Not when you KNOW that medical technology is not even close to "saving" an 8 week old zigot.
To the pro-lifers
- Thread starter KingRaw!
- Start date
Not when you KNOW that medical technology is not even close to "saving" an 8 week old zigot.
I didn't say it made her personally have to look at it. I said it would make us have to look at it. Unless you do not think that population count has anything to do with social issues, with global warming, etc. If you don't you are fooling yourself.
It will very quickly reach that point giving actual reproductive freedom to women who could then choose to carry a child or to incubate ex utero. All while recognizing it is a life worth saving as well as her right to choose to be an incubator.
Okay, that is fair. But two points...
1) Contraceptive used correctly is VERY effective and brings the risk to almost 0, safer than driving your children down the interstate.
2) Would you make any effort to save a skydiver whose parachute failed to open from the consiquences of jumping from a plane, or would you perfer him suffer the consaquences?
I dont disagree with you. Then the consaquences of "using reproductive organs as an amusement park" would be decreased signifigantly even in the situation where contraception failed.
Repeating: If it meant somehow he were killing another to avoid those then no, it would not be worth it to avoid the consequences of his activity. There is no reason to make me repeat that except laziness on your part. It shows you don't read my posts and assume my position.
As for Contraceptives. Like parachutes they make it relatively safe, but they are not perfect.
Not the larger consequences to society that I spoke of. A more perfect form of contraceptive would be needed if we assume that humans could not keep themselves from acting irresponsibly.
True, the sad requirement of current contraception is that it requires responsable use.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I know you want like hell to turn me into a fascist who simply wants to punish people who don't agree with me. I am sorry you are unable to think objectively on this issue, but I understand bigotry. It's not about "punishment" it is about "consequences" and "responsibility", and I understand, those are big words for such a small mind, but it essentially means you pay for your own shit and I will pay for mine.
It doesn't make a difference in the value of the unborn, and I never stated that I agree with rape victims having abortions. I can objectively understand the reasoning and argument for such an exception, and it would indeed be a rare instance, compared to today's parameters. In other words, if society decides it's okay to kill the unborn in rare cases, like that of rape or danger to life of the mother, I can live with societies decision, even though I don't personally agree with it and it doesn't conform to my personal beliefs, because I can understand the legitimate reasoning and justification for the exception. Killing the unborn for vanity or convenience is simply unacceptable and barbaric human behavior, which I can not support.
I've said no such thing. The law of the land is not set by Dixie, if it were, we would have more public stonings and floggings. Responsibility is the result of your actions, not the actions of others. If someone breaks into your house and steals your gun, then goes and shoots someone with it, are you responsible for that? If your plane crashes and the find the pilot was drunk, is it your fault for getting on board a plane with a drunk pilot? The burden of responsibility should never fall on the victim of someone else's actions. It is because of this, I can understand an exception for certain rare circumstances, it doesn't mean I place any less value on the life involved, or that I would personally make the same choice.
As for Jarhead's argument that banning abortion wouldn't save that many lives, it would have saved approximately 40 million lives since Roe v. Wade. It would continue to save an additional million lives each year, and I would be willing to bet, all these millions of lives saved would be devoutly pro-life.
So its your opinion that making abortion illegal would end abortion? Like making wiskey illegal in the 20's ended its use?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Making it illegal for all but the most extreme and rare circumstances, would certainly reduce the number considerably. It is not a very good argument to avoid doing something because you can't have it all and it's better to have nothing. This is another argument often spouted by those who lack the moral clarity to understand the barbarism of abortion on demand. It's illegal to rob banks, however, people still rob banks, we haven't just given up on making bank robbery a crime because we can't stop all bank robbery. It's illegal to murder people, yet we still have people being murdered every day, shouldn't we legalize murder, going by your logic?
you got it!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The term "back ally" is bit silly, don't you think? Why don't we be honest and admit, there would be questionable doctors who would disobey the law and perform abortions anyway. Just as there are drug dealers who disobey the law and sell drugs anyway, it is not an excuse to legalize drugs. Just as there are women who will disobey the law and practice prostitution, doesn't mean we should abolish all prostitution laws. Of course, given your lack of morality, you probably favor those as well, so they are probably not good examples. Outlawing murder hasn't stopped "back ally" murders, has it? That is not a reason to avoid criminalizing murder, is it?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Making something illegal always stops the legal practice of it, the contrary is patently absurd and defies logic. It certainly would effect the number of women who got abortions, because most civilized people want to obey the law.
Again, you repeating how you wish to force your immoral views down my throat against my will, seems a little opposite of how I am being. I want the people to have a voice, to decide within their own communities what they "think is wrong" as you are doing for them. You want to force them to accept your personal moral standards (or lack of), which is not very high and unacceptable to most civilized people. This is why you meet so much resistance, people generally do not like being immoral heathens like yourself.
KingRaw!
I dare you to stop us GL
Making something illegal doesn't stop all the people from having illegal practice of it. You said it would and you are wrong.
Again, you repeating how you wish to force your immoral views down my throat against my will, seems a little opposite of how I am being.
Really? Let's see. I want to give a woman the right to choose whether or not to bring a child into the world that they aren't ready for. You want to do the exact opposite.
I want the people to have a voice, to decide within their own communities what they "think is wrong" as you are doing for them.
And 50%-55% of people voting for the pro-choice bill aren't? We are the people too and we are decidingf what we think is wrong!
You want to force them to accept your personal moral standards (or lack of), which is not very high and unacceptable to most civilized people.
YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING!!!!!!!!!!!
This is why you meet so much resistance, people generally do not like being immoral heathens like yourself.
I COULD SAY THE EXACT SAME THING ABOUT YOU!!!!!!! This is what I love about 90% of pro-lifers online. You couldn't argue yourselves out of a wet paper bag!