Is abortion really wrong?

You can't win at this by twisting my meanings about. Nowhere did I say something so stupid as "up to the moment of birth," or even hint at that. I don't know of anybody who advocates that.

Scott, what do you define as murder?

The "logic" of scott's statement should become evident by his/her answer.

glitterbag wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Those unwilling women should get educated on birth control and disease prevention or stay off their backs. Since they are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions.

OK, maybe we can reach an agreement. If willing women in the prone position are the problem, lets get the drug companies to make a pill that men will BE FORCED TO TAKE to prevent any possibility of sireen (that's the way they pronounced it in "Oh Brother where Art Thou")induced erections and they must take this pill starting at 9 years of age in front of a family values government official to guarantee that they don't go around with the ability to wave their willies. Once they are married and able to support the willing women (who refuse to get off their backs), and any offspring that might occur, they will no longer be forced to take the anti-erection pill. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like a plan.

One more thing, if the marriage is in trouble or the wife suspects the husband is cheating, it's back on the pill for the weak-willed sap.

For some reason, you are getting awfully defensive. I am NOT saying that it is the fault of the woman. Both parties must take responsibility. I am saying that since it is the woman, not the man, who has the potential to become pregnant it is the woman who must be the one to say no.

When it comes to rape, you would probably yell hard and long that it is the woman's right to say no. I think your plan is actually rather silly. It is not the erection that causes pregnancy....it is the ejaculation. Just as it is not guns that kill....it is the bullets.

edgarblythe wrote:

You can't win at this by twisting my meanings about. Nowhere did I say something so stupid as "up to the moment of birth," or even hint at that. I don't know of anybody who advocates that.

Then at EXACTLY what point do you think that it is no longer the woman's 'right' to decide?

And on what basis does she lose that 'right' at the point you cite?

real life wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

You can't win at this by twisting my meanings about. Nowhere did I say something so stupid as "up to the moment of birth," or even hint at that. I don't know of anybody who advocates that.

Then at EXACTLY what point do you think that it is no longer the woman's 'right' to decide?

And on what basis does she lose that 'right' at the point you cite?

I told you, the doctors and laws have set some guidelines already. I am no doctor, and neither are you.

I am astounded that you think this was rough. Boys, what happened here was I was addressing two much younger men (I am willing to bet) and like an old bitch taking care of the puppies, I have little patience dealing with over-reaching behaviour. . .

You can't win at this by twisting my meanings about. Nowhere did I say something so stupid as "up to the moment of birth," or even hint at that. I don't know of anybody who advocates that.

Intrepid wrote:

glitterbag wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Those unwilling women should get educated on birth control and disease prevention or stay off their backs. Since they are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions.

OK, maybe we can reach an agreement. If willing women in the prone position are the problem, lets get the drug companies to make a pill that men will BE FORCED TO TAKE to prevent any possibility of sireen (that's the way they pronounced it in "Oh Brother where Art Thou")induced erections and they must take this pill starting at 9 years of age in front of a family values government official to guarantee that they don't go around with the ability to wave their willies. Once they are married and able to support the willing women (who refuse to get off their backs), and any offspring that might occur, they will no longer be forced to take the anti-erection pill. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like a plan.

One more thing, if the marriage is in trouble or the wife suspects the husband is cheating, it's back on the pill for the weak-willed sap.

For some reason, you are getting awfully defensive. I am NOT saying that it is the fault of the woman. Both parties must take responsibility. I am saying that since it is the woman, not the man, who has the potential to become pregnant it is the woman who must be the one to say no.

When it comes to rape, you would probably yell hard and long that it is the woman's right to say no. I think your plan is actually rather silly. It is not the erection that causes pregnancy....it is the ejaculation. Just as it is not guns that kill....it is the bullets.

You think it is silly, thats because the pill for men is something you would find intrusive. If it clarifies anything, I think your position is silly.

And for the adolescent who didn't understand the complexity of my remarks, please check with your doctor, he/she might be able to shed some light. You must be very, very young.

He is in a distinct miority if he holds that view. I will bet there are qualifiers you failed to mention. So, what's your point?

You can't win at this by twisting my meanings about. Nowhere did I say something so stupid as "up to the moment of birth," or even hint at that. I don't know of anybody who advocates that.

He is in a distinct miority if he holds that view. I will bet there are qualifiers you failed to mention. So, what's your point?

glitterbag wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

glitterbag wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Those unwilling women should get educated on birth control and disease prevention or stay off their backs. Since they are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions.

OK, maybe we can reach an agreement. If willing women in the prone position are the problem, lets get the drug companies to make a pill that men will BE FORCED TO TAKE to prevent any possibility of sireen (that's the way they pronounced it in "Oh Brother where Art Thou")induced erections and they must take this pill starting at 9 years of age in front of a family values government official to guarantee that they don't go around with the ability to wave their willies. Once they are married and able to support the willing women (who refuse to get off their backs), and any offspring that might occur, they will no longer be forced to take the anti-erection pill. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like a plan.

One more thing, if the marriage is in trouble or the wife suspects the husband is cheating, it's back on the pill for the weak-willed sap.

For some reason, you are getting awfully defensive. I am NOT saying that it is the fault of the woman. Both parties must take responsibility. I am saying that since it is the woman, not the man, who has the potential to become pregnant it is the woman who must be the one to say no.

When it comes to rape, you would probably yell hard and long that it is the woman's right to say no. I think your plan is actually rather silly. It is not the erection that causes pregnancy....it is the ejaculation. Just as it is not guns that kill....it is the bullets.

You think it is silly, thats because the pill for men is something you would find intrusive. If it clarifies anything, I think your position is silly.

And for the adolescent who didn't understand the complexity of my remarks, please check with your doctor, he/she might be able to shed some light. You must be very, very young.

First, how would you know what I find and do not find intrusive. You are making some mighty big assumptions for one who purports to thinik with reason.

Secondly, you did not respond at all to what I said. You conveniently changed to something about adolescent and being very young.

I don't know who you were referring to. It couldn't have been me or Neo. Unless, of course, you are in an age bracket all by yourself. In which case you should be congratulated for your ability to still function at your high and advanced age.

:wink:

I consider Frank a good friend, and won't discuss his views here without his presence.