How many men have no clue

a reply to: VierEyes

Your position is absurd in the extreme. You are a brick wall of illogic.

The Sacred Cow of biology is his God. These so called pro-life, a fetus is a whole person with greater rights than its host people want women to do their duty and be slaves to their biology.

Children are punishment for recreational sex, don't ya know?

a reply to: Quadrivium

Because I can show that the fetus is a Human Being and Human Beings have basic rights?

Says who?
What rights are those?

a reply to: Xtrozero

There really isn't a rainbow at the end for most of these abortions if they kept the baby as so many just assume.

I am having trouble with figuring this one out, Xtrozero.
So the right to life should be based on a rainbow (by which I think you mean a good life?).
If that's what you mean, would be OK to travel the Country and kill everyone who isn't "experiencing the rainbow"?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being.

So is that wrong then? Replace all my "murder" with "premeditated killing" or "man slaughter" then, as all are morality issues, right?

As for the rest of your post, I am sorry about your niece. We need to educate them better (and the parents).

Just a great example of what a crappy situation leads too and why we have so much issues in many parts of the country that mirror the crappiness of my sister and how it becomes generational.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
So is that wrong then? Replace all my "murder" with "premeditated killing" or "man slaughter" then as both are a morality issue right?

Get ready for Olympic level mental gymnastics.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

Think we are heading that way pretty fast, actually.

Me too...

originally posted by: Quadrivium
I am having trouble with figuring this one out, Xtrozero.
So the right to life should be based on a rainbow (by which I think you mean a good life?).
If that's what you mean, would be OK to travel the Country and kill everyone who isn't "experiencing the rainbow"?

I meant that many see the path of having the baby over abortion will normally lead to a good ending, and many times it doesn't. Did you know that 18 years after Roe the crime rates in America started to drop every year since 1992? Prior to that crime rates had increased by a good margin every year, and then magically in 1991/1992 they started to drop and drop each year for the next 30 years, why do you think that happened?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Get ready for Olympic level mental gymnastics.

Cracks fingers....

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

The Sacred Cow of biology is his God. These so called pro-life, a fetus is a whole person with greater rights than its host people want women to do their duty and be slaves to their biology.

Children are punishment for recreational sex, don't ya know?

We need middle ground from both sides don't we? The left needs to openly say it is a developing human, and the right needs to also say the same thing. a one cell Zygote is not A human, but cannot develop into anything else but a human. Its like saying a sperm and egg are human because they cannot develop into anything else once connected. We also need to get away from the... its not alive or human until after it is born.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Would you agree that with our basic human rights comes some responsibility?

Absolutely.

We can apply this to the point you are making.

Yes, we certainly can.

I totally agree that all of us (in America at least) have reproductive rights, but this is not what the pro-abortionist are seeking when it come to abortion.

I already agree with you on that. The decision on whether or not to reproduce was made initially when the couple chose to have sexual relations. Hopefully, a couple would take measures to minimize their chances of reproduction, but that was still their choice.

One takes a chance with every activity they undertake. I will be driving to town soon; I am taking a chance as soon as I get into that car that I will have an accident. I can take measures to mitigate that risk... I can drive carefully, choose a safe route with less traffic, even have insurance in case all else fails... but I still accept that risk. If I want a guarantee that I will not be involved in a car wreck, I stay at home. That's just how it works. It seems some of the pro-abortionists want all chance of any risk removed, and that is not reasonable.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JAGStorm

Maybe we should stop abortions at their source, Vasectomies for all men until they can prove they are responsible enough to procreate.

The first time in a long time that people have started calmly discussing this issue, and you have to interject that crap?

Maybe we can just give women hysterectomies at age 14? How's that grab ya?

You and your concerns will never be relevant in this issue as long as you keep hating all men.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xtrozero

So is that wrong then?

I think you, unlike some here, will be able to comprehend this. You seem to have excellent reading comprehension skills, seriously.
It depends on if you adhere to Basic Human Rights for ALL humans.
1. If you think some humans are "less than" or property, then no, to you it wouldn't be wrong.
2. If you believe all humans deserve Basic Human Rights, then yes, to you it would be wrong.

