NationStates Jolt Archive

The sperm and the egg if left to themselves do nothing other than remain sperm and egg cells.

Really? So, if I want to get pregnant, I actually have to physically fuse the sperm and egg cells?

Wait, no, that's not how it works. All I have to do is have sex at the right time of the month, leave them to themselves and they will meet and fuse.

The embryo, unlike the egg and the sperm is not just a cell waiting to be reacted upon by another cell. It is a growing and changing mass of cells.

So is cancer. What's your point?

That is the only case where the mothers rights have been violated and she did not choose to have the child attached to her. Then the child becomes a parasite because unlike when the woman willingly had sex, she did not choose it to be there.

(a) A parasite is a parasite whether you choose it to be there or not. If I intentionally eat a tapeworm, it is still a parasite if it continues to reside in my body.

(b) A woman who willingly has sex does not choose to get pregnant any more than a person who willingly drives chooses to be injured in an accident. If I get in a car with the intention of getting in an accident, then one could say I have chosen to do so. If I have sex with the intention of getting pregnant, then one could say I chose to get pregnant. But the simple act of having sex is not choosing to get pregnant.

(c) Dirty whore argument again? *sigh*

My stance is the higher order brain function is necessary, just as it is necessary to be considered alive at any other point in your life, but then I'm not an advocate of simply making up an arbitrary line to punish women for having sex.

It depends on what line you are using for what is considered alive. A truly braindead person has lost *all* brain function - higher and lower order. However, many tend to think that a person who has permanently lost higher order brain function (ie. Terry Shaivo) is no longer a human person.

And even if we were to assume that a fetus is a human person, there would still be absolutely no legal justification for prohibiting abortion. So I don't see why anybody wastes time on that line of argument.

Because it always comes up in some form. =)

IIRC, Adriatica also thinks that live organ donation should be mandatory - that the government should be able to tell you that you *have* to give your kidney to a diabetic who needs a transplant.

They do accept the possibility of getting pregnant, much like I accept the possibility that I may be in a horrible accident every time I get on the freeway in my car. However, just as I would expect to have my bones reset and my wounds sewn up if I were in such an accident, a woman who does not wish to be pregnant expects to be able to correct the results of the accident - by ceasing to be pregnant.

The diffrence being the nessecary solutions to the problem have diffrent costs. You dont need to destroy a life to have your bones reset.

My rules are arbitrary? I don't like abortion I have no problem admitting that. Birth control is just fine if it doesn't harm the unborn child. People don't like restrictions so if you want to see pro-life views as arbitrary fine.

So, basically, you're saying that the only acceptable forms of birth control are barrier methods, spermacide, sterility? If you do a little bit of homework you'll see that both the pill and IUDs interfere with implantation. Granted, they interefere at such an early stage that no one ever even notices that they're pregnant.

Still, does birth control which interferes with implantation count as an abortion?

The diffrence being the nessecary solutions to the problem have diffrent costs. You dont need to destroy a life to have your bones reset.

I wouldn't technically be destroying a life if I had an early-term abortion either. I would be destroying the potential for a life - and for that reason, I would not do it. But a potential life is not the same thing as an actual life.

But this and other scenarios are not the norm. Mostly it is just women dodging responsibility. When you have sex you acknowledge the possibility of pregnancy. You use protection to prevent that but if it occurs anyway? Well, you knew the risk.

There really does need to be someone who pops out of no where and repeats that quote every time you're about to get laid.

No, honestly, we need to start a collection.

It depends on what line you are using for what is considered alive. A truly braindead person has lost *all* brain function - higher and lower order. However, many tend to think that a person who has permanently lost higher order brain function (ie. Terry Shaivo) is no longer a human person.

Medically the definition of death is the loss of higher order brain function. People force the 'patient' to remain alive, but if it were a purely medical decision when higher order brain function ceased the machines would shut off. Pretty much only people who claim religious superiority or people who are not ready to let go are the only people who argue otherwise... oh, wait....

NOTE: Obviously, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the people who throughout the thread are taking on religious superiority, but pretending it's all about the children.

You rock :)

What happened to the sig? You think we wouldn't notice?


Eh, change is a good thing. If the quote stays the same it'll get boring. Besides, as misanthropic as I've been lately, you can only ask people to kill themselves so often. ;)

Whether or not they "want" to have a child when they have sex is irrelevent. It must be accepted as a possible outcome. Sex is an urge, yes. And it is not always about having children, yes. But people have to accept that a possible out come of sex is a child.

No, bullshit. We didn't drag our asses out of the trees, master fire, domesticate animals, harness the land, and tear a little enclave of order from a universe of cold entropy just so we could be slaves to biology. I'm sorry, were past that. Reproductive freedom is vital to the continued advancement of humanity, it is a symbol of our dominance over our base natures.

Take your guilt-fetish morality elsewhere, cause it ain't welcomed here, bub. You can do whatever the hell you want to with your body, but the moment you decide to tell me what I can do with mine is when we start to have a problem.

That is the only case where the mothers rights have been violated and she did not choose to have the child attached to her. Then the child becomes a parasite because unlike when the woman willingly had sex, she did not choose it to be there. It is unfair to force a woman to have a child that she herself did not accept the posibility of having.

And what if she used birth control? Forget it, to be honest, I don't really care about your answer.

Lets get practical. If you're going to allow abortion in the case of rape, you're going to allow abortion on demand. Welcome to the real world. All it would take to get an abortion is a lie on a form. Rape is so hard to prove, so hard to prosecute, that you'd be in a dangerously unconstitutional position if you determined whether a rape happened or not in the context of an abortion by any measure outside of the woman's bare assertion.

In those situations the people you are robbing the future off has done something wrong. What has an embryo done wrong



I personally oppose the idea of conscription, but if you have it I would hope that the wars you are going to fight are self defence. IE if you didnt kill them, they would kill you. So again there is a party that is in the wrong that is why the killing is nessetated. In abortion the one who is dying has done nothing wrong.


*shrug* In the case of rape the fetus has done nothing wrong. This isn't about right or wrong, it is about competing rights. The fetus is tresspassing, endangering the life of the mother, and robbing her of resources. If she wants to put up with it, thats fine, but she doesn't have to.

Lets say you have liver cancer. You need a new liver or you'll die. You didn't do anything wrong, biology and fate conspired against you and now you're going to die unless you get a transplant. Ah, but theres a hitch, you have a rare tissue type and I'm the only match. If I don't donate a part of my liver, you die. Lets say I don;t want to give up part of my liver. Perhaps I like to drink heavily and giving up some of my liver would limit that passtime. Perhaps I don't want to take the time off work that abdominal surgery would require. Perhaps I just don't like the small but significant chance that I might die on the table. Should the law be able to force me to give you a portion of my liver?

Lets say it isn't cancer, but it is an infection which is destroying your liver. You got that infection from eating dinner at my home. I didn't mean for you to do it, but I knew that there was a tiny chance that you might get some kind of food poisoning because no method of food prep is 100% safe. Now should I have to give you some of my liver?

