(June 30, 2014 at 10:59 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: Well, looks like Arty has abandoned his defense of his pathetically lame arguments.

Good riddance.

Its like as i always say good ideas beat bad ideas

(June 30, 2014 at 11:07 pm)Mothonis_Cathicgal Wrote:

(June 30, 2014 at 10:59 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: Well, looks like Arty has abandoned his defense of his pathetically lame arguments.

Good riddance.

Its like as i always say good ideas beat bad ideas

I'd like to ask something not directly related with the argument - If I don't support abortion ethically and think it should be a last resort measure, but think it should be legal since others do not have to think alike and reality is though, does that make what? Both pro choice and pro life?

(June 30, 2014 at 11:48 pm)blackout94 Wrote:

(June 30, 2014 at 11:07 pm)Mothonis_Cathicgal Wrote: Its like as i always say good ideas beat bad ideas

I'd like to ask something not directly related with the argument - If I don't support abortion ethically and think it should be a last resort measure, but think it should be legal since others do not have to think alike and reality is though, does that make what? Both pro choice and pro life?

pro choice,as long as you allow others to have them.

(June 30, 2014 at 11:48 pm)blackout94 Wrote:

(June 30, 2014 at 11:07 pm)Mothonis_Cathicgal Wrote: Its like as i always say good ideas beat bad ideas

I'd like to ask something not directly related with the argument - If I don't support abortion ethically and think it should be a last resort measure, but think it should be legal since others do not have to think alike and reality is though, does that make what? Both pro choice and pro life?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Everyone is pro life. We just draw different lines in the sand with regard to exactly what life is and when it starts.

Those who define it as DNA must be exclusively pro life no matter what. Those who define it as a thinking, feeling being or as a viable organism draw it somewhere else.

Nobody here is condoning ending a human life. They just don't think a small bundle of cells IS human life.

(July 1, 2014 at 12:40 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(June 30, 2014 at 11:48 pm)blackout94 Wrote: I'd like to ask something not directly related with the argument - If I don't support abortion ethically and think it should be a last resort measure, but think it should be legal since others do not have to think alike and reality is though, does that make what? Both pro choice and pro life?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Everyone is pro life. We just draw different lines in the sand with regard to exactly what life is and when it starts.

Those who define it as DNA must be exclusively pro life no matter what. Those who define it as a thinking, feeling being or as a viable organism draw it somewhere else.

Nobody here is condoning ending a human life. They just don't think a small bundle of cells IS human life.

The so called "pro-life" fraction have positioned itself, probably intentionally, into the rhetorical trap which precludes embracing any possibility of choice. So regardless of whether one thinks abortion is a good or bad choice, so long as one think that choice should be available under any circumstance whatsoever, one would fall outside the cynically self-styled "pro life" camp.

(June 17, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Chuck Wrote: Bullshit. The dandriff sloughing off your head is genetically complete in its information. You don't see you nursing every flake of dead skin you shed.

I keep jars of it ... and other people's.

(July 1, 2014 at 2:25 am)Chuck Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 12:40 am)bennyboy Wrote: The two aren't mutually exclusive. Everyone is pro life. We just draw different lines in the sand with regard to exactly what life is and when it starts.

Those who define it as DNA must be exclusively pro life no matter what. Those who define it as a thinking, feeling being or as a viable organism draw it somewhere else.

Nobody here is condoning ending a human life. They just don't think a small bundle of cells IS human life.

The so called "pro-life" fraction have positioned itself, probably intentionally, into the rhetorical trap which precludes embracing any possibility of choice. So regardless of whether one thinks abortion is a good or bad choice, so long as one think that choice should be available under any circumstance whatsoever, one would fall outside the cynically self-styled "pro life" camp.

I think even pro life are pro choice. The choice, though, is whether to have sex, or whether to get married.

In these liberal days, I think the natural function of physical acts is seen as having fallen to subjective mores. That's fine, but I think hedonism as a goal is a pretty harmful one, and there really is something to be said for examining one's own acts and saying, "Is there a point to this act, or am I just a pleasure-seeking monkey?"

Don't get me wrong-- I had sex before marriage, got married partly because I wanted to have more sex with a particular person, had children as a product of having sex, and recently have been involved in an abortion-- my wife's choice, my support-- because we chose to keep having "natural" (read: unprotected) sex well after we knew for sure we never wanted another baby.

But it wouldn't have hurt me a couple times along the way to put it in my pants and go to community service instead. Just saying.

Sex is good for the non-existent soul my friend. There is nothing wrong with having sex. There's something wrong with teaching young people that sex is a shameful act that they shouldn't engage in and/or talk about instead of teaching them how to have sex without getting std's and babies. Abortion isn't some fun thing that women think hey I can have all the sex I want and if I get pregnant I get to have an abortion
Regardless of how anyone feels about whether or not everyone should keep it in their pants, the fact is that people are going to have sex. This isn't a new thing or a liberal thing. What is new is that women are standing up and saying if I accidentally get pregnant, it should be my choice to have a baby or not. Getting married because you want to have sex or because you got pregnant only works out for the lucky ones. Most of the time it ends with broken unhappy families and the children are the ones who suffer the consequences.

My body.

I will decide what happens to it! This is the responsible and rational thing to do. Ultimately it is up to me.

The rest of you bastards can go dip your eyes in hot cocky shit

The most compelling argument for me was the bodily autonomy issue. I don't really care about people saying 'life starts at conception' or 'an embryo is not a human' (which it isn't), because it doesn't matter when it is/isn't a human. If there were a 2 year-old girl, a 40 year-old man, or the president of the US, they would not have the right to force someone else to be their life support system. You cannot by law force someone against their will to be the kidneys, immune system, or feeding tube etc. for anyone else that is actually alive and walking around, so you cannot give that 'special right' to an unborn fetus. All the time I hear wingnuts screaming that a fetus deserves all the same rights an adult has...and that's fine! No adult has the right to use a woman as an incubator, and neither does any fetus.