we consume.

 

[vergiss]

And yet, most anti-choicers are against sex education at the same time. :roll:

 

[steen]

prolife false claims

Yes, you are. If you did not support rape, you would not want it to be legal.

Supporting peoples right to have access to a procedure doesn’t mean that you support the procedure. It means that you don't want to impose on their choices.

No, sir, your statement is an outright falsehood (and a hypocritical one at that).

Nope.

To begin with, you have said in http://www.prochoicetalk.com/message-board-forum/post-42742.html that this tract does not connect until the 24th week.

What I said, had you actually read it carefully, was this:
Nope. It is POTENTIALLY possible for the fetus to feel ANYTHING AT ALL at the end of the 24th week after conception, when the thalamocortical tract connects the thalamus with the cortex where all sensation is processed.
24th week after conception is the 26th week of pregnancy. Didn’t you know that? Your accusation is false.

Furthermore, the connection of the thalamocortical tract is not necessary for sentience.

It is necessary for sensation. And without sensation, there is no possibility for distinguishing between yourself and surroundings, and thus no ability for an “I” And without a sense of “I,” there is no sentience.

Some scientists believe that it is necessary to feel pain (an assertion which is still in doubt).

Nope, it is not in doubt. It is being challenged politically by some PL, who have realized that they can’t push their lies about fetal pain as long as that fact stands. Political opposition to a biological fact doesn’t change the biological fact.

However, it has been proven that embryos are capable of movement and conscious reaction to stimuli at around seven and a half weeks of gestation, about three and half months before the time you claim that consciousness begins.

Another PL lie. The reaction is a reflex, not a conscious reaction.

You know, for someone who claims to be so well informed and readily accuses pro-life advocates of lying, you don't really seem to know what you're talking about.

I know fully well what I am talking about. It is you, trying to portray reflexes as conscious acts that are displaying serious ignorance.

To begin with, most abortions are performed between the eighth and twelfth weeks of pregnancy, when the child is, indeed, sentient.

No, it isn’t.

Secondly, yes, it is possible to murder someone who is not sentient. Sentience is not required to be a human individual.

There are no human individuals who do not have sentience.

It is also defined as any wanton slaughter, meaning unjustified killing.

Not in any legal sense. So it is not possible to claim an illegal act of murder of an embryo.

Translation: Dammit, he's using facts and the definitions of words to prove his point. I can't counter with any facts or logic, so I'll just accuse him of using revisionist linguistic hate speak.

Not at all. No translation needed. It merely is the case that you used prolife revisionist linguistic hate speak.

Translation: I still can't disprove what he's saying, so I'll try to imply that he's a terrorist.

Not at all. I merely asked whether you had terrorist connections per using the same tactics as them. I am simply curious, as AoG in the past have attacked me on-line in rather nasty ways and I thus want to protect myself a bit if this indeed was the case.

An embryo is, indeed, both an individual

Nope, it is not. It is no more individual than any bodily organ.

and, therefore, a person.[p/quote]Nope. Personhood is bestowed through being born.

The child's..

Huh? Children are irrelevant to the issue of abortions.

unique DNA and bodily systems constitute a biological individuality.

Nope, not as long as the umbilical cord is not clamped.

That individuality makes the embryo a person.

Individuality is not the determinant for personhood; birth is.

Really, you would get further in debates if your arguments were based on actual facts, not just false accusations of pro-life dishonesty.

What debates? As long as you lie, there is no debate possible. Once you eventually stop your many lies, we can start looking at debate.

Do you have any real-life example of a raped girl committing suicide because she couldn't get an abortion?

http://piedpiper.com.au/~johnm/ethics/ethicscontents47.htm
• After Wesleyan Girl Is Found Hanged, Father Is Accused of Rape. SYRACUSE (NY): Oct. 22 — On the morning of Sept. 30, a Tuesday, 11-year-old Valerie Charlene Lucie washed dishes and went upstairs to study in her room. By lunchtime, her 7-year-old brother had found her dead, hanging from a dog collar fastened to a tow chain, hooked to the top of her twin-sized canopy bed. The family says the death was a horrible accident — that maybe she was pretending to be a dog or a monkey, and killed herself acting out a scene from one of her favorite shows on the Animal Planet network. Investigators believe it was the aftermath of a horrible crime — that she killed herself after being raped in the shower by her father, who had threatened to cut off her hair. ...

