Well, another thread gone


Vagitarian said:
A wad of goo that tries invading an innocent woman's body and egg is not yet a life, it's a mistrake. Mistakes happen and that's why they put eraers on pencils. Stand up and be man enough to help erase the mistake. Drawing the analogy to Nazi behavior is wrong. A better analogy would be likening your attitude toward women to the Taliban.
Click to expand...

This makes you look foolish as you are wrong scientifically, morally, religiously, historically etc etc.

Babies are not mistakes. Unlike you I am man enough to stand up for innocent human life.
 


i really want to speak to this topic but i want to wait until it's not so late and i'm not so tired.....so stay tuned.....i'm not trying to sway anyone at all...i would just like to present a couple of sides to the issue.....will post tomorrow ......sleep well all......glamour
 


Man For All Seasons said:
I am not Catholic. I have no problem with contraception. I have a major problem with abortifacients. If there is no conception then there is no problem.

But once conception takes place then that is a unique human life that differs from you only in stage of life. You can do what you want with your body, but the fetus is not your body.
Click to expand...

Probably 99% of Catholics practice birth control. The other 1% are fools,
 






Man For All Seasons said:
I am a hawk. That's the best way to protect innocent human life.
Click to expand...

And how many innocent lives (children or fetuses inside of pregnant woman) are taken each day by our armed forces and drones each day in a war? If you believe this guy 'god' values our chidren do you not believe he values THEIR children?
 


Vagitarian said:
And how many innocent lives (children or fetuses inside of pregnant woman) are taken each day by our armed forces and drones each day in a war? If you believe this guy 'god' values our chidren do you not believe he values THEIR children?
Click to expand...

This is the sort of sloppy thinking that makes you look really bad. What did I say about the concept of NET? There will be a NET saving of THEIR children by the actions I endorse. They will also have a chance at lives with much more freedom.

You really need to learn to curb your fatal bias and knee jerk reactions where I am concerned. You're the one who always winds up looking bad.
 


MFAS, it is interesting that you consider the quality of life of people and 'a chance' of freedom as a rationalization for war deaths. Yet you do not extend this same quality of life consideration in regards to the health of the baby or life of the mother. You think a mother should be forced to live with the product of a rape for months despite her wishes and the mental stress and lack of control this causes, followed by permanent bodily changes. Yet if we kill her and her child, along with thousands of others, for democracy, that is OK.

I think most hard core anti-choice people forget the mother in the picture. It is her life, with a baby not separate from her for many weeks, who literally sucks nutrients from her body. She has the right to a quality of life and is the only one who can determine what pregnancy means to her life. If you would kill to give her freedom and quality of life, why can you not allow killing to free her from this burden? Do you really believe the pregnancy only changes her for 9 months? Ending the pregnancy gives many women 'the chance' to finish school, continue jobs, not live in poverty, or to undo a mistake they made, all giving her greater quality of life. Do you understand women who choose to abort are doing so because they view having a baby as being a major negative destructive impact on their lives and want their quality of life?

Or is quality of life only allowed to be determined by politicians and governments? Do people have no say on what it means to them as individuals?
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Man For All Seasons said:
This is the sort of sloppy thinking that makes you look really bad. What did I say about the concept of NET? There will be a NET saving of THEIR children by the actions I endorse. They will also have a chance at lives with much more freedom.

You really need to learn to curb your fatal bias and knee jerk reactions where I am concerned. You're the one who always winds up looking bad.
Click to expand...

Where does your god discuss this concept of NET in the bible?
 








SPN said:
MFAS, it is interesting that you consider the quality of life of people and 'a chance' of freedom as a rationalization for war deaths. Yet you do not extend this same quality of life consideration in regards to the health of the baby or life of the mother. You think a mother should be forced to live with the product of a rape for months despite her wishes and the mental stress and lack of control this causes, followed by permanent bodily changes. Yet if we kill her and her child, along with thousands of others, for democracy, that is OK.

I think most hard core anti-choice people forget the mother in the picture. It is her life, with a baby not separate from her for many weeks, who literally sucks nutrients from her body. She has the right to a quality of life and is the only one who can determine what pregnancy means to her life. If you would kill to give her freedom and quality of life, why can you not allow killing to free her from this burden? Do you really believe the pregnancy only changes her for 9 months? Ending the pregnancy gives many women 'the chance' to finish school, continue jobs, not live in poverty, or to undo a mistake they made, all giving her greater quality of life. Do you understand women who choose to abort are doing so because they view having a baby as being a major negative destructive impact on their lives and want their quality of life?

Or is quality of life only allowed to be determined by politicians and governments? Do people have no say on what it means to them as individuals?
Click to expand...

Quality of life pales in comparison to life itself and to general freedom.

My approach results in a net saving of innocent human life. Your approach results in a net loss of innocent human life and for what are often relativelu trivial or temporary reasons.

My approach fosters freedom and self determination for all. You make one human life subservient to the wishes and whims of another. Outside of rape, if a woman can't afford to get pregnant because of competing interests the she better ensure that she doesn't.

Since you seem to be a proponent of depriving human beings of their right to life based upon where they are in the natural life cycle, the how about we turn over your right to life and self determination to someone else when you turn 70? After all at that age you may be a burden or an inconvenience to someone else.
 






Man For All Seasons said:
Quality of life pales in comparison to life itself and to general freedom.

My approach results in a net saving of innocent human life. Your approach results in a net loss of innocent human life and for what are often relativelu trivial or temporary reasons.

My approach fosters freedom and self determination for all. You make one human life subservient to the wishes and whims of another. Outside of rape, if a woman can't afford to get pregnant because of competing interests the she better ensure that she doesn't.

Since you seem to be a proponent of depriving human beings of their right to life based upon where they are in the natural life cycle, the how about we turn over your right to life and self determination to someone else when you turn 70? After all at that age you may be a burden or an inconvenience to someone else.
Click to expand...

A dodge, but not an answer. Freedom means different things to different people. I am not fully free unless I control my body and determine if I want to bring another life into the world. And it isn't arbitrary, although the exact number of weeks to viability have changed slightly over time. The vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester when there is absolute physical dependence on the mother. There is no way to separate the child's body from the mother's where the child survives. And the child is a part of the mother, not separate. A 'chance' of freedom justifies the war dead but a 'chance' of a better life is not allowed, in your world, for women.

As I expected, you once again trivialize the impact of pregnancy and giving birth to a woman. To you it is just a minor, temporary inconvenience. This is where no man and no woman who has not given birth nor been pregnant can possibly grasp this. Some men can have empathy but that is as far as it goes. And there is no birth control method short of abstinence that is 100% effective and most healthy adults are not going to accept a sexless life.

We have had a long standing rule that if either my husband or I are incapacitated and will be a parasite to the family, if we are a net negative, have lost our minds, or are on machines, then the other or adult children must find a way to end it. We are far more humane with our pets than with each other. We cannot set an arbitrary age of 70 as many are fully functioning and contributing at that age. Also, an adult is not fully dependent physically, mentally, and literally sucking life nutrients from another physical body. So your analogy fails miserable. I fully support physician assisted suicide and dying with dignity. For example, no human should be forced to live through cancer so severe that their bones break when they are turned, in endless pain and agony. If I degrade to a point where I can no longer make these decisions for myself, then power of attorney is given to a family member to make them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


SPN said:
A dodge, but not an answer. Freedom means different things to different people. I am not fully free unless I control my body and determine if I want to bring another life into the world. And it isn't arbitrary, although the exact number of weeks to viability have changed slightly over time. The vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester when there is absolute physical dependence on the mother. There is no way to separate the child's body from the mother's where the child survives. And the child is a part of the mother, not separate. A 'chance' of freedom justifies the war dead but a 'chance' of a better life is not allowed, in your world, for women.

As I expected, you once again trivialize the impact of pregnancy and giving birth to a woman. To you it is just a minor, temporary inconvenience. This is where no man and no woman who has not given birth nor been pregnant can possibly grasp this. Some men can have empathy but that is as far as it goes. And there is no birth control method short of abstinence that is 100% effective and most healthy adults are not going to accept a sexless life.

We have had a long standing rule that if either my husband or I are incapacitated and will be a parasite to the family, if we are a net negative, have lost our minds, or are on machines, then the other or adult children must find a way to end it. We are far more humane with our pets than with each other. We cannot set an arbitrary age of 70 as many are fully functioning and contributing at that age. Also, an adult is not fully dependent physically, mentally, and literally sucking life nutrients from another physical body. So your analogy fails miserable. I fully support physician assisted suicide and dying with dignity. For example, no human should be forced to live through cancer so severe that their bones break when they are turned, in endless pain and agony. If I degrade to a point where I can no longer make these decisions for myself, then power of attorney is given to a family member to make them.
Click to expand...

You make pregnancy sound like terminal cancer.

What my response did was to expose the moral and logical bankruptcy of your position.

With your position you are basically in league with honor killers. Something that I'm sure will horrify you and you will vehemently deny but to no avail.

Honor killers take the life of someone who is dependent upon them or who "belongs" to them or is inferior to them in their eyes in some respect for their own purposes and desires. Hey what's really the difference in 16 weeks gestation and 16 years. Logically and morally not nearly as much as you would like.

The great fact that you can't avoid but continually try to dodge is that no one dies with my approach. They do I yours. That is a huge moral difference and none of the situations or reasons you have put forth come anywhere close to being able to justify taking the life of a other person.

You keep wasting time discussing pregnancy and gender trying in vain to undermine the legitimacy of my position. Plenty of women who have had children agree with my position.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


SPN said:
We have had a long standing rule that if either my husband or I are incapacitated and will be a parasite to the family, if we are a net negative, have lost our minds, or are on machines, then the other or adult children must find a way to end it. .
Click to expand...

You saying you have an agreement to kill one another???
 






You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back