Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2006-01-26 09:35:23
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6706|NJ
Love the flames, I was just thinking that this would be a good forum for this debate.  I know the president is Pro-Life, he's also alot of other things I don't belive in.  Reason why it's important for abortion to be a nation law.

1. the government provides aid to all the states, overturning this law would mean less money to the states that support a right to choose(who are the only states that really make this country money).

The US citizens have a right to privacy which the president doesn't think is important to protect under our civil Liberties.

Here's the link to that http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/ … index.html

So what I read an article and started a post to get a topic discussed I never said I knew everything about it.
2006-01-26 09:36:49
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6746

Marconius wrote:

I heard this on the radio a while ago, and if there are any females in the audience, I tend to think that most of them would agree:
"If you can't ovulate, then shut the hell up about abortion."
Bullshit. If a girl is pregnant with my child then 23 of those chromosomes are my responsibility. I have as much right to have an opinion as anyone else. It's a tricky situation because it's her body and chances are I'll defer to her decision but to think that I should have zero say simply because the kids in her and not me is fucking ridiculous. By that line of thought if she decides to have the child then I shouldn't be held responsible for it because hey, I didn't carry it to term.
The rights concerning a woman's uterus is up to the woman and the woman alone.  It shouldn't be up to a bunch of old pederasts arguing in the House and Senate.
So I guess you're ignoring the multitude of female Senators and Representatives that strongly oppose abortion?
Another interesting point is that if right-to-lifers want to keep pushing that a Person is created at conception, then I think that a case of invasion of privacy could be argued, as they basically want to control the woman's uterus and contents, thus denying her of her rights and personal possession of her uterus/embryotic cells.
You don't seem to get the point of the anti-abortion argument. They're arguing that since a person is created at conception then this person has a legal right to life as much as any other individual under the laws of this country.
2006-01-26 09:39:31
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6746

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

2. Use education to fight the source of the problem.  Abortion is like cutting off your arm for a minor infection that could have been treated with antibiotics.  We need to make sure that woman and the poor are getting a better education so that the number of times on demand aboriton is used becomes minimized.
Bingo. Just like crime and unemployment, all three of these social issues could be fixed with sheer and simple EDUCATION and PARENTING.
2006-01-26 09:50:09
Losati
Member
+0|6683|St. Louis, MO

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Bullshit. If a girl is pregnant with my child then 23 of those chromosomes are my responsibility. I have as much right to have an opinion as anyone else. It's a tricky situation because it's her body and chances are I'll defer to her decision but to think that I should have zero say simply because the kids in her and not me is fucking ridiculous. By that line of thought if she decides to have the child then I shouldn't be held responsible for it because hey, I didn't carry it to term.
I read a nicely done column on this in the (ahhh!) New York Times a while ago.  And though there is a definite half-thought there (and I'm not saying that you subscribe to it), the man having a say in the outcome (i.e. forcing the woman to carry the child to term) would basically make the woman a slave to the man's will.  The man has to do nothing for those nine months, but the woman has to change her entire lifestyle.  Not to mention she has to deal with any potential health problems that could last her the rest of her life.

It doesn't address your final thought on not being responsible for the woman's decision, but it's stuff to consider when thinking about what role the man should play in the decision.
2006-01-26 09:52:54
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6746
The man has to do nothing for nine months? I'm sorry but have you ever dealt with a pregnant woman for her entire term? While I will never diminish the incredible struggle they go through it's not a walk in the park for the guy. The man having a say in the outcome does not make the woman a slave to his will; in fact if the man has no say in the argument then it makes him a slave to her will. Since it is the woman's body it is ultimately her choice, in my opinion, but the man should most certainly have a voice in the matter. It's his child, too.
2006-01-26 09:53:49
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6706|NJ
Yeah but we have more important things to do such as bring democracy to the rest of the world, the edumication system isn't important in this country cause we always need civil servants.