http://www.newint.org/issue303/abortion.html
…The schoolgirl, raped by a school-friend's father in his car, pleaded with her parents to take her to London for an abortion.
Because of the pending trial for rape, the family had told the Irish police of their planned trip to London and its purpose. This tip-off sparked a furore in 1992 which swept Ireland into months of political crisis and instability.
The family were in London when the Irish police phoned them. 'You have to come home,' they ordered. The girl talked of suicide. The police officer said that going ahead could mean prison. The threat had been prompted by a Dublin High Court ruling that was based on the fact that the Irish constitution defined abortion as an illegal act. 'Miss X', as she was known to the public, found herself caught up in a nightmare, as Ireland's top lawyers wrangled about the Irish constitution and the rights of a raped child threatening to kill herself.
The world - and indeed the Irish public - watched with absolute horror. Many of those who had voted for the special constitutional ban on abortion - a much more far-reaching step than making it simply a crime - had never imagined that it would result in such cruelty. After weeks of courtroom argument the girl was permitted to leave the limelight and to end her pregnancy…..

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040310/j&k.htm#2
The 15-year-old was allegedly raped by counter-insurgent Manzoor Ahmad Dar, alias Cobra, on February 28 after abducting her to a nearby security forces’ camp.
Unable to bear the humiliation, she took the extreme step by setting herself afire, the sources said, adding she was admitted to SMHS hospital here, where she died last night.

ttp://www.health.state.ok.us/program/cds/sexual_assaultsurveillance.html
Thirty percent of rape victims contemplate suicide after rape.

http://www.weeklyholiday.net/260304/edit.html
* Rape of women is of grave concern in Bangladesh, According to an Odhikar report, 1,336 women were raped in 2003 out of whom 142 were killed and 17 committed suicide after rape.
* Violence against women is severe in Bangladesh. Due to dowry related violence, 261 women were killed, 23 women committed suicide, 85 women were tortured, 15 women became victims of acid burn and 2 women were divorced in the year 2003.

http://www.blackchat.co.uk/theblackforum/view_topic.php?id=4776&forum_id=32&jump_to=86560
Mohammed Daham al-Mohammed said the Iraqi group he heads, the Union of Detainees and Prisoners, had been told of a mother of four, arrested in December, who killed herself after being raped by US guards in front of her husband at Abu Ghraib.

The account came from the woman's sister who said she had helped in the suicide.

According to the sister, the woman had told of "being taken into a cell where she saw her husband attached to the bars.

"An American soldier held her by the hair to force her to look at her husband while he stripped her," Mohammed said.

She was then raped, while her husband cried out "Allahu akbar" (God is greatest), he added, quoting the sister. After her release the woman had begged her sister to help her die so she would not have to face her husband when he was freed.

Cowards are people who reflexively accuse the people they disagree with of lying without using any facts to support their accusations.

Indeed, if there was no evidence, that would be the case. I, of course, am documenting how you lie every time I point out your lies.

Once again, this is not about controlling women's bodies. It's about preventing them from killing other human bodies.

Utter BS. If that was the case, pregnant women would receive a lot more support to make them feel they didn’t NEED to abort, instead of cutting welfare benefits and make it even harder for her to make it with a child.

And instead of condemning sex-ed and contraception, the fundies would aggressively push it.

That is not happening; the goal is NOT to reduce abortions, but rather to oppress and control women.

Until the PL movement comes to term with its desire for punitive punishment of women who don’t want to be pregnant, the movement is indeed about controlling women.

 

[steen]

And there are passages there, where the fetus is described as merely a thing and not a person, which contradicts your earlier claim.

Where, exactly? The first chapters of Jeremiah and Luke describe the unborn as persons.

Exodus 21:
22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

And Jeremiah talk about God knowing Jeremiah specifically, and knowing him BEFORE he was FORMED. So whatever God knew, it wasn’t his physical body. Nowhere does Jeremiah say “the fetus is a person,” so that’s a blasphemous misrepresentation of the Bible, gross misuse of God’s word for political purposes. You should be ashamed, Pharisee.

Do you even follow God's Word?

Yes, I follow what God’s word is, rather than the fascism that rightwing fundie theocrats seek to misrepresent as God’s word

Seriously, boy, do a little research on the Pharisees before you accuse me of being one.

I have. You fit extraordinarily well.

Please show me the verse where God instructs people to cut open pregnant women.

Hosea 13: (talking about Joshua’s actions for Samaria):
16 Sama'ria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

Exactly. If you support the idea of heart bypass surgery for people who need it, then you are supporting the practice itself.