Why would a uterus be any different?

Whether or not they "want" to have a child when they have sex is irrelevent. It must be accepted as a possible outcome. Sex is an urge, yes. And it is not always about having children, yes. But people have to accept that a possible out come of sex is a child.


No... it need not be accepted as a possible outcome. Some people don't even KNOW that is 'where babies come from'.

Besides which, if they WERE accepting risks.. they would be ONLY accepting the risk of possible conception.

Conception is NOT the same as birth of a child.


You accept the posibilty of a car crash all the time when you drive. You obviously dont want it to happen when it does.


You accept there is a risk... that doesn't mean you are going to just let it happen. I challenge you, next time you start choking, to follow the logic you preach for abortion... you mustn't stop yourself choking, you must let nature take it's course... after all, you accepted that risk when you started eating...


However your comparison is flawed. Unlike pregnacy, if you get in a horrendous car accident, getting you out does not require someone to die.


It could. If you were mangled, and would not survive, that doesn't mean they'd all just go home.


The resolution of the situation does not require a death. However that is the case in pregancay. And that is the flaw.


Actually... if we are talking about dying in car crashes... the resolution DOES
'require' a death...


When you get in a car you must accept the posibilty of a car crash. If you didnt, you wouldnt get in the car. But fortunetly, the resolution or solving of that situation does not require anyone to die. However that is the case in abortion. To put it in a diagram form


This is rubbish. My daughter gets a lift in to school from me, most mornings. She is not 'accepting the risk she will die horribly in a car crash'.


Pregnacy = posibilty of child -> if posibility is realised -> solution -> abortion =1 certian death


I say no. No deaths... because there is no 'life'.


Driving = posibility of crash -> if posibility is realised -> solution -> emergency services resuqing you from the car = possible danger for Emergency services but uncertian*

So yes, when driving you implicitly accept the posibility of a crash, its not like you can do anything else. But when driving, the resolution of the problem of a crash does not involve anyones certian death. Obviously there is a posibilty of a death from the act of driving itself, but unlike abortion it is not certian. Abortion is a certian death for the child.

*(besides they chose to be in that danger, the child didnt)

As Judge Death so wisely said, "You cannot kill what does not live".

That is the only case where the mothers rights have been violated and she did not choose to have the child attached to her. Then the child becomes a parasite because unlike when the woman willingly had sex, she did not choose it to be there. It is unfair to force a woman to have a child that she herself did not accept the posibility of having.

A friend of mine had an abortion. She had sex, willingly, but her contraception failed her.

Thus, she "did not choose to have the child attached to her", as per your post... she saw the foetus as "a parasite", as per your post... "she did not choose it to be there", as per your post.

By all the claims you make here, you should support her abortion.

No. When you have sex, up till the point that they fuse, they are still sperm and egg cells. They are not developing or changing in the same way as an embryo does. There is a massive diffrence between not creating a life and killing one. Can't you see that.

Apparently, it is you that cannot see it.

Even if an egg and a sperm fuse, there is not 'a life' at THAT point, by any logical mode of assertion.

Thus, for you to arbitrarily pick 'conception' as a point beyond which there is some sanctity attached to the material, is to refuse to acknowledge any logical differences between 'creating a life' and 'killing one'.

Medically the definition of death is the loss of higher order brain function.

From what I have read, this is incorrect - at least if you are referring to the condition known as brain death:

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

According to this, the irreversible cessation of higher order brain function is not enough to declare brain death - all measurable brain activity must have stopped.

However, it does make the point that many consider a person who has lost higher order function to be dead - and they feel that life support should then be removed. I tend to agree on this point, and it seems that you do too.

NOTE: Obviously, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the people who throughout the thread are taking on religious superiority, but pretending it's all about the children.

=) Yeah, the odd thing is that I think they really have themselves convinced, so that even as they are screaming, "She should have kept her legs shut!" they think they are somehow helping children. *sigh*

How about this as an alternative to abortion.


Why do people prefer to get an abortion rather than carry the child to term and give the child up for adoption? Because it’s too much of a hassle and virtually no rewards. So why not legally allow women to sell their children. It would have to be more than enough to supplement any time lost from work and cover all expenses from all the extra food the woman needs to eat. That should provide added incentive for women to bring their child to term. Anybody who wants to purchase the child should be able to purchase it as well. Of course the woman should still be able to have an abortion if she so chooses, but with this added incentive abortion rates should decrease.

You can't use the responsibility argument because it is not a factor in your decision to outlaw abortion. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp. You do not allow an except for rape so it has nothing to do with responsibility. Quit acting like that's your reasoning.

When it is consensual sex, the woman should accept responsibility. Should it be rape, then that sucks but the child should not pay for some asshole.

Either circumstance it is all about the unborn child. I am sure I've made that clear through various posts. 1. Responsibility. 2. The child's life. The first may not always come into the situation but the second always does. I don't see why you can't understand that.

When it is consensual sex, the woman should accept responsibility. Should it be rape, then that sucks but the child should not pay for some asshole.

Either circumstance it is all about the unborn child. I am sure I've made that clear through various posts. 1. Responsibility. 2. The child's life. The first may not always come into the situation but the second always does. I don't see why you can't understand that.

If #2 is the primary concern, then #1 is not even necessary (as demonstrated by the fact that you would force a 12-year old incest rape victim to carry her child to term). The ONLY reason to even mention your peronal opinion about #1 is to take a jab at any woman who chooses to be sexually active when she does not wish to become pregnant...

When it is consensual sex, the woman should accept responsibility. Should it be rape, then that sucks but the child should not pay for some asshole.

Either circumstance it is all about the unborn child. I am sure I've made that clear through various posts. 1. Responsibility. 2. The child's life. The first may not always come into the situation but the second always does. I don't see why you can't understand that.


In a case of competing rights like abortion, can you present a compelling legal argument for the right of the potential human to trump the life of an existing citizen?

When it is consensual sex, the woman should accept responsibility. Should it be rape, then that sucks but the child should not pay for some asshole.

Either circumstance it is all about the unborn child. I am sure I've made that clear through various posts. 1. Responsibility. 2. The child's life. The first may not always come into the situation but the second always does. I don't see why you can't understand that.

How many times does this have to be repeated. Accepting the possibility of something occuring does not mean accepting to it occuring. I accept the possibility that if I get in a car I could get into an accident and become seriously injured. But if that was to happen I should not be barred from get medical treatment because I knew there was a possibility of getting injured in a car crash.

If #2 is the primary concern, then #1 is not even necessary (as demonstrated by the fact that you would force a 12-year old incest rape victim to carry her child to term). The ONLY reason to even mention your peronal opinion about #1 is to take a jab at any woman who chooses to be sexually active when she does not wish to become pregnant...

You can be sexually active as long as you accept that should you become pregnant you take responsibility. That is going to be involved in the vast majority of situations. Your example is a tiny minority that you are just throwing out to find as extreme of an example as possible. So at the risk of being repetitive, yes responsibility is a large part of it but the child's life is the primary part of the arguement.

