Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by PLAYER57832 »

Night Strike wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Still waiting for an answer to my question. I practice safe sex with my girlfriend. I am 22 years old and I make about $18,000 per year on my graduate student salary. If my girlfriend gets pregnant, Night Strike, am I obligated to have that child and raise it when I preferred to wait several years until I have a better salary and am more able to support a child? I need to radically alter the course of my life because I am one of the very small percentage of cases where the contraception failed?
Yes, you are obligated to have and raise that child. Killing someone else because that person is an inconvenience to your life should never be tolerated.
The trouble is that the above represents only a minority of abortions. And your failure to realize that fact is another of the big reasons you have no right to dictate YOUR values onto other people, to claim that your hated government has the right to decide this, but not so many other far less personal issues.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by PLAYER57832 »

Night Strike wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:#1. its still called an abortion when the hearbeat is still before the operation.
Then change the name of that procedure!! This debate is about a doctor coming in and killing an unborn child, not one who comes in to remove the remains of an already-dead child. There is a huge difference!!! Get with the f'ing program and quit playing your stupid games of semantics!
You want to redefine the meaning of a term so that it suits your agenda rather than how its actually applied in the real world? By, y'know, medical professionals and all that jazz.
Things like injecting acid or cutting-open skulls are inherently different than removing an already dead child. We are clearly discussing the former, not the latter.
No one here, except you mentioned those things. At the point abortions are generally allowed, there IS no skull.. and there is not enough there to inject acide into, either.

Once again, for someone claiming to have a fix on all the truth in this, it would be nice if you at least held to the standard of actually knowing of what you speak.

And cut out the "let me give all the gross details I can" becuase you want to assume we don't know it garbage. Or I WILL give you a full and complete rundown of what is truly involved in MOST abortions!
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by Metsfanmax »

Night Strike wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Still waiting for an answer to my question. I practice safe sex with my girlfriend. I am 22 years old and I make about $18,000 per year on my graduate student salary. If my girlfriend gets pregnant, Night Strike, am I obligated to have that child and raise it when I preferred to wait several years until I have a better salary and am more able to support a child? I need to radically alter the course of my life because I am one of the very small percentage of cases where the contraception failed?
Yes, you are obligated to have and raise that child. Killing someone else because that person is an inconvenience to your life should never be tolerated.
But every time contraception is used, I am denying the potential of thousands of embryo possibilities. Is that not wrong?
No.
You're essentially telling me that I can't choose when to bring a child into the world, but I do that every day. Every time I choose not to have sex, or choose to have protected sex, I am effectively deciding that I don't want to bring a child into the world today. And evidently this is acceptable to you. But when one sperm defies the odds and fertilizes the egg, despite the contraception, then suddenly everything changes? The choice is no longer mine? You would defend the right to life of a small collection of cells that bears no substantial observable relationship to a human being, because suddenly you get to decide when I want to bring a child into the world?

Screw you.
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by Metsfanmax »

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Still waiting for an answer to my question. I practice safe sex with my girlfriend. I am 22 years old and I make about $18,000 per year on my graduate student salary. If my girlfriend gets pregnant, Night Strike, am I obligated to have that child and raise it when I preferred to wait several years until I have a better salary and am more able to support a child? I need to radically alter the course of my life because I am one of the very small percentage of cases where the contraception failed?
You are supposed to yes, "alter the course of your life" if you are not fully prepared for the consequences. That holds true for ALL choices. Besides that, in that particular case, adoption would likely be at least one alternative to abortion. (assuming no significant medical issues).
It's easy to say that we should spend more money on sex education, but I am careful. I'm not someone who takes big risks with this sort of thing. But this could happen to me nonetheless, because contraception is not 100% effective. What then?
User avatar
Night Strike
Posts: 8509
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by Night Strike »

