The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread — Page 5

darth_ender said:

I have apologized if you didn't notice.  I wasn't bringing it up to harass you, but simply as a way to apologize for another lengthy comment, as I am prone to do.  And in the end, while it saddens me to read your rude comments, I don't feel that I am being nearly so disrespectful, and I doubt anyone reading our conversation here would see me as the more upset between the two of us.  I promise to drop it from now on.  Heck, if you like, I won't respond or reference anything you say since apparently this is such a big deal to you.  Just know that I have said I'm sorry for my agitating you (including in your PM box), have received no such acknowledgement or apology from you (perhaps you never did anything wrong), I don't think I'm overreacting nearly as much as you are, and I'm not going to such lengths to insult you for the annoying things you've done in this conversation.  Block me from now on if you've got a problem with me.  I think I'm done talking to you for the time being as well.

I don't feel like I owe you any apologies, I don't feel like you owe/owed me any either.

You didn't have to apologize for a long post, it was a good post and you made your points well.

I don't know why you keep thinking I am upset about anything or blowing things out of proportion.

Well, that's the beauty of the Internet.  We mean something one way, but it is easily perceived as intended differently.  I will drop the subject and try not to bring up the long post thing any longer.

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

I know this is long and CP3S doesn't like that,

I don't have a problem with long posts. I am not a mod. It doesn't matter if you make long posts. It doesn't matter if I did have a problem with long posts. You have a right to make long posts. Make long posts if you want.

My comment from before was regarding the first page when every other four posts in a row were yours, and were all overly long. I commented that it wasn't worth the time or effort on my part to respond because it was muddled and confusing to have debate like that; especially since you already admitted nothing will ever change your mind. But you know all of that, because we've had this discussion already.

But yeah, I think it is a great idea to bring this up in each and every post you make in this thread! By all means, please keep doing that. I'll make an effort to do the same. You know, it might even be a good idea to go ahead and mention it in every post we make even in other threads. That could be a lot of fun!

 

but one last thought for the day: as the baby progresses, it causes more damage to the mother's body.  Yet we illegalize abortion after a certain point that most pro-choicers agree is acceptable.  All the same rationales apply at this point: the damage to mom, the economic difficulties, the potential for an unwanted child...but now it's wrong to kill that baby.  Why the change of heart?  My point to this is that those other issues don't matter at the end of the day if we acknowledge that we are killing a person. The defining point really hinges on how we define a person then, and when an unborn human gains its humanity.

Because she had several months to take all of that into account. It is not a change of heart, it is merely putting a limit on at what stage of development the mother can have the baby removed. With your logic you could easily say the same thing about a post-natal child, they are stressful and can cause the mother a lot of hardships both financially and mentally. It is like that episode of South Park where Cartman's mom decides she wants to have him aborted only to discover you can't abort eight year old kids.

Obviously a limit has to be drawn somewhere.

Yes, obviously.  My point is that the limit is rather arbitrary and acknowledges that an unborn human is still a person somewhere.  And what I meant by change of heart was not the mother's change of heart, but rather that of society and lawmakers.  I read in the news last week that a child born before the age of supposed viability has survived and is doing well.  Should we adjust the timeframe for abortions now?  Do/can they become people sooner?  I simply see personhood as genetically human.

I did make the same point about post-natal children.  When first born, they are still not even considered sentient in that they are not even self-aware.  We do have to draw the line somewhere, and I personally feel that "somewhere" is much earlier.

 

I honestly don't even think the hard pro-life side takes the unborn baby that seriously. Almost all of you stated that you are okay with abortion in the cases or rape. So, because this human life was created out of the horrible actions of someone else, killing it is justifiable? Just about all of you also stated that when the mother's life is at risk it is also acceptable. If we say an unborn child is a person who deserves all the rights any post-natal human would be granted, how is putting the health and well being of the mother above that of the baby justifiable?

"Sorry, you have every right to live, but in this case you're going to have to die so your mother can live". Before the obvious rebuttal of "Well, if the mother dies, so does the baby", there are so many cases where it is just a precaution that abortion is recommended on account of the mother's health. It is possible the mother and baby could both make it through the gestation period, or that the mother could make it long enough to carry the baby to the point that it is viable to live outside of the womb.

I think both these examples show that even pro-choicers admit somewhere deep down that an unborn child is not quite of equal value to that of a person. 