How many times does this have to be repeated. Accepting the possibility of something occuring does not mean accepting to it occuring. I accept the possibility that if I get in a car I could get into an accident and become seriously injured. But if that was to happen I should not be barred from get medical treatment because I knew there was a possibility of getting injured in a car crash.

Accepting this outragous comparison as a scenario simply doesn't work as you are only taking your life into consideration of the small possibility of getting into a wreck. An abortion affects another life as well and your choice could end that life directly.

For myself I'm tired of the automobile being used to compare everything from abortion to guns to drugs. They are totally different things designed to do totally different things. Stop using this comparison!

Accepting this outragous comparison as a scenario simply doesn't work as you are only taking your life into consideration of the small possibility of getting into a wreck. An abortion affects another life as well and your choice could end that life directly.

For myself I'm tired of the automobile being used to compare everything from abortion to guns to drugs. They are totally different things designed to do totally different things. Stop using this comparison!

You don't seem to get the comparison do you. The comparison is about the concept of responsibility and the affect of accepting the possibility of something happening. And as I have said before accepting the possibility of something happening does NOT MEAN THAT SOMEONE ACCEPTS TO THE EVENT OCCURING. Which is why the comparison between a car accident and abortion is draw for the purpose of looking at an act where when you preform it there is a certain amount of knowledge beforehand that another event could occur by preforming the first act. But even when you acknowledge the possibility of that said even happening you do not automatically consent to that event if you consent to the possibility of it.

A friend of mine had an abortion. She had sex, willingly, but her contraception failed her.

Thus, she "did not choose to have the child attached to her", as per your post... she saw the foetus as "a parasite", as per your post... "she did not choose it to be there", as per your post.

By all the claims you make here, you should support her abortion.

No

Your friend had sex with contreception. The contreception lowers the possibility of conception but does not eliminate it. She accepts the posibility of it happening implicity by having sex.

You don't seem to get the comparison do you. The comparison is about the concept of responsibility and the affect of accepting the possibility of something happening. And as I have said before accepting the possibility of something happening does NOT MEAN THAT SOMEONE ACCEPTS TO THE EVENT OCCURING. Which is why the comparison between a car accident and abortion is draw for the purpose of looking at an act where when you preform it there is a certain amount of knowledge beforehand that another event could occur by preforming the first act. But even when you acknowledge the possibility of that said even happening you do not automatically consent to that event if you consent to the possibility of it.

Perhaps in this one case you can make the comparison at first glance but still abortion ends a life. That is not so if you get in an accident, sure you may get hurt but then you expect to get help. In the end when you take it a step farther the comparison still won't work.

No

Your friend had sex with contreception. The contreception lowers the possibility of conception but does not eliminate it. She accepts the posibility of it happening implicity by having sex.

If the room is stuffy and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah now he can stay, she's given him the right to the use of her house-for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle." It would be still more absurd to say this is I had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine its not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in.-A Defense of Abortion


Perhaps in this one case you can make the comparison at first glance but still abortion ends a life. That is not so if you get in an accident, sure you may get hurt but then you expect to get help. In the end when you take it a step farther the comparison still won't work.
You still don't get it do you. This has nothing to do with the actual abortion arguement. This is a comparison of two events to combat the assumption that when one has sex they consent to the possibility of the child and because of that they then consent to the actual having the child.

You still don't get it do you. This has nothing to do with the actual abortion arguement. This is a comparison of two events to combat the assumption that when one has sex they consent to the possibility of the child and because of that they then consent to the actual having the child.

Who cares if the couple doesn't accept the fact that sex means possible pregnancy? They know that it could happen so if it does they need to accept it. They may never have had the faintest desire to have a child but if one is forthcoming then aborting the child and taking the easy way out is not the answer.

When it is consensual sex, the woman should accept responsibility. Should it be rape, then that sucks but the child should not pay for some asshole.

Either circumstance it is all about the unborn child. I am sure I've made that clear through various posts. 1. Responsibility. 2. The child's life. The first may not always come into the situation but the second always does. I don't see why you can't understand that.

What I can understand is that you keep arguing like you just want the woman to take responsibility, but it's not about that and you know it. Your argument has to center on 'the child's life' because that is the only one that would actually cause you to outlaw abortion. You're trying to complicate the equation and it subjugates the discussion and allows you to argue in circles and goldfish.

If #2 is the primary concern, then #1 is not even necessary (as demonstrated by the fact that you would force a 12-year old incest rape victim to carry her child to term). The ONLY reason to even mention your peronal opinion about #1 is to take a jab at any woman who chooses to be sexually active when she does not wish to become pregnant...

Exactly. And he keeps dragging the conversation into responsibility when convincing him that responsibility isn't there won't make any difference and is thus a waste of time.

Who cares if the couple doesn't accept the fact that sex means possible pregnancy? They know that it could happen so if it does they need to accept it. They may never have had the faintest desire to have a child but if one is forthcoming then aborting the child and taking the easy way out is not the answer.

You keep calling it the easy way out. How many abortions procedures have you undergone? You fail to see that a surgical procedure is not anything ANYONE takes lightly. There is a potential for sterilization and even death. It's a big deal. Calling it the easy way just shows you understand the issue at all.

Who cares if the couple doesn't accept the fact that sex means possible pregnancy? They know that it could happen so if it does they need to accept it. They may never have had the faintest desire to have a child but if one is forthcoming then aborting the child and taking the easy way out is not the answer.
Wow you still don't seem to get the whole situation do you. You put forth that when a couple has sex because they know that having a child is a possible outcome of the action they must accept that outcome if it occurs. That is simply not true. You have yet to on a logical level refute the fact that if one consents to the possibility of something happening they do not consent to the actual outcome. Such as in the examples of the car crash and the burglar intrusion it is absurd to think that if someone knows something could happen because of an action that they immediately have to consent to that occuring. Answer this. If you open a window with the knowledge that a buglar could come in, and a burglar does in fact come in, do you have to now let the burglar go through your house and do what he wants because you knew that there was a possibility of it occuring when you opened the window?

Exactly. And he keeps dragging the conversation into responsibility when convincing him that responsibility isn't there won't make any difference and is thus a waste of time.

You don't agree that's fine. Responsibility is just a lesser matter off the primary, that being the unborn child's life. You really could just forget everything else if you think it makes things too complicated. So. The unborn child. That alone is enough to convince me that abortion is wrong. If you have time please look at the previous scenarios that were thrown out to try to determine whether the mother or child's life is more important. It really does depend on the circumstance and the choice of the mother if it becomes a true life or death situation for mother and child where you have a one will live and one will die scenario. But this and all the others are just tiny percentages of the vast amount of pregnancies. Just to hammer it home so there is no more confusion:

Yes, the unborn child's saftey is what matters, the issue of responsibility is secondary to that.

