BIG BLUE WAVE PRO-LIFE BLOGBURST
USCAdad @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:22 pm
Indelible Indelible:
$1:
Ever here of cloning? I don't think they've figured out how to do it with sperm but the tech is certainly there... idiot.
yeah, cause that happens like very day, right? so because a scientist can almost make an identical copy of a human it's ok to tear babies limb from limb. right.
It probably does happen everyday. I have no doubt that there are labs frantically conducting this research. Some I bet, even without fraud. Should every bundle of cells that has the potential to be a human be held holy and above removal? You're the one setting yourself up, don't complain to me.
Banff @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:38 pm
Just because Joe can't seem to hold a job on his own we should support him for the rest of his days. You do support the same type of thoughts for post birth humans? Perhaps, the Religious Right should invest their money into life support systems for fertilized eggs. I'd wrather have my seed ended than left to the likes of you.
Not a very good argument because it suggests because a teenager , preteen , school age , preschool , toddler , infant , baby and all cannot function on their own socially and economicly they would fall into the same bracket as a fetus .Some people even hover on the concept of " I brought you into this world so I can take you out " so do you fit into this ideology or say this to your children ?
also...
Ending your seed means you became intelligent after the penis was finished with the vagina .
You are right ...a fertilized cell " is not a human or FETUS " and besides we scramble , boil and poach fertilized cells for breakfast every morning .What came first the chicken or the egg lol
Every woman takes abortion differently some will find it easier than others while some will be devastated . Women are always going to argue the point with each other . I hope it will always lean more towards support of the fetus . Men should have a say but reality is that the final say belongs to women whether you introduce laws or not .
When you say " I'd rather have my seed ended than left to the likes of you "I'm not sure if you are saying that to me or the woman .
I don't believe abortion is a religious nut job issue but probably a moral issue .Who is right Prolifers or Ceasar Augustus ? , after all We kill over the issues of ecomomics so where do we want to draw the line ?
The abortion issue should always end at the rights of ones own fertilizer , monthly perrenials and baby garden . When did I not make this clear ? and why should anyone promote abortion ? I'm sorry to hear about your mommy freinds ordeal but maybe the term abortion needs to be redefined or another term used so prolifers and people like myself and you are not misunderstood and the medical profession can morally move forward and feel comfortable about . The worst part of antiabortionists is the promotion of life for adoption purposes so for those who rally for that reason should just fuckoff , so don't think I totally disagree with you .
USCAdad @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:56 pm
$1:
Banff Banff:
Just because Joe can't seem to hold a job on his own we should support him for the rest of his days. You do support the same type of thoughts for post birth humans? Perhaps, the Religious Right should invest their money into life support systems for fertilized eggs. I'd wrather have my seed ended than left to the likes of you.
Not a very good argument because it suggests because a teenager , preteen , school age , preschool , toddler , infant , baby and all cannot function on their own socially and economicly they would fall into the same bracket as a fetus .Some people even hover on the concept of " I brought you into this world so I can take you out " so do you fit into this ideology or say this to your children ?
Not a very good argument because it suggests because a teenager , preteen , school age , preschool , toddler , infant , baby and all cannot function on their own socially and economicly they would fall into the same bracket as a fetus .Some people even hover on the concept of " I brought you into this world so I can take you out " so do you fit into this ideology or say this to your children ?
No, this was meant to bring up thoughts about the squeegy kids that get harshed on here. How can you be so concerned with life before birth and yet walk by young kids living on the street, not to mention rubbing salt in their wounds. I've never said or thought this about kids. Their used to be a blues band called Back Porch Blues that were a favorite with my wife and I. They have a song with a line that goes something like, "A woman brought you into this world, a woman can take you back out again." This gets quoted around the house a bit.
$1:
also...
Ending your seed means you became intelligent after the penis was finished with the vagina .
Ending your seed means you became intelligent after the penis was finished with the vagina .
You've lost me on this one.
$1:
When you say " I'd rather have my seed ended than left to the likes of you "I'm not sure if you are saying that to me or the woman .
I love kids, and want more. I don't think I'd actually be too keen on ending the life of one of my own. Likewise, I would never allow a child that was part me to be raised in a "Christian" home. I'm a PK; I wouldn't want that for my kids. I certainly don't want my children at the beck and call of theocrats of any religious persuasion.
Tman1 @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:58 pm
HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
Sorry you're outta luck with me.
It's a womans choice , first , last and always. And the meanderings of any number of chhurches dont change that fact
It's a womans choice , first , last and always. And the meanderings of any number of chhurches dont change that fact
Nope sorry, it isn't. Sperm comes from somewhere right? Guess where. Guys don't blow out loads of DNA of themselves for nothing.
Indelible @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:00 pm
$1:
I love kids, and want more. I don't think I'd actually be too keen on ending the life of one of my own. Likewise, I would never allow a child that was part me to be raised in a "Christian" home. I'm a PK; I wouldn't want that for my kids. I certainly don't want my children at the beck and call of theocrats of any religious persuasion
what's a PK
care to explain what you have against christianity?
Banff @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:02 pm
I should also add cloning to the list of victims for the simple reason that if you could clone enough of yourself or someone else to cover the employees needed to run your factory and if they didn't work out whose to say you couldn't terminate their life if they were bad employees . 
Tman1 @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:02 pm
Scrappy Scrappy:
An abortion is between a woman and her doctor, if a male partner wants to show support great. When men have the ability to get pregnant and carry a child then and only then will it be his sole decision to carry or abort.
Sorry, it isn't. If a male wants to "NOT" show support for it, great. I guess when women get the ability to fertilize themselves, then and only then perhaps they might have the say in the matter (of course if the male doesn't).
USCAdad @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:03 pm
Indelible Indelible:
$1:
I love kids, and want more. I don't think I'd actually be too keen on ending the life of one of my own. Likewise, I would never allow a child that was part me to be raised in a "Christian" home. I'm a PK; I wouldn't want that for my kids. I certainly don't want my children at the beck and call of theocrats of any religious persuasion
what's a PK
care to explain what you have against christianity?
Two birds one stone. PK= Preacher's Kid.
Indelible @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:04 pm
ok so that doesn't tell me anything about why you hate christianity
USCAdad @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:05 pm
Indelible Indelible:
ok so that doesn't tell me anything about why you hate christianity
I actually don't hate Christianity, just what passes for it.
Indelible @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:05 pm
$1:
Abortion
A Moral Dilemma
Most people feel morally uncomfortable with abortion, even as they disapprove of forced motherhood. For many, abortion is an unfortunate bad choice at best, but they also fear that eliminating this choice by law would fail to solve the problem and would actually make it worse. Illegal abortions and unfit, resentful mothers would endanger many lives and cause much more human misery than any ban on abortion could possibly prevent. For example:
World-wide, nearly 80,000 women die every year and millions more suffer serious complications and disabilities from unsafe abortions. Such tragedies could be prevented by offering medically competent help*.
However, this "Pro Choice" argument is opposed by a "Pro Life" argument which wants to uphold the "sanctity of human life" at all cost. Clearly, there is no worthier cause. Indeed, in the final analysis, it is this very same motive of placing the highest possible value on human life that is inspiring both sides, in spite of their fundamental differences. A reconciliation between their opposing views seems unlikely. It is also obvious that the dilemma cannot be solved by science. There is no scientific way of deciding when a human life begins and under what conditions it may be taken. These are basically moral questions which have to be answered by the individual conscience.
A Moral Dilemma
Most people feel morally uncomfortable with abortion, even as they disapprove of forced motherhood. For many, abortion is an unfortunate bad choice at best, but they also fear that eliminating this choice by law would fail to solve the problem and would actually make it worse. Illegal abortions and unfit, resentful mothers would endanger many lives and cause much more human misery than any ban on abortion could possibly prevent. For example:
World-wide, nearly 80,000 women die every year and millions more suffer serious complications and disabilities from unsafe abortions. Such tragedies could be prevented by offering medically competent help*.
However, this "Pro Choice" argument is opposed by a "Pro Life" argument which wants to uphold the "sanctity of human life" at all cost. Clearly, there is no worthier cause. Indeed, in the final analysis, it is this very same motive of placing the highest possible value on human life that is inspiring both sides, in spite of their fundamental differences. A reconciliation between their opposing views seems unlikely. It is also obvious that the dilemma cannot be solved by science. There is no scientific way of deciding when a human life begins and under what conditions it may be taken. These are basically moral questions which have to be answered by the individual conscience.
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ECE2/ ... lemma.html
Indelible @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:06 pm
$1:
Indelible wrote:
ok so that doesn't tell me anything about why you hate christianity
I actually don't hate Christianity, just what passes for it.
ok so that doesn't tell me anything about why you hate christianity
I actually don't hate Christianity, just what passes for it.
such as?
USCAdad @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:07 pm
Indelible Indelible:
$1:
Abortion
A Moral Dilemma
Most people feel morally uncomfortable with abortion, even as they disapprove of forced motherhood. For many, abortion is an unfortunate bad choice at best, but they also fear that eliminating this choice by law would fail to solve the problem and would actually make it worse. Illegal abortions and unfit, resentful mothers would endanger many lives and cause much more human misery than any ban on abortion could possibly prevent. For example:
World-wide, nearly 80,000 women die every year and millions more suffer serious complications and disabilities from unsafe abortions. Such tragedies could be prevented by offering medically competent help*.
However, this "Pro Choice" argument is opposed by a "Pro Life" argument which wants to uphold the "sanctity of human life" at all cost. Clearly, there is no worthier cause. Indeed, in the final analysis, it is this very same motive of placing the highest possible value on human life that is inspiring both sides, in spite of their fundamental differences. A reconciliation between their opposing views seems unlikely. It is also obvious that the dilemma cannot be solved by science. There is no scientific way of deciding when a human life begins and under what conditions it may be taken. These are basically moral questions which have to be answered by the individual conscience.
A Moral Dilemma
Most people feel morally uncomfortable with abortion, even as they disapprove of forced motherhood. For many, abortion is an unfortunate bad choice at best, but they also fear that eliminating this choice by law would fail to solve the problem and would actually make it worse. Illegal abortions and unfit, resentful mothers would endanger many lives and cause much more human misery than any ban on abortion could possibly prevent. For example:
World-wide, nearly 80,000 women die every year and millions more suffer serious complications and disabilities from unsafe abortions. Such tragedies could be prevented by offering medically competent help*.
However, this "Pro Choice" argument is opposed by a "Pro Life" argument which wants to uphold the "sanctity of human life" at all cost. Clearly, there is no worthier cause. Indeed, in the final analysis, it is this very same motive of placing the highest possible value on human life that is inspiring both sides, in spite of their fundamental differences. A reconciliation between their opposing views seems unlikely. It is also obvious that the dilemma cannot be solved by science. There is no scientific way of deciding when a human life begins and under what conditions it may be taken. These are basically moral questions which have to be answered by the individual conscience.
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ECE2/ ... lemma.html
A very reasonable quote. I find little to dissagree with.
Indelible @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:10 pm
a better one
$1:
Abortion
Differing Views
Moral guidance in life-and-death matters has traditionally been offered by the various established religions and philosophies. However, their views are not always identical. Moreover, some of them oppose both abortion and contraception. This seems illogical to many outside observers. Some contemporary religious groups favor abortions under certain circumstances and early in the pregnancy, while others are unconditionally opposed to them, considering every abortion to be murder (except to save the life of the mother, in which case it would be self-defense). Some churches maintain that an embryo is a human life "from the moment of conception." However, scientists do not agree as to whether and when such a particular moment should be presumed to occur. In a way, it is a matter of definition. Scientifically speaking, the conception of a human being is best described not as a sudden occurrence but as a gradual, complicated process which begins with the union of an egg and a sperm cell and leads through various stages to the eventual attachment of a growing cell cluster to the uterine wall. This process is by no means automatic. It depends on a number of interrelated special conditions which are not always present. In some cases, the development takes an entirely different turn, no implantation occurs, and the fertilized egg simply degenerates. Consequently, according to general medical usage, we do not speak of a conception, i.e. the beginning of pregnancy until the implantation in the uterus has taken place.
Differing Views
Moral guidance in life-and-death matters has traditionally been offered by the various established religions and philosophies. However, their views are not always identical. Moreover, some of them oppose both abortion and contraception. This seems illogical to many outside observers. Some contemporary religious groups favor abortions under certain circumstances and early in the pregnancy, while others are unconditionally opposed to them, considering every abortion to be murder (except to save the life of the mother, in which case it would be self-defense). Some churches maintain that an embryo is a human life "from the moment of conception." However, scientists do not agree as to whether and when such a particular moment should be presumed to occur. In a way, it is a matter of definition. Scientifically speaking, the conception of a human being is best described not as a sudden occurrence but as a gradual, complicated process which begins with the union of an egg and a sperm cell and leads through various stages to the eventual attachment of a growing cell cluster to the uterine wall. This process is by no means automatic. It depends on a number of interrelated special conditions which are not always present. In some cases, the development takes an entirely different turn, no implantation occurs, and the fertilized egg simply degenerates. Consequently, according to general medical usage, we do not speak of a conception, i.e. the beginning of pregnancy until the implantation in the uterus has taken place.
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ECE2/ ... views.html
Tman1 @ Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:11 pm
Dayseed Dayseed:
However, I'll say to you and others who would limit the rights a woman has on her own body, "Hands off."
What about the "thing" growing inside her..."hands off"?