Nope, I am not saying that it is better to have the surgery than not.

And I disagree with them in that.

However, that does mean that your claim about libertarians was outright false.

 

[steen]

And yet, most anti-choicers are against sex education at the same time. :roll:

While they also are very conservative in their cutting support of the single mothers etc. Obviously, the fetus is "Holy," but the child is just a welfare leech. Such hypocricy.

 

[battleax86]

Supporting peoples right to have access to a procedure doesn’t mean that you support the procedure. It means that you don't want to impose on their choices.

Which means that you consider both choices to be acceptable. Therefore, you would be supporting the procedure. If you did not find a particular choice to be acceptable (such as the rape analogy), then you would not support one's choice on the matter. The same applies with abortion. You find abortion to be an acceptable option. Thus, you are pro-abortion.

Nope.
What I said, had you actually read it carefully, was this:
Nope. It is POTENTIALLY possible for the fetus to feel ANYTHING AT ALL at the end of the 24th week after conception, when the thalamocortical tract connects the thalamus with the cortex where all sensation is processed.
24th week after conception is the 26th week of pregnancy. Didn’t you know that? Your accusation is false.

Misread it. My apologies.

It is necessary for sensation. And without sensation, there is no possibility for distinguishing between yourself and surroundings, and thus no ability for an “I” And without a sense of “I,” there is no sentience.

To begin with, there is no need to feel certain parts of the body in order to be conscious and aware. Secondly, without sensation there would be no reflexes, as stimuli are caused by sensation. Thus, if there were no sensation prior to 24 weeks of development, the unborn child would not have reflexes by the seventh week.

Nope, it is not in doubt. It is being challenged politically by some PL, who have realized that they can’t push their lies about fetal pain as long as that fact stands. Political opposition to a biological fact doesn’t change the biological fact.

Since when have these scientists been arguing on political grounds? Their opposition has been based on scientific fact, unlike your attempts (in other threads) to claim that my scientific evidence is a lie based on a flawed Supreme Court ruling.

Another PL lie. The reaction is a reflex, not a conscious reaction.

Embryos as young as seven weeks have been known to bend the upper body to one side and make a quick backward motion with the hand when their lips are stroked. This would indicate more than an involuntary reflexive reaction, but a conscious effort to brush away whatever was stroking the child's lips. Also, it is an undisputable fact that fetuses make movements without any stimuli months before the 26th week of pregnancy. Thus, the claim that these movements are merely reflexes until the 26th week is a lie.

I know fully well what I am talking about. It is you, trying to portray reflexes as conscious acts that are displaying serious ignorance.

Riiight. I'm so ignorant that I knew about unstimulated fetal movement before the 26th week and you didn't. Or were you just lying?

No, it isn’t.

Yes, it is, as I've established.

There are no human individuals who do not have sentience.

Yes, there are. Individuality is marked by a different genetic code and any bodily functions that act without input from another person. Human zygotes have independent growth and unique human DNA. Thus, they are human individuals even though they lack sentience.

Not in any legal sense. So it is not possible to claim an illegal act of murder of an embryo.

I never claimed that it was "illegal murder," genius. My point is that a killing does not have to be illegal in order to be murder, as the definition shows. Thus, since abortion qualifies as a wanton (i.e., unjustified) slaughter, it is murder.

Not at all. No translation needed. It merely is the case that you used prolife revisionist linguistic hate speak.

No, I wasn't, and you have yet to explain yourself on this.

Not at all. I merely asked whether you had terrorist connections per using the same tactics as them. I am simply curious, as AoG in the past have attacked me on-line in rather nasty ways and I thus want to protect myself a bit if this indeed was the case.

Until I start blowing up clinics and snipering abortion doctors, you cannot legitimately say that I use the same tactics as a terrorist group. However, if by "tactics" you mean the type of arguments I make, I could also ask you, using your logic, if you are a neo-Nazi or a member of the KKK since they undoubtedly would have used your same legal arguments in Nazi Germany and slavery-era America.

Nope, it is not. It is no more individual than any bodily organ.

Bodily organs have the exact same DNA as the rest of the body and serve as bodily functions of the whole. Impulses from the brain control bodily organs. An unborn child, by contrast, has the DNA of a completely different person has some completely independent bodily functions, and cannot be controlled by any instructions from the mother's brain. Thus, the claim that an unborn child has the same individuality as a bodily organ is quite simply wrong.

and, therefore, a person.