(Some may see that as double somersault or a triple axle, but it is that simple.)

a reply to: VierEyes

The fetus is a parasite until it is old enough to survive on its own outside the body.

Oh, great, two of ya.

M granddaughter was not a parasite! How dare you!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
It seems some of the pro-abortionists want all chance of any risk removed, and that is not reasonable.

We are not going to stop people from having sex for fun, I hope not anyhow, and the only risk is what we as society create as a social norm, unlike crashing your car that was not created by a social norm.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
In answer to both of your recent post on this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Thank you for proving my point.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Some women didn't consent to carrying and deliverying a baby that would not survive outside the womb

When someone is dealing with an insurance company and they receive a check, they often cash it and then expect to sue the insurance company. But the law says otherwise. On that check is a release; endorsing the check (or even depositing the check) is an admission that such implies acceptance of the money as paid in full.

It sucks sometimes, but that's the law.

There is an implied consent that accompanies the sex act. All involved parties know (or should know) that the act can lead to pregnancy. The use of birth control legally verifies that the participant acknowledges that risk; otherwise they would not have used birth control. So no your statement above is false from a legal perspective. If you have sex and get yourself pregnant, you did indeed consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant. If I have sex and the woman gets pregnant, I did indeed consent to the possibility of her getting pregnant with my child.

You can scream all day that "we don't have sex for reproduction" but it changes nothing. Reproduction is a known result of sexual relations. Just because you don't want something to happen, it does not follow that you can go kill someone because it did. That's the attitude that caused such an uproar against Roe v. Wade and finally got it overturned.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Xtrozero

So is that wrong then?

I think you, unlike some here, will be able to comprehend this. You seem to have excellent reading comprehension skills, seriously.
It depends on if you adhere to Basic Human Rights for ALL humans.
1. If you think some humans are "less than" or property, then no, to you it wouldn't be wrong.
2. If you believe all humans deserve Basic Human Rights, then yes, to you it would be wrong.

We need to define the term human then to even address your points. We also need to understand we end human life all the time within the law and social norms to even people cheering at times.

I don't see a one cell Zygote as human even though it will develop into a human, but until then it is a one cell Zygote. The same argument can be said for a sperm and egg that they can not be anything else but a human if allowed to develop. When someone says it is human when the sperm hits the egg then they are just establishing rules that really mean nothing. A Zygote is life, a sperm is life, an egg is life, a human is life...they can not be anything else, but that still doesn't mean a Zygote or sperm is human too.

Now where so you draw the line? I have no clue and can only provide suggestions that don't mean they are right or wrong as I could argue it either way.

a reply to: Xtrozero
I would JOKINGLY say Biden's Crime Bill but he and Bill didn't start locking more minorities up for stupid # until 1994.
Honestly, I have no idea.
I am curious as to what connection it has to abortion.

a reply to: Xtrozero

We are not going to stop people from having sex for fun, I hope not anyhow, and the only risk is what we as society create as a social norm, unlike crashing your car that was not created by a social norm.

Of course we're not going to stop people from having sex! I didn't think that even needed to be said; anyone who would think that is seriously hallucinating!

However, the risk is indeed pregnancy. That's not something we developed as a "social norm"... it is what happens when a man and a woman have sex. That's the biological reason for sex in the first place! Yes, it's also a lot of fun, and people do not always want children when they have sex, but that is the biological purpose. All we are discussing is what to do when the pregnancy happens, not whether it should happen.

Crashing my car, on the other hand, is a society-created consequence. We have cars that we use to travel back and forth for social reasons. Nature did not provide us with cars; we came up with those. Nature did set up the whole reproductive thing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xtrozero

We need middle ground from both sides don't we?

We do? Why? What makes reproductive biology so sacred that an individual can't choose to override it?

Roe V Wade was middle ground, but because people couldn't handle the decisions other people made, that they don't like, it was overturned.