Felonious even though 23 of those chromosomes are your responsibility really has no bearing on if she's going to keep it, or even tell you about it.  Now most unwanted births I believe are from either younger couples who are just dating and can't afford to raise a child.  Or slutty girls who just really don't care cause they really have no future to look forward to.
2006-01-26 09:58:02
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6704|San Francisco

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Bullshit. If a girl is pregnant with my child then 23 of those chromosomes are my responsibility. I have as much right to have an opinion as anyone else. It's a tricky situation because it's her body and chances are I'll defer to her decision but to think that I should have zero say simply because the kids in her and not me is fucking ridiculous. By that line of thought if she decides to have the child then I shouldn't be held responsible for it because hey, I didn't carry it to term.
That's all fine and good for a couple.  It'd be both of your decisions. 
Yet what about the cases of rape and incest?  Remember that 13-year old girl that was caught between her wishes and the State of Florida?
How about unfortunate women who have encounters with asshole boyfriends who have an "accident" in the bedroom and then never return their calls?  In those cases, it's not a decision that anyone other than the pregnant woman should make.  The context of that quote was dealing with Legislation on the issue, not whether or not you would personally have a say in it if you got your GF/Wife pregnant.  Plus, making abortion illegal will do as much good as a "suicide barrier" on the Golden Gate bridge.  They'll always find another way if they cannot safely get an abortion (i.e., coat hangers).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4500245.stm, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7718218/

FeloniousMonk wrote:

You don't seem to get the point of the anti-abortion argument. They're arguing that since a person is created at conception then this person has a legal right to life as much as any other individual under the laws of this country.
It wasn't a matter of getting the point of their side, it was speculation on what a pro-choicer could legally use against them if they decide that she no longer holds rights over a collection of cells in her womb.  It's just a twist on a theme.
2006-01-26 10:03:44
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6746

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Yeah but we have more important things to do such as bring democracy to the rest of the world, the edumication system isn't important in this country cause we always need civil servants.
I assume you're being sarcastic...?

Felonious even though 23 of those chromosomes are your responsibility really has no bearing on if she's going to keep it, or even tell you about it.  Now most unwanted births I believe are from either younger couples who are just dating and can't afford to raise a child.  Or slutty girls who just really don't care cause they really have no future to look forward to.
No bearing? If she brings the child to term then I will most certainly have a financial responsibility for it. No bearing? It would be MY child as much as hers. No offense intended but I guess if you've never had kids you wouldn't understand.
2006-01-26 10:06:30
Losati
Member
+0|6683|St. Louis, MO

FeloniousMonk wrote:

The man has to do nothing for nine months? I'm sorry but have you ever dealt with a pregnant woman for her entire term? While I will never diminish the incredible struggle they go through it's not a walk in the park for the guy. The man having a say in the outcome does not make the woman a slave to his will; in fact if the man has no say in the argument then it makes him a slave to her will. Since it is the woman's body it is ultimately her choice, in my opinion, but the man should most certainly have a voice in the matter. It's his child, too.
A voice, I agree.  I don't think that, in a healthy relationship, the girl should just run off and not talk to the guy about it.  In the perfect world, they would always dicuss.

But I don't think that voice needs any sort of legal status.  That could lead to even more problems being introduced to the situation.

This is the issue with spousal notification/consultation laws.  If the woman has reason to fear for her life or health at the hands of her spouse/boyfriend/lover/whatever, she should be able to make the decision on her own.  Now, the question then comes in: how does one prove that?  Well, you take it to court right?  Or you have some sort of counselor.  Now, honestly, do we think that a woman who is very scared, upset, and about to make a really freakin' hard decision is going to be all gung-ho and, in effect, able to make an 'argument' for her case?  Personally, I think not.  Not in all cases, that's for sure.

I hesitate when people talk about the man's role.  Honestly, yes, to me, it's the preferred way for them to talk about it.  But that's not always something that can happen.  So for that reason, I don't like the idea of a legal 'status' for the man.
2006-01-26 10:10:14
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6746

Marconius wrote:

That's all fine and good for a couple.  It'd be both of your decisions. 
Yet what about the cases of rape and incest?
Those are crimes. In cases like that the criminal would have no say in the matter. At all.
Remember that 13-year old girl that was caught between her wishes and the State of Florida?
Somewhat but could you refresh my memory?


How about unfortunate women who have encounters with asshole boyfriends who have an "accident" in the bedroom and then never return their calls?
Sex is not an accident. If she slept with her asshole boyfriend and then got pregnant she has no one to blame but herself. The asshole boyfriend is of course equally as responsible but unless he raped her she can't skirt it and say that she "accidentally" got pregnant.
In those cases, it's not a decision that anyone other than the pregnant woman should make.
Why shouldn't asshole boyfriend have a say in the matter? It's just as much his kid as it is hers and if she brings it to term then he will be financially responsible for it.

