and by "child" you mean your "inner child"?Chizzang wrote:Please beat my child89Hen wrote: And that's pretty much why we will never agree on this.
"I would not beat my child, but I will fight for a parent's right to make that decision on their own."
Laugh it off. But I was spot on. It's not a women's issue.Chizzang wrote:Please beat my child89Hen wrote: And that's pretty much why we will never agree on this.
"I would not beat my child, but I will fight for a parent's right to make that decision on their own."
Wut?89Hen wrote:Laugh it off. But I was spot on. It's not a women's issue.Chizzang wrote:
Please beat my child
Yep. You win, thread over.89Hen wrote:Laugh it off. But I was spot on. It's not a women's issue.Chizzang wrote:
Please beat my child
Right:89Hen wrote:Laugh it off. But I was spot on. It's not a women's issue.Chizzang wrote:
Please beat my child
Really? So if some woman has a two year old kid and she sees that she is going to have difficulty making it financially trying to raise that kid she should be able to make her own choice and kill the kid so as to save money? You think she should be able to make her own choice in that situation?No reallywe do need to let people (adults) make their own choices...
John just because it bothers you doesn't mean much in the whole of the debateJohnStOnge wrote:Really? So if some woman has a two year old kid and she sees that she is going to have difficulty making it financially trying to raise that kid she should be able to make her own choice and kill the kid so as to save money? You think she should be able to make her own choice in that situation?No really
The abortion thing is not about choice. It's really not. It's about the nature of the unborn. If everybody agrees that there is a human being with a right to live involved nobody is going to say that the mother should be able to make her own choice when it comes to whether to kill or have that human being killed or not. Everybody's going to say she does NOT have that right.
But a large number of people have decided that the unborn are not human beings with a right to live. That's what the controversy is about. It's never been about choice per se. There are certain choices that everyone agrees people have a right to make and other choices everybody agrees people should not have a right to make. Casting it as about "choice" is just a propaganda technique.
Heck, many of the people who say a woman should be able to choose to have her own progeny killed because she has a right to do what she wants with her body would also say she should NOT be able to choose to have sex with a man for money. The abortion controversy is not about the concept of choice. Again: When you come right down to it NOBODY thinks that people should make any choice they want regardless of what those choices are. Just about ALL law is about restriction of choice.
and if we can't agree on "when is it a person" then it quite literally is a choice...
Who is anti-birth control?kalm wrote:How can anyone be anti-abortion and anti-birth control and sex ed?
yeah I thought that was a pretty dumb commentBaldy wrote:Who is anti-birth control?kalm wrote:How can anyone be anti-abortion and anti-birth control and sex ed?
Way to dodge, JSO stalker!Chizzang wrote:John just because it bothers you doesn't mean much in the whole of the debateJohnStOnge wrote:
Really? So if some woman has a two year old kid and she sees that she is going to have difficulty making it financially trying to raise that kid she should be able to make her own choice and kill the kid so as to save money? You think she should be able to make her own choice in that situation?
The abortion thing is not about choice. It's really not. It's about the nature of the unborn. If everybody agrees that there is a human being with a right to live involved nobody is going to say that the mother should be able to make her own choice when it comes to whether to kill or have that human being killed or not. Everybody's going to say she does NOT have that right.
But a large number of people have decided that the unborn are not human beings with a right to live. That's what the controversy is about. It's never been about choice per se. There are certain choices that everyone agrees people have a right to make and other choices everybody agrees people should not have a right to make. Casting it as about "choice" is just a propaganda technique.
Heck, many of the people who say a woman should be able to choose to have her own progeny killed because she has a right to do what she wants with her body would also say she should NOT be able to choose to have sex with a man for money. The abortion controversy is not about the concept of choice. Again: When you come right down to it NOBODY thinks that people should make any choice they want regardless of what those choices are. Just about ALL law is about restriction of choice.
You still haven't made a valid point...
Blathering about killing 2 year old children to save money (WTF?)
The point I think you're trying to get at (however awkwardly) is: "when is it a person"
Other than faintly touching that valuable point... the rest of your post is nonsense
Is that so Dr Vidav. Thanks for giving us your expert opinion.Vidav wrote:I think the problem is some people equate clumps of cells with baby humans. Those are not equal. Even if the clump of cells could one day become a human.
Please tell me that you have never wasted a sperm. Because those cells were potential humans. Murderer.SeattleGriz wrote:Is that so Dr Vidav. Thanks for giving us your expert opinion.Vidav wrote:I think the problem is some people equate clumps of cells with baby humans. Those are not equal. Even if the clump of cells could one day become a human.
How many cells equals a clump, and how far in do you think that is? Ever see an ultrasound at 12 weeks. Fargin clump has fingers!
But it still looks like a glow worm!SeattleGriz wrote:Is that so Dr Vidav. Thanks for giving us your expert opinion.Vidav wrote:I think the problem is some people equate clumps of cells with baby humans. Those are not equal. Even if the clump of cells could one day become a human.
How many cells equals a clump, and how far in do you think that is? Ever see an ultrasound at 12 weeks. Fargin clump has fingers!
Only half human, like CHUD.Vidav wrote:Please tell me that you have never wasted a sperm. Because those cells were potential humans. Murderer.SeattleGriz wrote:
Is that so Dr Vidav. Thanks for giving us your expert opinion.
How many cells equals a clump, and how far in do you think that is? Ever see an ultrasound at 12 weeks. Fargin clump has fingers!
Please don't put arbitrary limits on when those life creating cells are considered human.SeattleGriz wrote:Only half human, like CHUD.Vidav wrote:
Please tell me that you have never wasted a sperm. Because those cells were potential humans. Murderer.
Huh? What does location in the store have to do with use after air dropping? Talk about stupid comments.CID1990 wrote:yeah I thought that was a pretty dumb commentBaldy wrote: Who is anti-birth control?
im anti abortion AND in wish they would airdrop rubbers and iuds until we are up to our armpits in them
but then it occurred to me that it is easier to
buy a triple XXXL trojan than it is to buy a 20 oz Coke ( because the rubbers are in the front if the store and the cokes are in the back)
so if we airdropped them they wouldnt be used anyways
You're a dunce.Chizzang wrote:Right:
TO YOU its not a woman's issue / Because you have no argument if you admit that it is
Just like you cannot admit that its a RELIGIOUS issue either - because that negates your position as well
and you also decline to admit that its a government issue also
89Hen... Abortion:
1) Not about Women
2) Not about Religion
3) Not about the government
Really..?
OK Vidav, then answer the question that Cleets won't.... what exact moment does every single "clump of cells" become a human baby? If the answer is "I'm not sure" then HOW can you say it's OK to terminate?Vidav wrote:I think the problem is some people equate clumps of cells with baby humans. Those are not equal. Even if the clump of cells could one day become a human.
89Hen wrote:You're a dunce.Chizzang wrote:Right:
TO YOU its not a woman's issue / Because you have no argument if you admit that it is
Just like you cannot admit that its a RELIGIOUS issue either - because that negates your position as well
and you also decline to admit that its a government issue also
89Hen... Abortion:
1) Not about Women
2) Not about Religion
3) Not about the government
Really..?
Cleetzang... Abortion:
1) Not about terminating a life
the end.
I win... Because contraceptives are ALREADY as available and accessible as they would be if we airdropped them. Hence they wouldn't be used if we airdropped them. I really don't know how to make it simpler without drawing a chart in crayon.BlueHen86 wrote:Huh? What does location in the store have to do with use after air dropping? Talk about stupid comments.CID1990 wrote:
yeah I thought that was a pretty dumb comment
im anti abortion AND in wish they would airdrop rubbers and iuds until we are up to our armpits in them
but then it occurred to me that it is easier to
buy a triple XXXL trojan than it is to buy a 20 oz Coke ( because the rubbers are in the front if the store and the cokes are in the back)
so if we airdropped them they wouldnt be used anyways
I completely agree...CID1990 wrote:The best thing the pro choice community has going for it is the religious right. It is much easier to dismiss someone who uses the Bible as the backdrop for their argument against abortion, than it is to dismiss a non-religious person who opposes abortion purely on humanist or moral grounds.