Nope. Personhood is bestowed through being born.

Nope. Personhood, per the definition of the word "person," exists as soon as a human organism establishes individuality. This individuality is achieved by having unique DNA and separate bodily systems. There is no requirement that someone needs to be born in order to be a person.

Huh? Children are irrelevant to the issue of abortions.

You knew that by "child," I was referring to the unborn child. The unborn are children. Thus, children are relevant.

Nope, not as long as the umbilical cord is not clamped.

The umbilical cord does not diminish the child's individuality or make him or her a part of the mother any more than the attachment of Siamese twins makes them one person. :roll:

Individuality is not the determinant for personhood; birth is.

Once again, from Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Edition:

Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n'
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask -- more at PROSOPOPOEIA
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>

What debates? As long as you lie, there is no debate possible. Once you eventually stop your many lies, we can start looking at debate.

Once again, I have not lied anywhere and your accusations that I have lied have proven quite hollow.

 

[battleax86]

http://piedpiper.com.au/~johnm/ethics/ethicscontents47.htm
• After Wesleyan Girl Is Found Hanged, Father Is Accused of Rape. SYRACUSE (NY): Oct. 22 — On the morning of Sept. 30, a Tuesday, 11-year-old Valerie Charlene Lucie washed dishes and went upstairs to study in her room. By lunchtime, her 7-year-old brother had found her dead, hanging from a dog collar fastened to a tow chain, hooked to the top of her twin-sized canopy bed. The family says the death was a horrible accident — that maybe she was pretending to be a dog or a monkey, and killed herself acting out a scene from one of her favorite shows on the Animal Planet network. Investigators believe it was the aftermath of a horrible crime — that she killed herself after being raped in the shower by her father, who had threatened to cut off her hair. ...

http://www.newint.org/issue303/abortion.html
…The schoolgirl, raped by a school-friend's father in his car, pleaded with her parents to take her to London for an abortion.
Because of the pending trial for rape, the family had told the Irish police of their planned trip to London and its purpose. This tip-off sparked a furore in 1992 which swept Ireland into months of political crisis and instability.
The family were in London when the Irish police phoned them. 'You have to come home,' they ordered. The girl talked of suicide. The police officer said that going ahead could mean prison. The threat had been prompted by a Dublin High Court ruling that was based on the fact that the Irish constitution defined abortion as an illegal act. 'Miss X', as she was known to the public, found herself caught up in a nightmare, as Ireland's top lawyers wrangled about the Irish constitution and the rights of a raped child threatening to kill herself.
The world - and indeed the Irish public - watched with absolute horror. Many of those who had voted for the special constitutional ban on abortion - a much more far-reaching step than making it simply a crime - had never imagined that it would result in such cruelty. After weeks of courtroom argument the girl was permitted to leave the limelight and to end her pregnancy…..

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040310/j&k.htm#2
The 15-year-old was allegedly raped by counter-insurgent Manzoor Ahmad Dar, alias Cobra, on February 28 after abducting her to a nearby security forces’ camp.
Unable to bear the humiliation, she took the extreme step by setting herself afire, the sources said, adding she was admitted to SMHS hospital here, where she died last night.

ttp://www.health.state.ok.us/program/cds/sexual_assaultsurveillance.html
Thirty percent of rape victims contemplate suicide after rape.

http://www.weeklyholiday.net/260304/edit.html
* Rape of women is of grave concern in Bangladesh, According to an Odhikar report, 1,336 women were raped in 2003 out of whom 142 were killed and 17 committed suicide after rape.
* Violence against women is severe in Bangladesh. Due to dowry related violence, 261 women were killed, 23 women committed suicide, 85 women were tortured, 15 women became victims of acid burn and 2 women were divorced in the year 2003.

http://www.blackchat.co.uk/theblackforum/view_topic.php?id=4776&forum_id=32&jump_to=86560
Mohammed Daham al-Mohammed said the Iraqi group he heads, the Union of Detainees and Prisoners, had been told of a mother of four, arrested in December, who killed herself after being raped by US guards in front of her husband at Abu Ghraib.

The account came from the woman's sister who said she had helped in the suicide.

According to the sister, the woman had told of "being taken into a cell where she saw her husband attached to the bars.

You must have misread my question. I asked if you had any examples of a woman committing suicide because she was refused an abortion after being raped. If you cannot find an example of this, please refrain from using the dishonest scare tactic that raped women will commit suicide if they are not allowed to have an abortion.