My point of view is that an unborn child is not that an unborn child is not of equal value to a person, but rather that we make efforts to save the life of as many as possible.  Consider the scenario where the mother's life is seriously at risk.  If the mother dies, the baby may live or may die.  If the baby dies, the mother will more likely live.  Also, the mother has more to live for.  She may have a family to care for, has loved ones who need her.  The child does not yet have such a place in society.  It's a horrible choice, but if I leaned one way or another, I'd lean toward the mother.  Let's now look at an example of conjoined ("Siamese") twins.  In most cases both will die if they remain joined.  If we separate them, one will likely die.  Which do we choose to have live?  The one who has the better chance of survival.

As for the rape case, I obviously will never be in those shoes, but I believe that if I were a woman and were raped and impregnated, I would still choose to allow the baby to live.  However, I also acknowledge here two things: 1) rape is a very damaging thing, physically and psychologically; 2) I may not agree with abortion even here, but at least see the opposing POV and am granting room for it in this case.  The mother could be very emotionally traumatized by rape and therefore her health is again endangered, though we're now speaking of her mental health.  It often leads to depression, and depression can lead to suicide and other adverse behaviors.  The pregnancy and delivery may exacerbate this depression.  Therefore, I grant room for others, though I personally even oppose it in this case.

I'm not trying to bring anything up, but I don't want to continue posting.  This will be my last for the day

walkingdork said:

darth_ender said:

^Not my point of view.  I work in behavioral health with children 0-5 years old--children that only qualify for my program if they receive Medicaid.  I'm not into state mandated insurance, but I do believe that some sort of option should be available for everyone.  Ideally that's how our system would work, with the poor qualifying for welfare, but it's inefficient, broke government trying to manage this so it never works.  I hear you though.  That's one reason I am a self-admitted RINO.  I'm much more of a middle of the road independent in reality.

I think even if people don't want to cover the health of other humans through taxation there should at least be full and complete coverage for children. Children can't help the circumstances of their parents.

I can buy that.

As for your previous comment, as well as Frink's held tongue (that's not like you, Frink ;), I know babies are damaging, but if you got drunk, a perfectly legal and enjoyable (to many) activity, and did something stupid that resulted in someone else living on a life support system.  Now let's say that this life support system required that your body provide nutrients to this injured person (an abortion advocate created this analogy, not me, only she left out the part where you are responsible for the person being hooked up to you).  Would it be right or wrong for you to disconnect yourself from this life support system and allow the other individual to die?  It would certainly be damaging to you to remain on it.  But you did make the choice to drink, which ultimately led to this person's needing it.

You are comparing the act of love making to drunk driving? Crackheads may be crackheads but they should not be denied love or loving each other through intercourse. However if two crackheads who love each other dearly get pregnant they should have the right (and be encouraged) to have an abortion.

I realize that you were talking about casual sex, but even then I would argue that sex is a more natural and socially accepted behavior than driving drunk.

What I'm talking about is not whether it is socially acceptable but rather if it's responsible.  If you can't accept the consequences for having sex, then you aren't responsible enough to have sex.  You are responsible for someone else's life at that point.

I'm sorry that God (or Mother Nature) decided that females carry the babies.  Take that up with them.  But instead of leveling the playing field by killing innocent children, couldn't the playing field be leveled by demanding more of irresponsible fathers?

I'm not trying to level the playing field on who chooses whether abortion is appropriate, I'm saying mother nature gave them the baby carrying duties they should be the ones deciding whether they are able to properly take on that duty. Before technology, nature would help make that decision for them. Thousands of years ago if you were poor or an addict, you would not have the physical health to carry a baby.

I still feel the fathers should be required to take more responsibility for being the sperm donors.  You may be interested to know that a mother who abuses drugs is held legally responsible for the health of her child when born and CPS removes that child.  In the case of a poor and malnourished mother, nature would ultimately save the mother over the child (though you'd be amazed at how the female body gives so much preference to the child first), but that doesn't make it right for someone who has the means to afford proper foods and should avoid drugs to be irresponsible.

I know that this thread will do nothing to change anyone's mind.  I just will never see the logic.  Injuring mothers, family economic difficulties, family contentedness, healthy sexual relationship...all very important considerations.  Killing someone...oh, wow, that outweighs all other considerations to me.

By terminating an abortion before a certain point you are not killing a thinking, feeling person, you are ending the potential of a thinking, feeling person. You make it seem like it's premeditated murder.

I don't think it's premeditated murder because it is legal and socially acceptable.  However, if everyone saw the world my way, which is of course the absolutely correct way ;), they might think of it like that.  As for killing potential, this seems to be one of the few cases where we find it acceptable to kill the potential for something great.  If we found that there was the potential for life to develop on Mars, and just before it did, we sterilized the whole planet so we could colonize it, would you find that acceptable?  That's certainly not a thinking, feeling something.  It's merely the potential for non-thinking, non-feeling life.  Yet I have a feeling we'd protect it because of its potential greatness.  How are "potential" people any less deserving of a chance?

Do you believe that a miscarriage and a still-born birth are the same thing? Should we start naming and burying miscarriages? Maybe I should open up a miscarriage cemetery in my backyard. It's wouldn't take up a lot of space.

Many do name and bury their miscarried babies.  It's their way of mourning for the child they wanted.  I see nothing wrong with that.

I know this is long and CP3S doesn't like that, but one last thought for the day: as the baby progresses, it causes more damage to the mother's body.  Yet we illegalize abortion after a certain point that most pro-choicers agree is acceptable.  All the same rationales apply at this point: the damage to mom, the economic difficulties, the potential for an unwanted child...but now it's wrong to kill that baby.  Why the change of heart?  My point to this is that those other issues don't matter at the end of the day if we acknowledge that we are killing a person.  The defining point really hinges on how we define a person then, and when an unborn human gains its humanity.

The change of heart happens when there is brain activity the fetus begins to think and feel. 

Animals feel, yet we kill them.  And what is thinking?  There is already neural activity of some level.  But what we may refer to as thinking could also not begin till long after birth.  I still see this as an arbitrary point in time.

CP3S said:

I honestly don't even think the hard pro-life side takes the unborn baby that seriously. Almost all of you stated that you are okay with abortion in the cases or rape. So, because this human life was created out of the horrible actions of someone else, killing it is justifiable? Just about all of you also stated that when the mother's life is at risk it is also acceptable. If we say an unborn child is a person who deserves all the rights any post-natal human would be granted, how is putting the health and well being of the mother above that of the baby justifiable?

"Sorry, you have every right to live, but in this case you're going to have to die so your mother can live". Before the obvious rebuttal of "Well, if the mother dies, so does the baby", there are so many cases where it is just a precaution that abortion is recommended on account of the mother's health. It is possible the mother and baby could both make it through the gestation period, or that the mother could make it long enough to carry the baby to the point that it is viable to live outside of the womb.

I agree. What darth_ender believes is an "innocent child" is suddenly put to death to save a mother who has already lived her life. That sounds messed up.

 

Just answered this.  And why put it in quotes.  Is the "innocent child" anything but, even if you don't think it has the rights of a person yet?

CP3S said: Almost all of you stated that you are okay with abortion in the cases or rape.

if you'll recall, I said it was a dilemma for me. 

CP3S said:

 If we say an unborn child is a person who deserves all the rights any post-natal human would be granted, how is putting the health and well being of the mother above that of the baby justifiable?

I guess I think of it this way:  We are talking about a case where a decision has to made between saving the baby's life or the mother's.   I believe in  cases where you have to choose which one will live and which will die, the government shouldn't step in make the decision.  I say let the parents decide which one will life and which will die.  

CP3S said:

"Sorry, you have every right to live, but in this case you're going to have to die so your mother can live".

its that or we have to say:

"Sorry, you have every right to live, but in this case you're going to have to die so your baby can live".

I don't think saying either one is better than the other.  

I am sorry to read more fighting between CP3S and Darth Ender.   *knocks their heads together*   Please be nice to each other.

twister111 said:

Alright finally getting back around to replying to this thread.

Warbler said:

twister111 said:

That aside that homeless person is still a person. Whom pro-life advocates would fight to keep alive at the point in time when they're a fetus. Yet when born, and as many children do, grown up. It's wrong to do something illegal to ensure survival because there are choices.

yeah, if there are ways to avoid staving to death other than stealing, it would be wrong.    However if there were no other option I don't know that it would be wrong, in that case, to steal. 

Why should it matter that there are other options though?

because you shouldn't steal when you can avoid doing so.

twister111 said:

 The starving person did something to ensure survival for another day. If you're really gun-ho about people surviving, even at the physical strain on another person against their will, why is stealing food wrong?

