User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 8:28:04 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe a lamp shade? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you think if we went an got an abortion they would let me keep it? Like in a jar? You know like a souvenir. Maybe a lamp shade? I think a lava lamp would be better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 8:29:47 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's part of a living being. Poor analogy. Meh I'm tired as piss and I've been at this for a few hours now. I'm just gonna reply sarcastically now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 8:43:10 AM EDT
[#3]
If there is a medical reason I am ok with it.
If it is purely elective, I am not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 8:47:22 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was ok for them to ask "is this a person?". Their answer was wrong. Likewise, it's ok to ask "is this fetus a person?". I still don't see any valid point from that article. Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was ok for them to ask "is this a person?". Their answer was wrong. Likewise, it's ok to ask "is this fetus a person?". I still don't see any valid point from that article. You don't see or you don't want to see? Is your own personal guilt clouding your judgment? To answer the question, criteria must be identified and agreed upon, as well as objectively correct. - As an example of what I mean as "correct', to answer the question, "is the earth the center of the universe" there was once a time when certain criteria were considered, as that was all that was available, and when more information became available, the criteria was shown to be lacking. Can we agree that arbitrary criteria is not a valid basis for arriving at an answer to any question? The fact that there are laws that treat a fetus like a person has no bearing on whether it is or not. It most certainly does. Because such laws must also be based on something - else by default they are as invalid and erroneous as Dredd Scott. It is called jurisprudence and is frequently used in determining the validity of related laws. This is simple. You, I believe, are smarter than that last statement. Your "my side is logical" your side is "whatever" argument is simplistic and untrue. There are no defined "sides" and both use silly and scientific arguments. Where have I literally said, "my side is logical?" When one paraphrases someone, I believe the custom is to use single quotes. It seems as though your emotions are interfering with your intellect. That, and your complete lack of a single scientific argument would suggest that we are obviously done here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 10:53:41 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hell, let's put something in the water. Or in their fast food. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We should pay the FSA to have abortions. In cash, right after it's done. If there's some way to do it in a drive-thru that's even better.
That's genocide. My way is progressive and all about women's rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 12:50:48 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like I said. Those are examples of those who need it not just those want it. A McDonald's employee cannot support a child making 1000 a month.That's barley enough to live off of here anyway. They aren't expendable but for the welfare of the child it seems unfair to cast them to be unloved always wanting and never getting. Of course there is exceptions but those are people greater then there caste. They strive to be better for themselves and their children. Many unfortunately do not. If in ten years science show that brain waves start much earlier then I will eat crow and alter my opinion. This issue is not a make or break for me. I would never vote for someone because of their views on abortion. There are bigger issues going on that I care about and to be realistic abortion laws are not going to change any time soon. As to your last question. If I do not produce brain activity then yes society could cull me. They do it to people everyday. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Snip Social Darwinism. A culling of the heard. It's not a scary concept because it is as old as the dirt we walk on. Abortion has existed in one shape or form since our beginning begging and will continue for the foreseeable future. Before any one says it. The only reason I use the poor and downtrodden as an example is because those are the ones who need abortions. I don't agree with abortion as a form of birth control nor do I agree with abortion after the fetus can produce brain waves(around 12 weeks). After that then yes it does fall into the realm of murder. Like I said. Those are examples of those who need it not just those want it. A McDonald's employee cannot support a child making 1000 a month.That's barley enough to live off of here anyway. They aren't expendable but for the welfare of the child it seems unfair to cast them to be unloved always wanting and never getting. Of course there is exceptions but those are people greater then there caste. They strive to be better for themselves and their children. Many unfortunately do not. If in ten years science show that brain waves start much earlier then I will eat crow and alter my opinion. This issue is not a make or break for me. I would never vote for someone because of their views on abortion. There are bigger issues going on that I care about and to be realistic abortion laws are not going to change any time soon. As to your last question. If I do not produce brain activity then yes society could cull me. They do it to people everyday. I have known single mothers making minimum wage renting a 2 bedroom apartment. They lived in one room where their room mate live in the other room. Even in washington where I see you are at you can find 2 bedroom apartments for around $800. So split that with someone else. In your state a full time minimum wage job gets you about $1500 a month. Even at that a single mother will be living better than 99% of all human beings ever in existence.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 2:41:14 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't see or you don't want to see? Is your own personal guilt clouding your judgment? To answer the question, criteria must be identified and agreed upon, as well as objectively correct. - As an example of what I mean as "correct', to answer the question, "is the earth the center of the universe" there was once a time when certain criteria were considered, as that was all that was available, and when more information became available, the criteria was shown to be lacking. Can we agree that arbitrary criteria is not a valid basis for arriving at an answer to any question? It most certainly does. Because such laws must also be based on something - else by default they are as invalid and erroneous as Dredd Scott. It is called jurisprudence and is frequently used in determining the validity of related laws. This is simple. You, I believe, are smarter than that last statement. Where have I literally said, "my side is logical?" When one paraphrases someone, I believe the custom is to use single quotes. It seems as though your emotions are interfering with your intellect. That, and your complete lack of a single scientific argument would suggest that we are obviously done here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It was ok for them to ask "is this a person?". Their answer was wrong. Likewise, it's ok to ask "is this fetus a person?". I still don't see any valid point from that article. You don't see or you don't want to see? Is your own personal guilt clouding your judgment? To answer the question, criteria must be identified and agreed upon, as well as objectively correct. - As an example of what I mean as "correct', to answer the question, "is the earth the center of the universe" there was once a time when certain criteria were considered, as that was all that was available, and when more information became available, the criteria was shown to be lacking. Can we agree that arbitrary criteria is not a valid basis for arriving at an answer to any question? The fact that there are laws that treat a fetus like a person has no bearing on whether it is or not. It most certainly does. Because such laws must also be based on something - else by default they are as invalid and erroneous as Dredd Scott. It is called jurisprudence and is frequently used in determining the validity of related laws. This is simple. You, I believe, are smarter than that last statement. Your "my side is logical" your side is "whatever" argument is simplistic and untrue. There are no defined "sides" and both use silly and scientific arguments. Where have I literally said, "my side is logical?" When one paraphrases someone, I believe the custom is to use single quotes. It seems as though your emotions are interfering with your intellect. That, and your complete lack of a single scientific argument would suggest that we are obviously done here. You're making wild-ass assumptions and taking an annoyingly pedantic tone, and it's taking the pleasure out of debating your more rational arguments. I agree that we're done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 3:47:51 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Believing in abortion does not instantly turn you into a liberal. If our political beliefs were set upon a teeter tooter my conservative side would be touching the ground. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hate you personally? Not at all. Having said that, there is only one group of people I hate, and those are liberals. It's not my fault if you put yourself in that column. Believing in abortion does not instantly turn you into a liberal. If our political beliefs were set upon a teeter tooter my conservative side would be touching the ground. Totally false. Know thyself? You fail miserably. When you wont stand for the rights of the defenseless to exist, how "conservative" you are on other rights (that this murdered person will never get to express) is totally meaningless. If you aren't against the killing of children, and you make the excuses you made in this thread, you are NOT a conservative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 3:52:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How can you abort something that hasn't started? Do you understand what the word abort means? Do you understand that conception depends on ovulation, not intercourse? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Preventing conception is not abortion. You obviously have no idea that levonorgestrel can absolutely prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, therefore preventing a human from being born. How can you abort something that hasn't started? Do you understand what the word abort means? Do you understand that conception depends on ovulation, not intercourse? James - how do you feel about the following: 1. Couple decides on IVF because they are struggling to get pregnant. They retrieve 10 eggs. They inseminate all 10. Only 2 survive, and those two are implanted. They knowingly inseminated 10 eggs, forming 10 embryos, and also knowing that based on all studies, only a percentage would survive. Any ethical issues? 2. Woman gets the uterus ablation procedure, which removes the uterus lining, which prevents implantation of the egg, but not necessarily preventing conception. 100% of any embryos will die. Is she committing intentional murder, by continuing to have sex without having her tubes tied or using other contraception? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 3:54:16 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From Wiki: <shrug> Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Preventing conception is not abortion. You obviously have no idea that levonorgestrel can absolutely prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, therefore preventing a human from being born. From Wiki: The primary mechanism of action of levonorgestrel as a progestogen-only emergency contraceptive pill is, according to FIGO, to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation.[3][4][5][6] The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) has issued a statement that: "review of the evidence suggests that LNG [levonorgestreol] ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Language on implantation should not be included in LNG ECP product labeling."[7]  In June 2012, a New York Times editorial called on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove from the label the unsupported suggestion that levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills inhibit implantation.[9] In November 2013, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved a change to the label for HRA Pharma's NorLevo saying it cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.[10]<shrug> 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 4:27:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
James - how do you feel about the following: 1. Couple decides on IVF because they are struggling to get pregnant. They retrieve 10 eggs. They inseminate all 10. Only 2 survive, and those two are implanted. They knowingly inseminated 10 eggs, forming 10 embryos, and also knowing that based on all studies, only a percentage would survive. Any ethical issues? 2. Woman gets the uterus ablation procedure, which removes the uterus lining, which prevents implantation of the egg, but not necessarily preventing conception. 100% of any embryos will die. Is she committing intentional murder, by continuing to have sex without having her tubes tied or using other contraception? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Preventing conception is not abortion. You obviously have no idea that levonorgestrel can absolutely prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, therefore preventing a human from being born. How can you abort something that hasn't started? Do you understand what the word abort means? Do you understand that conception depends on ovulation, not intercourse? James - how do you feel about the following: 1. Couple decides on IVF because they are struggling to get pregnant. They retrieve 10 eggs. They inseminate all 10. Only 2 survive, and those two are implanted. They knowingly inseminated 10 eggs, forming 10 embryos, and also knowing that based on all studies, only a percentage would survive. Any ethical issues? 2. Woman gets the uterus ablation procedure, which removes the uterus lining, which prevents implantation of the egg, but not necessarily preventing conception. 100% of any embryos will die. Is she committing intentional murder, by continuing to have sex without having her tubes tied or using other contraception? I believe that intent is the key here. Intentionally killing their baby. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 5:23:45 PM EDT
[#12]
There is no doubt the a fertilized egg is both alive and human. Destroying one is taking a human life. That said, thanks to an activist Supreme Court inventing laws-it currently is not considered murder by the United States government. Murder is the wrongful/unlawful taking of life. Pro choice believe they should be allowed self defense against the innocent-which is funny as most would like to take away our right to self defencse against the guilty.
That said 20-30 something men tend to be selfish bastards and tend to hate to take responsibility for their actions. Abortion-the continued fight to make pregnancy considered a curse-is the true war against women.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 5:50:41 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If it has a heartbeat and has committed no crime that is punishable by death, then he/she should not be denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. At what point can a child know Right from Wrong? They are no longer an Innocent Child.... Is a Innocent Child responsible for the 'Sins of it's Father', Sins of it's Country? Is it Murder to Kill an Innocent Child? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 6:07:05 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:f you aren't against the killing of children, you are NOT a conservative. Why do you say children? A child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. I'm against the killing of children for ANY reason. I do not however have an issue with a woman killing/terminating an embryo within the first trimester. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 6:09:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do you say children? A child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. I'm against the killing of children for ANY reason. I do not however have an issue with a woman killing/terminating an embryo within the first trimester. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:f you aren't against the killing of children, you are NOT a conservative. Why do you say children? A child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. I'm against the killing of children for ANY reason. I do not however have an issue with a woman killing/terminating an embryo within the first trimester. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 6:34:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Im of the opinion that if I never heard about it again along with gay marriage I would happy
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 6:41:53 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Per the Mirriam Webster definition it also includes the unborn. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:f you aren't against the killing of children, you are NOT a conservative. Why do you say children? A child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. I'm against the killing of children for ANY reason. I do not however have an issue with a woman killing/terminating an embryo within the first trimester. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child Touche. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 7:34:21 PM EDT
[#18]
What it all boils down to is "Are humans people?" If you believe that unique, individual human beings are people, you have to be "pro-life" or insane. The left actually convinced ~half of the people in this country that some humans aren't really people. And conservatives get mocked and laughed at when they mention government atrocities in the past as reasons to never give up their 2nd amendment rights. A good portion of this very board has demonstrated in the poll that they can be convinced that not all humans are people. How embarrassing.
One day abortion will be put in its rightful place on the alter of human shame next to slavery and genocide. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 7:49:25 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Per the Mirriam Webster definition it also includes the unborn. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:f you aren't against the killing of children, you are NOT a conservative. Why do you say children? A child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. I'm against the killing of children for ANY reason. I do not however have an issue with a woman killing/terminating an embryo within the first trimester. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child i certainly look to the dictionary to answer moral questions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 7:56:36 PM EDT
[#20]
To be honest, I don't really give it much thought. Guess I should care, but I don't.
And, let's face it... like it or not, that genie is never going back in the bottle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 8:03:38 PM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 8:08:01 PM EDT
[#22]
Many on the pro-abortion side simply don't want to be responsible for their own actions. They can't be arsed to use near-universally cheap and effective birth control. They completely blow off discussions about what constitutes life because they honestly don't care; nothing is more important to them than doing whatever it is that they feel like doing at the moment.
Some on the pro-life side are mostly interested only because they go nuts at the thought of people screwing under circumstances they don't approve of. Those on the pro-life side who are actually serious about the whole thing can't seem to understand either of the other two camps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 8:09:31 PM EDT
[#23]
I'm Pro-death
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 8:31:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i certainly look to the dictionary to answer moral questions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:f you aren't against the killing of children, you are NOT a conservative. Why do you say children? A child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. I'm against the killing of children for ANY reason. I do not however have an issue with a woman killing/terminating an embryo within the first trimester. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child i certainly look to the dictionary to answer moral questions. Actually you look to the DNC for your moral guidance, as we've seen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 8:34:21 PM EDT
[#25]
I'm in the Regressive camp.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
