Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

This is an inherently emotional issue, what we need is less fire and more calm thought about it.

Kelly,

Just a note that you came off sounding somewhat reasonable at the beginning when I believe you were a woman. You crossed the line into completely unreasonable when you started talking about religion with regards to the legality of abortion.

You're drawing the line at conception, that mass of cells couldn't live if it wasn't living off of it's host. That's not a person.

My two cents.

What if the religious fanatics refuse medical intervention for their minor children?
If their child dies from lack of a transfusion because the minor's parents refused to allow such... should the parents be prosecuted for negligence?

KellyS wrote:

Magus wrote:

Kelly, if YOU want to have a baby... please, do so.

I would love to, however the doctors publicly haven't admitted to trying to implant ovaries and uterous in a male.

Yeah, it figures. I thought you were male.

What do you care about freedom of choice for women...you will never have to face the problem.

Quote:

Quote:

Child-bearing is a LIFE-LONG commitment, not to be entered into lightly, capriciously, or flippantly.

We totally agree on this sentence. But that also means that the act of making babies is not to be engaged in under any of those circumstances either.

So tell me...if the act of making the baby was a brutal rape...does that change things?

Quote:

Quote:

Anyone with the awareness to acknowledge their lack of aptitude or resources for child-rearing should NOT be forced to bear children unwillingly... not by YOU, or by ME, or de Massah, or the Pope, or any other peripheral parties.

I agree. That is why I have already posted supporting much better education for everyone, especially girls who will grow up to be women and if they are better educated they have less likelyhood of ending up pregnant unexpectedly.

But you still maintain that once a woman is pregnant...she loses her rights as regards her own body????

Quote:

Quote:

Why is it you insist upon poking your nose into OTHER people's business?
Can't you follow the admonitions of Jesus, and tend to the mote in your OWN eye?

I suspect I have a large plank in my eye. However, I keep repeating the Jesus DID directly, and quotedly, say that He came to uphold the Law of Moses. There are many disagreements on just how much of Exodus and Deuteronomy are really the Law of Moses, but there seems to be complete agreement that the Ten Commandments are a major part of that law. The Ten Commandments say "Thou shall not kill", or if you prefer the other translation, "Thou shall not murder". Either translation supports my contention that you should not kill another human. I define a human to exist with the union of egg and sperm. There is no other so clear and obvious point in the development of the human that seperates it from a previous existance as conception.

Yes...how very, very convenient it is to pick and choose which of your god's many admonitions are important enogh to make a big deal out of...and which to simply trash can.

Gad...Christians are such hypocrites. And religion just seems to be at the root of all evil.

Quote:

Quote:

I find your position similar to that of certain protestant sects/cults who eschew transfusions, surgery and medical care of any kind... reserving the human right to intercede only on the level of prayer... and relying upon "Divine intercession" for any other healing, relief or therapy.
Frankly, I'll allow them THEIR choice to do as they fell God wills them to do FOR THEMSELVES... but I vehemently object to their mandating that everyone else do only as they do!

Those sects are declining medical intervention in their lives, a choice they are free to make. I am opposing medical, or other, intervention to cause death, the death of a person who has no voice to object. I think those other sects and I are at rather opposite ends of that argument.

Kelly

And you have the audacity to suppose that because you have pulled an idea out of the air about a human being existing....even at times when it is just a lump of a few dozen cells....everyone has to accept that bizarre notion.

Why?

Kelly,

Just a note that you came off sounding somewhat reasonable at the beginning when I believe you were a woman. You crossed the line into completely unreasonable when you started talking about religion with regards to the legality of abortion.

You're drawing the line at conception, that mass of cells couldn't live if it wasn't living off of it's host. That's not a person.

My two cents.

I admit to shuddering at the prospect of the late-term procedures (where a potentially viable fetus is denied the transition into personhood by having its brain scrambled in utero).

I also note that, among learned physicians, the stages of zygote, embro and fetus are considered to be distinct and separate.

Frank Apisa wrote:

KellyS wrote:

Magus wrote:

Kelly, if YOU want to have a baby... please, do so.

I would love to, however the doctors publicly haven't admitted to trying to implant ovaries and uterous in a male.

Yeah, it figures. I thought you were male.

What do you care about freedom of choice for women...you will never have to face the problem.

I would think it is very obvious that I care a very great deal. Otherwise I would not be engaged in this discussion...

I have repeated argued here for better prevention and education for all concerned. I recognize that only through prevention and education can the incidents of unwanted pregnancies be reduced so that abortions are not required.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Child-bearing is a LIFE-LONG commitment, not to be entered into lightly, capriciously, or flippantly.

We totally agree on this sentence. But that also means that the act of making babies is not to be engaged in under any of those circumstances either.

So tell me...if the act of making the baby was a brutal rape...does that change things?

Not in my belief. I've already said so. And I consider incest to be rape as well.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Anyone with the awareness to acknowledge their lack of aptitude or resources for child-rearing should NOT be forced to bear children unwillingly... not by YOU, or by ME, or de Massah, or the Pope, or any other peripheral parties.

I agree. That is why I have already posted supporting much better education for everyone, especially girls who will grow up to be women and if they are better educated they have less likelyhood of ending up pregnant unexpectedly.

But you still maintain that once a woman is pregnant...she loses her rights as regards her own body????

To a great extent, as long as the baby does not threaten her physical life, YES! That is why it is SO important that the woman have full control and rights to her body before conception, so she can decide before conception whether she will have a baby or not.

If you prefer, I am pushing the argument that a woman needs all the control of her body that the pro-abortionists are arguing for BEFORE she gets pregnant.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Why is it you insist upon poking your nose into OTHER people's business?
Can't you follow the admonitions of Jesus, and tend to the mote in your OWN eye?

I suspect I have a large plank in my eye. However, I keep repeating the Jesus DID directly, and quotedly, say that He came to uphold the Law of Moses. There are many disagreements on just how much of Exodus and Deuteronomy are really the Law of Moses, but there seems to be complete agreement that the Ten Commandments are a major part of that law. The Ten Commandments say "Thou shall not kill", or if you prefer the other translation, "Thou shall not murder". Either translation supports my contention that you should not kill another human. I define a human to exist with the union of egg and sperm. There is no other so clear and obvious point in the development of the human that seperates it from a previous existance as conception.

Yes...how very, very convenient it is to pick and choose which of your god's many admonitions are important enogh to make a big deal out of...and which to simply trash can.

Gad...Christians are such hypocrites. And religion just seems to be at the root of all evil.

Magus raised the argument of complying with what Jesus said. I merely replied with another of his quoted remarks. In this case it is not I who is picking and choosing, rather it is Magus.

Quote:

I find your position similar to that of certain protestant sects/cults who eschew transfusions, surgery and medical care of any kind... reserving the human right to intercede only on the level of prayer... and relying upon "Divine intercession" for any other healing, relief or therapy.
Frankly, I'll allow them THEIR choice to do as they fell God wills them to do FOR THEMSELVES... but I vehemently object to their mandating that everyone else do only as they do!

Those sects are declining medical intervention in their lives, a choice they are free to make. I am opposing medical, or other, intervention to cause death, the death of a person who has no voice to object. I think those other sects and I are at rather opposite ends of that argument.

If you will consult the medical literature I think you will find that the only definitive point which can be watched is the penetration of the egg by the sperm. Everything else is observed as having already having happened. This is not pulling something out of the air. Rather it is staking a belief on what is well documented scientific evidence.

Jer wrote:

Kelly,

Just a note that you came off sounding somewhat reasonable at the beginning when I believe you were a woman. You crossed the line into completely unreasonable when you started talking about religion with regards to the legality of abortion.

You're drawing the line at conception, that mass of cells couldn't live if it wasn't living off of it's host. That's not a person.

My two cents.

I was not the one to raise the religion issue. I have responded to those who have made religious points, but it was not I who raised the issue.

And a newborn baby nursing off its mother, or having someone fetch and warm a bottle is not living off of someone? Not to mention regularly changing its diapers, and providing other care? How old does a person have to be before you are willing to recognize them as a full human being? Age of reason, loosely defined as seven? Old idea of when self sufficiency was possible, about ten? When they become backtalking teenagers, a point many parents might support strongly? Our current legal age to sign a contract so others can send you to be cannon fodder, 18? Our current legal age to drink, 21? When old enough, by law, to run for different public offices, the president is supposed to be at least 35 and there are discussions in the political forums questioning the current holder-of-that-title's fitness for the job?

Kelly

Jer wrote:

Kelly,

Just a note that you came off sounding somewhat reasonable at the beginning when I believe you were a woman. You crossed the line into completely unreasonable when you started talking about religion with regards to the legality of abortion.

You're drawing the line at conception, that mass of cells couldn't live if it wasn't living off of it's host. That's not a person.

My two cents.

I was not the one to raise the religion issue. I have responded to those who have made religious points, but it was not I who raised the issue.

And a newborn baby nursing off its mother, or having someone fetch and warm a bottle is not living off of someone? Not to mention regularly changing its diapers, and providing other care? How old does a person have to be before you are willing to recognize them as a full human being? Age of reason, loosely defined as seven? Old idea of when self sufficiency was possible, about ten? When they become backtalking teenagers, a point many parents might support strongly? Our current legal age to sign a contract so others can send you to be cannon fodder, 18? Our current legal age to drink, 21? When old enough, by law, to run for different public offices, the president is supposed to be at least 35 and there are discussions in the political forums questioning the current holder-of-that-title's fitness for the job?

Kelly

KellyS wrote:

Jer wrote:

Kelly,

Just a note that you came off sounding somewhat reasonable at the beginning when I believe you were a woman. You crossed the line into completely unreasonable when you started talking about religion with regards to the legality of abortion.

You're drawing the line at conception, that mass of cells couldn't live if it wasn't living off of it's host. That's not a person.

My two cents.

I was not the one to raise the religion issue. I have responded to those who have made religious points, but it was not I who raised the issue.

And a newborn baby nursing off its mother, or having someone fetch and warm a bottle is not living off of someone? Not to mention regularly changing its diapers, and providing other care? How old does a person have to be before you are willing to recognize them as a full human being? Age of reason, loosely defined as seven? Old idea of when self sufficiency was possible, about ten? When they become backtalking teenagers, a point many parents might support strongly? Our current legal age to sign a contract so others can send you to be cannon fodder, 18? Our current legal age to drink, 21? When old enough, by law, to run for different public offices, the president is supposed to be at least 35 and there are discussions in the political forums questioning the current holder-of-that-title's fitness for the job?

Kelly

Take the religious element out of this issue...and it dies.

You people are trying to assert your religious guesses and mythology on everyone else.

I have based my arguments on biology and development. That is where I make my stand.

Please tell me why you think a zygote is not a human...

Is a 6 month old human being a person?

Is a 3 month old fetus a human being according to you?

Where do you draw the line?