Metsfanmax wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Still waiting for an answer to my question. I practice safe sex with my girlfriend. I am 22 years old and I make about $18,000 per year on my graduate student salary. If my girlfriend gets pregnant, Night Strike, am I obligated to have that child and raise it when I preferred to wait several years until I have a better salary and am more able to support a child? I need to radically alter the course of my life because I am one of the very small percentage of cases where the contraception failed?
Yes, you are obligated to have and raise that child. Killing someone else because that person is an inconvenience to your life should never be tolerated.
But every time contraception is used, I am denying the potential of thousands of embryo possibilities. Is that not wrong?
No.
You're essentially telling me that I can't choose when to bring a child into the world, but I do that every day. Every time I choose not to have sex, or choose to have protected sex, I am effectively deciding that I don't want to bring a child into the world today. And evidently this is acceptable to you. But when one sperm defies the odds and fertilizes the egg, despite the contraception, then suddenly everything changes? The choice is no longer mine? You would defend the right to life of a small collection of cells that bears no substantial observable relationship to a human being, because suddenly you get to decide when I want to bring a child into the world?

Screw you.
You were correct up until the point where you said it was MY decision. It's never my decision for when you and your girlfriend choose to have sex. That's up to you two. If your intercourse leads to the conception of an embryo, that embryo has a completely different set of genes than either you or your girlfriend and therefore has the right to life just like every other human.
Image
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by Metsfanmax »

Night Strike wrote: You were correct up until the point where you said it was MY decision. It's never my decision for when you and your girlfriend choose to have sex. That's up to you two. If your intercourse leads to the conception of an embryo, that embryo has a completely different set of genes than either you or your girlfriend and therefore has the right to life just like every other human.
So why do you think you have the right to protect the life of the set of genes that I was 50% responsible for making, inside my girlfriend's uterus? Why the hell do you have any say in that decision?
User avatar
keiths31
Posts: 2202
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by keiths31 »

Metsfanmax wrote:
It's easy to say that we should spend more money on sex education, but I am careful. I'm not someone who takes big risks with this sort of thing. But this could happen to me nonetheless, because contraception is not 100% effective. What then?
That's the chance you take by taking part in a risky activity. Pregnancy could happen. If you don't want to have an unplanned pregnancy, the only way to do that is to not have sex. My son was an unplanned pregnancy (she was on birth control). I don't say unwanted, because the second I found out I was happy. I wasn't ready for a child financially, but it happened. That was 12 years ago. Man time flies...
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by Metsfanmax »

keiths31 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
It's easy to say that we should spend more money on sex education, but I am careful. I'm not someone who takes big risks with this sort of thing. But this could happen to me nonetheless, because contraception is not 100% effective. What then?
That's the chance you take by taking part in a risky activity. Pregnancy could happen. If you don't want to have an unplanned pregnancy, the only way to do that is to not have sex. My son was an unplanned pregnancy (she was on birth control). I don't say unwanted, because the second I found out I was happy. I wasn't ready for a child financially, but it happened. That was 12 years ago. Man time flies...
We no longer live in a society where people wait until marriage to have sex. It just doesn't happen that much anymore. We need a set of rules that recognizes this, instead of a set of rules that applies to a culture that no longer exists.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by PLAYER57832 »

Metsfanmax wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Still waiting for an answer to my question. I practice safe sex with my girlfriend. I am 22 years old and I make about $18,000 per year on my graduate student salary. If my girlfriend gets pregnant, Night Strike, am I obligated to have that child and raise it when I preferred to wait several years until I have a better salary and am more able to support a child? I need to radically alter the course of my life because I am one of the very small percentage of cases where the contraception failed?
You are supposed to yes, "alter the course of your life" if you are not fully prepared for the consequences. That holds true for ALL choices. Besides that, in that particular case, adoption would likely be at least one alternative to abortion. (assuming no significant medical issues).
It's easy to say that we should spend more money on sex education, but I am careful. I'm not someone who takes big risks with this sort of thing. But this could happen to me nonetheless, because contraception is not 100% effective. What then?
Sex education is not about morals. Sex education reduces pregnancies by giving the factual information so that people with different morals can make decisions that they choose.