Indeed, if there was no evidence, that would be the case. I, of course, am documenting how you lie every time I point out your lies.

On the contrary, the only documentation that you have provided in this thread are Bible verses (which I will address below) and a failed attempt to cite an example of a raped woman committing suicide because of her inability to get an abortion.

Utter BS. If that was the case, pregnant women would receive a lot more support to make them feel they didn’t NEED to abort, instead of cutting welfare benefits and make it even harder for her to make it with a child.

And instead of condemning sex-ed and contraception, the fundies would aggressively push it.

That is not happening; the goal is NOT to reduce abortions, but rather to oppress and control women.

Until the PL movement comes to term with its desire for punitive punishment of women who don’t want to be pregnant, the movement is indeed about controlling women.

You're obviously unaware of the approximately 3,200 crisis pregnancy centers across the country that are for the sole intent and purpose of giving aid to pregnant women. You also must be unaware of the thousands of ministries run by pro-life evangelical Christians that specialize in helping the inner city poor and other needy people.

Our goal is not "control" women, but to prevent the child inside of her from being slaughtered by people who either deceptively or ignorantly deny their humanity. Furthermore, the idea that the goal of re-banning abortion is not to reduce abortions is patently absurd and is not only contradicted by common sense, but the plain statistical facts.

Before Roe v. Wade, there were an estimated 100,000 illegal abortions in the United States per year. In the 32 years since Roe v. Wade, there have been around 1.5 million abortions per year. That's 1.4 million abortions that would be prevented every year if abortion were illegal. While some abortions might still occur after abortion is re-banned, as does every crime regardless of its nature, the vast majority will be deterred. THAT is why pro-life Americans push for re-banning abortion. It is not about "oppressing" anyone. It is about saving over a million American lives every year, something that every American should support.

 

[steen]

You find abortion to be an acceptable option. Thus, you are pro-abortion.

Nope, I am pro-choice. Are you pro-slavery? Is that the kind of word war you want to enter into?

To begin with, there is no need to feel certain parts of the body in order to be conscious and aware.

But input to the brain's cortex IS necessary. So go do your prolife verbal gymnastics and revisionist linguistics with off-topic analogies all you want; it won't change that fact.

Secondly, without sensation there would be no reflexes, as stimuli are caused by sensation.

Your claim is false.

Thus, if there were no sensation prior to 24 weeks of development, the unborn child would not have reflexes by the seventh week.

Your claim is false.

Since when have these scientists been arguing on political grounds? Their opposition has been based on scientific fact

Your claim is false.

Embryos as young as seven weeks have been known to bend the upper body to one side and make a quick backward motion with the hand when their lips are stroked. This would indicate more than an involuntary reflexive reaction, but a conscious effort to brush away whatever was stroking the child's lips.

Your claim is false.

Also, it is an undisputable fact that fetuses make movements without any stimuli months before the 26th week of pregnancy.

Your claim is false.

Thus, the claim that these movements are merely reflexes until the 26th week is a lie.

Your claim is false.

Riiight. I'm so ignorant

Yes, you are

that I knew about unstimulated fetal movement before the 26th week and you didn't. Or were you just lying?

Your claim is false.

Yes, there are. Individuality is marked by a different genetic code and any bodily functions that act without input from another person.

Your claim is false. Otherwise, hydatidiform moles are individuals.

Human zygotes have independent growth and unique human DNA. Thus, they are human individuals even though they lack sentience.

Your claim is false.

I never claimed that it was "illegal murder," genius.

Your claim is false. You claimed that a non-legal definition of murder fit the legal issue. SO youare talking about murder in the legal sense, hence are claiming abortion to be an illegal murder.

My point is that a killing does not have to be illegal in order to be murder, as the definition shows.

Legally, it does.

Thus, since abortion qualifies as a wanton (i.e., unjustified) slaughter, it is murder.

Your claim is false.

No, I wasn't, and you have yet to explain yourself on this.

Your claim is false. You used hate speak.

Until I start blowing up clinics and snipering abortion doctors, you cannot legitimately say that I use the same tactics as a terrorist group.

Sure I can, as these groups also use other tactics than what you described.

However, if by "tactics" you mean the type of arguments I make, I could also ask you, using your logic, if you are a neo-Nazi or a member of the KKK since they undoubtedly would have used your same legal arguments in Nazi Germany and slavery-era America.

Your claim is false.

Bodily organs have the exact same DNA as the rest of the body and serve as bodily functions of the whole. Impulses from the brain control bodily organs.