Accepting this outragous comparison as a scenario simply doesn't work as you are only taking your life into consideration of the small possibility of getting into a wreck. An abortion affects another life as well and your choice could end that life directly.

For myself I'm tired of the automobile being used to compare everything from abortion to guns to drugs. They are totally different things designed to do totally different things. Stop using this comparison!

The comparison is apt. Do you realize that often times in hospitals doctors have to choose who to operate on? They generally choose based on the chance of survival and the urgency. Occasionally this decision requires them choose one life over another. You know what NEVER enters into the decision unless they want to be subject to malpractice, they're judgement of the way in which the person was injured. Your personal 'morality' has no bearing on whether or not a person can recieve treatments to save their life or protect their health. It's not your decision to make.

You keep mention this other 'life', yet you've done none of the work to show one exists. For my money, that makes it EXACTLY the same as you punishing a driver for accepting the possibility of a car accident (particularly since you're willing to punish a passenger that was knocked and dragged into the car as well).

You keep calling it the easy way out. How many abortions procedures have you undergone? You fail to see that a surgical procedure is not anything ANYONE takes lightly. There is a potential for sterilization and even death. It's a big deal. Calling it the easy way just shows you understand the issue at all.

Yeah right. But it comes down to that you no longer have to take care of a child for 18 years. Though I don't have figures I'm sure the chances of "sterilization or death" is small and is simply part of that tiny risk with any surgery.

You don't agree that's fine. Responsibility is just a lesser matter off the primary, that being the unborn child's life. You really could just forget everything else if you think it makes things too complicated. So. The unborn child. That alone is enough to convince me that abortion is wrong. If you have time please look at the previous scenarios that were thrown out to try to determine whether the mother or child's life is more important. It really does depend on the circumstance and the choice of the mother if it becomes a true life or death situation for mother and child where you have a one will live and one will die scenario. But this and all the others are just tiny percentages of the vast amount of pregnancies. Just to hammer it home so there is no more confusion:

Yes, the unborn child's saftey is what matters, the issue of responsibility is secondary to that.

Stop wasting our time then. Stick to the only issue that will change your mind. The other one makes no difference if we convince you so why keep dragging us into arguing it.

It's like this.

Person #1: Why are you going to the store?
Person #2: We're out of eggs.
Person #1: No, we don't need eggs.
Person #2: It doesn't matter, I am going to the store to buy a vacuum cleaner anyway.
Person #1: I'd rather you got that at Best Buy.
Person #2: But we need eggs.
Person #1: We don't need eggs.
Person #2: It doesn't matter, I am going to the store to buy a vacuum cleaner anyway.

See the problem. We can never address or explain the issue when you keep goldfishing on the responsibility issue.

Yeah right. But it comes down to that you no longer have to take care of a child for 18 years. Though I don't have figures I'm sure the chances of "sterilization or death" is small and is simply part of that tiny risk with any surgery.

I can tell you've researched the subject thoroughly. It appears to me the only person taking the easy way out here is you attempting to take rights away from a woman without doing any research, having a working knowledge of the surgery, why it's done, the risks, the options, the stages of growth of an embryo/fetus, the odds of conception resulting in birth, the effect of many birth controls, etc. Educate yourself so we don't have keep doing the work for you.

Wow you still don't seem to get the whole situation do you. You put forth that when a couple has sex because they know that having a child is a possible outcome of the action they must accept that outcome if it occurs. That is simply not true. You have yet to on a logical level refute the fact that if one consents to the possibility of something happening they do not consent to the actual outcome. Such as in the examples of the car crash and the burglar intrusion it is absurd to think that if someone knows something could happen because of an action that they immediately have to consent to that occuring. Answer this. If you open a window with the knowledge that a buglar could come in, and a burglar does in fact come in, do you have to now let the burglar go through your house and do what he wants because you knew that there was a possibility of it occuring when you opened the window?

The burglar/plane crash arguments have already been refuted

You implicty accept that a child may be the result of sex by having sex, in the same way you implicity accept a crash is an outcome of driving a car. However the diffrence between the to is that the cost involved in invoking the solution. The solution to the situation of pregnacy is abortion. The solution to the situation of a car crash is being cut out of the car by the emergency services. The cost of invoking the solution of abortion is the embryo's life. The cost of invoking the solution of the emergency services is their work, time and effort. Since the emergency service workers chose that carrer it is to be expected of them and thus not a cost to them. However the embryo had no say in where it is. And the cost is its destruction.

No

Your friend had sex with contreception. The contreception lowers the possibility of conception but does not eliminate it. She accepts the posibility of it happening implicity by having sex.

I think we should require a course in basic logic as a part of our high school curriculum. As is continually stated, accepting the slim possibility of an event IS NOT the same as accepting the outcome. By that token, a person commits murder when they drive if they get in an accident and someone dies. They intended to get in the car. They know the possible consequences. Damn murderers with their driving and whatnot.

The burglar/plane crash arguments have already been refuted

You implicty accept that a child may be the result of sex by having sex, in the same way you implicity accept a crash is an outcome of driving a car. However the diffrence between the to is that the cost involved in invoking the solution. The solution to the situation of pregnacy is abortion. The solution to the situation of a car crash is being cut out of the car by the emergency services. The cost of invoking the solution of abortion is the embryo's life. The cost of invoking the solution of the emergency services is their work, time and effort. Since the emergency service workers chose that carrer it is to be expected of them and thus not a cost to them. However the embryo had no say in where it is. And the cost is its destruction.

No, they have been misunderstood not refuted. You don't get it. You can't claim that people accept the consequences of crashing the car simply by getting into it. If that were true we wouldn't have insurance claims now would we? You could just say, "Yes, I drove head on into you, but you accepted the consequences of an accident when you got in the car."

Logic doesn't change simply because you decided that one involves a death (which you haven't actually given any evidence for).

Again, in some cases doctors choose which life to save. Under current law if you revealed that your choice was made based on how responsible you felt the person was for their condition, you'd be sued for malpractice and likely lose your license to practice medicine.

The burglar/plane crash arguments have already been refuted

You implicty accept that a child may be the result of sex by having sex, in the same way you implicity accept a crash is an outcome of driving a car.
You fail to grasp the simple concept that when one consents to the possibility of an even that does not mean that a person is consenting to the actual event. You have yet to refute that statement and continue to just say that if you know the there is the possibility of something occuring, and it occurs you must accept the event. And you have yet to refute the logic of the burglar/car crash arguement. You haven't even responded to the arguement I quoted except for this its already been refuted when it clearly has not.

See the problem. We can never address or explain the issue when you keep goldfishing on the responsibility issue.

You're right, this is a waste of time. I'll end up stroking out at 21.

Not worth the effort. I'll just leave this thread for the microwaved penis one. Less strenuous on the nerves and I can have a few laughs.

No

Your friend had sex with contreception. The contreception lowers the possibility of conception but does not eliminate it. She accepts the posibility of it happening implicity by having sex.

