Abortion?

[89Hen]

That's one way to look at it. BTW, did I say I was OK with killing innocents in the name of war?

No, but you vote and advocate for and financially support those who do.

I didn't vote for Obama.

[89Hen]

I don't know the exact moment when that occurs. Do you?

I do. It's when it's born.

How do you know that?

[Screamin_Eagle174]

The conservative/christian "sanctity" of life: Perpetually impoverishing mentally incompetent, uneducated, and/or financially destitute people by taking away their choice to not bring into the world another person for whom they will not be able to sufficiently provide for, who will inevitably become mentally incompetent, uneducated, and/or financially destitute, thus completing the circle of poverty. But heaven forbid the US Government support those people... because fuck them, they're poor, and a drain on the working class.

Then there's rape victims. Let's take away their choice to be pregnant and give birth, after their right to choose their sexual partner(s) was already taken. Because fuck them (again), that rape baby is precious, and the rapist has a right to that unborn baby, even if she doesn't want it.

People are always going to have sex, and unfortunately a significant portion of those people don't possess the mental competence to properly use contraception or raise a child, let alone have the financial means to take care of another person. If those people got abortions, there would be significantly less poverty and crime in the US, and frankly a few less posters in this thread.

So the question is, at what point does a bundle of cells become a feeling, thinking, independent human being? I don't claim to know when that exact threshold is, but do I know that it doesn't happen instantly at the moment of conception.

[89Hen]

The conservative/christian "sanctity" of life: Perpetually impoverishing mentally incompetent, uneducated, and/or financially destitute people by taking away their choice to not bring into the world another person...

FAIL

[89Hen]

So the question is, at what point does a bundle of cells become a feeling, thinking, independent human being? I don't claim to know when that exact threshold is, but do I know that it doesn't happen instantly at the moment of conception.

So you can't answer the question, yet have no problem with abortion?

[Screamin_Eagle174]

The conservative/christian "sanctity" of life: Perpetually impoverishing mentally incompetent, uneducated, and/or financially destitute people by taking away their choice to not bring into the world another person...

FAIL

Choice to have sex does not necessitate the intent to have a child, nor does it insinuate that all or even most mentally incompetent, uneducated people understand the level of risk of pregnancy from intercourse, or the cognizance or self control to use contraception, hence why I said mentally incompetent, uneducated, and/or financially destitute people.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

So the question is, at what point does a bundle of cells become a feeling, thinking, independent human being? I don't claim to know when that exact threshold is, but do I know that it doesn't happen instantly at the moment of conception.

So you can't answer the question, yet have no problem with abortion?

I have no problem with abortion if it's done before the bundle of cells is capable of feeling pain, emotions, or thinking, and I know that doesn't happen for a period of time after conception. I'll leave it to doctors to figure out how long that window is.

[89Hen]

FAIL

Choice to have sex does not necessitate the intent to have a child, nor does it insinuate that all or even most mentally incompetent, uneducated people understand the level of risk of pregnancy from intercourse, or the cognizance or self control to use contraception, hence why I said mentally incompetent, uneducated, and/or financially destitute people.

Choice to get drunk and kill a pedestrian does not necessitate... FAIL

[89Hen]

So you can't answer the question, yet have no problem with abortion?

I have no problem with abortion if it's done before the bundle of cells is capable of feeling pain, emotions, or thinking, and I know that doesn't happen for a period of time after conception. I'll leave it to doctors to figure out how long that window is.

100 years ago doctors would have probably told you that they can't do any of that until birth. Your position is basically to bury your head in the sand.

[GannonFan]

I have no problem with abortion if it's done before the bundle of cells is capable of feeling pain, emotions, or thinking, and I know that doesn't happen for a period of time after conception. I'll leave it to doctors to figure out how long that window is.

100 years ago doctors would have probably told you that they can't do any of that until birth. Your position is basically to bury your head in the sand.

He's a Luddite.

[Ibanez]

100 years ago doctors would have probably told you that they can't do any of that until birth. Your position is basically to bury your head in the sand.

He's a Luddite.

How so? I don't see how he stated he is opposed to technological change. Maybe I missed it.


Really, this discussion is pointless. It boils down to those that believe life begins at conception and those that believe it begins at birth, right?

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Choice to have sex does not necessitate the intent to have a child, nor does it insinuate that all or even most mentally incompetent, uneducated people understand the level of risk of pregnancy from intercourse, or the cognizance or self control to use contraception, hence why I said mentally incompetent, uneducated, and/or financially destitute people.

Choice to get drunk and kill a pedestrian does not necessitate... FAIL

Are you the new AZ of analogies? Obviously you're too mentally incompetent to differentiate between the life of someone who is capable of feeling pain, emotions, and thinking, and a potential life that cannot.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

He's a Luddite.

How so? I don't see how he stated he is opposed to technological change. Maybe I missed it.


Really, this discussion is pointless. It boils down to those that believe life begins at conception and those that believe it begins at birth, right?

Speaking of burying heads in sand, using Hen's logic, he's committing mass murder every time her jerks off.

[89Hen]

He's a Luddite.

How so? I don't see how he stated he is opposed to technological change. Maybe I missed it.


Really, this discussion is pointless. It boils down to those that believe life begins at conception and those that believe it begins at birth, right?

Not IMO. It is those that think they know the exact date life begins and those that don't think that can be a certainty.

[DSUrocks07]

FAIL

Choice to have sex does not necessitate the intent to have a child, nor does it insinuate that all or even most mentally incompetent, uneducated people understand the level of risk of pregnancy from intercourse, or the cognizance or self control to use contraception, hence why I said mentally incompetent, uneducated, and/or financially destitute people.

An argument for forced sterilization...

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[89Hen]

How so? I don't see how he stated he is opposed to technological change. Maybe I missed it.


Really, this discussion is pointless. It boils down to those that believe life begins at conception and those that believe it begins at birth, right?

Speaking of burying heads in sand, using Hen's logic, he's committing mass murder every time her jerks off.

FAIL x 3

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Speaking of burying heads in sand, using Hen's logic, he's committing mass murder every time her jerks off.

FAIL x 3

It's ironic that your arguments are the equivalent of an abortion due to your mental incompetence to actually present one, instead of simply typing that which you do (FAIL).

[grizzaholic]

FAIL x 3

It's ironic that your arguments are the equivalent of an abortion due to your mental incompetence to actually present one, instead of simply typing that which you do (FAIL).

What is ironic is, SE174 talks about mental incompetence of another human.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

It's ironic that your arguments are the equivalent of an abortion due to your mental incompetence to actually present one, instead of simply typing that which you do (FAIL).

What is ironic is, SE174 talks about mental incompetence of another human.

That is where you're wrong. I am a robot.

[JohnStOnge]

So the question is, at what point does a bundle of cells become a feeling, thinking, independent human being? I don't claim to know when that exact threshold is, but do I know that it doesn't happen instantly at the moment of conception.

See, what you're doing there is imposing your own conditions about what bestows a right to life on other members of your species. You're creating this concept of a "...feeling, thinking, independent human being..." on other living Homo sapiens and saying that if they're not that they can be killed as a matter of convenience. You're imposing subjective concepts.

The only objective determination for marking the transition between existence and non existence for a member of our species is...unless and until cloning gets established...conception. Once that happens you've got a living animal. Objective fact. Homo sapiens, Objective fact. Member of our species. Objective fact.

Your life began at conception pal. And if someone had aborted you they would have killed you. Not just a mass of cells. You. Yes, you've developed since then in may ways. But it was still you.

[YoUDeeMan]

If you think that by fighting a war you will actually save more lives in the long term, then there is no inconsistency in being pro-life and pro-war. No one gets an abortion to try and protect other people from the possibility that their offspring will turn out to be a psychotic killer or mass murderer.

Your post makes no sense.

MY post makes no sense?

"If you think..."

Holy crap...that sure was a definite answer full of measurable, meaningful facts. Just make sure you get those facts straight before you start "thinking" and killing the enemy...at least those who you think are the enemy, despite the fact that most of them have not done a damned thing to you. Kill them anyway...as long as the math works, right?

Here're some questions, since we're splitting hairs...how many people were "saved" by our actions in Afghanistan? How many of our people would have been killed? How many innocent people were killed in Iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Libya?

And since we are mulling morality, here is one for you...what makes our lives more valuable than innocent Afghan people's lives?

[Screamin_Eagle174]

So the question is, at what point does a bundle of cells become a feeling, thinking, independent human being? I don't claim to know when that exact threshold is, but do I know that it doesn't happen instantly at the moment of conception.

See, what you're doing there is imposing your own conditions about what bestows a right to life on other members of your species. You're creating this concept of a "...feeling, thinking, independent human being..." on other living Homo sapiens and saying that if they're not that they can be killed as a matter of convenience. You're imposing subjective concepts.

The only objective determination for marking the transition between existence and non existence for a member of our species is...unless and until cloning gets established...conception. Once that happens you've got a living animal. Objective fact. Homo sapiens, Objective fact. Member of our species. Objective fact.

Your life began at conception pal. And if someone had aborted you they would have killed you. Not just a mass of cells. You. Yes, you've developed since then in may ways. But it was still you.

Oh shut the fuck up, Mr. It's Okay To Abuse Animals and Gays Aren't Equal Human Beings.

You're wrong, per usual.

[uofmman1122]

See, what you're doing there is imposing your own conditions about what bestows a right to life on other members of your species. You're creating this concept of a "...feeling, thinking, independent human being..." on other living Homo sapiens and saying that if they're not that they can be killed as a matter of convenience. You're imposing subjective concepts.

The only objective determination for marking the transition between existence and non existence for a member of our species is...unless and until cloning gets established...conception. Once that happens you've got a living animal. Objective fact. Homo sapiens, Objective fact. Member of our species. Objective fact.

Your life began at conception pal. And if someone had aborted you they would have killed you. Not just a mass of cells. You. Yes, you've developed since then in may ways. But it was still you.

Oh shut the fuck up, Mr. It's Okay To Abuse Animals and Gays Aren't Equal Human Beings.

You're wrong, per usual.

Don't forget Mr. It's Okay to Want to Bone a 12 Year-Old, It's Totally Nature's Way.

[89Hen]

FAIL x 3

It's ironic that your arguments are the equivalent of an abortion due to your mental incompetence to actually present one, instead of simply typing that which you do (FAIL).

Your posts don't derserve more because they are so full of fail. Go ahead and explain how killing sperm is akin to killing a fetus.

[89Hen]

If you think that by fighting a war you will actually save more lives in the long term, then there is no inconsistency in being pro-life and pro-war. No one gets an abortion to try and protect other people from the possibility that their offspring will turn out to be a psychotic killer or mass murderer.

Your post makes no sense.

MY post makes no sense?

"If you think..."

Holy crap...that sure was a definite answer full of measurable, meaningful facts. Just make sure you get those facts straight before you start "thinking" and killing the enemy...at least those who you think are the enemy, despite the fact that most of them have not done a damned thing to you. Kill them anyway...as long as the math works, right?

Here're some questions, since we're splitting hairs...how many people were "saved" by our actions in Afghanistan? How many of our people would have been killed? How many innocent people were killed in Iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Libya?

And since we are mulling morality, here is one for you...what makes our lives more valuable than innocent Afghan people's lives?

Cluck your entire premise is a waste on this thread. You are making a case against killing people in the name of war, NOT making abortion morally acceptable.