Since: Feb 08

Philadelphia, PA

#226658 Dec 3, 2012
Solai wrote:
<quoted text>
This wome who would always get abortions, her mother was mad at her for what she did because she wanted a grandchild. She even posted it on FB about getting the last abortion, she didnt have the decency to tell her mom because her mom was mad at for the other fetuses. She had no remorse for what she did...I understand no option is an easy option for some women,and others just don't care.
So do you want to criminalize abortion and force women "who just don't care" to be Mothers?

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#226659 Dec 3, 2012
Doctor REALITY wrote:
How many of you women who choose to abort your pregnacies would like to stand before Almighty God on Judgement Day and have the Lord bring the soul of the baby you aborted before His Throne so that you and see the soul of the preson you chose to MURDER through abortion??
Silly child, fetuses do not have souls, so it is impossible to murder a fetus.

Also, the God of the Bible does not have any problem with abortion. If He did, there would be a verse in the Torah calling it a sin. There is no such verse. On the other hand, there are several verses that say that it IS a sin to add anything to the list of sins listed in the Torah. Better repent now, and stop making up such lies in the future.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#226660 Dec 3, 2012
Solai wrote:
<quoted text>
This wome who would always get abortions, her mother was mad at her for what she did because she wanted a grandchild. She even posted it on FB about getting the last abortion, she didnt have the decency to tell her mom because her mom was mad at for the other fetuses. She had no remorse for what she did...I understand no option is an easy option for some women,and others just don't care.
Why should she have any remorse? Remorse is for when you do something wrong, and regret it. The only thing that she should have remose about is her inability to use birth control responsibly.

“Think BIG!”

Since: Dec 12

National City, CA

#226662 Dec 4, 2012
Nothing in life truly means anything other than the meanings you place upon them....the fact that we are mere electromagnetic energy beings housed in these machines we identify as bodies leaves the gateway open to explore in the possibility that a soul doesn't actually truly arrive in the baby body machine until closer to its scheduled birthdate.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#226664 Dec 4, 2012
Many Pro-Birthers have stated that a woman doesn't "have the right" to choose death for her unborn z/e/f.

Yet, they have no issues with the fact that we can choose life for that z/e/f.

Another inconsistency!
Nanack Kenden

Racine, WI

#226665 Dec 4, 2012
mamma-san wrote:
Many Pro-Birthers have stated that a woman doesn't "have the right" to choose death for her unborn z/e/f.
Yet, they have no issues with the fact that we can choose life for that z/e/f.
Another inconsistency!
That's a joke. right?
The poof out of corrie st

London, UK

#226666 Dec 4, 2012
I think that women should be given a financial reward for aborting their babies. if people keep giving birth at this rate the world will be out of room in 50yrs.

if god was really like the dude in the bible then he wouldnt have let us get in this state.

euthanasia and suicide should also be encouraged.

and everyone should be given a lethal injection at say 75 years old.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#226667 Dec 5, 2012
Nanack Kenden wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a joke. right?
No. Not at all.

One of the Pro-Birther arguments is a z/e/f that is aborted has "no choice."

Yet, we leave it no choice when we give birth.

Simple logic.
Nanack Kenden

Racine, WI

#226668 Dec 5, 2012
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Not at all.
One of the Pro-Birther arguments is a z/e/f that is aborted has "no choice."
Yet, we leave it no choice when we give birth.
Simple logic.
Actually, suicide is always an option for people who wish not to live anymore.

Let's extend your "logic" to other scenarios.

"I want to poison my newborn. It should be my choice."

"Well, what's his choice? Why doesn't he get a say?"

"He's a non-sapient cluster of cells, he can't even conceive of a 'say'. Besides, we're also not taking his opinion into account if we don't poison him."

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#226669 Dec 5, 2012
Nanack Kenden wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, suicide is always an option for people who wish not to live anymore.
Let's extend your "logic" to other scenarios.
"I want to poison my newborn. It should be my choice."
"Well, what's his choice? Why doesn't he get a say?"
"He's a non-sapient cluster of cells, he can't even conceive of a 'say'. Besides, we're also not taking his opinion into account if we don't poison him."
A living, breathing sentient human being is protected by law. He/She has RIGHTS according to our legal system.

A cluster of cells before a specific point of gestation (dependant upon state) does not.j

It always amazes me when people come up with the "lets murder the baby" argument. It makes NO sense.
Nanack Kenden

Racine, WI

#226670 Dec 5, 2012
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
A living, breathing sentient human being is protected by law. He/She has RIGHTS according to our legal system.
A cluster of cells before a specific point of gestation (dependant upon state) does not.j
It always amazes me when people come up with the "lets murder the baby" argument. It makes NO sense.
It always amazes me when pro-aborts mention the fact that infanticide is against the law, whereas abortion is not. Yes. That's the point. We feel that abortion is comparable to infanticide and thus SHOULD be illegal. That's the debate.