That said, if you are not willing to accept consequences of your actions, then don't do the action. I think abortion should be legal because there are so many cases where things are much more complicated. Even given the above, I would not say a law is the best way to prevent you from making that choice. I would say that at this stage, things may seem a lot simpler than they do once you face the real decision.. particularly for the woman. And, the best time to think about this is not when you are well... not precisely thinking of the eventuality.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by PLAYER57832 »

Metsfanmax wrote:
keiths31 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
It's easy to say that we should spend more money on sex education, but I am careful. I'm not someone who takes big risks with this sort of thing. But this could happen to me nonetheless, because contraception is not 100% effective. What then?
That's the chance you take by taking part in a risky activity. Pregnancy could happen. If you don't want to have an unplanned pregnancy, the only way to do that is to not have sex. My son was an unplanned pregnancy (she was on birth control). I don't say unwanted, because the second I found out I was happy. I wasn't ready for a child financially, but it happened. That was 12 years ago. Man time flies...
We no longer live in a society where people wait until marriage to have sex. It just doesn't happen that much anymore. We need a set of rules that recognizes this, instead of a set of rules that applies to a culture that no longer exists.
Are anti-abortion laws really about sex before marriage? Only in a very small part. That change really came when we dropped the term "bastard" and so forth. Also, just because a change has come does not mean it is a good one. Note, I am not saying anyone should decide your behavior, but some of these things are now taken too lightly. This gets very, very complicated and is actually well off the abortion topic. Might make another interesting thread, though.
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by Metsfanmax »

PLAYER57832 wrote: That said, if you are not willing to accept consequences of your actions, then don't do the action.
I am prepared to accept the consequences of my actions, as long as those actions involve terminating the pregnancy. I can make that choice.
I think abortion should be legal because there are so many cases where things are much more complicated. Even given the above, I would not say a law is the best way to prevent you from making that choice. I would say that at this stage, things may seem a lot simpler than they do once you face the real decision.. particularly for the woman. And, the best time to think about this is not when you are well... not precisely thinking of the eventuality.
Well I'm glad you don't think it's complicated, but it sure as hell is for me. All I ask is that people respect the choice I would make, and know that it is not a choice I would make lightly.
User avatar
keiths31
Posts: 2202
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by keiths31 »

Metsfanmax wrote:
keiths31 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
It's easy to say that we should spend more money on sex education, but I am careful. I'm not someone who takes big risks with this sort of thing. But this could happen to me nonetheless, because contraception is not 100% effective. What then?
That's the chance you take by taking part in a risky activity. Pregnancy could happen. If you don't want to have an unplanned pregnancy, the only way to do that is to not have sex. My son was an unplanned pregnancy (she was on birth control). I don't say unwanted, because the second I found out I was happy. I wasn't ready for a child financially, but it happened. That was 12 years ago. Man time flies...
We no longer live in a society where people wait until marriage to have sex. It just doesn't happen that much anymore. We need a set of rules that recognizes this, instead of a set of rules that applies to a culture that no longer exists.
What you said has no bearing on what I said. I wasn't married when my children were born. But that didn't stop me from wanting them. I was married to my first wife when she had an abortion without consulting me. By law she didn't have to. Morally she should have.

In the past when I have debated this I am neither for nor against abortion. It has affected me in my life, but I don't judge others and they can do as well as they please according to the law. I understand both sides and have been on both sides. I can see why people argue that women should be able to do what they want with their bodies. I also can see how people think it is morally wrong. I respect their views.
Metsfanmax wrote:We no longer live in a society where people wait until marriage to have sex
I've never lived in this kind of society. You watch too many old TV shows I am thinking...
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by PLAYER57832 »

Metsfanmax wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: That said, if you are not willing to accept consequences of your actions, then don't do the action.
I am prepared to accept the consequences of my actions, as long as those actions involve terminating the pregnancy. I can make that choice.
I think abortion should be legal because there are so many cases where things are much more complicated. Even given the above, I would not say a law is the best way to prevent you from making that choice. I would say that at this stage, things may seem a lot simpler than they do once you face the real decision.. particularly for the woman. And, the best time to think about this is not when you are well... not precisely thinking of the eventuality.
Well I'm glad you don't think it's complicated, but it sure as hell is for me. All I ask is that people respect the choice I would make, and know that it is not a choice I would make lightly.
Well, I don't believe making abortion illegal is the answer. Beyond that.. it just gets into a lot of other topics.

