pro life ad's in georgia

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Buster

Disgusting line of thought and completely untrue. It's a live person, not a potential person or "fetus", it's just a human being who needs to be nurtured. If we follow your line of thinking (and Hitler's), every handicapped and elderly person should also be exterminated because they need help and care to live. This casual disregard for the value of life itself will be the downfall of our society.

Hitler argument eh?


Ding Ding Ding, we have a wiener.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Ok Saden I'm not going to get into the abortion thing because it been done before but using the terms "pro choice" and "moral compass" together to decribe how you picked pro choice was pretty funny.

I am not a Christian, it's not funny to me.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Ok Saden I'm not going to get into the abortion thing because it been done before but using the terms "pro choice" and "moral compass" together to decribe how you picked pro choice was pretty funny.

if his "moral compass" worked, he'd be pro life. i think he and captain jack sparrow use the same compass.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

3. Growing? Yes, living? No. Their lives are not discernible from that of the host mothers. She dies, they die...she eats, they eat.

Their lives are discernible as the "lump of cells" may be destroyed with no harm to the mother's physical well being. If a life form begins its life as a parasite, depending on its host initially but growing to independence, isn't it still a life form? It's not like the woman is growing an extra kidney that will be absorbed into her body as a necessary part of it's function.

Even if it is a "lump of cells" at some point, when does it gain its humanity? To my knowledge their is no agreement on this point. Because of this, the abortion of a fetus raises the possibility, however slight, that a murder is being committed.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

It's not rationalizing, it's simple logic devoid of personal beliefs.

Logic devoid of personal belief requires uncontroverted facts e.g. "rocks cannot grow or reproduce, therefore rocks are not alive". In the discussion of "when does life begin", please point me to the facts upon which you rely.

I would suggest that, whatever you post as facts will be factual conclusions based on assumptions ultimately derived, in part, from opinion. Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

With you slipping through we're obviously not doing a good job.

I think about you when I zero in my sights.

[RobH4413]

I'll keep my personal beliefs to myself on this issue, but I've always felt that common ground can, and should be reached. In fact, I've been fairly passionate on this issue.

No-one wants to see babies die. I think that is a fair thing to say.

The pro-life movement is focusing one changing legislation that simply isn't going to happen. It won't be overturned.

I think it's in everyone's best interest to prevent conception in the first place. We should make it rain birth control in all shapes and forms. If we can divert our resources from attempts to change/maintain policies to helping counsel those who are pregnant, prevent pregnancy in the first place, and educate the population we would be in much better shape than we are now.

This is something that needs to happen. Rant over.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

1. I posted a link to the CDC site so your stats actually have weight...I do read what I post.

2. It's not that I think they are lesser beings, it's that I don't think they are beings for the first few months. Yes, I am more concerned about the existence of human beings in the future than I am of fetuses getting aborted. There's nothing contradictory between the two positions.

3. Growing? Yes, living? No. Their lives are not discernible from that of the host mothers. She dies, they die...she eats, they eat.

It's not rationalizing, it's simple logic devoid of personal beliefs. And for the record, abortion isn't for me and my wife...and I certainly don't support abortion after 5 months unless there's an extraneous circumstance.

1) I assumed you were being argumentative, since I had stated that I was using a biased site. If not then thank you for solidifying those statistics.

2) It is absolutely contradictory, but since that is beyond our ability to come together on, I will drop it.

3) For the point I made about you using a false argument, the fact that it is growing is enough. Spermicide alone will not stop the growth of what will eventually become a living being. Spermicide will kill sperm and prevent the growth from beginning, the 2 points are fundamentally different.



I think you and I are talking two different points; my initial response was to your calling a woman and her fetus a skank and her baby, saying it doesn't affect you, which I say makes you heartless towards humans who are living, compared to false heartache when crying over the possible end of human existence. If you can not ache for this lady and her baby, you can not convince me that whatever you claim to sense about the end of humanity, is more than a selfish claim to immortality through the ongoing existence of the human condition. It is self evident, but you cannot acknowledge it, because it would in the end unravel that truth which you hold dear - that humanity is it's own god and controller of its own destiny. But in fact we are not. and we do not. There is a greater being, a maker who has given you life, and one day will allow this human existence to end.

You on the other hand seem to be claiming that self interest, which has to be based on some personal belief, is a simple logical statement. Which again seems illogical.

But all in all, you prove yourself by your own words. you ache for those who will not be born, but could care less for the lady and baby(your word) who is suffering, or to be aborted, today. I understand your position. Thanks for clarifying.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by saden1

Hitler argument eh?


Ding Ding Ding, we have a wiener.

Simply calling the blatant disregard for human life as I see it. If you're offended by the comparison, you may want to examine your beliefs with a little help from a conscience.

[Trample the Elderly]

Let's approach the pro-abortion stance from another angle. If it's a woman's body to make decisions with, then alright! How come I can't say, main-line crystal meth? It's my body right? Take the morals and ethos out and make it a question of ownership. What about suicide? Take away the morals and it should be perfectly legal, right?

If it's my body, how come I can't shoot dope or commit suicide? Yet abortion, that's off limits? Somehow infanticide is legal and moral, yet being a junkie or euthanizing old people isn't?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Their lives are discernible as the "lump of cells" may be destroyed with no harm to the mother's physical well being. If a life form begins its life as a parasite, depending on its host initially but growing to independence, isn't it still a life form? It's not like the woman is growing an extra kidney that will be absorbed into her body as a necessary part of it's function.

From your link:

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those that do not–either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as "inanimate."

Seeing how they are not self-sustaining I don't see how you can classify them as a life-form when they're in the early stages of development.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Even if it is a "lump of cells" at some point, when does it gain its humanity? To my knowledge their is no agreement on this point. Because of this, the abortion of a fetus raises the possibility, however slight, that a murder is being committed.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by humanity. There's certainly agreement as to when a fetus is not viable. Statistically speaking fetuses don't survive outside the womb before 21.5 weeks of gestation (~5 months). Honestly, if a fetus is not alive, certainly not at the early stages of development, and can't survive on its own I can't see how that can be classified as murder. Most states have similar position as they have a viability clause in their abortion statute. If it's viable it's murder, if it's not viable it isn't murder.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

I think about you when I zero in my sights.

I only think about you when I'm responding to your posts...let's hope you don't picture me naked. No homo.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Let's approach the pro-abortion stance from another angle. If it's a woman's body to make decisions with, then alright! How come I can't say, main-line crystal meth? It's my body right? Take the morals and ethos out and make it a question of ownership. What about suicide? Take away the morals and it should be perfectly legal, right?

If it's my body, how come I can't shoot dope or commit suicide? Yet abortion, that's off limits? Somehow infanticide is legal and moral, yet being a junkie or euthanizing old people isn't?

We finally agree on something...meth should be legal and if you rob and steal trying to support your meth habit you should be sent to a suicide booth.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Buster

Simply calling the blatant disregard for human life as I see it. If you're offended by the comparison, you may want to examine your beliefs with a little help from a conscience.

and you think liberals are condescending?

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by dmek25

and you think liberals are condescending?

Yes. Murder is not a minor thing, sorry if I don't pass it off for my own selfish reasons.