The context of that quote was dealing with Legislation on the issue, not whether or not you would personally have a say in it if you got your GF/Wife pregnant.  Plus, making abortion illegal will do as much good as a "suicide barrier" on the Golden Gate bridge.  They'll always find another way if they cannot safely get an abortion (i.e., coat hangers).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4500245.stm, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7718218/
Ok?
It wasn't a matter of getting the point of their side, it was speculation on what a pro-choicer could legally use against them if they decide that she no longer holds rights over a collection of cells in her womb.  It's just a twist on a theme.
I see. That's a fairly shady legal argument, however, because as I mentioned the anti-abortion camp views the fetus as a person and thus has the same rights to life and privacy as the mother.
2006-01-26 10:11:26
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6706|NJ

FeloniousMonk wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Yeah but we have more important things to do such as bring democracy to the rest of the world, the edumication system isn't important in this country cause we always need civil servants.
I assume you're being sarcastic...?


Yeah I am forgot that sarcasm doesn't cross over while typing.


Felonious even though 23 of those chromosomes are your responsibility really has no bearing on if she's going to keep it, or even tell you about it.  Now most unwanted births I believe are from either younger couples who are just dating and can't afford to raise a child.  Or slutty girls who just really don't care cause they really have no future to look forward to.
No bearing? If she brings the child to term then I will most certainly have a financial responsibility for it. No bearing? It would be MY child as much as hers. No offense intended but I guess if you've never had kids you wouldn't understand.
Ok I know it has direct bearing if she has the child, but she doesn't have to tell you about the pregnancy. I'm talking about some strange girl, cause there are alot of bathroom relationships around my parts.
No I don't have children but I do know that they are expensive and both parents responisblity in a perfect world.
2006-01-26 10:12:55
mkramer1121
Member
+0|6705
There are certain circumstances I feel are ok for abortion, though I'm not going to go into them as I'll probably get flamed.  However, what isn't ok is using it as a form of Birth Control.  I read somewhere that a lady had 7 or 8 abortions.  Go on the freakin' pill.  If it was a mistake, once, you were stupid and young, raped, etc, yes, have an abortion, I won't look down on you.  If you continuously do it, you deserve to be killed, not the fetus.  That's my 2 cents.
2006-01-26 10:13:11
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6746

Losati wrote:

A voice, I agree.  I don't think that, in a healthy relationship, the girl should just run off and not talk to the guy about it.  In the perfect world, they would always dicuss.

But I don't think that voice needs any sort of legal status.  That could lead to even more problems being introduced to the situation.
True but my point stands; if the woman makes the decision all on her own then should the guy still be held financially responsible once it's born?
This is the issue with spousal notification/consultation laws.  If the woman has reason to fear for her life or health at the hands of her spouse/boyfriend/lover/whatever, she should be able to make the decision on her own.  Now, the question then comes in: how does one prove that?  Well, you take it to court right?  Or you have some sort of counselor.  Now, honestly, do we think that a woman who is very scared, upset, and about to make a really freakin' hard decision is going to be all gung-ho and, in effect, able to make an 'argument' for her case?  Personally, I think not.  Not in all cases, that's for sure.

I hesitate when people talk about the man's role.  Honestly, yes, to me, it's the preferred way for them to talk about it.  But that's not always something that can happen.  So for that reason, I don't like the idea of a legal 'status' for the man.
You make a good point. I just don't like the feminist concept of "one penis, no vote" on the abortion issue. Some women seem to think that because they carry the child that they're more important to the child's life than the father. That's wrong; both parents are equally as important, especially considering the mother will more often than not have to rely on the father's work to keep her fed and sheltered during that pregnancy.
2006-01-26 10:27:51
Losati
Member
+0|6683|St. Louis, MO

FeloniousMonk wrote:

True but my point stands; if the woman makes the decision all on her own then should the guy still be held financially responsible once it's born?
I intentionally didn't address this point because I'm not 100% on one side or the other on it.  I can see where the concern for both is.  No solution is right all the time.  If you say no, the father has no responsibility, then husbands could ditch out on their wives, and the kids are left screwed.  If you say yes, the father is responsible, than a dude who meets up with a chick at a bar and she gets pregnant and decides to keep it is, himself, screwed.