The basic problem with cases like yours is that I know far too many people who think they know their feelings, until... . OR, for whom its relatively simple for the man, but not for the woman. At the point you are already sleeping with someone its almost too late to really think clearly about all this. That, too, is why we need sex education. Even though school sex ed is not about morals, per se, it can and should be tied in with corallary moral discussions at home, in churches, etc.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by PLAYER57832 »

keiths31 wrote:
In the past when I have debated this I am neither for nor against abortion.
Just to clarify, this would put you in favor of keeping abortion legal. And that is a pretty big distinction.
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by Metsfanmax »

keiths31 wrote: What you said has no bearing on what I said. I wasn't married when my children were born. But that didn't stop me from wanting them. I was married to my first wife when she had an abortion without consulting me. By law she didn't have to. Morally she should have.
If you wanted kids, why was your partner on birth control?
I've never lived in this kind of society. You watch too many old TV shows I am thinking...
That was my point. That society basically hasn't existed since Victorian times, but people who fully oppose abortion apparently like to pretend that that's the society we live in, as if it's ever that simple. Reality is much more complicated. People do have sex before they're ready to have a child, and even when they do it carefully, unplanned pregnancies can happen. We can either stick to ancient rules or come up with a set of rules that makes more sense with respect to what we have today.
PLAYER wrote: The basic problem with cases like yours is that I know far too many people who think they know their feelings, until... . OR, for whom its relatively simple for the man, but not for the woman. At the point you are already sleeping with someone its almost too late to really think clearly about all this. That, too, is why we need sex education. Even though school sex ed is not about morals, per se, it can and should be tied in with corallary moral discussions at home, in churches, etc.
On the contrary, I have no idea how I would feel in that actual situation. That's why I want to make the decision now, so that my decision isn't clouded by emotions which may or may not have any bearing on a good decision after the pregnancy happens.
User avatar
BigBallinStalin
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Contact:

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by BigBallinStalin »

Night Strike wrote:
natty_dread wrote:That's just how Night Strike rolls. He doesn't like the terms of the debate, he comes in and tries to twist it to suit his agenda. Note how every post he posts talks about "killing unborn children" and such, without establishing how it is we should consider a clump of cells a "child".

And yet, no anti-abortionist has answered my question: why aren't they campaigning for better sex education instead, since it's been clearly shown that banning/limiting abortions will not reduce the amount of abortions, but better sex education will?

Night Strike claimed this hasn't been shown, I posted a link that shows this, and no one has yet refuted it either.
How about you support the ending of abortions and I will support sex education?

And I don't support sex education because it's not the school's job to talk about sex with children. That's the job of parents/guardians, not a school official.
If that's the case, then why not leave the choice of abortions to the potential parents?
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by Metsfanmax »

Actually PLAYER you're right, that subject is one for a different thread entirely. The only real subject here is that of whether the government should be obligated to protect the right to life of an embryo. Nothing more, nothing less.
User avatar
Night Strike
Posts: 8509
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by Night Strike »

Metsfanmax wrote:
Night Strike wrote: You were correct up until the point where you said it was MY decision. It's never my decision for when you and your girlfriend choose to have sex. That's up to you two. If your intercourse leads to the conception of an embryo, that embryo has a completely different set of genes than either you or your girlfriend and therefore has the right to life just like every other human.
So why do you think you have the right to protect the life of the set of genes that I was 50% responsible for making, inside my girlfriend's uterus? Why the hell do you have any say in that decision?
Because it's the exact same reason why murder is outlawed: one person does not have the right to take the life of another human. Under your reasoning, you could murder your child no matter how old they are because they are 50% your offspring. A human is still a human, whether they're 1 minute after conception or 1 minute before death.
Image
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by Metsfanmax »

