Amigo
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 1,945
- Reaction score
- 326
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Abstinence. Not e.v.e.r. going to happen.
Of course, but, it's a solution. :2razz:
Abstinence. Not e.v.e.r. going to happen.
Of course, but, it's a solution. :2razz:
Of course, but, it's a solution. :2razz:
So sorry - you're absolutely right. The Playdrive was saying it - a different football avatar. My bad.I don't know where you're getting this from, but I never said such a thing.
So sorry - you're absolutely right. The Playdrive was saying it - a different football avatar. My bad.
So is dismantling every military in the world in order to achieve world peace.
So is spay and neuter. Works for cats and dogs.
The difference is his is going to the playoffs and mine isn't even going to the pro-bowl
So, you're of the "since it's a difficult topic, it's better not to address it" frame of mind? If it's wrong to kill a child who can live without the mother, then it's wrong - regardless of what's happening to all the children who can't live without the mother (fetus). Saying "but it's a slippery slope" is a cop out. If it's a slippery slope, go down the slope a little way and shovel out a place to stand. Does your toe hold only exist at the point that the child drops onto the floor? Or, maybe it's a few days after? You're not a politician, Joko (at least I don't think so), so what's wrong with just saying that certain behavior deserves to be punished.
Both fetuses and after-birth have marketable value and are used for various reasons including making very costly drugs by the medical industry. That would be the likely reason.Odd that they'd store the fetus's in a freezer. Sickos.
Yes and those distinctions have nothing to do with magic and being fully human.
Both fetuses and after-birth have marketable value and are used for various reasons including making very costly drugs by the medical industry. That would be the likely reason.
I've posted my opinion many times. Here's the short version. An independent life does not exist until capable of surviving independently. I do not believe "a person" exists until taking first breath. If society wants to prohibit abortion after the fetus can exist independent of the mother that is acceptable to me. If so, then it could be made illegal. But doing so would not be murdering a person/baby unless done after a live-birth.
That's news to me. I'm a young man and since I have become a committed Christian I have been abstinent. It is not a perfect solution, but that doesn't mean a general, social respect for the principles of chastity cannot have some positive effects in this area.Abstinence. Not e.v.e.r. going to happen.
Ok. Then we're in basic agreement that law could be made even though we might disagree on the logic that gets us there and the severity of the punishment for breaking the law.
I still think your logic is somewhat faulty in that a 3 month old is NOT capable of surviving independently. In fact, it needs essentially the same care as a healthy child delivered 4 weeks early. This article was specifically about "persons" who had the ability to breath on their own (36 weeks). But, they would need a care-giver to provide warmth, food, to clear out it's sinuses, and to protect it from predators - just like a 3 month old. So, you're saying that what distinguishes your beliefs is that it's ok to kill it so long as you reach in and do it as opposed to pulling it out and then killing it? Is that really your distinction? What if it were 2 weeks over due - still ok I guess, correct? Why the distinction - because what happens in mom stays in mom?
That's news to me. I'm a young man and since I have become a committed Christian I have been abstinent. It is not a perfect solution, but that doesn't mean a general, social respect for the principles of chastity cannot have some positive effects in this area.
I've explained my answers already to other posters. If you want the answers they are there. However, I will not be responding to someone who accused me of making arguments that I did not make. I've been down that road too many times.But you're making them. So explain why.
I'm pro-choice. I'm not saying it's easy. But if you challenge others, you should be able to do it yourself.
It actually does. A fetus is, in fact, attached to the woman's body.It actually doesn't. A fetus is not a part of a woman's body.
and it has everything to do with what you've been saying.
I said it. That's the pro-choice position. You've just stated that pro-life position. Nothing has changed.Who said that the woman's right to control her body trumps the child's right to live? It is a fact of nature that a fetus needs to grow within a living woman's womb. That this restricts the choice of the mother and her complete control over her body is tough luck; we all have our choices restricted by external circumstances. This doesn't mean the child must die to restore some dubious notion of the woman's total control over her body.
"These two individuals are now where they belong and should be in jail for the rest of their lives," the Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said in a statement. "Even those who believe abortion should be legal can join with us to stop the out-of-control practices of people like Brigham and Riley."
It actually does. A fetus is, in fact, attached to the woman's body.
And no, you said, "and once the baby is born, unless it is immediately given up for adoption, the mother's wishes and wants have to take second place to those of the baby. Anyone who has ever cared for a newborn knows that."
I agree with that statement and have never argued differently. And I'm talking about unborn children NOT newborns. So again - nothing to do with my arguments.
I said it. That's the pro-choice position. You've just stated that pro-life position. Nothing has changed.
Actually life can generally be said to start at conception, because that is when a new being begins. It doesn't really make sense for it to begin any other time. The argument is generally over personhood or when that life form is a person.Attached to a woman's body is not the same thing as being a part of a woman's body.
The question of when human life begins is not an easy one. No one knows, really. Some say it begins at conception, and that, therefore, a zygote is of the same status as a baby who is already born. Some say life begins at birth.
Neither position can be proven.
Personally, I think it is somewhere in between those two events, but then, I can't prove my opinion any more than you can.
You seem to have mistaken freedom for choice. We are against unlimited personal choice. Personally I see what people do with their choices before I praise them for having choice.Not entirely accurate. The "pro-life" position is that they get to tell others what to do. They are the anti-personal freedom people. The pro-choice position is that other people should butt out of other people's lives as a matter of individual freedom.
Pro-lifers are control freaks upon personal ideology they want imposed on everyone. Pro-choicers are personal liberty people.