Require man to make descision

[globalvision]

It is difficult to conduct a civil discussion with a person who cannot differentiate between a polite request and a complaint.

While we're on the subject of spelling, it's not 'grammer', but 'grammar'. You also erred by matching the singular 'word' with the plural 'Americans'.

In the matter of 'z' versus 's', grammarians recognize and accept variations in spelling according to national customs.

I notice that you are able to capitalize when it suits your purposes. Other times you lapse into the k. d. lang or e e cummings mode.

Fantasea normally if i write anything on here it is about 1am so i am slightly tired, if you want to be pedantic and talk about spelling or grammar go find an English debating website. also getting a life may help you!

 

[globalvision]

Plus one other thing, my spelling and grammar are perfect when the occasion is called for, however, i am here to discuss topics of interest, language is not one of them. so please dont be condescending towards me, it really is a waste of both our time.

 

[Pacridge]

Fantasea normally if i write anything on here it is about 1am so i am slightly tired, if you want to be pedantic and talk about spelling or grammar go find an English debating website. also getting a life may help you!

Oh, I'm fairly certain Fantasea has a life. Maybe not the he wishes he had, or the one you wish he had, but he's got one. Making a backhanded comment doesn't really further your logic does it?

As for the grammer/spelling lessons that are reoccurring all over this board. I agree, this isn't your senior Eng. Lit. paper. If I can make out what your saying I'm fine with it. I notice usually the spelling lessons begin as the debate heats up. I think it usually says more about the person making the comment, then the one receiving it.

 

[globalvision]

Pacridge sometimes there is a time and a place to use a logical argument with someone, but i am not intending on wasting my time with someone who is so pedantic and so condescending, if he wishes to be critical of what i think or of what i say, i am more than happy with that.
if he intends to talk to me in that mannor then i am more then happy to use backhanded comments, as furthering my argument is a pointless challenge with someone with such a pointless existence.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Quote = anomoly



Does your complaint lie with the syntax of the sentence? Or, with my request that you support your contentions with fact?

First of all, do try and quote the right person!

Secondly, you made a "polite request" concerning another person's use of English and then went on to post a dreadful sentence yourself!

Thirdly, I have previously tried to suggest that we will never agree on this issue. I am willing to respect your views. Why are you so insistent on trying to change mine?

Nothing you have said has changed my mind one iota. Give it up!

Thank you.

 

[Fantasea]

First of all, do try and quote the right person!

Secondly, you made a "polite request" concerning another person's use of English and then went on to post a dreadful sentence yourself!

Thirdly, I have previously tried to suggest that we will never agree on this issue. I am willing to respect your views. Why are you so insistent on trying to change mine?

Nothing you have said has changed my mind one iota. Give it up!

Thank you.

You are responding to a post that contained statements from eminent professionals attesting to the fact that human life begins at conception.

You are free to close your mind as tight as you wish.

However, be aware, those who deny with no basis except their own unsupported views place themselves in the same class as those who were certain that the earth was flat. Most were too proud to accept new technology that might force a change of mind. Wise persons understand that they do not know everything and are willing to accept new discoveries that expand their knowledge.

Man can now fly, horseless carriages rule the roads, infectious bacteria has been tamed, Columbus sailed west. Every pioneer is scoffed by the naysayers.

I have repeatedly asked for factual rebuttal on the statement, "Human life begins at conception." To date no one has accepted the challenge.

I guess you won't either, will you?

Those who ask and offer reciprocity on abortion views are akin to those who in the early 1860s were saying, "While I would not own slaves, I don't care if you own some."

 

[Fantasea]

Fantasea normally if i write anything on here it is about 1am so i am slightly tired, if you want to be pedantic and talk about spelling or grammar go find an English debating website. also getting a life may help you!

All the more reason to hit the spell check button before posting.

Scroll back to post #44 to pinpoint the genesis of this nonsense.

 

[MeChMAN]

We all need to stop criticizing on peoples gramar and worry about the topic at hand This isn't debate spelling this is debate politics

 

[Naughty Nurse]

infectious bacteria has been tamed,

"Bacteria" = plural, so requires the plural form "have". If you are going to repeatedly bitch at other people's grammar, you need to put your own house in order. That statement is also factually inaccurate - haven't you heard of MRSA?

I have repeatedly asked for factual rebuttal on the statement, "Human life begins at conception." To date no one has accepted the challenge.

I guess you won't either, will you?

That is both grammatically and factually correct!

 

[globalvision]

Naughty, just wanted to say you make me laugh like no one else on here. This world needs more people like you, thank god your British.

 

[globalvision]

Why is human life so sacrosanct? why is abortion such an issue? if a unborn fetus has the right to life, why do orangutans and gorillas not have equal rights to life. they are very similar to humans. they have 98% of our DNA (although a banana has 50% of our DNA so maybe this is not saying much). just wish to understand peoples reasons for valuing a human so highly, yet we often devalue other forms of life, are we really so special?

 

[Fantasea]

Why is human life so sacrosanct? why is abortion such an issue? if a unborn fetus has the right to life, why do orangutans and gorillas not have equal rights to life. they are very similar to humans. they have 98% of our DNA (although a banana has 50% of our DNA so maybe this is not saying much). just wish to understand peoples reasons for valuing a human so highly, yet we often devalue other forms of life, are we really so special?

I think you forgot to include in your post.

 

[globalvision]

Yes Vauge i did forget to put in in my post.

 

[Thor]

I'm pro-choice but not in the standard sense.

I believe the choice comes before someone has sex. The man and the woman have the choice not to do it. They understand what the consequences might be. With that in mind, if they become pregnant after the fact then it becomes a choice of convenience.

Abortion is nothing more than a selfish inconvenience that leads to murder. "It's not convenience to be pregnant because of my life style." Adoption NOT abortion. There are thousands of people that would love to have a newborn baby because they can't have children themselves. My wife and I are some of those people.

By the way, life begins at conception. That baby starts growing at the moment of conception.

 

[shake3]

I'm pro-choice but not in the standard sense.

I believe the choice comes before someone has sex. The man and the woman have the choice not to do it. They understand what the consequences might be. With that in mind, if they become pregnant after the fact then it becomes a choice of convenience.

Abortion is nothing more than a selfish inconvenience that leads to murder. "It's not convenience to be pregnant because of my life style." Adoption NOT abortion. There are thousands of people that would love to have a newborn baby because they can't have children themselves. My wife and I are some of those people.

Totally agreed. The National Council for Adoption "estimates that at least one million infertile couples and an additional one million fertile couples would like to adopt" (http://www.ncfa-usa.org/docs/AdoptionFactbook.pdf). Yet in 2000, 1.31 million abortions took place, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html). The demand is there, but abortion cuts off the supply. How much unneccesary heartache this must cause!

By the way, life begins at conception. That baby starts growing at the moment of conception.

Not only that, the child has its own unique genetic makeup from the time of conception. If it were merely a part of the mother's body, it would have the same DNA as the rest of the mother's cells.

 

[Ashley]

Of course it is an equally important decision on both of the mom and the dad. His opinion is important but ultimately - he cannot and SHOULD NOT be the deciding factor in this.

Your forgetting one thing -- whos going to be carrying the baby for 9 months?
Whos going to gain 25-30 pounds?
Whos going to have to deliver a 10 pound baby out of -- well I DONT think I need to continue, you get my drift...

You werent implying that the male should actually have the deciding factor in something he isnt even going to feel for the whole first 9 months are you?

 

[Schweddy]

You werent implying that the male should actually have the deciding factor in something he isnt even going to feel for the whole first 9 months are you?

In my original post, I was stating that it should be BOTH the man and the woman to make the decision. A woman should not murder the child without his concent and vice-versa. If a decision cannot be made between the both of them - the courts should get involved.

That child is after all HALF his.

 

[Fantasea]

Of course it is an equally important decision on both of the mom and the dad. His opinion is important but ultimately - he cannot and SHOULD NOT be the deciding factor in this.

Your forgetting one thing -- whos going to be carrying the baby for 9 months?
Whos going to gain 25-30 pounds?
Whos going to have to deliver a 10 pound baby out of -- well I DONT think I need to continue, you get my drift...

You werent implying that the male should actually have the deciding factor in something he isnt even going to feel for the whole first 9 months are you?

What difference does it make whether one, two, or more persons make the decision? The result is still the same. A human child dies in the abortion procedure.

 

[Hoot]

If men had to carry a child to term, we wouldn't even be questioning whether abortion should be outlawed.

Congress would see to it that abortion stayed legal.

Of course, the ultimate goal is not having the need for abortions.

This means education, contraceptives, and yes, giving out condoms to school kids...things that Bush and the religious right are firmly against.

 

[Fantasea]

If men had to carry a child to term, we wouldn't even be questioning whether abortion should be outlawed.

Congress would see to it that abortion stayed legal.

Of course, the ultimate goal is not having the need for abortions.

This means education, contraceptives, and yes, giving out condoms to school kids...things that Bush and the religious right are firmly against.

If one tells kids that they shouldn't see "X" rated movies and then hands them copies of 'Deep Throat', what do you think will happen?

Handing out condoms to kids; same thing.

Has anyone any idea of the additional pressure unwilling girls are under when the guys are able to say, "It's OK, we'll just be doing what they taught us in school."