Night Strike wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Night Strike wrote: You were correct up until the point where you said it was MY decision. It's never my decision for when you and your girlfriend choose to have sex. That's up to you two. If your intercourse leads to the conception of an embryo, that embryo has a completely different set of genes than either you or your girlfriend and therefore has the right to life just like every other human.
So why do you think you have the right to protect the life of the set of genes that I was 50% responsible for making, inside my girlfriend's uterus? Why the hell do you have any say in that decision?
Because it's the exact same reason why murder is outlawed: one person does not have the right to take the life of another human. Under your reasoning, you could murder your child no matter how old they are because they are 50% your offspring. A human is still a human, whether they're 1 minute after conception or 1 minute before death.
The reason why it's illegal to murder a newborn baby is because it's illegal to murder an adult human being. The pro-life side of it wants to extend that analogy all the way back to conception, whereas the pro-choice side (typically) wants to extend it only to the first 8 weeks or the first trimester. This is a debate about when we think a being with human DNA gains the same rights as another human. It doesn't have to be conception. We can make another choice, based on the scientific community's consensus that an embryo in the first trimester shares very few "human" physical characteristics.
User avatar
keiths31
Posts: 2202
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by keiths31 »

Metsfanmax wrote:
keiths31 wrote: What you said has no bearing on what I said. I wasn't married when my children were born. But that didn't stop me from wanting them. I was married to my first wife when she had an abortion without consulting me. By law she didn't have to. Morally she should have.
If you wanted kids, why was your partner on birth control?
I've never lived in this kind of society. You watch too many old TV shows I am thinking...
That was my point. That society basically hasn't existed since Victorian times, but people who fully oppose abortion apparently like to pretend that that's the society we live in, as if it's ever that simple. Reality is much more complicated. People do have sex before they're ready to have a child, and even when they do it carefully, unplanned pregnancies can happen. We can either stick to ancient rules or come up with a set of rules that makes more sense with respect to what we have today.
PLAYER wrote: The basic problem with cases like yours is that I know far too many people who think they know their feelings, until... . OR, for whom its relatively simple for the man, but not for the woman. At the point you are already sleeping with someone its almost too late to really think clearly about all this. That, too, is why we need sex education. Even though school sex ed is not about morals, per se, it can and should be tied in with corallary moral discussions at home, in churches, etc.
On the contrary, I have no idea how I would feel in that actual situation. That's why I want to make the decision now, so that my decision isn't clouded by emotions which may or may not have any bearing on a good decision after the pregnancy happens.
Too many broken up quotes. I'm an old man...don't do that too me.

First, she was on birth control because we weren't planning on having kids. There is a difference between wanting kids and planning on having kids. I didn't think that needed an explanation.

Secondly, who are you to judge someone else's moral belief in whether to have sex before marriage? Who cares if some people believe you should wait until marriage to have sex? What's wrong with that? You can have all the sex you want. You don't like being judged for having sex before marriage, but yet you are judging them for holding different beliefs.

Thirdly, in regards to Players comment to you and your reply. You won't know how you feel. There is something that changes in your mindset the moment you are told your partner is pregnant. You want to make the decision now so you don't cloud your thought process by emotions in case that happens? Then get a vasectomy. There is your 100% chance of not getting someone pregnant.
User avatar
BigBallinStalin
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Contact:

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by BigBallinStalin »

So, abortion up to 10 weeks isn't murdering a child. What will the pro-lifers have to resort to?
User avatar
comic boy
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by comic boy »

Night Strike I dont notice you being so self righteous when millions of African children die because of Corporate greed , or Palestinian children die because of political handwringing , or Iraqi children die to line the pockets of Dick Cheyney's cronies. These are human beings in the real sense , not just a collection of cells, stop the hypocritical quasi moralistic humbugging and try to at least pretend to exercise some Christian compassion.
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by Metsfanmax »

keiths31 wrote: First, she was on birth control because we weren't planning on having kids. There is a difference between wanting kids and planning on having kids. I didn't think that needed an explanation.
To me it does. If you want kids, then you should remove the birth control. The conscious decision to remain on birth control would signify to me that you don't really want kids now, even if you would keep one in the event of pregnancy.
Secondly, who are you to judge someone else's moral belief in whether to have sex before marriage? Who cares if some people believe you should wait until marriage to have sex? What's wrong with that? You can have all the sex you want. You don't like being judged for having sex before marriage, but yet you are judging them for holding different beliefs.
I don't care what they think, I just don't want them to control my actions because of their beliefs. That's the opposite of the conservative creed, and the only reason conservatives are typically so willing to abandon their typical stance is because they believe this is a case of murder, one of the few things a government is obliged to do something about.
Thirdly, in regards to Players comment to you and your reply. You won't know how you feel. There is something that changes in your mindset the moment you are told your partner is pregnant. You want to make the decision now so you don't cloud your thought process by emotions in case that happens? Then get a vasectomy. There is your 100% chance of not getting someone pregnant.
No, because I might want kids later on, I just don't want them now.

Regarding the broken up quotes -- sorry, it's just how I do things.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by PLAYER57832 »

jay_a2j wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:Defining an embryo as a Human Being isn't very scientific or sensible.


Yeah, because we all know those embryos become aardvarks. :roll:

What MISSISSIPPI is saying is that LIFE at any stage of development should be protected by law.


An embryo has a heart beat at 8 weeks (when most abortions are preformed). An abortion ends this heartbeat. How the hell is that "sensible"?
#1. its still called an abortion when the hearbeat is still before the operation.

#2. Does a beating heart define all that is to be human? How is it sensible to say "medical science can tell you that this child has only a small chance of surviving, will likely threaten your life and/ OR prevent any future children from being born. We have an operation that will end the child without pain, early, before many would say a "soul" is vested in it (note.. I mean many Christians as well as non-Christians), but becuase jay, etc does not like that option, you cannot do that. AND.. Oh, by-the-way, don't ask for health care coverage, either, because that is just being greedy on your part.


#1 Who the hell cares????? Has an abortion ever SAVED A LIFE?
Actually, yes. Every time one is performed to save a mother's life.

jay_a2j wrote:Ever STARTED a stopped heart?
Not at 11 weeks, no. In case you missed the clarity I was referring to a very dead child who was wanted. But, why let information halt your ignorant proclamations.

jay_a2j wrote:#2 I don't care when "many" (by the way it's those who wish the keep the power to kill) deem it has a soul. If it is a life when it's born, its a life an hour before its born, a day before its born, a month before its born and UP TO and including the MOMENT it is conceived!
You don't care what other people think, but they are supposed to run their lives by YOUR dictates? Well, not surprised. Just surprised you would admit it so clearly.

jay_a2j wrote:Spin it any way you like. YOU condone MURDER! YOU will answer for it as well as all you other pro-deathers!
No, but apparently you have a problem with definitions. Which, is pretty much my point. If you cannot be bothered to get your facts checked, what makes you think you have ANY moral right to decide for others.

No, Christ did not do that. Try reading the New Testament again if you think he did.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

Post by PLAYER57832 »

Metsfanmax wrote:
keiths31 wrote: First, she was on birth control because we weren't planning on having kids. There is a difference between wanting kids and planning on having kids. I didn't think that needed an explanation.
To me it does. If you want kids, then you should remove the birth control. The conscious decision to remain on birth control would signify to me that you don't really want kids now, even if you would keep one in the event of pregnancy.
You are missing something here, Mesfanmax. There are 2 people deciding this. Sometime partners only think the other agrees.
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”