Indisputable Abortion FACTS:

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed, it's a badge of doing the right thing. I'd have been exactly as proud if I saved a baby from drowning in a swimming pool: definitely not something difficult or brave. But the right thing to do.

Ugh! If a mentally retarded man was going to kill family, I'd shoot him, but I wouldn't be PROUD! I just killed someone! It was a necessary evil!

I hope some people will read this story, and will understand that abortion can be a great thing, because it can prevent much forseeable misery.

Ugh... Abortion is a last resort, a necessary evil, not simply birth control.

I believe YOU are the barbarian here .

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ugh... Abortion is a last resort, a necessary evil, not simply birth control.

I fully agree. Actually, I did go to the drug dealer to get the morning-over pill (40 minutes walking and about 30 minutes waiting for the store to open thankyouverymuch), because when she was alone, she didn't dare to enter the store.
The fact that I had to go there only after being warned of her failure to get it by herself sure belated the ingurgitation of the pill bigtime. I suppose that's why it didn't work.
And no, there has never been anything sexual between us, so I couldn't help to prevent her getting pregnant prior

I believe YOU are the barbarian here .

AHAH ! I now have proof that you are brainwashed by FoxNews !

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Eh? Why can't a pro-life person not win at the stage 2 argument if the fetus is say 8 months along and declared to be a human being, and by C-section can be taken out of the woman on that instance?

This I don't understand.

Because, you have just described a pro-choice position - i.e. the legal protection of viable fetuses without protecting non-viable fetuses.

Oh, and by calling your opponents 'anti-' something, you leave yourself open to the same treatment (ie, any pro-lifer would be definetly justified to refer to you as pro-death).

Most anti-choice people I have met (there are exceptions) are also pro-death penalty. One cannot be pro-life and pro-death penalty simultaneously. Should I call them pro-fetus?

[Zylka]

Originally posted by The Templar

Most anti-choice people I have met (there are exceptions) are also pro-death penalty. One cannot be pro-life and pro-death penalty simultaneously. Should I call them pro-fetus?

Maybe they're "pro-life until you set your mother on fire and/or blow several 7 year old girls heads off with a shotgun"? Have any fetuses ever done that? Just checking!

[Zylka]

...by the way, I'm against the death penalty as well - so save your breathe and add another to the "exception".

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Zylka
...by the way, I'm against the death penalty as well - so save your breathe and add another to the "exception".

I don't know you. But that is a consistent position.

As for a guy who blows my family away - we've got life in prison for that. As for fetuses, they are infringing on the reproductive rights of women (if the woman does not want the fetus). Unfortunately, if the fetus is non-viable, it wont survive eviction. Do you have a point?

[st_swithin]

How far exactly is this going to go? Are there going to be 'zygote rights', and pre-mitotic gamete segregation?

Honestly, if guys were given the right, they'd give a vote to each and every new sperm cell they meiose.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by st_swithin
How far exactly is this going to go? Are there going to be 'zygote rights', and pre-mitotic gamete segregation?

Honestly, if guys were given the right, they'd give a vote to each and every new sperm cell they meiose.

nice hyperbole but I think the pro life ppl only consider it after fertilization. since its like the hammer has been started on the clock.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by The Templar

As for a guy who blows my family away - we've got life in prison for that. As for fetuses, they are infringing on the reproductive rights of women (if the woman does not want the fetus). Unfortunately, if the fetus is non-viable, it wont survive eviction. Do you have a point?

My point is - the fetus did not "choose" to create itself, the host did so through carelessness. If the woman did not want the fetus "infringing on her reproductive rights", SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE SPREAD HER LEGS

It's a little too late to decide when the course of action is possibly murder. Do we need to go over the argument a 5th time to get it through your head?

[Apocalypse]

Damn right Z, now why aren't you on AIM or ICQ?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Zylka


My point is - the fetus did not "choose" to create itself, the host did so through carelessness. If the woman did not want the fetus "infringing on her reproductive rights", SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE SPREAD HER LEGS

This is the dead givaway that you are merely anti-woman. Putting aside the right of women to enjoy sex ...

So what if a woman is raped? She didn't "spread her legs" in that case, but then again, the fetus did not "choose" to create itslef. What then? Force the woman to carry a child that did not result from her choices? Your moral arguments seemed based on choice. Allow the fetus to be "killed" because their was no choice on the part of the woman? Well, that's not really pro-life is it if you honestly care about fetuses ...

It's a little too late to decide when the course of action is possibly murder. Do we need to go over the argument a 5th time to get it through your head?

It's not murder. I (1) deny that the fetus is human. (2) even if the fetus were human, a woman's right to contol her body and reproductive capacity would outweigh any rights the fetus would have. How many times do I need to repeat these points before you get them through your head. You have failed to establish fetuses are human, and you have failed to balanc the rights of women. This choice thing doesn't cut it because it fails to adress the right of a woman to control her own body.

[Zylka]

I AM ANTI WOMAN

DISCUSSION OVER!!!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Zylka
It's a little too late to decide when the course of action is possibly murder. Do we need to go over the argument a 5th time to get it through your head?

Originally posted by The Templar
It's not murder. I (1) deny that the fetus is human. (2) even if the fetus were human, a woman's right to contol her body and reproductive capacity would outweigh any rights the fetus would have. How many times do I need to repeat these points before you get them through your head.

Do you now understand what I meant with "pointless debate" ?

[Zylka]

Originally posted by The Templar

So what if a woman is raped? She didn't "spread her legs" in that case, but then again, the fetus did not "choose" to create itslef.

So what if you read the entire thread, where I time and again established the fact that we are DEALING WITH MAJORITY ISSUE here - rather than the exceptions? That would have been helpful!

It's not murder. I (1) deny that the fetus is human. (2) even if the fetus were human, a woman's right to contol her body and reproductive capacity would outweigh any rights the fetus would have.

1 - Simply because "you said so"? Gee, not even I am arrogant or delusional enough to arrive at the concrete conculsion of whether or not a fetus is always living. Given the significant opinion chance that it is (which you can and have NOT disproved) - YOU DON'T RISK MURDER

2 - In this case - A woman's right to control her body for 9 months after impregnating herself outweighs the rights of life of another. That's wonderful, thanks for coming out.

[Spiffor]

And once again, Zylka blatantly ignores the very many circumstances that I cited repeatedly in which a woman can become pregnant even when she didn't intended to (i.e had protected sex / thought she had protected sex).

What I find most stupid is that Z is all 'blame the woman'. Yet apparently, the man shouldn't take responsability. Of course, it is only natural to a man to have recreative sex, while it is only natural to a woman to have reproductive sex I guess