By the way, you should look up implicit. If I have the option of preventing or ending a pregnancy, I've accepted nothing implicitly or explicitly. Women do have that option, thus no implicit acceptance. Perhaps you'd like to make another argument that doesn't require you to have already decided that the procedure is unavailable.

You're right, this is a waste of time. I'll end up stroking out at 21.

Not worth the effort. I'll just leave this thread for the microwaved penis one. Less strenuous on the nerves and I can have a few laughs.

Ah the old LALALALA I know your right but I'm not going to listen arguement. Well if thats what your going to resort to then you shouldn't even be in any of these threads trying to argue a point.

You're right, this is a waste of time. I'll end up stroking out at 21.

Not worth the effort. I'll just leave this thread for the microwaved penis one. Less strenuous on the nerves and I can have a few laughs.

Or you could just stick to the point of the 'child's life'/vacuum cleaner and stop dragging responsibility/eggs into it.

Ah the old LALALALA I know your right but I'm not going to listen arguement. Well if thats what your going to resort to then you shouldn't even be in any of these threads trying to argue a point.

I no longer see the point. We will simply continue going in circles. We know where we stand and we don't agree. Fine it's not as if any of us really expects to succeed on an arguement on this subject do we? It's like religion and gun control and the like. Never going to happen.

I no longer see the point. We will simply continue going in circles. We know where we stand and we don't agree. Fine it's not as if any of us really expects to succeed on an arguement on this subject do we? It's like religion and gun control and the like. Never going to happen.

We're going in circles because you keep mixing the points. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Every time we talk about the baby you mention responsibility. Every time we mention responsibility, you talk about the baby. You're flopping all over the place and all you have to do is stop and we'll be having an educational debate.

I'd argue, killing a child AFTER it has experienced the world would be more cruel.

A surgical procedure, carried out before the entity can feel pain, versus a death from starvation (for example) as an unwanted child?

Don't try to use the 'humane' argument, my friend... it really doesn't help your case.

Here is a news article I came across which may demonstrate this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4746642.stm

Please note that nowhere in the article is it suggested that the mother wanted or considered an abortion. I am simply trying to provoke thought amongst those who imagine that life is all plain sailing for any pregnancy that results in a live birth. I believe this child would have suffered less in an abortion, and would likely of been much better off with an adoptive parent of any sexual orientation.

You can be sexually active as long as you accept that should you become pregnant you take responsibility. That is going to be involved in the vast majority of situations. Your example is a tiny minority that you are just throwing out to find as extreme of an example as possible. So at the risk of being repetitive, yes responsibility is a large part of it but the child's life is the primary part of the arguement.

What about where the 'mother' IS a child?

An abortion affects another life as well....


No, it really doesn't.

No

Your friend had sex with contreception. The contreception lowers the possibility of conception but does not eliminate it. She accepts the posibility of it happening implicity by having sex.

Irrelevent.

You said the victim of rape earned some 'special exemption' because... and I quote: she "did not choose to have the child attached to her", she saw the foetus as "a parasite", and "she did not choose it to be there".

I'm quoting your exact words, there.

By the rationale you claimed, you are now contradicting yourself.

Yes, the unborn child's saftey is what matters, the issue of responsibility is secondary to that.

Fine.

Simply PROVE that the 'unborn child' IS 'a life'.

The burglar/plane crash arguments have already been refuted

You implicty accept that a child may be the result of sex by having sex, in the same way you implicity accept a crash is an outcome of driving a car. However the diffrence between the to is that the cost involved in invoking the solution. The solution to the situation of pregnacy is abortion. The solution to the situation of a car crash is being cut out of the car by the emergency services. The cost of invoking the solution of abortion is the embryo's life. The cost of invoking the solution of the emergency services is their work, time and effort. Since the emergency service workers chose that carrer it is to be expected of them and thus not a cost to them. However the embryo had no say in where it is. And the cost is its destruction.

1) My daughter is my passenger. She is seven. She does not 'accept' the risk of a car-wreck.

Result: Your assertion is false.

2) The 'solution' to the situation of a car crash, might be a rapid bloody death.

Result: Your assertion is false.

3) It has yet to be proved that the foetus, at the stage it is aborted, IS 'a life'.

Result: Your assertion is false.

Abortion is immoral, and I will never let any of my partners have one.

Here is a news article I came across which may demonstrate this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4746642.stm

Please note that nowhere in the article is it suggested that the mother wanted or considered an abortion. I am simply trying to provoke thought amongst those who imagine that life is all plain sailing for any pregnancy that results in a live birth. I believe this child would have suffered less in an abortion, and would likely of been much better off with an adoptive parent of any sexual orientation.

Anyone who has ever read a newspaper, and found out that, within a few miles of your own home, a homeless crack-addict gave birth to a child, in an alley, in a cardboard box... and ended up crying in the emergency room over her frozen blue, lifeless baby.... anyone who has ever THOUGHT about a reality outside their cosy protected little life... SHOULD know that the 'fight' doesn't end when you decide against abortion....

Abortion is immoral, and I will never let any of my partners have one.
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
My personnal beliefs also rule out adoption by gays.

My personnal beliefs also rule out adoption by gays.

Well, if you ask Santa REAL nice... maybe he'll make sure you never get adopted by them?

My personnal beliefs also rule out adoption by gays.
So who do you plan to let take care of all the unwanted children huh?

Well, if you ask Santa REAL nice... maybe he'll make sure you never get adopted by them?
*watches as irony flies waaaaaay over your head*

Perhaps I should remind you that I'm a gay male. And that if I "oppose adoption on a personnal belief basis" basically only means that I don't want to adopt myself :p

Sorry, I just couldn't resist pulling you guys' collective leg.

Abortion is immoral, and I will never let any of my partners have one.

If I were cynical... I'd say something about how I doubt you'd ever have to worry...

*watches as irony flies waaaaaay over your head*

Perhaps I should remind you that I'm a gay male. And that if I "oppose adoption on a personnal belief basis" basically only means that I don't want to adopt myself :p

Sorry, I just couldn't resist pulling you guys' collective leg.

You didn't find my response 'in character' AND witty, then?

You didn't find my response 'in character' AND witty, then?
I don't have a Santa fetish, so no.

*giggles as GnI tries to play it off*

*giggles as GnI tries to play it off*
lol, maybe I should have pretended a bit longer. But I just wanted to have a little of good-natured fun at your expense, not be seen as trolling :-p

Abortion is immoral, and I will never let any of my partners have one.
its not up to you.

the most control you have over the decision is to not have sex so the issue will never arise.

By the way, I think you idiots have turned me into a freaking liberal. I hope you're happy. What am I going to tell my father?

its not up to you.

the most control you have over the decision is to not have sex so the issue will never arise.
Once you read my next few posts, you'll realize that, yes, it is indeed much in my control! :p

*watches as irony flies waaaaaay over your head*
This topic has pissed me off far too much to notice irony.... especially irony based on something I don't know. I apologise for assuming you were a conservative.

*giggles as GnI tries to play it off*

You hush. I thought I was pretty convincing, actually. ;)

This topic has pissed me off far too much to notice irony.... especially irony based on something I don't know. I apologise for assuming you were a conservative.
Oh, no need to apologize, after all I was the one trying to bring a bit of a laugh back in this dreadfully beaten to death topic.

*watches as irony flies waaaaaay over your head*

Perhaps I should remind you that I'm a gay male. And that if I "oppose adoption on a personnal belief basis" basically only means that I don't want to adopt myself :p

Sorry, I just couldn't resist pulling you guys' collective leg.
oh youre such a mean boy

*sticks her tongue out at skaladora*

By the way, I think you idiots have turned me into a freaking liberal. I hope you're happy. What am I going to tell my father?

I guess you'll just have to be a 'closet liberal'... you know, acting non-liberal in front of your friends, then going home to your secret stash of 'liberal porn'...

If I were cynical... I'd say something about how I doubt you'd ever have to worry...
And you would be oh so right :D

Oh, no need to apologize, after all I was the one trying to bring a bit of a laugh back in this dreadfully beaten to death topic.
Bah, I made a mistake, a dreeadful one, and thus I apologise. I just don't like the issue this topic is based on; its pointless. "Does the person next to me having an abortion affect you? No? Sht up about it then." Seems the most logical argument to me.

I guess you'll just have to be a 'closet liberal'... you know, acting non-liberal in front of your friends, then going home to your secret stash of 'liberal porn'...

Yeah, but I have a speech impediment that makes me sound logical. Don't you think they'll notice?

oh youre such a mean boy

*sticks her tongue out at skaladora*
Oh, come on :fluffle:

Abortion is woman's right. My opinion is that too many men get into that debate trying to choose what the women should do with their own bodies. I believe women should have the final word.

The very day our medical practices permit the transplant of an unborn fetus from a woman's uterus to a man, I'll personnally push for a total ban on abortion, and legislation forcing all "pro-life" white male conservatives to carry the babies to term.

But since I'm such a good guy, I'd let em put em up for adoption once it's born :p

Fine.

Simply PROVE that the 'unborn child' IS 'a life'.

Doesn't the unborn child have cellular activity? Have DNA? How can you say that the child is not a life?

Bah, I made a mistake, a dreeadful one, and thus I apologise. I just don't like the issue this topic is based on; its pointless. "Does the person next to me having an abortion affect you? No? Sht up about it then." Seems the most logical argument to me.

This thread is not about abortions or homosexuality, it's about the hypocrisy of making all of these ridiculous arguments together that are clear and obvious evidence that the child is not the focus of the debate.

Doesn't the unborn child have cellular activity? Have DNA? How can you say that the child is not a life?

Ah, more goldfishing. I see that we have to keep having this discussion. You could go back in the thread where Dem told you the requirements for life that an embryo and early fetus do not and cannot meet. These are requirement for ANYTHING to be considered a living and seperate organism, not just humans. Not a seperate organism, not a life.

Doesn't the unborn child have cellular activity? Have DNA? How can you say that the child is not a life?
So you think a skin cell is alive? It has cellular activity and DNA....

Jocabia, good point. Still. The current argument then, that do you?

Yeah, but I have a speech impediment that makes me sound logical. Don't you think they'll notice?

The risk is... you are going to sound logical in front of your anti-liberal friends...? Is there any way you can mask it?

I mean... can't you just make every third sentence a withering attack on men/women/homosexuals/abortions/atheists/sandwiches... I mean, it doesn't really MATTER what you yell about, so long as you work up a good foam, right?

So you think a skin cell is alive? It has cellular activity and DNA....

Jocabia, good point. Still. The current argument then, that do you?

Pardon? That do you? Can you phrase a question like that?

Um, my response is "That do I."

So you think a skin cell is alive? It has cellular activity and DNA....

Jocabia, good point. Still. The current argument then, that do you?

Technically it is alive but then that skin cell isn't going to form into a child now is it?

The risk is... you are going to sound logical in front of your anti-liberal friends...? Is there any way you can mask it?

I mean... can't you just make every third sentence a withering attack on men/women/homosexuals/abortions/atheists/sandwiches... I mean, it doesn't really MATTER what you yell about, so long as you work up a good foam, right?

Well, after about every other sentence I'll call various groups sinners. Perhaps mention how Katrina was God calling down punishment on the bared breasts of New Orleans.

Oh, and oh, I'll talk about how Janet Jackson's exposed breast is the cause of school shootings, not dumbass parents that can't keep their guns out of the hands of children or be arsed to bother raising those children.

Pardon? That do you? Can you phrase a question like that?

Um, my response is "That do I."
Its an Anglicanism, meaning "Is that ok with you?" but slightly more sarcastic. Its not offensive or anything, just a slightly illogical Anglicanism.

Doesn't the unborn child have cellular activity? Have DNA? How can you say that the child is not a life?

Cancers have cellular activity. They are 'alive'... but not 'a life'.

Excrement has 'human' DNA. It is neither 'alive', nor 'a life'.

And, where is this 'child' of which you speak? You constantly 'appeal to emotion', apparently as an ALTERNATIVE to having 'an argument'.


A foetus is 'live' tissue. It is 'human tissue'. That does not make it 'a human life'.

Its an Anglicanism, meaning "Is that ok with you?" but slightly more sarcastic. Its not offensive or anything, just a slightly illogical Anglicanism.

And in Ill-annoying (Illinoisian) "That do I" means, well, we have gotten off-topic, because I didn't intend to discuss the merits of abortion but rather the effect of the combined policies that tell us to "think of the children (who will be put in group homes that greatly increase their likelihood of drug abuse and/or crime which will land them in our overcrowded jail system)."

Technically it is alive but then that skin cell isn't going to form into a child now is it?

And, neither is a conceptus, unless it a) implants (which 33% don't), b) remains implanted (which about another 17%) don't, and 'survives' until 'birth'.

The important question for your little skin cell is: It is 'alive'... but is it 'a life'?

Well, after about every other sentence I'll call various groups sinners. Perhaps mention how Katrina was God calling down punishment on the bared breasts of New Orleans.

Oh, and oh, I'll talk about how Janet Jackson's exposed breast is the cause of school shootings, not dumbass parents that can't keep their guns out of the hands of children or be arsed to bother raising those children.

Hey.... do you think Janet Jackson's bared breast was the CAUSE of hurricane Katrina?

Hey.... do you think Janet Jackson's bared breast was the CAUSE of hurricane Katrina?

Don't be ridiculous. It was caused by bared breasts in general which is why it hit those savages in the Carribean and then those savages in NO. Because everything is sacred in its 'natural state' except the human body which is dirty and should be hidden from the world. Expose a child to racism and that kid could just be a Senator, but expose a child to a bared boob and that kid... could just be a Kennedy.

By the way, I may be swinging liberal, but I still freakin' hate Democrats.

