The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread — Page 30

TV's Frink said:

Hooray for them.  I'm pro life too.

 I'm also pro choice.   I'm pro giving people the choice on a lot of things.  See, that is how pro choice can be misleading.

     ^ ^Um...Most all observant Christians strongly support contraception. This includes most all Catholics. It's just a few ultraconservatives egged on by Jesuit dominated clergy (seeking to create social and political HAVOC in their host countries) who are a problem.

         And there is a TREMENDOUS demand for healthy babies in adoption.

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

 So what's the alternative?  Because the typical response is "don't have sex if you don't want a baby."

 It can be done.  Sex is primarily for baby creation, and the pleasures involved ensure survival of the species.

 Sex is for whatever you want as long as you have a willing partner who has the ability to consent without coercion.  

If it is, you still have to realize that when you have heterosexual sex, pregnancy is a possiblity. 

If a couple has a condom fail and they don't wait thirty weeks, I see no problem with abortion.

 I'd guess that is because you don't think a fetus is human.  

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

 So what's the alternative?  Because the typical response is "don't have sex if you don't want a baby."

 that would be logical.  At the very least, use some form of protection during sex.   If you do end up with an unwanted pregnacy, what about putting the child up for adoption? 

 I guss you missed the part where most religions are anti-contraception.  

while most religions are anti-contraception, I am pretty sure they prefer you to use contraception, rather commit what they believe is murder.   Also I am am not so sure I agree with the anti contraception stance.

And all kids up for adoption find homes, right?

 we are talking about newborns here, I am pretty sure the probablity is high that you'd be able to find a home for newborns.  Can we really say non-existence is better that growing up unadopted in an orphanage or in foster care? 

thejediknighthusezni said:

     ^ ^Um...Most all observant Christians strongly support contraception. This includes most all Catholics. It's just a few ultraconservatives egged on by Jesuit dominated clergy (seeking to create social and political HAVOC in their host countries) who are a problem.

 The first statement is true, but since most Catholics are only nominally so, that's meaningless. And no, it isn't just a few ultraconservatives, it's most practicing Catholics who are  against it.

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

 So what's the alternative?  Because the typical response is "don't have sex if you don't want a baby."

 that would be logical.  At the very least, use some form of protection during sex.   If you do end up with an unwanted pregnacy, what about putting the child up for adoption? 

 I guss you missed the part where most religions are anti-contraception.  And all kids up for adoption find homes, right?

 Honestly, there are so many homes available.  Beuracratic nonsense and cost-prohibitiveness slow down the process.  But in a sense it's a matter of supply and demand.  If you have more children in the supply pool, it would alter the adoption process to be much easier.

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

 So what's the alternative?  Because the typical response is "don't have sex if you don't want a baby."

 It can be done.  Sex is primarily for baby creation, and the pleasures involved ensure survival of the species.

 Sex is for whatever you want as long as you have a willing partner who has the ability to consent without coercion.  If a couple has a condom fail and they don't wait thirty weeks, I see no problem with abortion.

 Well, that's convenient.  No, from a pure, 100% evolutionary, non-Creationist viewpoint, sex is primarily for one purpose: ensuring the continuation of all species that reproduce sexually.  All other purposes, while important, are secondary.  I love to make love to my wife as an expression of my affection for her.  But to think I can somehow do that without the consequences of potential pregnancy, then I am deluding myself.  And to believe that I can simply kill a small, underdeveloped human being because it is not yet a person, all because I want to enjoy the fun of sex without the consequences, then I am irresponsible and a moron.

Many people find alcohol fun.  But you know what?  There are consequences, ranging from making foot-in-the-mouth comments to falling and injuring onceself to getting into a car accident or going into a coma and dying.  What about skydiving.  It's a real thrill for many.  It's also risky.  It's a risk people take for a little fun.  But every choice, even fun ones, have consequences.  It's best if we can not take others' lives to avoid those consequences.

A lot to respond to and I'm burning time better spent on other things, so I'll just say that it's a fair point that there is a demand for newborns to adopt.  But we're not talking about a baby that is either killed or adopted.  We're talking about an early-stage fetus.  I'm not into forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy an additional six or seven months to term.

The idea that contraception is a sin is one of the most mind-boggling things I've ever heard from religion.

And "irresponsible and a moron" is why I should know damn well better than to get involved in stupid crap like this.  Well done.

Well, you do kinda have to admit that it is irresponsible to have consentual unprotected sex at a time in your life when you don't want kids.    I honestly don't understand why someone would take that kind of risk. 

Sheesh, I'm not talking about unprotected sex.  There's a failure rate on all forms of contraception.

By the way, I'm now reminded of a good Stephen Wright joke:

About a year ago, my girlfriend was on the pill, wearing a diaphragm, and an IUD all at once.

Recently, she had a baby...the baby was born wearing armor.

TV's Frink said:

Sheesh, I'm not talking about unprotected sex.  There's a failure rate on all forms of contraception.

I agree, and I never said contraception could 100% stop a pregnancy.   I just said if you don't want a pregnancy, at the very least, use protection.  Of course, you are still taking a risk and you should be aware of it and think about it.    If you really don't want to deal with a pregnancy, don't have sex.   Unless you get raped, you won't be dealing with pregnancy.

TV's Frink said:

The idea that contraception is a sin is one of the most mind-boggling things I've ever heard from religion.

 I hope you didnt miss where I said I wasn't sure I agreed with the stance that contraception is a sin.

TV's Frink said:

A lot to respond to and I'm burning time better spent on other things, so I'll just say that it's a fair point that there is a demand for newborns to adopt.  But we're not talking about a baby that is either killed or adopted.  We're talking about an early-stage fetus.  I'm not into forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy an additional six or seven months to term.

The idea that contraception is a sin is one of the most mind-boggling things I've ever heard from religion.

And "irresponsible and a moron" is why I should know damn well better than to get involved in stupid crap like this.  Well done.

 Now wait, I deal with plenty of offensive crap (not usually from you), and I usually continue the conversation.  I admit I shouldn't have used such words, as it doesn't help my argument.

And I completely agree regarding conception.  My church does not oppose it, but I know others do.  I respect their right to practice their religion as they see fit.  But more most people, I'd rather see them purchasing a box of Trojans than going into an abortion clinic.

But back to my statement about "irresponsible" and "moron", I should have pointed out that it is truly a desire to escape the responsibilities of one's actions in having an abortion.  I find it to be willful ignorance or denial that leads people to believe that sex is primarily about feeding those cravings we all feel.

thejediknighthusezni said:

      ^ So then, when you are sound asleep or passed out drunk, you're cool with having anyone who finds you inconvenient tear you to shreds instead of waiting whatever period of time is necessarry for you to awake and display these qualities of personhood?

         Dude, I sure wouldn't let the gang pushing the global warming fraud and Agenda 21 hear you say that! 

There is a difference between a sleeping person and an non-existent one and I never said I was 'cool' about abortion either.

In debates like these people (a fetus and a baby can't do this) wave silly little flags like 'person' and 'human rights' around. Where is the personhood of the more developed and aware animal? Where are the human rights for pigs?

People are aborted every day in hospitals. When the old are the uncommunicative are left without food or water to 'pass away" and yet the calls against these actions are tiny compared to the abortion issue because babies are cute and old and disabled people are probably even more inconvenient than an unwanted pregnancy.

People who will defend the rights of a fetus while munching on a close cousin are a maze of contradictions.

I can live with abortion AND I like the taste of meat. :p

darth_ender said:

Now wait, I deal with plenty of offensive crap (not usually from you), and I usually continue the conversation. 

That's not the reason I'm trying to stop the conversation on my end.  It's because I'm wasting too much time on this.

TV's Frink said:

I can live with abortion AND I like the taste of meat. :p

Your position is consistent. Unlike those who would ban abortion and essentially eat one.

^Which is essentially an admission that yours is not, given that you oppose one and favor the other.

Bingowings said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

      ^ So then, when you are sound asleep or passed out drunk, you're cool with having anyone who finds you inconvenient tear you to shreds instead of waiting whatever period of time is necessarry for you to awake and display these qualities of personhood?

         Dude, I sure wouldn't let the gang pushing the global warming fraud and Agenda 21 hear you say that! 

There is a difference between a sleeping person and an non-existent one and I never said I was 'cool' about abortion either.

In debates like these people (a fetus and a baby can't do this) wave silly little flags like 'person' and 'human rights' around. Where is the personhood of the more developed and aware animal? Where are the human rights for pigs?

People are aborted every day in hospitals. When the old are the uncommunicative are left without food or water to 'pass away" and yet the calls against these actions are tiny compared to the abortion issue because babies are cute and old and disabled people are probably even more inconvenient than an unwanted pregnancy.

People who will defend the rights of a fetus while munching on a close cousin are a maze of contradictions.

 Why is personhood defined by self-awareness?  Who made that definition?  Oh yes, people advocating a certain position on abortion.  Why am I not allowed to define a person differently?  You seem very stuck on the concept of personhood as if its definition is inherent and beyond debate.

The elderly are allowed to die because, well, they are dying.  It is not about inconvenience.  If you think about it, most people that reach that age have been preserved long past when nature would have taken its course, were it not for a pacemaker or anticoagulant therapy or dialysis treatments.  Loved ones are usually the ones who push to preserve elderly people, even after those people would have rather chosen to die.  There comes a point where it's futile and causes perpetual misery.  It is not an abortion.

But as for animal rights, it is something on my mind.  I do eat meat and I do not oppose it, but I oppose the cruel treatment of animals.  I have seen pictures and videos of little chicks getting ground up and other cruel ways of killing off animals.  I don't like it at all, and I believe we should legislate against animal cruelty, even for animals whose only destiny is to make chicken nuggets or pork chops.  I wouldn't even mind starting a thread about it.

Person, personality, persona...it's what the whole family of words refers to. Blame the middle English speakers (it originally meant a mask or a role in a play).

Zygotes don't have a personality, they have no characteristics that define them from other microscopic lifeforms.

This doesn't happen until sometime in the toddler stage, usually around the time the baby is on solid food and can make very basic gestures indicating preference.

We are all dying Ender.

Leaving an elderly or sick person to die without water or food is all about convenience, if it wasn't we would pay someone to check them constantly and keep them alive until they died, not just stop feeding them. That is an abortion of a person, they are being switched off because they are a burden to medical staff or relatives.

If you are prepared to eat something as inquisitive and as intelligent as a toddler (when a baby becomes a person) but protect the rights of the Zygote (basically all the awareness of an item of plankton) you may well have to invert your thinking to be consistent.

If I were in that position I would have the snip and if I ended up feeling a yen to be a parent I'd adopt but I do appreciate that people can be overwhelmed by the biological imperative or booze.

Or a lurker.

Or a sock pretending to be a long time Lurker who will post once or twice fall off the radar and then reveal themselves to be Barry Manilow when he starts mentioning Tony Todd, how cool Ghostbusters is or how Ingo's character arc holds no water.