Males and Females

[King Richard]

I'm anti.

 

[-CC-]

I'm

 

[Dak]

'

 

[cookiecutter]

Devourment is serious business!

 

[Cythraul]

Does dislike of abortion extend to anti-morning after pill, too?

Are you asking if a pro-lifer has to be committed to being anti-morning after pill, or are you only asking if Dakryn in particular is anti-morning after pill? To answer the first question: No.

 

[waif]

With the morning after pill, fertilization hasn't necessarily occurred yet (and won't necessarily occur at all), so it's more like a condom than an abortion. Only crazies are anti-condom.

EDIT: I mean, only crazies oppose the principle of condoms. Nobody likes the things.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Anyone who tells a woman what to do with her body is fucking Anti-individual/human/freedom/volition, PERIOD, THE END.

 

[Dak]

That's really not a valid argument for not being anti-abortion.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

That's because there is nothing to argue.

 

[Dak]

Sure there is, or else no one would argue about it.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society.if there is any matter which is personal and private, then pregnancy is it. There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms.

You happy now

 

[Dak]

Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society.if there is any matter which is personal and private, then pregnancy is it. There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms.

You happy now

Compulsory pregnancy? Lol. Except in cases of rape, no one makes a woman get pregnant. No one is advocating that a woman must be forever popping out babies.

The argument is over whether or not abortion is taking a life.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb.

 

[Cythraul]

Anyone who tells a woman what to do with her body is fucking Anti-individual/human/freedom/volition, PERIOD, THE END.

Every single right tells people what to do or not to do with their bodies given that they entail enforceable duties. So human rights in general are fucking anti-individual/human/freedom/volition, PERIOD, THE END.

 

[Dak]

Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb.

Parasites cannot survive without a host, does this make them indistinct from their host?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

maybe that's why their PARASITES!?

you want to compare the concept of personhood to a fucking parasite?

 

[Dak]

In practice, children are parasitical in some way, shape, or form up until they can financially provide for themselves. What is wrong with the comparison?

Edit: Anyone on any type of welfare is parasitical on society regardless of age, so does this make them less human?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

So now you're comparing biological Physical parasites to social/financial human parasites.

I need five minutes away from the computer. Maybe later someone on this board can explain common sense & reality to you.

 

[Dak]

Funny, I could say the same about you


Let's recap:

Your original argument was that a "fetus" cannot be considered a seperate entity from the mother, (and therefore can be removed like a vestigal organ at whim, up until the point where it could survive outside the womb).

My counter to this is that a fetus is no different than a biological parasite by that definition, but parasites are still considered a seperate entity.

This caused you to respond with amusing but ironic (imo) incredulity that I would "compare personhood with a parasite", when to my point of view you are saying it's ok to kill a defenseless person just because they happen to be completely defenseless.

I am not suggesting that personhood is the same thing as a parasite. But the existence/definition of parasites makes your reasoning/definition of personhood null and void. If you can't see this you need to take/re-take critical thinking.

 

[Valerie]

Please god not another abortion debate. Dead horse is dead. No one will ever convince the other side that they are right.