Most of the time, nope.

An unborn child, by contrast, has the DNA of a completely different person has some completely independent bodily functions, and cannot be controlled by any instructions from the mother's brain. Thus, the claim that an unborn child has the same individuality as a bodily organ is quite simply wrong.

it is sustained by the body in no different way than the orgasn does. Thus, it is no more "individual" than the organ.

Nope. Personhood, per the definition of the word "person," exists as soon as a human organism establishes individuality.

You are lying. "Person" is a legal definition ruled to not apply to the unborn. You are lyying.

This individuality is achieved by having unique DNA and separate bodily systems.

Nope. It is not an individual until its bodily functions are individual.

There is no requirement that someone needs to be born in order to be a person.

There is a legal requirement for just that. So you are again lying.

You knew that by "child," I was referring to the unborn child.

Nope, I only know what you write, and I only know that prolifers will enage in the lying, dishonest, deceptive, revisionist linguistic hyperbole that furthers their argument despite reality. So there is nothing clear about what you say. And yes, even "unborn child" is as much an oxymoron as is "pre-dead corpse."

The unborn are children.

Your claim is false.

Thus, children are relevant.

Your claim is false.

The umbilical cord does not diminish the child's individuality

Yes, it does.

or make him or her a part of the mother any more than the attachment of Siamese twins makes them one person. :roll:

Siamese twins are not each individual persons.

Once again, I have not lied anywhere

I have documented it throughout my posts, LIAR.

 

[steen]

You're obviously unaware of the approximately 3,200 crisis pregnancy centers across the country that are for the sole intent and purpose of giving aid to pregnant women.

Their sole intent and purpose is to string the woman along until they are past the local due-date for abortions through lies and promises, until they then drop her to devote resources to the next woman, because after all, now it is to late for the first woman to get an abortion, so what do they care.

Our goal is not "control" women,

Yes, it is. Otherwise, you would be helping instead of oppressing them.

but to prevent the child inside of her

There is no child, your revisionist linguistic emotional hyperbole none withstanding.

from being slaughtered by people who either deceptively or ignorantly deny their humanity.

Huh? It is "human" certainly. The species designation is not in doubt.

Furthermore, the idea that the goal of re-banning abortion is not to reduce abortions is patently absurd and is not only contradicted by common sense, but the plain statistical facts.

It is about controlling women and drive them back to be stay-at-home moms like the June Cleaver that never existed to begin with.

Before Roe v. Wade, there were an estimated 100,000 illegal abortions in the United States per year.

There were a lot more than that.

In the 32 years since Roe v. Wade, there have been around 1.5 million abortions per year. That's 1.4 million abortions that would be prevented every year if abortion were illegal.

Through the oppression of women, yes.

While some abortions might still occur after abortion is re-banned, as does every crime regardless of its nature, the vast majority will be deterred. THAT is why pro-life Americans push for re-banning abortion.

Yes, then women are put in their place, barefoot and pregnant in the Kitchen. Your buddy Phyllis Schlafley is busy telling us what a great idea that is, and why contraception also should be made illegal. PL's sole goal is to control women. PL are fascists who seek to impose state-run theocratic restrictions on women.

It is not about "oppressing" anyone. It is about saving over a million American lives every year, something that every American should support.

Hyperbolic claptrap. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died during WWII to protect us from fascism, and now PL are pushing it on us again, trying to steal away the freedom that these brave people died for.

 

[battleax86]

Exodus 21:
22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

As I've already explained in another thread, the direct translation says that if the child "comes out" of her, but no more harm follows (and the death of the child would certainly qualify as "harm"), then the attacker will be fined. The Hebrew word used in the verse is the word yatsa, which is also translated "to give birth." Given that the actual Hebrew word for "miscarriage," shakal, was used in the same book (two chapters later), we can see that the verse was obviously talking about a premature birth, not a miscarriage.

And Jeremiah talk about God knowing Jeremiah specifically, and knowing him BEFORE he was FORMED. So whatever God knew, it wasn’t his physical body. Nowhere does Jeremiah say “the fetus is a person,” so that’s a blasphemous misrepresentation of the Bible, gross misuse of God’s word for political purposes.

You've changed a word in a verse (Exodus 21:22) to make it fit your political beliefs, but I'm the blasphemer? :roll:

If God knew Jeremiah before he was formed, it would logically follow that He knew Jeremiah AS he was being formed, AFTER He had been formed and at every point of his existence. Unless, that is, you're trying to tell me that God knew him before he was born, then suddenly lost His knowledge of Jeremiah until he was born. :lol:

You should be ashamed, Pharisee.

Actually, Pharisees were the people who shouted "Blasphemy!" while hypocritically committing it themselves. As I've said before, take that beam out of your eye before falsely accusing me of having a speck in mine.

Yes, I follow what God’s word is, rather than the fascism that rightwing fundie theocrats seek to misrepresent as God’s word

Please read the first chapter of Luke and tell me how pro-life people misrepresent it.

I have. You fit extraordinarily well.

If that were true, you wouldn't have set yourself up by accusing me of blasphemy. :doh

]Hosea 13: (talking about Joshua’s actions for Samaria):
16 Sama'ria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

OK, now show me where exactly God is instructing anyone to do this. In this verse, God is not "directing" anyone, the Israelites included, to rip open pregnant women. He is making a prophecy of what will happen at the hands of a pagan nation when His hand of protection is removed from them because of their sins. He did not want this to happen and did not direct anyone to do it. Heck, that passage was a call for Israel to repent so that it would NOT happen. Unfortunately, that call went unheeded and, as a result, God's hand of protection was no longer able to remain on them.

Nope, I am not saying that it is better to have the surgery than not.

You don't need to say that. As long as you support the legality of this surgery, then you are supporting the practice of this surgery.

However, that does mean that your claim about libertarians was outright false.

I think you've gotten so used to falsely accusing those who disagree with you of lying that you don't even bother to read what write beforehand. The only claim that I made about Libertarians is that I agree with them on some things and the Republicans on most other things and that I disagree with the LP on abortion. You are trying to tell me that I lied about agreeing with Libertarians on some things and disagreeing with them on abortion. That's pretty funny. :rofl

 

[steen]

As I've already explained in another thread, the direct translation says that if the child "comes out" of her, but no more harm follows (and the death of the child would certainly qualify as "harm"), then the attacker will be fined.

I find it fascinating that you claim that the RSV "translation" is wrong and yours is right, just because itagrees with prolife politics, but not with the original text as the Torah sees it. Hmm... The Jews were wrong all along, and not until your prolife translation came by was God's word "corrected" to reflect God's proper prolife political persuation.

The Hebrew word used in the verse is the word yatsa, which is also translated "to give birth." Given that the actual Hebrew word for "miscarriage," shakal, was used in the same book (two chapters later), we can see that the verse was obviously talking about a premature birth, not a miscarriage.

Oh, this is getting interesting and even further evidence of the PL lies and deceptions. Because the Hebrews themselves agree that we are talking about a miscarriage. I am sure they are grateful that you pointed out their many-thousand years of miscomprehension of their own language.

You've changed a word in a verse (Exodus 21:22) to make it fit your political beliefs, but I'm the blasphemer?

Nope, I have taken its original meaning before you blasphemously fit it for your personal politics.

If God knew Jeremiah before he was formed, it would logically follow that He knew Jeremiah AS he was being formed, AFTER He had been formed and at every point of his existence.

Exactly. What exists as the"Jeremiah" that God knows is existing despite and regardless of the existence of a body.

Actually, Pharisees were the people who shouted "Blasphemy!" while hypocritically committing it themselves.

Ah, like you did up above!

As I've said before, take that beam out of your eye before falsely accusing me of having a speck in mine.

I would, if I was falsely accusing you of anything. The reality is that you lied a lot and that I pointed out where you lied. I don't tolerate liars.

OK, now show me where exactly God is instructing anyone to do this. In this verse, God is not "directing" anyone, the Israelites included, to rip open pregnant women. He is making a prophecy of what will happen at the hands of a pagan nation when His hand of protection is removed from them because of their sins.

Not at all. God states deliberately bringing on this:
7 So I will be to them like a lion, like a leopard I will lurk beside the way. 8 I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will tear open their breast, and there I will devour them like a lion, as a wild beast would rend them. 9 I will destroy you, O Israel; who can help you? 10 Where now is your king, to save you; where are all your princes, to defend you--those of whom you said, "Give me a king and princes"? 11 I have given you kings in my anger, and I have taken them away in my wrath. 12 The iniquity of E'phraim is bound up, his sin is kept in store. 13 The pangs of childbirth come for him, but he is an unwise son; for now he does not present himself at the mouth of the womb. 14 Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your destruction? Compassion is hid from my eyes. 15 Though he may flourish as the reed plant, the east wind, the wind of the LORD, shall come, rising from the wilderness; and his fountain shall dry up, his spring shall be parched; it shall strip his treasury of every precious thing. 16 Sama'ria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

He did not want this to happen and did not direct anyone to do it.

