Adoption is a solution that's often flung around.

There are hundreds of thousands of kids in the US waiting to be adopted as we speak.

Oh, but there are a so many couples dying to adopt babies! That's true, as long as the babies are white.

(April 9, 2018 at 7:42 pm)Mermaid Wrote: Adoption is a solution that's often flung around.

There are hundreds of thousands of kids in the US waiting to be adopted as we speak.

Oh, but there are a so many couples dying to adopt babies! That's true, as long as the babies are white.

And so long as they're babies.  No one wants a kid past his prime or a teenager set in her ways.

(April 9, 2018 at 7:42 pm)Mermaid Wrote: Adoption is a solution that's often flung around.

There are hundreds of thousands of kids in the US waiting to be adopted as we speak.

Oh, but there are a so many couples dying to adopt babies! That's true, as long as the babies are white.

This.

I often respond to the anti choice groups with "get back to me when the orphanages are empty."

(April 9, 2018 at 6:51 pm)Grandizer Wrote: And adoption isn't a good alternative to abortion when the woman is forced to carry the unwanted fetus to the very end. You dont give a shit about women's rights, and that's the real problem.

That's interesting, as this morning I was thinking along the same lines. Many here are framing this as a male v. female issue. To me it's a human life issue. I don't see it as a women's rights issue. Well, except for the fact that worldwide there are a lot of sex selective abortions, and they're mostly keeping the males and aborting the females. That's a women's rights issue. I don't see why the fact that women can bring life into the world grants them the right to kill.

Frequently women will say You're not a woman, so you don't understand/have a say/whatever. My response is, I'm not a woman, but I was a fetus, so yes, I'm entitled to an opinion. There are two parties involved.

(April 10, 2018 at 7:01 am)alpha male Wrote:

(April 9, 2018 at 6:51 pm)Grandizer Wrote: And adoption isn't a good alternative to abortion when the woman is forced to carry the unwanted fetus to the very end. You dont give a shit about women's rights, and that's the real problem.

That's interesting, as this morning I was thinking along the same lines. Many here are framing this as a male v. female issue. To me it's a human life issue. I don't see it as a women's rights issue. Well, except for the fact that worldwide there are a lot of sex selective abortions, and they're mostly keeping the males and aborting the females. That's a women's rights issue. I don't see why the fact that women can bring life into the world grants them the right to kill.

Frequently women will say You're not a woman, so you don't understand/have a say/whatever. My response is, I'm not a woman, but I was a fetus, so yes, I'm entitled to an opinion. There are two parties involved.

It has nothing to do with having the ability to bring life into the world, but everything to do with forcing a person to keep an unwanted something in their body for the satisfaction of others and at the expense of the person's wellbeing. Look, I can't help you to just magically have empathy for women in these situations. You either have it or you don't, but no woman has to cater to your needs anyways. So that's that.

Until the baby comes out of the woman's body, only the woman carrying the baby inside her womb gets to decide what to do with it while it resides inside her own body. Whether you like it or not, this is the fair and right thing to do as far as I am concerned, and as far as the laws go.

Yeah, you were a fetus in your mother's womb, that's all. You weren't anyone else's fetus.

(April 10, 2018 at 7:01 am)alpha male Wrote:

(April 9, 2018 at 6:51 pm)Grandizer Wrote: And adoption isn't a good alternative to abortion when the woman is forced to carry the unwanted fetus to the very end. You dont give a shit about women's rights, and that's the real problem.

That's interesting, as this morning I was thinking along the same lines. Many here are framing this as a male v. female issue. To me it's a human life issue.

I see it the same way. Every human life is important and should not be co-opted to another's ends. Of course the great, great, great majority of the people getting pregnant happen to be women, while the responsibility for those pregnancies is 50/50 except in cases of coercion/rape. So that tips the scales in the man's direction where responsibility is concerned.

(April 10, 2018 at 7:01 am)alpha male Wrote: I don't see it as a women's rights issue. Well, except for the fact that worldwide there are a lot of sex selective abortions, and they're mostly keeping the males and aborting the females. That's a women's rights issue. I don't see why the fact that women can bring life into the world grants them the right to kill.

I personally would be in favor of killing a good many more. I salute every woman who chooses to undergo the risks, discomfort and inconvenience of an abortion in order to put the brakes on the plague of humanity that is swamping the planet.

(April 10, 2018 at 7:01 am)alpha male Wrote: Frequently women will say You're not a woman, so you don't understand/have a say/whatever. My response is, I'm not a woman, but I was a fetus, so yes, I'm entitled to an opinion. There are two parties involved.

You were also one of the people who engaged in activity which could have resulted in a pregnancy, well, unless you're gay. However you're not one of the people who will end up having to decide what to do about what is happening inside their own body, so please shut the fuck up. Thank you.

(April 9, 2018 at 7:06 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(April 9, 2018 at 4:40 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: No, I do t think that at all... remember how we talked about not trying to speak for me.

Edit to add:  One might think that using rape in such a rhetorical way, and in comparing pregnancy to being raped, that it is you who minimize and don’t respect the issue!

You have no business demanding what other people do with their own bodies. Neither does anyone else, especially men. So let me just comment on your signature just to point out how you took that quote out of context (because that's what you apologists tend to do best with nonbelievers).

Here's what Vilenkin said a couple of paragraphs later:

Quote:Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God… So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist. As evidenced by Jinasena’s remarks earlier in this chapter, religion is not immune to the paradoxes of Creation.

Nevertheless, multiple scientists disagree with him, and there's no consensus among cosmologists regarding whether the universe had a beginning or not. Vilenkin has his selection (and interpretation) of models to draw conclusions from, and so do other physicists and cosmologists. Which is why, ultimately, to end the debate, scientific evidence is required.

I disagree.   We tell women who are pregnant, not to smoke, not to drink, not to do crack!  We tell them this, because it is not just their body they are effecting.  (any more smoking will get you nasty looks any way).    However abortion is not about what the woman who is pregnant does with her body.   It is specifically an act of violence against another human (not the woman).

As to your side track comment on my signature quote.  I don't think that you did show it as out of context.  To do so, I think that you would need to show immediate context, where the quote was immediately negated, or to possibly show where the quote only applies within an immediate an narrow context. Your problem might be one, that I suspect happens a lot here (especially concerning theists and religion.  That you assume much more than what is said, and arguments that I'm not making.  You may be reading into things too much, and trying to find problems that are not there. 

 I did check the context of the quote when I applied it to my signature (though I don't recall it now).  I don't remember seeing any problem with context.  I also do not think that it was dependent on anything else around it, rather the idea is fully encapsulated within the quote, and was utilized by Vilenkin in this particular circumstance..  So, if you are done tilting at windmills, can we get back to the discussion of ideas?

(April 10, 2018 at 7:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I disagree.   We tell women who are pregnant, not to smoke, not to drink, not to do crack!  We tell them this, because it is not just their body they are effecting.  (any more smoking will get you nasty looks any way).

Well, this is one of those things being legally debated. Perhaps we shouldn't ban pregnant women from drinking or smoking. Rather, we should provide education and support for women prone to abuse drugs and alcohol while pregnant, rather than use punitive measures to oppress women.

Quote:However abortion is not about what the woman who is pregnant does with her body.   It is specifically an act of violence against another human (not the woman).

Which happens to not be illegal, so appeal to emotions all you want, but you aren't going to succeed in having women oppressed and enslaved for your satisfaction. And you don't care about fetuses anyway. This is an anti-woman thing on your part.

Quote:As to your side track comment on my signature quote.  I don't think that you did show it as out of context.  To do so, I think that you would need to show immediate context, where the quote was immediately negated, or to possibly show where the quote only applies within an immediate an narrow context. Your problem might be one, that I suspect happens a lot here (especially concerning theists and religion.  That you assume much more than what is said, and arguments that I'm not making.  You may be reading into things too much, and trying to find problems that are not there. 

 I did check the context of the quote when I applied it to my signature (though I don't recall it now).  I don't remember seeing any problem with context.  I also do not think that it was dependent on anything else around it, rather the idea is fully encapsulated within the quote, and was utilized by Vilenkin in this particular circumstance..  So, if you are done tilting at windmills, can we get back to the discussion of ideas?

Yeah, here's the passive aggressive disingenuous RR-tactic in full glory once again. Like you'd have even thought to quote Vilenkin if it weren't for William Lane Craig doing the same, lol.

(April 10, 2018 at 8:06 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(April 10, 2018 at 7:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I disagree.   We tell women who are pregnant, not to smoke, not to drink, not to do crack!  We tell them this, because it is not just their body they are effecting.  (any more smoking will get you nasty looks any way).

Well, this is one of those things being legally debated. Perhaps we shouldn't ban pregnant women from drinking or smoking. Rather, we should provide education and support for women prone to abuse drugs and alcohol while pregnant, rather than use punitive measures to oppress women.

Quote:However abortion is not about what the woman who is pregnant does with her body.   It is specifically an act of violence against another human (not the woman).

Which happens to not be illegal, so appeal to emotions all you want, but you aren't going to succeed in having women oppressed and enslaved for your satisfaction. And you don't care about fetuses anyway. This is an anti-woman thing on your part.

Quote:As to your side track comment on my signature quote.  I don't think that you did show it as out of context.  To do so, I think that you would need to show immediate context, where the quote was immediately negated, or to possibly show where the quote only applies within an immediate an narrow context. Your problem might be one, that I suspect happens a lot here (especially concerning theists and religion.  That you assume much more than what is said, and arguments that I'm not making.  You may be reading into things too much, and trying to find problems that are not there. 

 I did check the context of the quote when I applied it to my signature (though I don't recall it now).  I don't remember seeing any problem with context.  I also do not think that it was dependent on anything else around it, rather the idea is fully encapsulated within the quote, and was utilized by Vilenkin in this particular circumstance..  So, if you are done tilting at windmills, can we get back to the discussion of ideas?

Yeah, here's the passive aggressive disingenuous RR-tactic in full glory once again. Like you'd have even thought to quote Vilenkin if it weren't for William Lane Craig doing the same, lol.

You guys can’t help but make straw men in order to knock down can you? You would be doing much better if you focused on the issue rather than trying to speak for me, and attacking your opponent.

Also, I don’t think that my sig quote had anything to do with WLC.

The issue is the compelling interest of the state.  Yes, let's focus on that, lol.