When Does Life Begin?

The man has the responsibility to know his partner and the woman does not?

Do you deny that a woman has choices before she gets pregnant as well as the man?

A man is supposed to know his partner enough to know whether he can count on her but the woman is not?

Women leave men often as well. Could you answer some of these questions?

"it's the woman's body and her nurturing that is required after the baby is born."

Required for what? Survival? Your wrong....

The man only provides the sperm? What responsibilty does a mere sperm donor have to any woman? If the woman wants an abortion and the man does not....would you refer to her as an egg donor?

0 Replies

The man and woman both have choices; it doesn't mean they always make the right ones. That's reality and fact. It's their responsibility any way they wish to split hairs over it; it's not yours or mine. Get it?

0 Replies

CI, apart from the legislative angle, do you oppose the dissemination of pro life information? On an equal footing, of course.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

CI, apart from the legislative angle, do you oppose the dissemination of pro life information? On an equal footing, of course.

Depends on how it's done. Most pro-life organizations are not there to support the woman, but to force their agenda on the unsuspecting woman to go to full term and give birth to her baby. The reality of the matter is that many church groups and religious organizations impose the doctrine of "thou shalt not kill" with emphasis on the fetus. They seem to ignore the simple fact that many children in this world are starving and without shelter. There's an inconsistency in their message that I find hypocritical. They go so far as to changing existing legislation that allows for abortion to outlaw it with no regard for the woman; they wish to impose their personal religious beliefs on every woman - they have no interest in in any other way - or to support the baby after it's born. Such "righteousness" makes me ill in the stomach.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The man and woman both have choices; it doesn't mean they always make the right ones. That's reality and fact. It's their responsibility any way they wish to split hairs over it; it's not yours or mine. Get it?

That's right! The man and the woman would both have the liberty and freedom to choose (even wrong choices) even if abortion was not legal. The woman would not be prevented from deciding on whether she became pregnant. She would just have to make choices more carefully as the man needs to in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Get it?

She would still have a choice just as the man does now. No Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness would be denied anymore than it is denied a man.

The old saying goes "You play you pay!" would apply I guess. No one has a problem stating this to a guy do they? Imagine saying this to a woman.........right or wrong it's a double standard.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

neologist wrote:
CI, apart from the legislative angle, do you oppose the dissemination of pro life information? On an equal footing, of course.

Depends on how it's done. Most pro-life organizations are not there to support the woman, but to force their agenda on the unsuspecting woman to go to full term and give birth to her baby. The reality of the matter is that many church groups and religious organizations impose the doctrine of "thou shalt not kill" with emphasis on the fetus. They seem to ignore the simple fact that many children in this world are starving and without shelter. There's an inconsistency in their message that I find hypocritical. They go so far as to changing existing legislation that allows for abortion to outlaw it with no regard for the woman; they wish to impose their personal religious beliefs on every woman - they have no interest in in any other way - or to support the baby after it's born. Such "righteousness" makes me ill in the stomach.

Equal footing. . .

What you describe would not fit.

I realize there are many as you describe, however.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

CI - Quite frankly, you don't have to answer any of RLs questions. They've been answere3d before, and he doesn't feel obliged to answer other's questions.

By HIS own standard of ethics, this is a respectable way to conduct himslf.

but he doesn't understand that being that he's trying to attack you for you holding him to HIS own standard of ethics.

T
K
O

ci stated his "standard of ethics" here:

Quote:

Pro-lifers only care for the fetus, and ignore the baby after its birth. They don't support it in any way after the birth.

Interesting that you did not call this an attack by ci. Shocked

0 Replies

If Imposter truly believed that moral behavior is the private province of the individual, then would he constantly accuse others of wrong behavior? (And that without any actual evidence of wrongdoing.)

No, this is simply a diversionary tactic by Imposter.

He is utterly incapable of providing medical evidence that the unborn is not a living human being.

He completely depends of the current legal status of abortion in his defense of it. But when cornered , admits that if abortion were illegal he would still support it.

His total lack of rational argument leaves him no choice but to resort to ad homs, accusing others of imagined transgressions.

Fortunately, Imposter is very typical of the pro-abortion crowd. That's why the public is found to be more and more pro-life as time goes on.

Especially the younger generation is turning out to be significantly more pro-life than their parents or grandparents. They see clear through the phony excuses for killing that are offered up by abortion peddlers.

Or maybe it's just because if you were born after Roe, it coulda been you.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's called "knowing your partner" before having sex or marriage. Simple, really!

Once again you took the words out of my mouth regarding what to say to a woman who is denied abortion. Simple really. You could'nt have made it simpler.