I(and most people) believe it is wrong to take what doesn't belong to you.   You should only do so when you have to.   

twister111 said:

  Advocating that a person be forced to deal with a guaranteed 9 month problems on the basis of one consensual encounter. Yet something that ensures further survival for another day while physically harming no one is so wrong. For some reason I see a huge disconnect there.

I fail to see the disconnect.   Stealing is wrong, and so is taking a human's life.

twister111 said:

If your going to say "What's the equivalent of consent to sex for the store to allow anyone to take food?" Well the store didn't exactly lock it's doors. They consent to people entering their store. They put a whole bunch of food on the shelves. Many items aren't behind a door while inside the store. While it certainly wouldn't be the choice of the store to let people just take food without paying. If you're pro-life that's not exactly about choices is it? Just that people survive. So who cares EVERYONE STEAL ALL THE FOOD!!!!

I fail to see the logic is this.   Just because the store has food on the shelves and allows people in, does not make it right to steal.    

twister111 said:

Warbler said:

twister111 said:

The point is, that starving person is still a person who's doing something to try to survive. A fetus has a village of pro-life people fighting for it to be born at all cost. Once born that village turns a blind eye "nope it's your life now. Someone else take care of it."

perhaps, but if someone tried to murder it once it was born,  those same prfo-life people would be fighting that too . . . and so would the pro choice people.

Once someone is born they can survive without being a direct physical burden to someone else.

so when someone becomes a physical burden to someone else(through no fault of their own),  they forfeit the right to live?  

twister111 said:

Warbler said:

twister111 said:

So you'd want someone to have possibly hard to pay medical expenses, injuries, irreversible changes to their body, and needed time to recover against her will? Just so your choice to be pro-life is appeased to, and there's another life on this planet that still needs to be taken care of well after birth.

its either do all that stuff against the mother's will or kill the kid against the kid's will.   

Alright how about this. A new law which states that those who profess themselves to be "pro-life" must then be legally obliged to take care of at least two kids either adopted, or their own genetically. Adults who are forced to take care of these kids must be physically able to have a job. This would mean that these people fighting for these people to live in the first place actually have to work to ensure that these kids survive. Not too much to ask in my opinion. Afterall being pro-life is as much of an initial choice to have sex. If you're really for these potential kids surviving then it should be no problem for you to deal with taking care of the consequences of these kids surviving.

So you think people should be required to raise these kids, solely because they are against killing human beings?  

btw, deciding not to adopt doesn't directly kill anyone,  having an abortion does.

twister111 said:

Warbler said:

twister111 said:

Adoption does not, and will never solve the problem of a child coming into the world unwanted already.

never said it would.  the point is, with option of adoption open,  you can't not say that pro life people are trying force a 20 year obligation on anyone.

The physical affects of pregnancy don't always stop at 9 months. The Hollywood notion of "getting your pre-pregnancy body back" is nice for those stars that get paid to get back in shape, but it doesn't always work out like that.

most of the time,  women do fully recover from pregnancy quickly.    I see many mothers at my church all the time.    They seem to be very healthy, despite having gone through one or more pregnancies.  

twister111 said:

Warbler said:

twister111 said:

Warbler said:

theprequelsrule said:

I feel that the opposition to abortion, from the ancient world to today, is based on keeping women under control of men.

I don't wish to be rude but that is bs.   I have no desire to "keep women under the control men".    Also remember many people opposed to abortion are women themselves.   

Well it's not exactly easy to be a woman who doesn't want kids. Everything in society, in terms of parenting, is built up to make a woman feel bad if they don't want kids

so let me get this straight you think many or most or some or whatever of the women whom oppose abortion, have been brainwashed by society? 

btw, I would never want make a woman feel bad for not wanting children.  they are a big and difficult and constant responsibility.   I am not sure I ever want kids.   

Brainwashed? No. Pressured? Yes. Same sort of pressure to buy a set of expensive pants because some designer's name is on it. Same sort of pressure to do something as asinine as shave eyebrows off then pencil some on your face. Same sort of pressure that drives the need to wear high heels which cause pain

Somehow, I just don't see it that way.   I think some women oppose abortion because they believe it is wrong to kill another human.  

twister111 said:

Besides that even if they're opposed to abortion completely free from societal pressure. There's also the whole "I could do it why can't you?" or "I wouldn't do that thing I deem as bad, I'm hating on you now." Mentality that each sex possesses. It's why some other women call a woman a slut for sleeping around. "I'm not sleeping around why are you?" "Don't you know sleeping around is bad? I'm in hate of you now." Further why some Heterosexual men are opposed to Men having Homosexual relations. "I'm not sleeping with Men. Why can't you be like me?" "I'm not sleeping with guys, you're a guy too, you should hate that as much as me. I'm a hate on you until you stop." It's a simple psychological urge to latch onto something similar to another person, then to assume they have similar interests on other things you do. If they don't and that interest doesn't fully align with what that person feels as "right" it causes them to hate. In this case in particular "I could go through a pregnancy, you should too!" "You don't want to have kids? You want to get out of it? What are you chicken? I'm a hate on you until you feel the same as I do on this."

Well I don't think that stuff is as bad as it used to be.    I certainly don't act that way.   I try not to look down on and judge other people and hate that way. 

twister111 said:

Warbler said:

twister111 said:

darth_ender said:

Consequences to your actions?  Whose actions?  I think the only people who made a choice here are the parents who had sexual intercourse.  Who is so stupid that they don't know that sex leads to babies?  Mom and Dad made the choice, not the child.  Don't you think that they should be the ones to face consequences for their actions?

So are you against birth control too?

not me.  I have no objection to trying to lower the risks of getting pregnant while having sex.

What about morning after pills, would you be for or against those?

I am not really sure how these morning after pills work.   Do they prevent the pregnancy, or do they kill the embryo after it is created?  

twister111 said:

Warbler said:

twister111 said:
  Is masturbation by a guy reckless abandonment in your eyes because the sperm could not get to an egg? Simply put a bunch of cells that could one day be a baby if left to grow are a lot different from someone who already sustains themselves on their own blood system. I mean guys don't save sperm after every ejaculation, drive to the sperm bank, and make a deposit to ensure it's survival. That's a lot easier then a woman carrying a kid to term. Forget hypothetical situations where guys could carry a kid to term. Guys could do this for every ejaculation if they felt so strongly that potential life of a few cells is so important.

twister111 said:

It's not a light decision to make but, I feel it should at least be an option. Taking that option away, is like making it law that every time a guy masturbates he must save it to make a deposit in a sperm bank.

a sperm cell is not the same as fetus.   sperm is not human life.   I am not 100% certain when human life begins, but I am 100% it doesn't happen before the sperm cell combines with the egg cell. 
 

Sperm have the potential to help create a human life under the right conditions.

potential? yes.  Is sperm human life?  no.    I don't advocate that we force people to create human life.   I only advocate that when human life already exists, we can't kill it.  

twister111 said:

 Guys everyday make a choice to prevent the potential human lives that could exist by throwing out a bunch of cells. Masturbation is a choice.

people make the same choice when they decide to not have sex.   No one would advocate forcing people to have sex just to create human life.  Again what I advocate is that once human life exists,  it can't be killed.

twister111 said:

 Masturbation is a choice. Miscarriages very often are not.

true, but I fail to see the point.

twister111 said:

. Yet if that Personhood amendment passed women could've been charged with murder if they miscarried.

yeah, I am not sure I'd be for charging a a woman with murder just for having a miscarriage.     

But,  masturbation is very different from having a miscarriage.   In masturbation, no humans die.   All you do is throw away sperm cells that had the potential to create human.    In a miscarriage,  a human dies(assuming you believe the fetus to a human life).     

twister111 said:

Considering how strict that law would have been if it passed. No exemption made for rape, incest, and stroke. Even if the pregnancy could possibly kill the mother it would've been illegal to perform an abortion due to the chance that she might survive. Medical treatments that could help the mother but hurt the fetus would've been banned. Certain forms of birth control would've been banned.

again, I don't think I'd want to go that far.   

twister111 said:

I don't think it would be out of the question to also get a law where it's mandatory for all non-physically disabled adult males to make sperm bank deposits every three days or every time they chose to masturbate. In order to ensure that as much potential cells to create human life get a good chance at creating human life. Yes this would mess with guys lives, becomes harder to take long term vacations and whatnot. Still it's only fair.

I really don't get the idea of comparing the  forcing of people to create life,  to protecting human life where is already exists.   I don't get it at all. 

Potential for life, verses already living human.   Two different distinct situations.

twister111 said:

All that said I might have to respectfully bow out of this discussion soon. I feel odd doing this considering this thread was created in part because of me. However a few of the hypothetical situations brought up here just hit a little bit too close for comfort. I'm sure it's by no means intentional by the posters here so I take no offence. Lets just say I've lived a very harsh life. I wouldn't be able to answer some of these scenarios in a way that's easy to convey to the world wide web. I've also come to realize that my perspective on this matter probably wouldn't be fully understood unless I basically told you what I've been through in life. I'm sorry but I'm just not comfortable saying all that so that some random googler could read up about it. I probably haven't answered the above questions in any real coherent manner. Again I'm sorry I just, some of the other stuff mentioned here just makes me think of stuff I'de rather not

I understand.   I am sorry that you've had to go through whatever it is that happened to you.   You have my sympathies.    I had no intention of offending you with anything that I've said.   It just what I think and believe on the subject of abortion.   I know it is a difficult subject and with a lot of gray area. 

twister111 said:

I still want this answered though.

twister111 said:

darth_ender said:  Think of a woman in an abusive relationship.  This man threatens to stalk her and hunt her down wherever she goes.  The easiest course of action may be to simply shoot him while he sleeps.  That's self-defense, right?  I think you know that is wrong.

No not really, at least killing him after she's already gotten away from the attack is slightly wrong. During an abusive beat down though, are you saying the victim shouldn't fight back?

 

during the beat down?  of course the victim has every right to fight back.   But, again, I don't consider what the fetus does to the mother to be the same as what an attacker does.   At very least, the attacker made a conscious decision to attack.   The fetus makes no such decision, it just does what it does naturally.    I also can't really call a pregnant woman, a victim(unless we are talking about a woman who was raped).

Alexrd said:

walkingdork said:

Alexrd said:

walkingdork said:

When my first child was conceived my wife was on the pill. When my second child was conceived she was on the pill AND I was wearing condoms. Judging by her reaction I would say there is NO chance of her missing them accidentally or intentionally. Weren't we responsible?

Did you know that there was still a chance of getting pregnant? If yes, and if you had sex anyway, what was the surprise?

Yes we knew there was a chance of getting pregnant, but the pill is like 90% effective so yes I was surprise.

You knew it could fail and there was a surprise that it had failed?

here I have to disagree with you, Alexrd.   Lets say you buy a lottery ticket for the 10 million dollar jackpot.   You had pick 6 numbers that could each be 0 to 99.  You had to get all the numbers right and in the right order.    You know your ticket has the potential to be the winning ticket.   But if it turns out that you ticket is the winner,  I'll bet you would be surprised as hell. 

Can't respond to everything, but I will say in response to one comment that sex is indeed natural and it is a beautiful thing.  I'm glad you even called it something like, "the beautiful act of making love."  I just am incapable of distinguishing between the beautiful act of making love and the beautiful act of making babies.  They are inseparable and were never intended to be otherwise.  I understand that our society and economy are easier on smaller families.  But sex's primary function has always been to make babies, and therefore every time someone has intercourse they must be cognizant of that fact.  If they are not responsible enough to care for a baby, they shouldn't have sex.  If they had sex without being prepared for that potential end result (as millions are), then they should at least be responsible enough to give the baby up for adoption.  From the legislative end, I feel much more could be done to improve the adoption system, but I never, ever would put killing a human, even an undeveloped, unthinking, unfeeling human, above a person's level of responsibility.

That said, twister111, you made it quite clear this hits home to you.  Without asking you to divulge details you clearly would rather avoid, let me just say that I don't judge most who have had an abortion, considering most people don't see things the way I do.  If a mother accidently forgot her baby was in the back seat of the car and allowed it to die, I'd be unhappy with her choices, but I also would not judge what was not a conscious choice (this is different from when people say, "I'll be back in a couple of hours, Junior").  I don't hold a pro-choicer to be a murderer (unless I believe they should know better perhaps, such as a member of my church who would believe abortions are okay).

Well, if you don't like reading Emily Bronte, I'm sure there are other novels that might be more to your liking :)  I'm honestly ready to stop, as I doubt a single soul has changed his or her mind because of this thread.

walkingdork said:

darth_ender said:

Well, if you don't like reading Emily Bronte, I'm sure there are other novels that might be more to your liking :)  I'm honestly ready to stop, as I doubt a single soul has changed his or her mind because of this thread.

Stem cells, stem cells, stem cells! :D