Yes, it all happened against God's will, right? That is, after God has reported:
7 So I will be to them like a lion, like a leopard I will lurk beside the way. 8 I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will tear open their breast, and there I will devour them like a lion, as a wild beast would rend them. 9 I will destroy you, O Israel; who can help you?

uhum, God deliberately is destroying them through the process of: they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

Heck, that passage was a call for Israel to repent so that it would NOT happen. Unfortunately, that call went unheeded and, as a result, God's hand of protection was no longer able to remain on them.

So when God says that "I will," it really means "I may"?

I think you've gotten so used to falsely accusing those who disagree with you of lying that you don't even bother to read what write beforehand.

You can "think" anything you want. I respond to lies with the exposure of that lie, that's all there is to it. Stop lying, and there won't be lies to commen on.

The only claim that I made about Libertarians is that I agree with them on some things and the Republicans on most other things and that I disagree with the LP on abortion. You are trying to tell me that I lied about agreeing with Libertarians on some things and disagreeing with them on abortion. That's pretty funny. :rofl

Nope. I am pointing out that the Libertarians are pro-choice, a point you disagreed with.

 

[vergiss]

You must have misread my question. I asked if you had any examples of a woman committing suicide because she was refused an abortion after being raped. If you cannot find an example of this, please refrain from using the dishonest scare tactic that raped women will commit suicide if they are not allowed to have an abortion.

Did you chose not to understand the story of the Irish girl? She said she would if she didn't get one. Suicide is not a threat that is to be taken lightly.

 

[TheTruth]

But, knowing that no doctor can tell me definitively that this would be the case, I would save the baby, and trust God to save my wife. It's called faith.

faith=belief without evidence imo.
if god exists he might save your wife, or he might not, judging by the fact that he lets others die every day what makes you think he will save your wife? oh yeh, i forgot, faith...
imo god doesn't exist, you cannot use religion as an argument for whether something should be illegal or not. the only way you could use religion in constitution is if it were proven, and religion is never proven, it is always faith. christianity goes against evolution, but evolution is proven and all you have to cling to is "faith" with no evidence, not even any circumstancial evidence.

I will be the first to admit that I am not the moral compass for the entire world to watch and exemplify. I am not 100% right 100% of the time, but God's word is. Therefore, if I make a moral error, I do not compound it by further turning away from God's word to "fix" the problem. Conceiving a child out of wedlock, which is immoral cannot be fixed by aborting a child, which is also immoral. Immorality cannot and should not be justified by further immorality.

gods word is 100% right 100% of the time? any proof of this? oh wait, you don't even have proof that he exists let alone that his word is 100% right 100% of the time.
conceiving a child out of wedlock is immoral???
why exactly do i need a piece of paper whether from a church or a registry office saying that me and my partner are married to "morally" have a child? i don't see the relevance between a celebration (marriage) and giving birth.

Neither of my children were planned pregnancies. Not only were they not planned; my children are a mere fifteen months apart in age. When we found out about the first pregnancy my wife and I were not married, and I was serving in the church. I was living with my parents, making $6.76 per hour working at a Christian Bookstore, and really had nothing to offer a child or a wife.

Needless to say abortion became an option as many people around us advocated for the procedure. We were not having it though! We had already made plans for marriage, though we were not yet engaged. Therefore we followed through with the marriage, I was blessed with better employment, and we moved into our own place once we were officially married. Anyone who has seen my daughter knows how beautiful she is, and knows what a travesty it would have been to murder her in the womb.

you appear to be a good parent, but what if you weren't. abortion wasn't the choice for you and your children turned out fine, and a long and happy life to them. but this isn't argument against abortion, not all children who aren't aborted turn out fine, granted they are all "beautiful" in someones eyes, but beauty isn't an argument either. given different parents your children (who wouldn't be yours with different parents so please don't take offense to this) might have ended up on crack, they might have been thieves, rapists or murderers.

my point is, you were prepared to take on the responsibility of having children, not everybody is, and that person and their child shouldn't be forced to live the rest of their lives in misery or as criminals trying to feed themselves just because your children turned out fine.

 

[TheTruth]

oh, and hi all, i'm new to the forum :2wave:

 

[steen]

Welcome.:2wave: