When Does Life Begin?

neologist wrote:

There is a galaxy of difference between contraception and abortion.

Your claim is false because both actions negate the potential for a human life.

0 Replies

Your claim is false because folks don't have funerals for wet dreams.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

So your definition of a human life is whether folks have funerals for the remains.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Outside the context of extramarital sex, the act of contraception is morally neutral, the caterwauls of misguided religionists notwithstanding.

Could you restate? I'm not sure I follow. If you mean that people like the Pope don't have enough influence to be a part of this debate, I disagree. As for extramarital sex and marital sex morals, leave it to the person(s) to decide on the morals of contraception, just don't argue with the facts about contraception.

neologist wrote:

There is a galaxy of difference between contraception and abortion.

I don't aim to make the two equivilant in any way. I only claim that they are directly related. The biggest societal difference between the two actions is that one is a preemptive/proactive measure and the other is a retroactive responce. The later of the two ofcourse being certainly more contraversial.

My arguement is and will always be, that abortion is a social/cultural issue that needs to be addressed. I believe that abortion numbers can go down, and I think that they will go down to their lowest when government interviens on behalf of the mother, not the unborn. Better social programs etc are great places to start enabling people to CHOOSE to keep a child. better funding to take care of the orphans already in this world will help people CHOOSE alternatives. Bottom line is that ultimately a CHOICE is made. Let it be the mother's, not the government's.

If we lived in a country that mandated abortions for population control, I'd still be pro-choice. Pro-choic in this situation would be the platform to help these mothers keep their unborn, when the government CHOOSES for them.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest, Good post; I agree with your opinions on these issues.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Contraception is a red herring in this argument.

Yes and that is why the pro-abortionists use it so often.

Their arguments for abortion are hollow and nothing suits their purpose better than to change the subject.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

neologist wrote:
Contraception is a red herring in this argument.

Yes and that is why the pro-abortionists use it so often.

Their arguments for abortion are hollow and nothing suits their purpose better than to change the subject.

RL - You are a coward. You wish to make such a claim, make it to me. Your inability to address my arguement only proves how weak your stance is. You want to say something about what I'm posting, then reply to my post. What you're doing is childish and only serves to annoy me and make you look like a foolish child. covering your ears and closing your eyes doesn't make you invisible.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
Contraception is a red herring in this argument.

Yes and that is why the pro-abortionists use it so often.

Their arguments for abortion are hollow and nothing suits their purpose better than to change the subject.

RL - You are a coward. You wish to make such a claim, make it to me. Your inability to address my arguement only proves how weak your stance is. You want to say something about what I'm posting, then reply to my post. What you're doing is childish and only serves to annoy me and make you look like a foolish child. covering your ears and closing your eyes doesn't make you invisible. . .

Sorry you are annoyed. But wouldn't a person as intelligent as you, a scientist, understand that what another person says or does cannot provoke you? RL certainly does not have power over you. You could choose simply to not be annoyed.

The idea that contraception ends a human life is false at the starting gate. That should be obvious.

0 Replies

Quote:

The idea that contraception ends a human life is false at the starting gate. That should be obvious.

Agreed, but I'm not sure what you are addressing? If you are still hung up on how many see contraception as being related to abortion etc, concider the following analogy.

Is the production of bullets a cause of death? Or is it the action of using bullets; pulling a trigger? Further, what about the individual components of a bullet or gun: raw metal, gunpowder etc, is the production of those a cause of death? Rational minds will note the difference in causality and simple relation. Bullets existing don't by themselves cause deth, but the existance of bullets is directly related to the larger issue of gun violence. Think of the famous phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people." While absolutely true, the issue of a gun's accessibility is still worth discussion on the topic, regaurdless of the blame falling on a person.

As for RL. He does annoy me, but he doesn't have power over me. By my creed, a coawrd should be called as such. I think he deserves to be recognized as acting in such a manner.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I'm having trouble digesting your analogy. Are you saying that because some are using abortion as a sort of after the act birth control, that controlling abortion is a means of denying one's right to contraception?

Doesn't contraception imply prevent?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

There is a galaxy of difference between contraception and abortion.

Chumly wrote:

Your claim is false because both actions negate the potential for a human life.

neologist wrote:

Your claim is false because folks don't have funerals for wet dreams.

Chumly wrote:

So your definition of a human life is whether folks have funerals for the remains.

Dude........weak

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I'm having trouble digesting your analogy. Are you saying that because some are using abortion as a sort of after the act birth control, that controlling abortion is a means of denying one's right to contraception?

Doesn't contraception imply prevent?

My analogy only answers to the claim that we can't discuss contraception as it is a red herring. I argue that the two a directly related. I make no assertion that abortion is a proper means of contraception (that would defy the term contraceptive). Quite contrary, I think that proactive means are what need to be implemented/support. Better sex education and the use of contraceptives will reduce the number of abortions: fact. It is worth discussing here.

Lets not forget that some people (and I don't know your stance) find the use of contraceptives to be morally wrong because it is unnatural. It's hard for me to take these people serious when they rally against abortions, because they passively contribute to the problem.

T
K
O

0 Replies

It's amusing to dialogue with posters that claim to be unerringly able to deem something as human or something as not human and with the attendant rights or lack thereof, however it's clearly beyond such poster's ken to provide a rational congruent argument to support such a myopic presumption.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Lets not forget that some people (and I don't know your stance) find the use of contraceptives to be morally wrong because it is unnatural. It's hard for me to take these people serious when they rally against abortions, because they passively contribute to the problem. . .

Agreed.

I am not promoting any legislative solutions here. There are cretins in both camps.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

It's amusing to dialogue with posters that claim to be unerringly able to deem something as human or something as not human and with the attendant rights or lack thereof, however it's clearly beyond such poster's ken to provide a rational congruent argument to support such a myopic presumption.

Are you saying you believe I understand what you think you have said but am not sure whether or not I realize that what you said was in no way coherent and possibly did not represent a logical statement of your presumptuous position? Or are you simply exercising your prerogative in an attempt to exceed my own recondite rhetoric and esoteric erudition?

0 Replies

"........if you're the coach, you must know all the players."

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

It's amusing to dialogue with posters that claim to be unerringly able to deem something as human or something as not human and with the attendant rights or lack thereof, however it's clearly beyond such poster's ken to provide a rational congruent argument to support such a myopic presumption.

If you came upon an accident victim, and you were not sure if you had a living human being or a dead corpse in front of you -----

----- would you proceed AS IF the person MIGHT BE alive, or AS IF the person CERTAINLY WAS NOT alive?

0 Replies

I would first try and assess if it presented a threat.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I would first try and assess if it presented a threat.

What 'it'?

0 Replies

So your definition of a human life is whether folks have funerals for the remains.

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know