A newborn may be "living, breathing, sentient," (just like a zygote/embryo/fetus is living, and very soon breathing and sentient) but so's a dog. So are certain types of plants. A newborn lacks (in the words of Peter Singer, an pro-abort who possesses significantly more intellectual consistency than you) "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness".

A newborn is no smarter than a fly (in fact, a fly can care for itself, something a newborn isn't capable of), and when it comes to sheer brainpower it's closer to that "cluster of cells" than it is to you or me.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#226671 Dec 6, 2012
Nanack Kenden wrote:
<quoted text>
It always amazes me when pro-aborts mention the fact that infanticide is against the law, whereas abortion is not. Yes. That's the point. We feel that abortion is comparable to infanticide and thus SHOULD be illegal. That's the debate.
A newborn may be "living, breathing, sentient," (just like a zygote/embryo/fetus is living, and very soon breathing and sentient) but so's a dog. So are certain types of plants. A newborn lacks (in the words of Peter Singer, an pro-abort who possesses significantly more intellectual consistency than you) "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness".
A newborn is no smarter than a fly (in fact, a fly can care for itself, something a newborn isn't capable of), and when it comes to sheer brainpower it's closer to that "cluster of cells" than it is to you or me.
You have every right to believe that abortion is wrong, and I'll fight to the death for your right to believe as you wish.

By the same token, understand that not everybody believes as you do, and that each woman must make the reproductive decision that is right for her life.

Again, understand the difference between LIVING (anything living) and not able to survive outside a woman's uterus. That applies to dogs, cats, armadillos, and babies.

If it's a cluster of cells, unable to survive outside that woman's uterus for more than a few seconds, then her rights to NOT be pregnant and give birth take precedence.

Doesn't every woman deserve the right to NOT be pregnant and give birth against her will? Don't her rights to life and bodily autonomy supercede that of a zygote or embryo smaller than the head of a pin?

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#226672 Dec 6, 2012
Please notice that I can state my argument with ad hominem arguments. I'm sorry I can't say the same about you.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#226673 Dec 6, 2012
err... "withOUT ad hominem arguments."

Insomnia sucks :)
Nanack Kenden

Racine, WI

#226675 Dec 6, 2012
1. Our whole bodies are made of cells, and thus could conceivably be called a "cluster" of them. Your wording that I borrowed for fun is just a means of dehumanizing the baby. Even at the earliest stages of development, the zygote is a fairly complex entity.

In fact, since I'm extraordinarily lazy, I'll just copy and paste a big block of text from www.caseforlife.com/evidence.asp :

"Dr. Maureen Condic points out that embryos are living human beings 'precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death - the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living cells.' Condic, Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, explains the important distinction between individual parts and whole human embryos overlooked by Bailey:



'The critical difference between a collection of cells and a living organism is the ability of an organism to act in a coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a whole. It is precisely this ability that breaks down at the moment of death, however death might occur. Dead bodies may have plenty of live cells, but their cells no longer function together in a coordinated manner.'"

2. Your mindset should include the legalization of thalidomide. Sure, the baby post-birth would be affected, but the drug itself would be taken within the womb, when according to you the mother has the right to dispose of him as she wishes.

3. "Doesn't every woman deserve the right to NOT be pregnant and give birth against her will? Don't her rights to life and bodily autonomy supercede that of a zygote or embryo smaller than the head of a pin?"

Well she could not have sex (or just use contraception). If you choose to do something that you know carries the risk of pregnancy, you have to bear the consequences.

4. You seem to have tacitly admitted that under your system of morals, a fly (or a dog, or an armadillo, or even a tree) has more rights than a 16-week old embryo.

5. Out of curiosity, if a baby was born prematurely and was forced to go on a respirator, would it be okay to pull the plug? Its a mindless, non-sentient, non-sapient bulge of tissue that doesn't perceive its surroundings, lacks a will to live, a drain on both the hospital and mother, and completely dependent on an artificial machine for life.
Ocean56

AOL

#226676 Dec 6, 2012
Nanack Kenden wrote:
3. "Doesn't every woman deserve the right to NOT be pregnant and give birth against her will? Don't her rights to life and bodily autonomy supercede that of a zygote or embryo smaller than the head of a pin?"
Well she could not have sex (or just use contraception). If you choose to do something that you know carries the risk of pregnancy, you have to bear the consequences.
Ah, so you're another forced birther who thinks a woman who has sex should be PUNISHED with forced pregnancy gestation and birth, even if she never wanted to BE pregnant in the first place. Got it.

But guess what, no matter what YOU believe, NO woman has to stay pregnant and give birth against her will. You should be aware, if your aren't already, that ALL contraceptive methods can and DO fail occasionally. When birth control failure happens and a pregnancy results, the ONLY person who gets to make the choice is the woman who is pregnant. Therefore, if it isn't YOUR pregnancy, it isn't your decision.

Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, even if a pregnancy happens. That means a woman can cheerfully opt OUT of motherhood if she doesn't ever want pregnancy or children. And she doesn't have to remain celibate for the rest of her life to avoid unwanted pregnancy either. Don't like it? Too bad. It isn't up to you to make sexual and reproductive decisions for anyone but yourself.
Nanack Kenden

Racine, WI

#226677 Dec 6, 2012
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, so you're another forced birther who thinks a woman who has sex should be PUNISHED with forced pregnancy gestation and birth, even if she never wanted to BE pregnant in the first place. Got it.
But guess what, no matter what YOU believe, NO woman has to stay pregnant and give birth against her will. You should be aware, if your aren't already, that ALL contraceptive methods can and DO fail occasionally. When birth control failure happens and a pregnancy results, the ONLY person who gets to make the choice is the woman who is pregnant. Therefore, if it isn't YOUR pregnancy, it isn't your decision.
Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, even if a pregnancy happens. That means a woman can cheerfully opt OUT of motherhood if she doesn't ever want pregnancy or children. And she doesn't have to remain celibate for the rest of her life to avoid unwanted pregnancy either. Don't like it? Too bad. It isn't up to you to make sexual and reproductive decisions for anyone but yourself.
I must SAY, I am amused by your RANDOM capitalization that PERVADES your "reasoning".(I'm also amused by people who insist that the life of a baby is meaningless getting morally indignant about anything.)

I suppose that if a woman doesn't want to be a mother, she can just smother her newborn. And if you object, who the hell are you to make that decision for her? She doesn't have to be the mother, you know.

If a woman wants to minimize her chances of getting pregnant, don't have sex. Sorry to sound like a stick in the mud. Sex without consequences is not a fundamental right endowed by our creator.

The fact that you didn't want or plan for the consequences of your actions does not absolve you from them. Your argument is literally just "If I didn't want it to happen, I shouldn't deal with it." I wonder if that's the defense Ted Kennedy used if he spoke to Mary Jo Kopechne's parents. "Well, you see, I didn't MEAN to drive into the lake and kill your daughter. Well, now that everything's cleared up..."

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

West Bloomfield, MI

#226678 Dec 6, 2012
Nanack Kenden wrote:
<quoted text>
I must SAY, I am amused by your RANDOM capitalization that PERVADES your "reasoning".(I'm also amused by people who insist that the life of a baby is meaningless getting morally indignant about anything.)
I suppose that if a woman doesn't want to be a mother, she can just smother her newborn. And if you object, who the hell are you to make that decision for her? She doesn't have to be the mother, you know.
If a woman wants to minimize her chances of getting pregnant, don't have sex. Sorry to sound like a stick in the mud. Sex without consequences is not a fundamental right endowed by our creator.
The fact that you didn't want or plan for the consequences of your actions does not absolve you from them. Your argument is literally just "If I didn't want it to happen, I shouldn't deal with it." I wonder if that's the defense Ted Kennedy used if he spoke to Mary Jo Kopechne's parents. "Well, you see, I didn't MEAN to drive into the lake and kill your daughter. Well, now that everything's cleared up..."
Once you refer to any higher being having anything to do with this process, you've lost credibility. After all, what "creator" would knowingly give the "gift of life" to a woman he knows doesn't want it or can't care for it or will get rid of it. Since he's omniscient and all...

This is a foolish argument. I won't stop having sex just because I might get pregnant any more than I'm going to stop driving a car because I might wreck. What I can do it take precautions, but if I'm about to wreck and can somehow get out of the way in the last minute, I'm sure as hell going to.
Nanack Kenden

Racine, WI

#226679 Dec 6, 2012
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once you refer to any higher being having anything to do with this process, you've lost credibility. After all, what "creator" would knowingly give the "gift of life" to a woman he knows doesn't want it or can't care for it or will get rid of it. Since he's omniscient and all...
This is a foolish argument. I won't stop having sex just because I might get pregnant any more than I'm going to stop driving a car because I might wreck. What I can do it take precautions, but if I'm about to wreck and can somehow get out of the way in the last minute, I'm sure as hell going to.
Wow. I'm going to have fun with that first paragraph...

a. The only part where I mention God is where I say that sex without consequences is NOT divinely endowed. That's the only place where I reference Him, and it's to say that He doesn't play a part.

b. I suppose you have problem with the Declaration of Independence. "[E]ndowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." and all that.

c. For the fiftieth time, if you're a woman and pregnant, odds are you had something to do with it. The biological purpose of sex is procreation (as opposed to driving a car, which is geared towards transportation, not crashes).

I also love how you can't keep track of your own analogy. First you compare pregnancy to crashing, then it's "if I'm about to wreck and can somehow get out of the way in the last minute, I'm sure as hell going to." Actually, per your own rules, if you're pregnant, you've already crashed.

Seriously, it's like if you drink, drive, crash, and then insist that it's not your fault because you drove really, really slowly. "Why should I pay for that guy's hospital bills? I may have been drunk, but it's not my fault he was there at that particular moment."

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#226680 Dec 6, 2012
Nanack Kenden wrote:
1. Our whole bodies are made of cells, and thus could conceivably be called a "cluster" of them. Your wording that I borrowed for fun is just a means of dehumanizing the baby. Even at the earliest stages of development, the zygote is a fairly complex entity.
Facts, when used properly, can be your friend. Misused, they are you enemy. And the fact is that zygotes are NOT complex at all. The zygote is an undistinguished mass of cells, each identical to the others. The next stage is not a whole lot better, since the blastocyst differes from the zygote only in having an inner mass and an outer layer.

It is only AFTER the blastocyst is lucky enough to implant in the uterine wall and it develops into an embryo that there is ANY degree of complexity.

And make no mistake, it IS a matter of luck, since the MAJORITY of zygotes & blastocysts just get flushed down the toilet with the woman's next period.
Nanack Kenden wrote:
In fact, since I'm extraordinarily lazy, I'll just copy and paste a big block of text from www.caseforlife.com/evidence.asp :
"Dr. Maureen Condic points out that embryos are living human beings 'precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death - the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living cells.' Condic, Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, explains the important distinction between individual parts and whole human embryos overlooked by Bailey:
Soundslike Condic is putting her philosophy ahead of the facts. The fact is that an embryo has no indepentant existance outside the mother, thus it cannot be called a living human being.
Nanack Kenden wrote:
2. Your mindset should include the legalization of thalidomide. Sure, the baby post-birth would be affected, but the drug itself would be taken within the womb, when according to you the mother has the right to dispose of him as she wishes.
Thalidomide is legal. What were you thinking?

Besides there is a HUGE difference between choosing to abort, and choosing to do something that will condemn a human being to a lifetime of suffereing. You might as well claim that I have the right to come and cut off your arms and legs.
Nanack Kenden wrote:
3. "Doesn't every woman deserve the right to NOT be pregnant and give birth against her will? Don't her rights to life and bodily autonomy supercede that of a zygote or embryo smaller than the head of a pin?"
Well she could not have sex (or just use contraception). If you choose to do something that you know carries the risk of pregnancy, you have to bear the consequences.
ALL forms of birth control fail.

Not all sex is voluntary.

No one has the right to tell anyone else that they cannot have sex.(Well, except maybe for a parent talking to a minor child...)

Withholding sex is a grounds for divorce.
Nanack Kenden wrote:
4. You seem to have tacitly admitted that under your system of morals, a fly (or a dog, or an armadillo, or even a tree) has more rights than a 16-week old embryo.
I would say that EXPLICITLY, that is a valid statement. An embryo has ZERO rights, by definition.
Nanack Kenden wrote:
5. Out of curiosity, if a baby was born prematurely and was forced to go on a respirator, would it be okay to pull the plug? Its a mindless, non-sentient, non-sapient bulge of tissue that doesn't perceive its surroundings, lacks a will to live, a drain on both the hospital and mother, and completely dependent on an artificial machine for life.
Isufficient information. Depending on just HOW premature it is, there could be zero chance of it surviving, or it could be severely handicapped, both physically and mentally. Pulling the plug could well be the greatest blessing that one could give to that infant.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Israel End is Near 4 min Someone 52
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 10 min lightbeamrider 176,433
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min ChristineM 826,531
sex (May '13) 11 min rajivas 146
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 16 min truthandcommonsense 3,024
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 22 min Robert F 583,193
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 26 min Ricky F 53,341
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 32 min gundee123 442,616
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 hr robertxiong 98,926
More from around the web