Don't be ridiculous. It was caused by bared breasts in general which is why it hit those savages in the Carribean and then those savages in NO. Because everything is sacred in its 'natural state' except the human body which is dirty and should be hidden from the world. Expose a child to racism and that kid could just be a Senator, but expose a child to a bared boob and that kid... could just be a Kennedy.

Yeah... gotta love that whole 'human body is teh wrong' approach.

Whenever I get one of those kind of debates, face-to-face... I usually just ask them what God's FIRST instructions ever (to humans) were.

By the way, I may be swinging liberal, but I still freakin' hate Democrats.

You could always become a classical liberal.

By the way, I may be swinging liberal, but I still freakin' hate Democrats.

Problem with a two party system, where both parties are little more than advocates for their corporate sponsors.

By choice, I wouldn't vote for either of the (alleged) 'alternatives' in the US political spectrum.

I don't know about that... complaining that we have 'allowed too many rights' with our attitudes towards divorce, means that, at some points, some rights were 'not allowed'. To me - this sounds like someone lamenting women's suffrage.
He just said divorce was too easy to get. Nowhere near "I should own women". Divorce is legal in my country but it's not easy to get. But women certainly aren't considered possessions (nor are men)!

I'm not defending his point about divorce. It doesn't matter what I think about this issue. I would just suggest avoiding straw-man debating in the future.

Problem with a two party system, where both parties are little more than advocates for their corporate sponsors.

Admit it. The US is a corporate dictatorship. The "best" thing about it is that it has the world's best system for disguising that fact.

So when is the revolution going to happen? Get your guns.

He just said divorce was too easy to get. Nowhere near "I should own women". Divorce is legal in my country but it's not easy to get. But women certainly aren't considered possessions (nor are men)!

I'm not defending his point about divorce. It doesn't matter what I think about this issue. I would just suggest avoiding straw-man debating in the future.

No... he didn't 'just' say ' divorce was too easy to get'... he compared this 'ease' unfavourably, to an implied earlier time BEFORE such rights became available. Logically, that time must be assumed to be 'pre-Suffrage', roughly.

It's not a strawman, and won't become one just because you repeat it over and over.

Admit it. The US is a corporate dictatorship. The "best" thing about it is that it has the world's best system for disguising that fact.

So when is the revolution going to happen? Get your guns.

I agree. The US basically is a monopoly, where the biggest market players OWN the government.

The best thing that could be said for the Democrats at the last election, was "at least they are NOT the Republicans"... and, personally, I don't really consider that a manifesto agenda point.

Actually the hypocrisy that you think you see here has two completely differing issues. I dont claim to expouse those views, however i know people who do, and I have talked in length with them about them, and I can understand their point of view.

I am sure you are all aware of the massive amounts of social pressures in the United States School System. Everything, from lookds to glasses, to being too smart, etc etc can wind you being made an outcast. Being Adopted makes it 5 times worse, I had a friend who it was publicly known he was adopted (he was korean, his mother white and his father spanish) and he recieved load of unneccisarily harsh treatment because of this. Imagine what might happen in these school systems to find not only are you adopted, but your adopted parents are gay/lesbian, especially with some of the heavy bigotry that many parents have about it. That child would have no chance of social interactions.

There are other reasons, however it would be hard for me to explain them, as I dont fully understand them myself. They involve the idea that gay couples should not be allowed marriage status in the first place (insert arguement of gay marriage issue here. Actually please dont, that will take the issue away from adoption). However i do have to say that letting gay/lesbian couples adopt is only a stopgag measure, and we all know how well those work. What we need is national reform of the adoption system, considering how overstressed, underfunded, and broken the system is.

Also another concern is those people who are using this as an issule to promote gay rights, not to look after the children. Don't deny it, there are quite a lot of people who dont really care about the children, they care about gay rights. It would be dangerous to accede to their pressures, a good thing done for the wrong reasons doesnt make it right. We have to be careful that when/if we allow gay couples to adopt, it has to be solely for the children's benefit, not the rights of gay people.

Yes, because being teased at school is really worse than being shuttled around our abominable foster care system without any stability that a child needs.

I agree. The US basically is a monopoly, where the biggest market players OWN the government.

The best thing that could be said for the Democrats at the last election, was "at least they are NOT the Republicans"... and, personally, I don't really consider that a manifesto agenda point.

It is admittedly a pretty good point, but I'm tired of it being the only point.

"Vote for me because I'm not him."
"Um, but that's the same thing he said."

It is admittedly a pretty good point, but I'm tired of it being the only point.

"Vote for me because I'm not him."
"Um, but that's the same thing he said."

Welll... if you want to start a party that places social progression at the top of the agenda, but also cares about the poor as well as the rich... you'll have my vote. (Once I'm eligible).

Oh, come on :fluffle:

Abortion is woman's right. My opinion is that too many men get into that debate trying to choose what the women should do with their own bodies. I believe women should have the final word.

The very day our medical practices permit the transplant of an unborn fetus from a woman's uterus to a man, I'll personnally push for a total ban on abortion, and legislation forcing all "pro-life" white male conservatives to carry the babies to term.

But since I'm such a good guy, I'd let em put em up for adoption once it's born :p
oh ok i see that ive UTTERLY misjudged you and that you are really a sweet boy with a heart of gold

i wonder how many men would support abortion if the alternative was to gestate it themselves...

Perhaps in this one case you can make the comparison at first glance but still abortion ends a life.

Interesting how your entire argument rests on a belief that is neither supported by science nor recognized by law. You claim that abortion ends a life, but not all people consider a fetus to be a life. More to the point, the further you move from belief and emotion the fewer people are of your opinion. The concensus is objective communities is that a fetus is not automatically a life.

You've lost the fight, try making your exit graceful.

Yes, the unborn child's saftey is what matters, the issue of responsibility is secondary to that.

Were that the case then responsibility simply wouldn't factor in. If the most important facet of the argument were the "life" of the fetus then no one on your side would be talking about rape or incest exceptions.

The dishonesty of your argument betrays the core values that form the roots of your philosophy. How exactly do you tollerate the cognitive dissonance?


Doesn't the unborn child have cellular activity? Have DNA? How can you say that the child is not a life?

Theres cellular activity and DNA in every spermatazoa I produce, does that mean that *cues up the band and does his best Python bit* EVERY SPERM IS SACRED....

You can be sexually active as long as you accept that should you become pregnant you take responsibility.

This is a comment on sexual activity, not on abortion. Your argument against abortion does not in any way hinge upon this, thus there is no reason to bring it up at all, other than to say, "All the women getting abortions should've kept their legs shut if they didn't want babies."

So at the risk of being repetitive, yes responsibility is a large part of it but the child's life is the primary part of the arguement.

No, your argument doesn't have the first thing to do with responsibility. You continue to add it in as an aside to take a jab at women who dare to be sexually active when they don't want children. Your argument hinges only on your idea that the embryo is a human person with rights to another's womb.

Yeah right. But it comes down to that you no longer have to take care of a child for 18 years. Though I don't have figures I'm sure the chances of "sterilization or death" is small and is simply part of that tiny risk with any surgery.

No, instead of taking care of a child for 18 years, you instead have to wonder, for the rest of your life, what might have been - what your child, had you made another decision, might have been like - what he or she would look like each passing year - where you would now be in your life. You have to look at every child you see and wonder if you made the right decision. When and if you do decide to have children, you look at them and think back to the one you might have already had. And so on....

The effects of an abortion on your life don't end at the surgery any more than the effects of a pregnancy end at birth. To say that these things are "easy" is to demonstrate that you don't have a clue what you are talking about - you just want to demonize anyone who would make a decision you disagree with.

I find it interesting that the same people who suggest that women who cannot afford to raise children but are pregnant should HAVE to have the child and then they should put it up for adoption. This increases the number entering the already overburdened adoption and foster care system.

At the same time, they try to pass laws disallowing adoption by gay couples. This decreases the number of children leaving the foster care system.

Does it take a math whiz to figure out how ridiculous that is?

I'm interested in learning what solution is being proposed by these people who want to force more children into the adoption system with less options for adoption?

Gee, that kinda sounds like something you should either be talking to Planned Parenthood about or the mother in question. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Technically it is alive but then that skin cell isn't going to form into a child now is it?

What it may eventually be is rather irrelevant to what it currently is. I may eventually be an elderly person who is eligible for social security (in the alternate universe where it will still be around), does that mean I am currently an elderly person? The seeds planted in my neighboor's yard may eventually be a thriving lawn, does that mean they are now?

*Waves a bible and a cross*

Exactly brother. People don't understand that gayness rubs off and happens by gay mind control rays!

Know how I can harness those powers? I see some damn hot guys down the road, and if weren't for all their straightness, I could be their honey-bunny; they loving and doting lover :D

I want to be a modern day saint, bring gayness to all those good looking guys cursed with being straight ;)

Actually the hypocrisy that you think you see here has two completely differing issues. I dont claim to expouse those views, however i know people who do, and I have talked in length with them about them, and I can understand their point of view.

I am sure you are all aware of the massive amounts of social pressures in the United States School System. Everything, from lookds to glasses, to being too smart, etc etc can wind you being made an outcast. Being Adopted makes it 5 times worse, I had a friend who it was publicly known he was adopted (he was korean, his mother white and his father spanish) and he recieved load of unneccisarily harsh treatment because of this. Imagine what might happen in these school systems to find not only are you adopted, but your adopted parents are gay/lesbian, especially with some of the heavy bigotry that many parents have about it. That child would have no chance of social interactions.

There are other reasons, however it would be hard for me to explain them, as I dont fully understand them myself. They involve the idea that gay couples should not be allowed marriage status in the first place (insert arguement of gay marriage issue here. Actually please dont, that will take the issue away from adoption). However i do have to say that letting gay/lesbian couples adopt is only a stopgag measure, and we all know how well those work. What we need is national reform of the adoption system, considering how overstressed, underfunded, and broken the system is.

Also another concern is those people who are using this as an issule to promote gay rights, not to look after the children. Don't deny it, there are quite a lot of people who dont really care about the children, they care about gay rights. It would be dangerous to accede to their pressures, a good thing done for the wrong reasons doesnt make it right. We have to be careful that when/if we allow gay couples to adopt, it has to be solely for the children's benefit, not the rights of gay people.

Oh, so all decisions that are made, should solely benefit the bigots out there :rolleyes:

Sorry, social pressure and change will bring those people into line; the sooner those bigots are informed in the most polite of manners that their bigotry is not wanted at the school, area, region, state or nation, the sooner they will pull their head in, shut the mouth, put a smile on the face and keep what ever opinion they have, to themselves.

I see things out there I don't agree with - white trash procreating like there is no tomorrow; but I keep my mouth shut because I realise that I'm sure there are many things that I do, which piss people off, but they're polite and just ignore those annoyances.

I dont see how its hypocracy. They dont want abortion but the dont want gay couples adopting. Granted that puts an aditional stran on the adoption system, but the logic to it is sound. They want children to grow up with a male and female influence. That seems fair. You may see it as illogical in terms of practicality, but in terms of their system it does make sense.

I think the greater hypocracy is apposing abortion but allowing the death penalty; they always forget these words; "Let the man without sin, cast the first stone' - there seems to be alot of stone throwing from the religious right, and yet, they're quite happy to partake in the very things they decry.

Divorce, for example is higher amoungst the denominations that make up the religious right than the more liberal wing of Christianity; abortions are higher in states that claim to be religious etc. etc.

Its a never ending cycle of hypocracy, and unfortunately, there isn't a person out there, in the public domain who has media access, to point out the flaws.

They would be deprived of them in the sense that they recieve it from a mother/father figure in a hetrosexual family situation

And in your opinion it all boils down to that. But as I have made in a previous thread, that statement just boils down to calling the opponent names in order to try to dehumansie them and make them look stupid.

What are they deprived? Look at any gay couple and there are elements of male and female qualities; children raised by gay couples are no more likely to be gay than the national average, INFACT the *ONLY* thing they noticed is this; these children tend not to fall into the set rolls and stereotypes of 'male and female' duties - terrible, isn't it? a male helping the wife around the home with domestic duties, the wife helping the husband in the yard mowing the laws!

Oh, perish the thought! oh shock! oh horror! the nation will collapse!

Or with out of wedlock children. But that never happens.



But abortion is the kind of freedom that can be easily taken back?

But don't you understand, according to the religious right, us gays and lesbians support abortion! the fact that we can't get fucking pregnant seems to have completely flown accross their heads like a 747.

My personnal beliefs also rule out adoption by gays.

Babe, you sound like one hell of a closet case; get out of your house, and get a damn good fuck by a well hung guy, because its obvious that you need it, big time!

Gee, that kinda sounds like something you should either be talking to Planned Parenthood about or the mother in question. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Abortion is personal responsibility. These people are trying to take the ability to take responsibility away from people by outlawing abortion. At the same time, there are loving couples out there that wish to take responsibility for children whose parents wouldn't or couldn't care for them, taking on additional personal responsibility and the same people are trying to outlaw that.

Meanwhile, you didn't even address the question I asked and I suspect that was no accident.

If there weren't contradiction in laws then it wouldn't be government now would it?

Utracia, consider that Sigg'd.

why is this even a debate? everyone knows that its better for children to be unloved and unparented, being thrown from foster care to foster care (it builds character) than to be raised a the (butt) loving house with fagz (it causes moral and tooth decay).

come on guys, i think its clear.

why is this even a debate? everyone knows that its better for children to be unloved and unparented, being thrown from foster care to foster care (it builds character) than to be raised a the (butt) loving house with fagz (it causes moral and tooth decay).

come on guys, i think its clear.

I believe the proper term is "teh fagz".

I notice that the fact continues that none of those that we so commonly see in both the threads about abortion and the threads about gays marriage/adoption have avoided this thread. One would have to conclude they can not make a reasoned argument for this hypocrisy.