She should have known her partner. Right? Or just the guy?

And who's denying "her" abortion? You?

You apply one standard to a man and refuse to hold a woman to the same standard. How are you able to do this? Abortion?

Please illustrate how to equally apply the standards of responcibility equally to both the man and the woman. There is no way to. You are being unrealistic.

You didn't answer my question either. Do you know anyone in your family or close circle of friends that has had an abortion?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Then you have a guy who wants the child and a woman who does not and opts for an abortion.

What now? Too bad for him? He should have picked a better suitor? What? Is he denied his pursuit of happiness Constitution man?

Yes, it's unfortunate in this situation but the alternative make no sence.

T
K
O

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

ci stated his "standard of ethics" here:
Quote:
Pro-lifers only care for the fetus, and ignore the baby after its birth. They don't support it in any way after the birth.

Interesting that you did not call this an attack by ci.

I haven't heard you call out RL on his refusal to answer other's questions either, have I missed something?

I don't fully agree with CI's statment, but most I don't agree with the wording, not the point. I'd rephrase to say that:

"If pro-lifers we truly for the promotion of life, they'd spend more time on those already suffering, and less time on a stanger's personal choice."

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

ci stated his "standard of ethics" here:
Quote:
Pro-lifers only care for the fetus, and ignore the baby after its birth. They don't support it in any way after the birth.

Interesting that you did not call this an attack by ci.

I haven't heard you call out RL on his refusal to answer other's questions either, have I missed something?

I don't fully agree with CI's statment, but most I don't agree with the wording, not the point. I'd rephrase to say that:

"If pro-lifers we truly for the promotion of life, they'd spend more time on those already suffering, and less time on a stanger's personal choice."

T
K
O

Diest, I completely agree with your revision.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

ci stated his "standard of ethics" here:
Quote:
Pro-lifers only care for the fetus, and ignore the baby after its birth. They don't support it in any way after the birth.

Interesting that you did not call this an attack by ci.

I haven't heard you call out RL on his refusal to answer other's questions either, have I missed something?

I don't fully agree with CI's statment, but most I don't agree with the wording, not the point. I'd rephrase to say that:

"If pro-lifers we truly for the promotion of life, they'd spend more time on those already suffering, and less time on a stanger's personal choice."

T
K
O

Deist and/or ci:

Prove that pro-lifers spend less time on those "already suffering...".

And do you believe that a fetus which is being aborted by vacuum, saline, instrumentation, etc. does not suffer?

0 Replies

At one point baddog1, you have to not answer questions with other questions. I'll answer you later though, I've gotta take care of some bussiness.

T
K
O

0 Replies

baddog: Prove that pro-lifers spend less time on those "already suffering...".

No such comparison is required. When pro-lifers insist on saving the fetus, it becomes part and parcel of their responsibility to ensure that all life is of equal or more standing. It's up to the pro-lifers to prove they do spend equal or more time on those "already suffering..."

0 Replies

There is no such evidence that is available to prove pro-lifers care for the living. It seems they care more for the fetus. Prove us wrong?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

baddog: Prove that pro-lifers spend less time on those "already suffering...".

No such comparison is required. When pro-lifers insist on saving the fetus, it becomes part and parcel of their responsibility to ensure that all life is of equal or more standing. It's up to the pro-lifers to prove they do spend equal or more time on those "already suffering..."

You made (agreed with) the unsubstantiated assertion: "If pro-lifers we truly for the promotion of life, they'd spend more time on those already suffering, and less time on a stanger's personal choice." - therefore it is your burden to prove it. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

At one point baddog1, you have to not answer questions with other questions. I'll answer you later though, I've gotta take care of some bussiness.

T
K
O

No problem on the question issue - it was more a matter of politeness to you than anything else. Here is my revision:

You and/or ci have presented no proof of your assertion. ("If pro-lifers we truly for the promotion of life, they'd spend more time on those already suffering, and less time on a stanger's personal choice.")

And contrary to your belief; every pro-lifer that I know spends much time on those "already suffering" due to failed abortions, current abortions, etc. In fact, it is this "suffering of life" that drives the pro-life cause.

0 Replies

baddog: And contrary to your belief; every pro-lifer that I know spends much time on those "already suffering" due to failed abortions, current abortions, etc. In fact, it is this "suffering of life" that drives the pro-life cause.

Prove this assertion; anectdotal evidence is not credible; doesn't even come close.

0 Replies

All the pro-choice people I know donate to charities at much higher rates than pro-lifers. Anecdotal and worthless.

Get it?

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know