My personal belief is this:  If the mother is dependent on the father (financially, or even some other important way) then he should be responsible.  If not, then perhaps he shouldn't be.  This separates the two cases I listed above in a way that I think many people could agree with, though it is in no way perfect.

As for the "dependent" remark: yes, it's debateable, and that's what the courts are/would be for.

I still maintain, though, in no situation should the father have a legal voice on whether the mother has the child or not.  And I do think that this solution helps, though in no way solves, the "role of the man" question.

And this is all with relation to legal stuff.  I personally think that education and responsible choice making would negate any of this being necessary.  But we don't live in a world where that could happen.
2006-01-26 10:47:29
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|6692|Dayton, Ohio
There is a simple solution. Outlaw abortion and treat sex for what it was intended - procreation.  If you are not willing to concieve or even open to the posibility that it may occur, do not have sex.  If you make your bed then sleep in it.  Take responsibility for your own actions.  Abotition, when not mediaclly nececary to protect the life of the mother, is a cowards way out of taking responsibility for ones actions.  If i create life i must care for it.  Not throw it away.  Even if caring is just finding a sutible home.  We all make decisions and we are all held responsible  whether it be leagally or morally.  Maybe a ruling for pro life would decrease teenage pregnancy and decrease the spread of STDs.  I know that is a lot to hope for but it is similar to the line of thought that fuels many of our laws.
2006-01-26 11:14:18
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6769|MA, USA

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

There is a simple solution. Outlaw abortion and treat sex for what it was intended - procreation.
I have a better idea.  Legalize abortion, and what I do in my bedroom is none of your damn business.

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

If you are not willing to concieve or even open to the posibility that it may occur, do not have sex.  If you make your bed then sleep in it.  Take responsibility for your own actions.
I will.  I'll pay for an abortion.

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

Abotition, when not mediaclly nececary to protect the life of the mother, is a cowards way out of taking responsibility for ones actions.
That is your (silly and self-serving) opinion.  I don't agree.

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

If i create life i must care for it.  Not throw it away.
There are 6 billion people in the world.  Nobody will miss another one.  More people should be having abortions.

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

We all make decisions and we are all held responsible  whether it be leagally or morally.
Isn't judgement God's prerogative?  Maybe you should leave it to him.

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

Maybe a ruling for pro life would decrease teenage pregnancy and decrease the spread of STDs.  I know that is a lot to hope for but it is similar to the line of thought that fuels many of our laws.
That is not just unrealistic thinking, it is self-delusional.  History shows that people will have sex regardless of the availability of contraception, abortion, or the presence of STD's.
2006-01-26 11:15:23
Losati
Member
+0|6683|St. Louis, MO

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

There is a simple solution. Outlaw abortion and treat sex for what it was intended - procreation.  If you are not willing to concieve or even open to the posibility that it may occur, do not have sex.  If you make your bed then sleep in it.  Take responsibility for your own actions.
So every time you have sex (assuming you do) you intend to procreate?  I do know people who are like this, so don't think i'm trying to dis you.  It's just a question.  And I think a relevant one.  I don't think most people only have sex to procreate.

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

Abotition, when not mediaclly nececary to protect the life of the mother, is a cowards way out of taking responsibility for ones actions.  If i create life i must care for it.  Not throw it away.  Even if caring is just finding a sutible home.
In some cases, I agree with you that you're right.  It can be the cowards way out.  But that's no reason to outlaw it.  A lotta things that are done are the cowards way out, but they're not illegal.  It's just not a good legal reasoning for anything.

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

We all make decisions and we are all held responsible  whether it be leagally or morally.
Now I'm gonna get flamed for this, but abortion can be viewed as making the responsible decision.  Say someone cannot and will not have the financial capability to raise a child, is it responsible for them to bring them into being.  And to the people that say "well give the baby up for adoption".  Well what if that baby is destined to have AIDS or have some other (admittedly hypothetical) ailment and will only live for 2 hours and in immense agony.  Is that responsible?  And what about a situation where aborting one twin is necessary to save the other?  Or in the case of multiple pregnancies that put them all at risk?

