ABORTION.......

Eorl wrote:

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to hear why christians aren't handing out condoms at church on Sunday. If it prevents just one "child murder" surely it would be worth it?

Christians do better than that, Eorl.

They don't promote condoms, which have a high failure rate in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

They do promote abstinence before marriage, which has a 100% success rate in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

0 Replies

Never really thought about this before. I wonder how many of those having abortions are Church goers.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Don't get off track. Stay here, with me......You're just ranting and babbling with ardent nonsense.........But what is your point? Can't you just stop drifting off this topic? Forget abortion, ok?

Abortion is the topic, Jason. Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
"Get what"? What do you want me to understand, Real?.........And since the argument is based upon DNA, why don't you tell when a fetus would be considered part of the mother's body, genetically?

The unborn is not at any point considered genetically part of the mother's body. He has a distinct genetic identity from the moment of conception.

I understand pretty well that the unborn (in this case) doesn't have the exact DNA of the mother. I also understand that the unborn isn't the mother's liver, esophagus, pancreas, or any other organ. I know that. But isn't the unborn attached to the mother, receiving nutrients through the umbilical cord that sustains it for nine months (give or take.) is the unborn able to stay with the mother everywhere she goes, or the mother is able to leave it home?

You are playing with the definition of empty words. You say that the unborn is not part of the woman's body because they have a variation in their DNA structure. This is your definition that defines the unborn as not being part of the mother. You are not giving me any more reasonsagree? If DNA is what determines the state of the unborn as being "not part of the mother," what would make it part of hercould it be if they both had identical DNA? Would having the same DNA make the unborn part of the mother?
If this is true, how can it be?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to hear why christians aren't handing out condoms at church on Sunday. If it prevents just one "child murder" surely it would be worth it?

Christians do better than that, Eorl.

They don't promote condoms, which have a high failure rate in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

They do promote abstinence before marriage, which has a 100% success rate in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

abstinence does have an almost perfect success rate (you folk seem to be claiming at least one exception Wink

)

promoting abstinence, however, has a very poor rate of success. Funny that.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
Eorl wrote:
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to hear why christians aren't handing out condoms at church on Sunday. If it prevents just one "child murder" surely it would be worth it?

Christians do better than that, Eorl.

They don't promote condoms, which have a high failure rate in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

They do promote abstinence before marriage, which has a 100% success rate in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

abstinence does have an almost perfect success rate (you folk seem to be claiming at least one exception )

promoting abstinence, however, has a very poor rate of success. Funny that.

There has NEVER been an exception.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Don't get off track. Stay here, with me......You're just ranting and babbling with ardent nonsense.........But what is your point? Can't you just stop drifting off this topic? Forget abortion, ok?

Abortion is the topic, Jason.

You are pathetic. You are altering my post to suit your purpose. Very skillful I am, you might say to yourself.

Why don't you better try and answer this?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Give me the definition on how anything can be part of something else without contradicting logic.

0 Replies

I'm not sure it's the promoting of abstinence that isn't working Eorl.

Sex has become such a "free" trade anymore. It doesn't seem to be all that important as it once was. Girls that used to sleep around garnered some rather rough reputations. Now, they go on Maury and have 36 paternity tests to find out who the father is and all anyone does is tune in for the next time to see if this one is the daddy or not.

Sexual promiscuity has become an accepted behavior IMO. The peer pressure on kids in school is terrible. It's not hard to see why either when sex is equated so often with love. Guys tell the girls, "aw, but if you loved me you would." or "You know I love you so it's ok." Works the same way for guys.

First, children need to learn that having sex does not mean having love. It means responsibility in more than one way. Kids just aren't being responsible much anymore. Half the time they don't have fathers in the homes to help raise and teach them. It's no wonder they go looking for love and think they find it in sex. Can't tell you how many times the subject of some of these talk shows has been girls 12, 13 and up wanting to have a baby just so they can have something to love. It's sad.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

real life wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Don't get off track. Stay here, with me......You're just ranting and babbling with ardent nonsense.........But what is your point? Can't you just stop drifting off this topic? Forget abortion, ok?

Abortion is the topic, Jason.

You are pathetic. You are altering my post to suit your purpose. Very skillful I am, you might say to yourself.

Why don't you better try and answer this?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Give me the definition on how anything can be part of something else without contradicting logic.

Trying to stay on topic here, Jason.

'Anything' and 'something else' is quite a bit broader than the topic of this thread.

Why don't you start a new thread and see if anyone is interested in discussing vague generalities?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:
real life wrote:
Eorl wrote:
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to hear why christians aren't handing out condoms at church on Sunday. If it prevents just one "child murder" surely it would be worth it?

Christians do better than that, Eorl.

They don't promote condoms, which have a high failure rate in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

They do promote abstinence before marriage, which has a 100% success rate in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

abstinence does have an almost perfect success rate (you folk seem to be claiming at least one exception )

promoting abstinence, however, has a very poor rate of success. Funny that.

There has NEVER been an exception.

You're not a Roman Catholic obviously. Laughing

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
Eorl wrote:
real life wrote:
Eorl wrote:
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to hear why christians aren't handing out condoms at church on Sunday. If it prevents just one "child murder" surely it would be worth it?

Christians do better than that, Eorl.

They don't promote condoms, which have a high failure rate in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

They do promote abstinence before marriage, which has a 100% success rate in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

abstinence does have an almost perfect success rate (you folk seem to be claiming at least one exception )

promoting abstinence, however, has a very poor rate of success. Funny that.

There has NEVER been an exception.

You're not a Roman Catholic obviously.

No I am not. What has that to do with anything?

0 Replies

Somebody help him out....please...!

(Hint: Google Virgin+Mary)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Your powder will probably always be dry, Chumly, as you are unwilling to address the subject. First you asked for a definition of human being, and that having been provided you simply dance when asked if you accept a common definition.

If merriamwebster.com's definition doesn't suit you, then you are free to try to find one that does.

The problem for you is that you want to avoid addressing the question of whether the unborn is a human being or not.

Medical professionals representing several large groups are on record as stating that they consider the unborn a separate patient, i.e. not part of the mother's body.

Concurring with these medical professionals will, of course, completely compromise the position of the abortion supporters. This, apparently, is why you cannot bring yourself to say whether you agree or disagree with them and why.

Spare us the lectures on courage when you cannot bring yourself to articulate ANY kind of position, and defend it. You need to not only make up your mind, but show a valid reason for the position you choose.

The pro-life position is based on the medical status of the unborn; and medical facts and expertise support it. The abortion supporters rely on nothing but dodging the issue with semantics and repetitious sloganeering.

I see a sizable quanta of rhetoric and entertaining speculation but no answer to my question. I'll ask it again.

Chumly wrote:

Would you agree that if you cannot provide a logical definition of what constitutes a human being, that you cannot then with rationality claim that "the unborn qualifies" as a human being?

It is really not that a hard question; simply a yes or a no with your logical specific rationale.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Don't get off track. Stay here, with me......You're just ranting and babbling with ardent nonsense.........But what is your point? Can't you just stop drifting off this topic? Forget abortion, ok?

real life wrote:

Abortion is the topic, Jason.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

You are pathetic. You are altering my post to suit your purpose. Very skillful I am, you might say to yourself.

Why don't you better try and answer this?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Give me the definition on how anything can be part of something else without contradicting logic.

real life wrote:

Trying to stay on topic here, Jason.

I'm trying. It is you who keep throwing at me torrents upon torrents of nonsense that make a lot of sense to you.

The main topic of this thread is "Abortion." Since we've been exchanging back and forth opinions about the woman's right to control her own body, a subtopic was introduced (or don't you remember now?); I asked you specifically to provide to me the elements that would make anything part of something (that's what I referred to when I meant "don't go off topic") It is a general questionof course. But don't we use this concept universallyeither literally or allegoricallyit has a definition nevertheless.

The deal is for you to provide me with the definition, so we can apply it to your silly, selfish argument that prohibits the woman from having authority over her body. Have you provided me with the definition yet? The definition existsjust try to have access to your mind.

But if you continue arguing that the topic being discussed is just "Abortion," I will prove your delusion even further. Understand?

real life wrote:

'Anything' and 'something else' is quite a bit broader than the topic of this thread.

Have you forgotten that your objective depends so much on the definition that I'm asking from youor can't you just see it?

Let's finish the subtopic and we'll come back to the original topic. Very simple.

real life wrote:

Why don't you start a new thread and see if anyone is interested in discussing vague generalities?

Do you want me to start a new thread because you can't come up with the definition on your own?

I'm asking you to provide a simple definition. Nothing else. What is so difficult about that? Give me the definition and we will return to the MAIN topic of this thread.

0 Replies

Several people have averred that there is no human being until after the zygote, embryo, fetus...whatever...fully exists the carrying woman's vagina.

Why not go with that...and stop the bullshyt?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Several people have averred that there is no human being until after the zygote, embryo, fetus...whatever...fully exists the carrying woman's vagina.

I kinda forgot about this one. Yeahthis is another subtopic that Real Life and others try to justify to take away the woman's right from doing what she wants with her body. Chumly has tirelessly asked Real to provide to him such definition. But Real has failed so far.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why not go with that...and stop the bullshyt?

If choosing this subtopic would stop the nonsense that has been posted up to now, and advance the main argument (or conclude the main point), I'm up for it 100%. But when dealing with human excrement, one is expected to be smeared all over.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Several people have averred that there is no human being until after the zygote, embryo, fetus...whatever...fully exists the carrying woman's vagina.

I kinda forgot about this one. Yeahthis is another subtopic that Real Life and others try to justify to take away the woman's right from doing what she wants with her body. Chumly has tirelessly asked Real to provide to him such definition. But Real has failed so far.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Why not go with that...and stop the bullshyt?

If choosing this subtopic would stop the nonsense that has been posted up to now, and advance the main argument (or conclude the main point), I'm up for it 100%. But when dealing with human excrement, one is expected to be smeared all over.

I know what you mean....but every once in a while I like to come into my own thread and state the obvious.

This discussion ain't going anywhere...and those of us who champion a woman's right to control her own body have to simply trust that like-minded people will continue to prevail...and that the religious nuts do not completely take over the asylum.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Somebody help him out....please...!

(Hint: Google Virgin+Mary)

That was not an unwanted pregnancy. So, no exceptions. Wanna try again?

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Several people have averred that there is no human being until after the zygote, embryo, fetus...whatever...fully exists the carrying woman's vagina.

I kinda forgot about this one. Yeahthis is another subtopic that Real Life and others try to justify to take away the woman's right from doing what she wants with her body. Chumly has tirelessly asked Real to provide to him such definition. But Real has failed so far.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Why not go with that...and stop the bullshyt?

If choosing this subtopic would stop the nonsense that has been posted up to now, and advance the main argument (or conclude the main point), I'm up for it 100%. But when dealing with human excrement, one is expected to be smeared all over.

Due to the abusive nature of your post, Jason. as far as I am concerned this topic will continue without you.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Your powder will probably always be dry, Chumly, as you are unwilling to address the subject. First you asked for a definition of human being, and that having been provided you simply dance when asked if you accept a common definition.

If merriamwebster.com's definition doesn't suit you, then you are free to try to find one that does.

The problem for you is that you want to avoid addressing the question of whether the unborn is a human being or not.

Medical professionals representing several large groups are on record as stating that they consider the unborn a separate patient, i.e. not part of the mother's body.

Concurring with these medical professionals will, of course, completely compromise the position of the abortion supporters. This, apparently, is why you cannot bring yourself to say whether you agree or disagree with them and why.

Spare us the lectures on courage when you cannot bring yourself to articulate ANY kind of position, and defend it. You need to not only make up your mind, but show a valid reason for the position you choose.

The pro-life position is based on the medical status of the unborn; and medical facts and expertise support it. The abortion supporters rely on nothing but dodging the issue with semantics and repetitious sloganeering.
I see a sizable quanta of rhetoric and entertaining speculation but no answer to my question. I'll ask it again.
Chumly wrote:
Would you agree that if you cannot provide a logical definition of what constitutes a human being, that you cannot then with rationality claim that "the unborn qualifies" as a human being?
It is really not that a hard question; simply a yes or a no with your logical specific rationale.

OK I guess two can play this game, Chumly.

There are several terms in your post that I would like you to define further so that we are both clear what you are putting forth here.

Please provide your definition of each of these terms:

I

see

a

and

but

no

my

it

again

really

your

-------------------------

Do you see where this takes us, Chumly?

Now long before you ever talked to me, I am sure that you had an opinion on the abortion issue.

Don't be coy.

What is your position and why do you hold that position?

My position has been stated time and again in minute detail. Ask anyone who has stayed with this thread for 350 pages, or go back and read it all yourself.

My position is no secret. What about yours?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know