 

[Hoot]

If one tells kids that they shouldn't see "X" rated movies and then hands them copies of 'Deep Throat', what do you think will happen?

Handing out condoms to kids; same thing.

Has anyone any idea of the additional pressure unwilling girls are under when the guys are able to say, "It's OK, we'll just be doing what they taught us in school."

Better education and access to contraceptives have been done in other countries and their abortions rates have lowered as a result.

Do you want to see abortions increase or decrease?

If you truely want to see abortions decrease then we must educate the children...and that includes educating them to the use of contraceptives.

Keeping children in the dark about sex doesn't work.

 

[Fantasea]

Better education and access to contraceptives have been done in other countries and their abortions rates have lowered as a result.

Do you want to see abortions increase or decrease?

If you truely want to see abortions decrease then we must educate the children...and that includes educating them to the use of contraceptives.

Keeping children in the dark about sex doesn't work.

So long as abortion remains the easy solution to problems resulting from condoms that fail, or the failure to use condoms, why should one expect that the responsibility of children in matters of sexuality will improve?

Simply put, all a girl need do is run to the school nurse. The school nurse is the person who must first get permission from a parent before administering an aspirin for a headache or a Midol for menstrual cramps. However, this same person is empowered to set the wheels in motion for an abortion without so much as informing a parent.

If the goal is to produce children who have no understanding of the concept of responsible behavior and self-control, we're on the right track.

Is it any wonder that so many young adults are confused and unable to cope with the vagaries of ordinary life. Their most popular chant, these days, seems to be, "I can't deal with it!".

Whose fault is that?

 

[Hoot]

There was an interesting article in Time magazine today...

Senate Minority leader Harry Reid has a bill called..."Prevention First Act."

This bill would improve access to birth control. It would also focus on expanding adoptions, including adoptions by gay couples.

Of course, a key component of the Pro-Life group is made up of Conservative Catholics...Catholics who oppose any form of birth control, and certainly would be against adoption by gay couples.

So...here's the dilemna...we all want to see abortions decrease, and no woman wants to have to go through an abortion.

How can the Pro-Life group justify it's adamant stance on contraception, and the refusal to allow gay couples to adopt and still maintain that they are against abortions? Wouldn't these two things lower the need for abortions? Isn't that what the Pro-Life group wants?

I hate to use a tired term, but their stance seems hypocritical to me.
Maybe the Pro-Life group is afraid of losing their political clout if abortions decrease too much?

 

[Fantasea]

There was an interesting article in Time magazine today...

Senate Minority leader Harry Reid has a bill called..."Prevention First Act."

This bill would improve access to birth control. It would also focus on expanding adoptions, including adoptions by gay couples.

Of course, a key component of the Pro-Life group is made up of Conservative Catholics...Catholics who oppose any form of birth control, and certainly would be against adoption by gay couples.

So...here's the dilemna...we all want to see abortions decrease, and no woman wants to have to go through an abortion.

How can the Pro-Life group justify it's adamant stance on contraception, and the refusal to allow gay couples to adopt and still maintain that they are against abortions? Wouldn't these two things lower the need for abortions? Isn't that what the Pro-Life group wants?

I hate to use a tired term, but their stance seems hypocritical to me.
Maybe the Pro-Life group is afraid of losing their political clout if abortions decrease too much?

Harry Reid, the man who replaced Tom Daschle, has long been one of the few in the Democratic hierarchy who is not happy with the party's Pro-Choice position but recognizes that he cannot do much about it.

The string of losses suffered by Democratic Senators and Representatives since 1996 has had what the media terms a 'moral' component.

Perhaps Senator Reid hopes to get a debate going that may give the Democrats an opportunity to 'soften' their hard line on abortion in time for 2006 at which time the entire House and one third of the Senate are up for re-election.

All the world has noticed that they 'clammed up' about 'Gay' marriage after reading the handwriting on the wall last November 3rd.

 

[shake3]

How can the Pro-Life group justify it's adamant stance on contraception, and the refusal to allow gay couples to adopt and still maintain that they are against abortions? Wouldn't these two things lower the need for abortions? ?

Would allowing gay couples to adopt really reduce abortion rates significantly? At least 2 million couples are already waiting to adopt, according to the National Council for Adoption's estimates; yet not nearly that many get to adopt, while over 1 million abortions happen each year. The problem is not too few couples wanting to adopt--the demand is greater than the supply. The problem is that women are not getting the thorough information they deserve on all the aspects of abortion and its alternatives. So many women would not have had abortions if they received more thorough information (see the study done by the Elliot Institute: http://afterabortion.org/survey1.html. Counseling services need to be doing a much better job of objectively presenting all the options available to pregnant women.