When Does Life Begin?

fungo, Spot on!

I have often wondered what percentage of the world's population is due to unplanned and unwanted pregnancies?

Gentlemen, inquiring minds need to know.

Bartikus, I believe in quality, rather than quantity, of posts, a philosophy you clearly don't believe in. My point is that you were accusing him of taking a stance he has not taken, and in doing so, brought in information that is not pertinent to the debate. If I'm not mistaken, Deist is arguing pro-choice from a moralistic, rather than legal perspective.

I think what's sad is that rather than addressing the issue at hand, time and again you resort to personal attacks and irrelevant information. You post in opposition to topics you have little or flawed knowledge and understanding of, you let preconceived notions cloud your judgment, and you exhibit deplorable reasoning skills.

I've seen you respond to several posts as if you have come under personal attack. You want to be respected in this forum? Let me give you a few tips.

1) Take a basic logic class.
2) Honestly investigate both sides of an issue before coming to a decision
3) Keep an open mind
4) Make sure you understand an idea before you attack
5) Pick a standard means of evaluation, and stick to it, regardless of how distasteful you find the results.
6) Grow up some.

Intrepid wrote:

Deist

If the woman wasn't forced against her will to commit the act that got her pregnant in the first place, why is she a victim if she has the baby?

Again, some responsibility has to go back to both the woman and the man. Using abortion as birth control is abhorrent.

Good question Intrepid...good luck getting a straight answer.

fungotheclown wrote:

Bartikus, I believe in quality, rather than quantity, of posts, a philosophy you clearly don't believe in. My point is that you were accusing him of taking a stance he has not taken, and in doing so, brought in information that is not pertinent to the debate. If I'm not mistaken, Deist is arguing pro-choice from a moralistic, rather than legal perspective.

I think what's sad is that rather than addressing the issue at hand, time and again you resort to personal attacks and irrelevant information. You post in opposition to topics you have little or flawed knowledge and understanding of, you let preconceived notions cloud your judgment, and you exhibit deplorable reasoning skills.

I've seen you respond to several posts as if you have come under personal attack. You want to be respected in this forum? Let me give you a few tips.

1) Take a basic logic class.
2) Honestly investigate both sides of an issue before coming to a decision
3) Keep an open mind
4) Make sure you understand an idea before you attack
5) Pick a standard means of evaluation, and stick to it, regardless of how distasteful you find the results.
6) Grow up some.

fungo:

In the interest of fairness - you could certainly make the same claim(s) for several members on here, both pro life and pro choice. To single out Bartikus and not others seems a bit --- well you get the picture.

I for one enjoy the open honesty that Bartikus (and others) share on these threads and hope it continues. IMHO - I much prefer the open honesty over rhetoric that focuses on the technicalities of proper debate and not the topic at hand.

Why do you think I'm being singled out...for what reason baddog? lol What's funny is I did'nt accuse Diest of taking any stance. No one knows his stance on child support. I wonder what personal attacks I made? hmm

I remember getting personal attacks and no fungo to be found.hmm

fungotheclown wrote:

I don't believe that Deist ever voiced support for our current child support laws.

Really...you don't believe? EVER? Mr. 120 something posts and joined just last month? What's that mean? lol

How is that significant? Has he voiced opposition? You know what... save it.

Bartikus wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Deist

If the woman wasn't forced against her will to commit the act that got her pregnant in the first place, why is she a victim if she has the baby?

Again, some responsibility has to go back to both the woman and the man. Using abortion as birth control is abhorrent.

Good question Intrepid...good luck getting a straight answer.

[reply to Bart deleted]

Intrepid - Not all women who give birth are victims, only those who are forced to when their desire is contrary. As for the responcibility that goes back to the woman: I think when balancing rights/intrests, the responcibility of the woman is to make her choice (albeit retroactively) early in the pregancy. The only exemption would be cases where the woman's life was at risk. I don't object to the government regulating abortion, or creating a due process. In fact I encourage it, I just think that despite regulation, a woman should be able to chose whether or not to give birth.

first trimester - elective, mother at risk
second trimester - elective after consultation, mother at risk
third trimester - mother at risk

That's how I see balance. It still allows a woman to chose, but balances her choice with the responcibility on her behalf to do so early in the pregnancy.

This is for any pro-lifer in the thread:

What if non leathal abortion was an option? That is to say that an embryo could be evacuated by some means and cryogenically frozen indefinately. Embryos could be reinserted at a later date if the woman so chose and develop/be born. Would you concider this an alternative or not?

Bartikus wrote:

Why do you think I'm being singled out...for what reason baddog? lol What's funny is I did'nt accuse Diest of taking any stance. No one knows his stance on child support. I wonder what personal attacks I made? hmm

I remember getting personal attacks and no fungo to be found.hmm

Above in red is deceptive. You told Fungo....

Bartikus wrote:

fungotheclown wrote:

I don't believe that Deist ever voiced support for our current child support laws.

Really...you don't believe? EVER? Mr. 120 something posts and joined just last month? What's that mean? lol

How is that significant? Has he voiced opposition? You know what... save it.

Above in blue is the problem: You assume my stance and support it because I have never made a meantion of it. You are a deceptive person.

I do believe that man should share the responcibility of raising a child if a woman decides to give birth. Having a legal system of accountability makes sense because it balances the intrests of everyone as well as the state.

Perhaps as science opens some doors, and men are able to have uterus transplants, the legal and ethical landscape will change, but until the man can share the same degree of responcibility, the mother trumps.

Additionally, as a side note, I'm not too happy about the childcare system currently in effect. A man can currently send money as required, but the woman may not meet her end of the contribution. The current system additionally get fuzzy when a woman remarries etc. It's not perfect, but I think in genereal it's built on a good philosophy.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Deist

If the woman wasn't forced against her will to commit the act that got her pregnant in the first place, why is she a victim if she has the baby?

Again, some responsibility has to go back to both the woman and the man. Using abortion as birth control is abhorrent.

Good question Intrepid...good luck getting a straight answer.

[reply to Bart deleted]

Intrepid - Not all women who give birth are victims, only those who are forced to when their desire is contrary. As for the responcibility that goes back to the woman: I think when balancing rights/intrests, the responcibility of the woman is to make her choice (albeit retroactively) early in the pregancy. The only exemption would be cases where the woman's life was at risk. I don't object to the government regulating abortion, or creating a due process. In fact I encourage it, I just think that despite regulation, a woman should be able to chose whether or not to give birth.

first trimester - elective, mother at risk
second trimester - elective after consultation, mother at risk
third trimester - mother at risk

That's how I see balance. It still allows a woman to chose, but balances her choice with the responcibility on her behalf to do so early in the pregnancy.

This is for any pro-lifer in the thread:

What if non leathal abortion was an option? That is to say that an embryo could be evacuated by some means and cryogenically frozen indefinately. Embryos could be reinserted at a later date if the woman so chose and develop/be born. Would you concider this an alternative or not?

You chose not to answer the part where I stated that abortion should not be a means of birth control. Why is that? You seem to take life very lightly when you say that once a woman has performed the sex act and gotten pregnant as a result of it, she then has the right to end that life.

Regarding your post regarding the freezing of embryos. This seems to fly in the face of the pro abortion argument that children should not be born if the mother does not want them and they should not be adopted etc. etc.

Now, you want the woman who has made a decision to get rid of her offspring because "she has a right to decide" to have the right to change her mind later. Seems fairly insane to me.

What if the mother does not choose to have the baby later. Are you aware of the fact that nothing or nobody has ever been frozen and then brought back to life? Is this just a diversion?

Aren't you generous in mentioning that you think the decision to kill the offspring be made early in the pregnancy.

I see that you brought your buddy into the arena to help you out. He, like you seem to single out Bartikus for your own amusement. This, IMHO, is pathetic.

unreal is'nt it? If I made an assumption (for argument sake) was my assumption correct, true, accurate, right on...etc.? lol

How is it deceptive then?

You chose not to answer the part where I stated that abortion should not be a means of birth control. Why is that? You seem to take life very lightly when you say that once a woman has performed the sex act and gotten pregnant as a result of it, she then has the right to end that life.

Regarding your post regarding the freezing of embryos. This seems to fly in the face of the pro abortion argument that children should not be born if the mother does not want them and they should not be adopted etc. etc.

Now, you want the woman who has made a decision to get rid of her offspring because "she has a right to decide" to have the right to change her mind later. Seems fairly insane to me.

What if the mother does not choose to have the baby later. Are you aware of the fact that nothing or nobody has ever been frozen and then brought back to life? Is this just a diversion?

Aren't you generous in mentioning that you think the decision to kill the offspring be made early in the pregnancy.

Intrepid wrote:

I see that you brought your buddy into the arena to help you out. He, like you seem to single out Bartikus for your own amusement. This, IMHO, is pathetic.

They (both) single me out because of my pathetic posts that make no credible points whatsoever based on sound logical arguments...don't ya know? Why do they bother?

Or could there be another reason?

What mother Diest? Mother of what? Are you considering her a mother from the start as pro lifers do? If she is a mother and aborts...is she not having her unborn human child killed?

If you can't regard her unborn as such.....neither can you regard her as such! Without....contradicting....oneself....that is.

Some of the pro choice people who posted here know what to call her.

(based upon what they regard the unborn). Not mother.

The presumption then deflection method?

Bartikus wrote:

You chose not to answer the part where I stated that abortion should not be a means of birth control. Why is that? You seem to take life very lightly when you say that once a woman has performed the sex act and gotten pregnant as a result of it, she then has the right to end that life.

Yes I chose not to answer a previously answered question. I've been open about my beliefs on the use of abortion as birth control, it's the absolute worst way, but the mother's right all the same.

Bartikus wrote:

Regarding your post regarding the freezing of embryos. This seems to fly in the face of the pro abortion argument that children should not be born if the mother does not want them and they should not be adopted etc. etc.

Fine, amend my previous question to put the embryos in the care of the state. If people want to deliver them, they have first pick. The point remains.

Bartikus wrote:

Now, you want the woman who has made a decision to get rid of her offspring because "she has a right to decide" to have the right to change her mind later. Seems fairly insane to me.

Back it up. Why is this "insane?" I thought you were for the promotion of life and the woman taking responcibility for the unborn? The truth is that this option would be very apealing to many very sane people. Many sane people who for whatever reason, want children, but want to put that part of their life off for a few years. It's not like every a person who has one abortion will ALWAYS abort. Seems very sane to me.

You calim it's insane... back it up Barty.

Bartikus wrote:

What if the mother does not choose to have the baby later. Are you aware of the fact that nothing or nobody has ever been frozen and then brought back to life? Is this just a diversion?

researchers however have been sucessful with both sperm, eggs, and embryos. The cahllenge actually exists in moving the embryo.

As for diversion... yeah maybe. I just like illustrating that the pro-lifers aren't always for the promotion of life. A miner diversion to show your hypocracy every once in a while is usually a good time. I do appriciate your participation.

Intrepid wrote:

Aren't you generous in mentioning that you think the decision to kill the offspring be made early in the pregnancy.

Point?

Bartikus wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

I see that you brought your buddy into the arena to help you out. He, like you seem to single out Bartikus for your own amusement. This, IMHO, is pathetic.

They (both) single me out because of my pathetic posts that make no credible points whatsoever based on sound logical arguments...don't ya know? Why do they bother?

Barty - you single yourself out. You get lots of attention because you post about how you are singled out. Truth is that when every pro-choicer in this thread took a posting break for a few days you and your BFF Intrepid took great pleasure in singling out little ole me. Cry me a river.

Bartikus wrote:

Or could there be another reason?

Oh the reason... I forgot! I post to you, because it doesn't make sense to post to anyone else. Why would I want to address posts to a bunch of people who argee with me? I don't need a yes-man. I'd prefer to post with Baddog1 and Neo, but they have been less active in this thread as of late. I assume Neo has found more interesting threads or has gone into a coffee shock. Baddog, I assume is just reading these days mostly.

Bartikus wrote:

What mother Diest? Mother of what? Are you considering her a mother from the start as pro lifers do? If she is a mother and aborts...is she not having her unborn human child killed?

The only time I refer to a woman as a mother is if she has given birth. I was using mother in a previous post because I was replying to your sidequest about childcare. Childcare as you know is a post birth affair.

Bartikus wrote:

If you can't regard her unborn as such.....neither can you regard her as such! Without....contradicting....oneself....that is.

Some of the pro choice people who posted here know what to call her.

(based upon what they regard the unborn). Not mother.

Letting yourself post this kind of thing is just amusement for me. I reserve the term "mother" for a woman who has given birth.

T
K
O

My apologies, cutting and pasting can get confusing, especially with the two of you. You sound pretty much the same.

I wasn't aware people could harmonize while speaking in tongues. Enjoy the kool-aide.

T
K
O

The only time I refer to a woman as a mother is if she has given birth.

first trimester - elective, mother at risk
second trimester - elective after consultation, mother at risk
third trimester - mother at risk

That's how I see balance.