A blanket ban on all abortion would be ridiculously irresponsible.

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

Maybe a ruling for pro life would decrease teenage pregnancy and decrease the spread of STDs.
Doubtful.  Teenage sex has always existed and always will.  Teenage pregnancy has always existed and always will.  Not to mention the fact that abortions are not only wanted by teenagers.  Married couples may have reason to have abortions to.  Or older people who aren't married.  And then there's always incest and rape, etc. etc.

And don't take this the wrong way, but how old are you?  Just a question, I won't flame you for whatever age you are.  I'll tell you I'm 24.  I only ask 'cause I used to hold similar views when I was younger.  I didn't know about the innumerable number of things that I eventually learned that have somewhat changed my view on the subject.
2006-01-26 11:15:41
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6852|Cologne, Germany

whittsend wrote:

TehSeraphim wrote:

Republican = pro life
Not so.  Surveys show that the majority of GOP voters are pro-choice (as are most voters in the US).  The party base is largely pro-life, but in this case, I think the GOP are shooting themselves in the foot by sticking to the base.  It makes them appear out of touch (which they probably are).

DakkonBlackblade wrote:

Stealth42o wrote:

Ok, one last time.  If the Supreme Court reverse's Roe/Wade (Which I am sure they will), it will be up to the states to deciede yay or nay.

Soooo the blue states will still be legal and the red states will be illegal.
Except you then reopen one of the original complaints that the abortion laws unfairly forced the poor to have children since they can't afford to travel to a legal state.  Or a situation where a California doctor performs an abortion for a Texas resident and Texas attempts to exert standing in the matter.  Much like you can (although it rarely happens) be arrested if you are a 19 year old US citizen drinking in Canada, despite the lower drinking age in much of Canada.  Texas could argue that you are always held to the more strict law when traveling across boundaries and therefore even though the entire procedure took place in California the Texan patient can be arrested.  And God forbid she communicated from Texas to set up the appointment, then you can throw conspiracy charges in on both the patient and the doctor.  It is one of those issues that really needs to be consistent throughout the country.  Regardless of which side of the issue anyone is on, overturning Roe v Wade back to a state decision would cause a massive litigation logjam.  If for only that reason I am hoping it doesn't happen.
I don't think the second poster is correct.  You cannot be arrested for drinking in Canada, if you are of legal age to do so there.  No US authority has jurisdiction in the matter (although I wouldn't be surprised if some shmuck tried to claim there was - that doesn't make it so.  US Gov't is constantly overreaching its constituional authority.  A good attorney would make mincemeat of any claim to exert jurisdiction in another country).

US Constitution wrote:

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This means that states have to respect each other's laws.  You cannot be arrested for doing what is legal in the state in which you did it, even if it is illegal in your home state.


B.Schuss wrote:

I'm with this guy. It should be consistent throughout the whole country.
Re: Roe vs. Wade.  I am pro choice too.  I love abortion...I wish everyone would get one.  Nevertheless, Roe vs. Wade is bad US law, precisely because our law is designed to allow different jurisdictions the freedom to make their own standards (which I think is a good thing).  Here's how:

Bill of Rights wrote:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Roe vs. Wade violates both of these.  You don't have to like it, but that's the law (of course, the law has rarely been known to stop a US politician before).
well, obviously the Supreme Court didn't share your interpretation of said amendments. And as long as you don't serve as a judge on the Supreme Court, I am afraid it is their interpretation which counts.

the judges themselves were divided about this, it was only a 7-2 decision but that simply means that different people may have different views on one issue. Nevertheless, in the end the court did rule that that specific law in Texas was against the constitution.

No offense, but why does every single american believe that he/she knows the constitution and its interpretations better than a judge on the Supreme Court ?

I have had countless discussions about this with US citizens, especially around the right to bear arms. The constitution was conceived in 1787, the first amendments were added in 1789. No one can seriously believe that a document that old can cover all aspects of modern human life without constantly being interpreted and / or changed.

That would be like looking for a latin word for "internet" or "skateboard".

let me quote Chief Justice John Marshall, 1821:

"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it.
It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will."
2006-01-26 11:18:57
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6746|Salt Lake City

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

There is a simple solution. Outlaw abortion and treat sex for what it was intended - procreation.  If you are not willing to concieve or even open to the posibility that it may occur, do not have sex.  If you make your bed then sleep in it.  Take responsibility for your own actions.  Abotition, when not mediaclly nececary to protect the life of the mother, is a cowards way out of taking responsibility for ones actions.  If i create life i must care for it.  Not throw it away.  Even if caring is just finding a sutible home.  We all make decisions and we are all held responsible  whether it be leagally or morally.  Maybe a ruling for pro life would decrease teenage pregnancy and decrease the spread of STDs.  I know that is a lot to hope for but it is similar to the line of thought that fuels many of our laws.
Yeah, and that would go over about as good as my idea.  Outlaw all religion, period.  All buildings, writings, artifcats, etc. would be destroyed, and the punishment for getting cought practicing religion would be the death penalty.

Since religion does now, and has for more than 2K years, been the leading cause of war, death, destruction, genocide, hate, bigotry, and just about any other nasty thing humankind has ever done to one another, this should eliminate a lot of our current problems.
2006-01-26 11:21:06
Losati
Member
+0|6683|St. Louis, MO

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Yeah, and that would go over about as good as my idea.  Outlaw all religion, period.  All buildings, writings, artifcats, etc. would be destroyed, and the punishment for getting cought practicing religion would be the death penalty.

Since religion does now, and has for more than 2K years, been the leading cause of war, death, destruction, genocide, hate, bigotry, and just about any other nasty thing humankind has ever done to one another, this should eliminate a lot of our current problems.
LOL.  My girlfriend is from SLC, and I've never met so many people from a town with that, or similar, ideas.  I wonder what that is???...hmmmmmm...
2006-01-26 11:33:54
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6706|NJ
Cause SLC is a very religous town and all the younger generation are directly affected in a negative manner with this relizism? Am I right, Agent? SLC is all Methodis I think I'm probably wrong tho.
2006-01-26 11:36:39
Losati
Member
+0|6683|St. Louis, MO

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Cause SLC is a very religous town and all the younger generation are directly affected in a negative manner with this relizism? Am I right, Agent? SLC is all Methodis I think I'm probably wrong tho.
It's a very Mormon town.  The home of the LDS church.  It's funny, my girlfriend talks about how, because of this, her Catholic church is very liberal, especially compared to the one she goes to here in St. Louis.
2006-01-26 11:41:39
ArMaG3dD0n
Member
+24|6846|Deutschland/Germany

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

There is a simple solution. Outlaw abortion and treat sex for what it was intended - procreation.  [...] If i create life i must care for it.  Not throw it away.
Why would you want to outlaw abortions if they do it at an early stage of pregnancy? I wouldnt call some self-reproducing cells human life yet. I mean come on you could also ban masturbation because it causes millions of poor sperms to die which could have become humans. Ah wait you would have to cut off everyone s testacles because they keep producing sperms which will most likely be killed (*OUCH*). Why do you see the beginning of human life in the merger of a sperm and an ovum? It s still just some stupid cells. I agree that it s hard to draw a line when life exactly starts and should be protected but I d say when the brain is functional etc. but definately not at the impregnation.

Another question:
Since you said sex should be only for procreation......
What if someone is sterilized and there is no chance of making someone pregnant would it be ok if he had sex just for fun? If your answer is no that s just religious shi.... uhm...sorry...did I offend anyone?
2006-01-26 11:56:09
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6706|NJ
Also if sex is just for procreation why do priest do it with little boys? Sorry I'm religious just not into religion,

Direct quote from my father, 
"I refuse to go to a church that protects child molesters, I'll worship from home"
2006-01-26 11:56:43
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6788
Here's what i was pondering the other day.  Good Morning America showed a baby that was premature and said he was 1 month old.  But he was born 6.5 months into the pregnancy.  A normal term child is 0 when he/she is born after 9 months.  Why would coming out at 6.5 months make him 0 but a normal term 0 at 9 months?  It doesn't make any sense to say he/she is a baby when born at 9 months and premature baby at 6.5 but at 6.5 months you can kill 'it' and not be killing a baby??  Someone please explain.

When does the heart form in a fetus?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard