Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12
Results 221 to 227 of 227
  1. #221
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,970
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I'm expressing what I hold to be right and wrong and trying to justify why I believe the way I do. I'm not going out and killing others because of the belief they or I hold. I'm not demonizing the person because they are a human being but identifying an action that I see is wrong, then showing the justification for my belief. The command is to love others. Love speaks truth even when it is not politically correct to do so. I am not acting hatefully towards homosexuals. The Christian is instructed to give to those in need, regardless of their beliefs. If I see someone in need and I can give them a meal or shelter I'm not to discriminate because of their belief system.

    On a debate forum it is a different case. The forum is here to debate/showcase belief systems.
    No one is accusing you of killing gay people. I am saying that your words dehumanize the love between two gay people. That your statements and attitudes diminishes them. You do realize, even with the best of intentions you are actually hurting people with what you say. I have no skin the the game but if someone said the same things about my own love with my wife, I would not be happy.

    No matter how you justify it, if you follow the golden rule and apply it to yourself, itís pretty much dehumanizing when you fall their love wrong. Religion was used to argue against interracial marriages too with much the same justifications by Christians who were otherwise decent people.

    The sooner you admit that you are hurting people and dehumanizing them the better. Iím not asking you to justify your opinion nor to defend your religion. I just want you to see the truth of what youíre doing.


    WHAT? Where have I ever expressed being okay with aborting a baby? I have done what is called 'trotting out the toddler' to show the difference between the unborn and newborn or toddler is one of four different qualities - Size, Level of Development, Environment, Dependency. On the basis of those four common qualities I have shown there is no difference in what the being IS before or after birth and have tried to bring this point home by arguing that the standard you use to take a life before birth is the same one you use to preserve life after birth. You appear to be okay with killing an innocent human being because you don't value it as a human being.

    There is only one kind of abortion I agree with. That is when the mother's life is at risk and there is no way to save the unborn because of its viability.
    Letís just focus on the abortions you agree with where the motherís life is at risk. And we know this from an early stage. Do you see it is morally equivalent to abort as soon as possible versus waiting another few months?

    This is the question that is asked for all the other abortion cases and that is why we distinguish between an embryo and a baby. Because you refuse to accept these distinctions, you must therefore be OK with killing a baby when the motherís life is at risk even though it could have been aborted sooner. Correct or not correct?


    I was thinking of the hypocrisy on your part as I read Post 209. I wanted to reflect on it before commenting. Your position is insensitive to what is going on regarding abortion. You recognize that the unborn is a human being, but that does not matter to you. You don't seem to care that innocent human beings are being butchered in the millions every year, mostly because of lifestyle choices. You seem to think that because they are in the early stages of development that it justifies killing them. You have turned the tables to villanize my position on this and other issues. It is the double-standard of the left all over again. Once the argument does not go your way you start ad homenum attacks based on the Christian faith. I see an ultimate authority as determining right and wrong. If you want to justify your position on a moral stand then either open a thread on morality and abortion or morality and relativism to discuss it.
    Thatís not quite what it is. You spent half your time, unnecessarily I might add, to convince me over linguistics. You said this was done for the purpose of dehumanizing the baby. I pointed out instances where dehumanizing humans is done all the time, including from Christians when it comes to homosexuality. This isnít an attack on your faith - it is to point out your hypocrisy.

    I also discussed and you agreed that education and contraception is a good way to mitigate the need for an abortion. This the number of abortions is reduced. And thatís a good thing.

    Last time I checked, I was still allowed to express my belief.
    Of course you are. As am I. And I am pointing out some of your hypocrisies.

    ******** TODO *********
    Sometimes I can't justify what I or others professing a belief in Jesus Christ do. If I believe something is wrong I can provide the reasons why.
    I donít care how you justify your hate. I ask only that you empathize with the people you are hurting and acknowledge that pain.

    There is a difference between being hateful and disagreeing on what is right and wrong. Do you understand that difference? Who determines right and wrong? As I said, I would be glad to discuss the merits of your atheistic beliefs as opposed to my Christian beliefs in regards to morality.
    When you disagree which city does the best pizza that is one thing. When you say that eating Chicago pizza should be ďdemonizedĒ, your term, that kinda points more to hatred than an intellectual disagreement.

    A discussion between a fact based moral system versus on based on ignorance should be done elsewhere. And would probably be a good one. However, it is distracting because Iím not opposing your Christian views. I am saying you are being hypocritical in your application of those views.

    You invoke your religious beliefs (atheism) too because you want to deny me my right to my belief. It is a worldview war. What you choose to do as a man in the privacy of your home it your business as long as it does not harm others, IMO. When you say that gay-marriage is right you bring into the discussion my belief on the subject, which is that God created both MAN and WOMAN for the purpose of marriage and pro-creation. He sanctified that union, not some other union. He speaks out against other ACTS of sexuality as immoral and displeasing to Him.
    Well, first of all, this is not my first rodeo - I can probably argue your side as well as you can. This isnít about your religion - it is about your hypocrisy. That you argue from one side of your mouth that pro-choicers demonize humans, much like Naziís and slave owners did. And from the other side of your mouth, you demonize acts of commitment and love. The point is that you are just as guilty of demonizing and dehumanizing as everyone you accuse of. It doesnít matter what your justifications are: youíre literally doing it.

    Even though I see your moral justification as inadequate if those are the standards you hold to I am all for your right to hold your beliefs except when you act on those beliefs to kill other innocent human beings. It is when those beliefs kill/murder others that I object to them and want to express why.
    My moral justification to kill an embryo or as early in the pregnancy is possible should be the same justification you should be making. That baby that will kill its mother is just as innocent as any other so once you understand your own reasons why itís morally better to abort an embryo rather than a baby, once you admit that there is a distinction then we can move on. After you with draw all your other false comparisons that it.

    Since you continue to attack the man I will respond again because you are making it personal.
    Itís not an attack if it accurately describes your double-standards. It is a factual description of your stated positions.

    1. I pointed out that I believe it is wrong based on my belief system. It is 'right' based on your belief system. The problem is that both systems of thought cannot both be logically right. I invite you to justify your belief system. It is a moral issue.
    Sure but if itís right to kill a baby in the circumstances where the motherís death is a risk then you must also distinguish between an embryo and a baby in that situation. If you do distinguish between the two then you need to withdraw all the other claims that such comparisons are nazi like and dehumanizing. If not then you are nazi like and dehumanizing.

    2. If both the unborn and newborn are human beings it is not me who is discriminating against the human being by dehumanizing it and supporting its killing on the preference of the female, but you and she.
    You already agree that babies can be aborted in the case where the motherís life is at risk! Youíre ďkilling on the preference of the femaleĒ too! Are you literally losing track of what your own opinions are?

    3. How do you ever come to this conclusion? Where have I not advocated for the life of all human beings, except in justifiably specific cases? Please give examples because I believe you may be taking what I said out of context or just plain changing what I believe (putting words in my mouth) to VILLANIZE me because I don't think the same way you do on these issues.
    Thereís no villanizing going on - youíre being hypocritical and I have explained multiple times already in previous posts and several times here. If you do not understand why you are a hypocrite we can take even more slowly but I am getting tired of explaining to you the same thing over and over again.

    I have replied to all three of your responses.

    Peter
    You have ignored every point I made so I had to explain them again. You specifically havenít answered:

    1. In the situation where you agree that a preganancy should be aborted, do you agree or disagree that it is more moral to kill the embryo or wait until it is a baby? Or are they morally the same to you because making such distinctions is Ďdehumanizingí?
    2. Do you believe that when a gay couple marry in a secular civil marriage, and nothing to do with religion, that this is an act that should be demonized? If so, do you not see that you are dehumanizing that act?
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 15th, 2018 at 05:54 PM.

  2. #222
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Every nation recognizes the right of a woman to determine what happens to her body. This isn’t some ideal appeal to popularity, it is done so with weighing all the facts and coming up with the best solution for everyone.
    This quote is the definition of appealing to popularity. IE "everyone thinks X, therefore X is correct or based on the most sound evidence".

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I’m not against facts or seeing an ultra sound. I think a woman must understand that they are taking away a life.
    Right, but this point(that I made) directly contradicts your assertion that the majority are working with the best information.
    That isn't even the case for people actually having abortions, because when those people do get more facts (Ie ultra sound) then they do not get abortions.. at a 90% rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I’m not talking about personhood - I’m talking about the cognitive ability to suffer death.
    Are you saying that persons who are not cognitive about death can not be "murdered" but rightly killed by whoever controlls their "needs"?

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I’m not talking about the potential - only you are. I am talking about an embryo with barely a brain and certainly no mind that can be dispatched with quickly so as to cause the least amount of suffering.
    First, hold your horses there. Brain =/= Mind necissarily. That may be what you think, but it isn't established or accepted.
    As to the "potential", that was me projecting the basis for you rejecting the killing of unconcious people based on the grounds you forward.

    Your a bit arbitrary in your lines so I may have over stepped your position there.
    In which case. Why can't we kill unconcious humans with no brain waves? (IE like the condition of heart surgery patient)
    or if your relying on conciousness then sleeping humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    They should feel guilty about their decisions. I don’t object to that at all.
    Why? I'm confused. I don't see why they should feel guilty on your position... what did I miss?

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    A fertilized egg is hardly a human - your emotional argument that this is anything more than a tiny bundle of cells is just ridiculous. It’s no worse than biting your nails.
    This is false, and demonstraited so several times.
    the unborn from conception are fully human. Categorically, they are human. So your language is not communicating your point or, your point is demonstrably scientifically invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Plan B ensures that a fertilized egg doesn’t attach to the womb. Depending on how you see it, it is aborting a human.

    I don’t see evidence for contraception being a cause for not being able to have a child. That sounds like a recipe for a huge class action lawsuit so I have to reject that claim.
    Well, there are some contraceptions that work as a kind of abortion drug.
    I don't think a fertalized egg is a "concieved" human.

    [QOUTE=SHARMAK] 24w is where the legal limit currently is but it does depend on the circumstances. I will always save the life of the mother if that is the scenario. If the child is disabled then I would also agree on allowing a woman to choose.

    Ideally, the abortion should happen as soon as possible so 24w is probably a reasonable maximum. Unless of course the mother’s life is at stake. [/QUOTE]
    Thanks for answering the question directly, I honestly appreciate it.

    Follow up question.
    -Context-
    So people generally agree that when a baby is born it is a person, but as we wind the clock back, at some point we will reach an area of uncertainty.
    ,I'm not asking where that line is.
    Question...
    At that point, on which side should we error?
    On the side of refraining for threat of killing a person
    or on the side of a womans right to choose the actions she takes with her body?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  3. #223
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    75
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    But that only identifies WHO is being leached from. It is not at all impossible to tell that the single father is the SOLE provider for a newborn (who's mother has died for argument sake).
    That is the point. The only one on whom an embryo/fetus/etc can be dependent is the mother. That is why it is her choice.

    Well that last part is speculation. And I think there are efforts to create an artificial womb to push the survival rate far past the current threshold.
    Suppose tomorrow they get a breakthrough and now can furtalize an egg and grow a full on human star wars clone style. Does your argument then fail?
    Yes, my argument will fail. As long as the embryo/fetus/etc is not dependent solely on the mother for nourishment and shelter, my argument will be null and void. And I truly hope that we are close to that kind of breakthrough.

    Or is your argument that because the woman is the provider she gets to make the life and death decision, and as she is the only provider she is the only one that gets a say in her case.
    Because I'm just applying the latter to a newborn, as it is totally consistent with your argument.
    Yes, that is my point. The woman, currently, is the only one who CAN provide the care...up until 21 weeks (which is the earliest a child has ever been born and survived).
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  4. #224
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,970
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This quote is the definition of appealing to popularity. IE "everyone thinks X, therefore X is correct or based on the most sound evidence".
    Considering we are talking about morality, which is largely a social exercise based on the determining facts and taking into account local studies and opinions and past history, itís a bit of a stretch to say that those are fallacious conclusions.

    Trotting out appealing to popularity is the last desperate accusation of a minority view so I guess thatĎs why your dragging it out. At the very least you have to agree that these are conclusions come to through a great deal of deliberation and if itís from different perspectives and backgrounds that it bears considering that they may be right.

    Right, but this point(that I made) directly contradicts your assertion that the majority are working with the best information.
    That isn't even the case for people actually having abortions, because when those people do get more facts (Ie ultra sound) then they do not get abortions.. at a 90% rate.
    OK. And? Are you suggesting that I am insisting on abortions? Of course women should get more facts before making a decision? What kind of straw man argument is this?

    Are you saying that persons who are not cognitive about death can not be "murdered" but rightly killed by whoever controlls their "needs"?
    Iíd say it may not be ďrightĒ but itís justifiable given that we have technology to keep people alive indefinitely.

    First, hold your horses there. Brain =/= Mind necissarily. That may be what you think, but it isn't established or accepted.
    Of course the brain is the mind - where else would the mind exist? And it is wholly accepted because we can see the mind develop as a child ages.

    Your a bit arbitrary in your lines so I may have over stepped your position there.
    In which case. Why can't we kill unconcious humans with no brain waves? (IE like the condition of heart surgery patient) or if your relying on conciousness then sleeping humans.
    As to the "potential", that was me projecting the basis for you rejecting the killing of unconcious people based on the grounds you forward.
    We donít kill sleeping or unconscious people unless their brain is showing no normal activity. Why bring more red herrings into a complicated discussion?

    Well, there are some contraceptions that work as a kind of abortion drug.
    I don't think a fertalized egg is a "concieved" human.
    Of course itís conceived - itís a fertilized egg that would have implanted if it were not for outside intervention to prevent it. Iím glad you agree that plan B is a good thing but youíre now being inconsistent in saying itís not conceived - itís already splitting and forming. So what to you makes that early fertilized egg killable but not the few weeks old one?

    Follow up question.
    -Context-
    So people generally agree that when a baby is born it is a person, but as we wind the clock back, at some point we will reach an area of uncertainty.
    ,I'm not asking where that line is.
    Question...
    At that point, on which side should we error?
    On the side of refraining for threat of killing a person
    or on the side of a womans right to choose the actions she takes with her body?
    Obviously the womenís rights - sheís the only person that really exists and the best person to determine what kind of life that child would have and how her own life would change.

    A fetus is no more a person than the egg that youíre agreeing is killable.

  5. #225
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Considering we are talking about morality, which is largely a social exercise based on the determining facts and taking into account local studies and opinions and past history, itís a bit of a stretch to say that those are fallacious conclusions.

    Trotting out appealing to popularity is the last desperate accusation of a minority view so I guess thatĎs why your dragging it out. At the very least you have to agree that these are conclusions come to through a great deal of deliberation and if itís from different perspectives and backgrounds that it bears considering that they may be right.
    Not at all. My appeal to morality is an objective one not a subjective one. Yours is a fallacious appeal to popularity for several reasons but the first is because right and wrong is not based on a collective agreement. The majority of Germany did not make the killing of the Jews right and moral, and neither does the appeal to convenience make the killing of the unborn moral.

    I can not accept your position and then disparage the nazies, simply because it is inconsistent in that view, and thus obviously fallacious view.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    OK. And? Are you suggesting that I am insisting on abortions? Of course women should get more facts before making a decision? What kind of straw man argument is this?
    No, i'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that your appeal to popularity is further undercut when the majority of people who gather more information disagree.
    (here I'm using your standard).

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Iíd say it may not be ďrightĒ but itís justifiable given that we have technology to keep people alive indefinitely.
    Your making a distinction without a difference. If it is justifiable then it is right.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Of course the brain is the mind - where else would the mind exist? And it is wholly accepted because we can see the mind develop as a child ages.
    Of course is not an argument... so of course your mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    We donít kill sleeping or unconscious people unless their brain is showing no normal activity. Why bring more red herrings into a complicated discussion?
    your using the standard of "unconcous". So I'm just applying it.
    If your arguing brain dead, then that is different. But clearly there is a sliding scale from the time the brain starts to develop at 8 weeks, and on.
    and you haven't made any distinctions or explanations.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Of course itís conceived - itís a fertilized egg that would have implanted if it were not for outside intervention to prevent it. Iím glad you agree that plan B is a good thing but youíre now being inconsistent in saying itís not conceived - itís already splitting and forming. So what to you makes that early fertilized egg killable but not the few weeks old one?
    First, to clear up some definition confusion.

    [/quote=link]
    https://www.medicinenet.com/script/m...ticlekey=31242
    Conception: 1. The union of the sperm and the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization.
    2. The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium.
    3. A basic understanding of a situation or a principle.
    From the Latin conceptio, conceptions meaning conception, becoming pregnant; drawing up of legal formulae; and from the Latin concepts meaning conceiving, pregnancy; collecting, or a collection. [/quote]

    Your not mis-using the word conceive, but I'm referring to conception as the onset of pregnancy marked by implantation.
    Until then your not aborting a pregnancy or avoiding a pregnancy your stopping a pregnancy. That is not me being inconstant (even if that is what you would like to believe), it isn't even me mis-using the word.

    Second, your factually wrong that fertilized egg WILL get implanted. It may, or it may not.


    Finally, why the distinction? Because I don't have a problem with preventing pregnancy which occurs at conception (.. be mindful of my use of the word).
    Science has clearly defined when pregnancy begins. So I'm just going with that.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  6. #226
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,970
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not at all. My appeal to morality is an objective one not a subjective one.
    Not sure if youíve really done that - care to back it up?

    Yours is a fallacious appeal to popularity for several reasons but the first is because right and wrong is not based on a collective agreement. The majority of Germany did not make the killing of the Jews right and moral, and neither does the appeal to convenience make the killing of the unborn moral.
    No one is saying it is moral - Iíve already said itís the lessor of two evils.

    I can not accept your position and then disparage the nazies, simply because it is inconsistent in that view, and thus obviously fallacious view.
    Well, exaggerating everything to the Naziís does that to you. When you conflate a genocide with everything you disagree with then things get inconsistent: see how your friendís hypocrisy is so easily revealed: as is yours.

    No, i'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that your appeal to popularity is further undercut when the majority of people who gather more information disagree.
    (here I'm using your standard).
    Again, because everything is ĎNazií to you youíre taking the one thing which we both agree about and turning it into a weird disagreement that doesnít exist.

    Your making a distinction without a difference. If it is justifiable then it is right.
    If it is justifiable to do something then it is done.

    Of course is not an argument... so of course your mistaken.
    There is no other place that the mind exists within so I have no idea what youíre thinking the mistake is.

    your using the standard of "unconcous". So I'm just applying it.
    If your arguing brain dead, then that is different. But clearly there is a sliding scale from the time the brain starts to develop at 8 weeks, and on.
    and you haven't made any distinctions or explanations.
    Ah, so now you agree that there is no brain development before 8 weeks. So do you agree that abortions should be OK at that point?

    First, to clear up some definition confusion.

    Your not mis-using the word conceive, but I'm referring to conception as the onset of pregnancy marked by implantation.
    Until then your not aborting a pregnancy or avoiding a pregnancy your stopping a pregnancy. That is not me being inconstant (even if that is what you would like to believe), it isn't even me mis-using the word.

    Second, your factually wrong that fertilized egg WILL get implanted. It may, or it may not.


    Finally, why the distinction? Because I don't have a problem with preventing pregnancy which occurs at conception (.. be mindful of my use of the word).
    Science has clearly defined when pregnancy begins. So I'm just going with that.
    Interesting distinction - so youíre OK with preventing a potential pregnancy from happening and not at the moment that the egg actually starts itís genesis.

    I guess thatís all I need to know about where you stand regarding a Ďhumaní. Itís kinda weird but Iím OK with it if youíre OK with Plan B. Hopefully that will reduce the number of pregnancies due to rape and incest and maybe even a change of mind or as a precaution.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  7. #227
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Not sure if youíve really done that - care to back it up?
    I think that is more of a clarification of the context of my argument. When I say that it is immoral to kill humans.
    I don't mean that we all have generally agreed that we don't like killing humans and prefer it not to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    No one is saying it is moral - Iíve already said itís the lessor of two evils.
    Well we both agree that killing the unborn is immoral, but you haven't really explained or supported the other evil that you say is greater, or why, or why we should accept it.
    I think you answered a few questions i directly asked about it (which I appreciate), but I would really like to hear the rest of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Well, exaggerating everything to the Naziís does that to you. When you conflate a genocide with everything you disagree with then things get inconsistent: see how your friendís hypocrisy is so easily revealed: as is yours.
    Well lets be clear. Killing 50million unborn is far worse than what the Nazie's were able to do, and that is totally consistent from my view.
    And your incorrect if you think that your reasoning about subjective morality doesn't apply to the Nazi's as well.

    So there is no conflating going on.


    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Again, because everything is ĎNazií to you youíre taking the one thing which we both agree about and turning it into a weird disagreement that doesnít exist.
    Only because you are being inconsistent in your application in your idea of morality, special pleading your way out of justifying what the nazi's did (which we both agree was wrong).

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    If it is justifiable to do something then it is done.
    .... I don't think I understand what your saying. Something being justifiable doesn't mean it is done already.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    There is no other place that the mind exists within so I have no idea what youíre thinking the mistake is.
    Well of course the mind exists with the soul and our bodies are only vessles.
    So... there you go. all explained for you (I'm using your format here so I assume it will be acceptable).

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Ah, so now you agree that there is no brain development before 8 weeks. So do you agree that abortions should be OK at that point?
    What do you mean now? I was the one that pointed out that 8ish weeks is when the brain first starts to form.
    If we use the standard of a healthy active brain, then we must agree on 8ish weeks. Which I'm guessing would account for making the vast majority of all abortions illegal.
    From my position.. I am more than happy to compromise and save those millions of children from death.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Interesting distinction - so youíre OK with preventing a potential pregnancy from happening and not at the moment that the egg actually starts itís genesis.
    Well, it is a medical distinction.
    I do think there is an argument to be made for birth control in general to be immoral. I don't really hold that view. So this is the biological difference of closing a door, vs killing a child.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I guess thatís all I need to know about where you stand regarding a Ďhumaní. Itís kinda weird but Iím OK with it if youíre OK with Plan B. Hopefully that will reduce the number of pregnancies due to rape and incest and maybe even a change of mind or as a precaution.
    Anything I can do to help.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

 

 
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12

Similar Threads

  1. Terms in the abortion debate
    By mican333 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: February 7th, 2018, 08:56 AM
  2. Is Equal Opportunity Possible?
    By UNC Reason in forum Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 6th, 2012, 08:14 AM
  3. Missed terrorist opportunity?
    By FruitandNut in forum Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 13th, 2007, 03:52 PM
  4. Abortion: split from a 1 vs 1 debate
    By CC in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 04:37 PM
  5. Debate Mastery: Abortion
    By TheOriginal in forum General Debate
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 20th, 2004, 06:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •