[TrashMan]

I'm an excellent example of what happens when people who don't want kids get pregnant and decide to keep it because abortion is wrong.

What are you saying? That you are a mistake and should be removed from the human populations? That having kids is a bad idea? That you ended up as a bad human being?
Or just that your parents weren't good parents?

[Knight Templar]

Let's also not forget that ****ing, while good, bad and ugly, exists for the reason of, SURPRISE, making children. The fact that it happens to feel oh so good is perhaps nature's incentive for you to pump out more of the little tykes.

 And bonus, prego sex!

[karajorma]

Actually no. Sex being purely for reproduction ended as soon as women stopped having clear indications of estrus.

From what I understand, the pro-lifers seem to believe that even if you've taken every sensible precaution to prevent pregnancy and still have sex but they fail and you end up pregnant you have to keep the baby because it's still your fault for having sex.

No. You have to keep her because it's the only right thing to do. It's a matter of life and death of a human being.

Except that I question your assertion that it is a human being at that point. I've already pointed out the hypocrisy of Roman Catholics when it comes to the whole life begins at conception argument.

And notice you avoided saying anything about the rest of my post.

[TrashMan]

Except that I question your assertion that it is a human being at that point. I've already pointed out the hypocrisy of Roman Catholics when it comes to the whole life begins at conception argument.

And notice you avoided saying anything about the rest of my post.

Everything can be questioned. Question away.
I for one don't have to consider you worthy of living either. That doesn't make it right for me to kill you, now does it?


I didn't comment on your comparison because it doesn't fit, and the whole "who's to blame" approach is wrong from the beginning.

[karajorma]

But as you continually claim, it's not about blame. It's about responsibility. You are responsible for the guy's death after all.

Okay then, question. Where you stand on the issue Catholics using the rhythm method then?

[Knight Templar]

Who cares about Catholics?

[Turambar]

Trashman should, because according to him they are god-damned babykillers, since zygotes are babies and all...

[NGTM-1R]

Who cares about Catholics?

The Varsity. Protestant is still only JV, after all.

[Ford Prefect]

I quite simply don't buy that.
Since it's not a matter of motivation in the first place, but rather circumstances. And, since we're talking about a human life here, which the mother DOES NOT own, and therefore, has no right to extinguish, especially since it's the product of her willing actions.

The need of the child to live overrules the womans "right" to be free of physical discomfort for 9 months.

But you're not even disagreeing with my point here. You don't believe a woman has the right to an abortion; you believe, I gather, that she has the right not to die if the pregnancy is causing medical complications. You say it's a matter of circumstances and not motivation, but her motivations necessarily follow from her circumstances. If you argue that a woman asking for an abortion must be under a certain set of circumstances, the law you're effectively proposing is a law that will restrict her access to the procedure on the basis of why she would presumably want it. Again, let me be clear: I am not trying to argue with anyone about whether abortion should or should not be considered a right. I'm simply maintaining that if you claim abortion is protected by a woman's right to privacy, then you can't advocate that the procedure be granted on the basis who you believe deserves it. Since you obviously don't subscribe to this premise to begin with, you and I don't even have a quarrel.

[iamzack]

Trashman, sorry, no, a human being does NOT have the right to hijack my body, even if it needs to do so to survive. I don't care any more about a human child than I do about the fish I caused to die for food last night. Life is life, and if I don't want that life inside my body, then it's not staying there.

I don't care if I'm responsible for it existing in the first place. If it can't survive outside of me, then that's its problem, NOT mine.

[TrashMan]

But as you continually claim, it's not about blame. It's about responsibility. You are responsible for the guy's death after all.

Am I? Like I said, your analogy doesn't work.

Okay then, question. Where you stand on the issue Catholics using the rhythm method then?

Never heard any priest I know even mention that method. Ever.
It's outdated and was used in the time when people didn't know better or had no better way.

They did say abstinence. If not abstinance, condoms or some other form of contraception.

[TrashMan]

Trashman, sorry, no, a human being does NOT have the right to hijack my body, even if it needs to do so to survive. I don't care any more about a human child than I do about the fish I caused to die for food last night. Life is life, and if I don't want that life inside my body, then it's not staying there.

I don't care if I'm responsible for it existing in the first place. If it can't survive outside of me, then that's its problem, NOT mine.

I weep for humanity in the light of such disregard for life.

[Scotty]

See, the problem here is that it isn't hijacking.  You opened the door, and let it walk right on it.

I don't care any more about a human child than I do about the fish I caused to die for food last night.

Holy S***, you are seriously f***ed up.

I still think that by becoming pregnant, the woman accepts responsibility for the child.  Certain instances not withstanding, of course.  Such instances consist of rape and the father walking out, provided that the woman or her family cannot care for the child.  "But I don't want it" and "it's uncomfortable" are not good reasons.  You wouldn't kill a toddler just because "you don't want it anymore," nor could you go next door and kill Annoying Jimmy who plays his stereo too loud, and causes you discomfort.  Both of those would be considered murder.

As for the life argument:  If you can kill it, it is alive.  Abortions kill fetuses, therefore, fetuses are alive.

EDIT: the wording makes it seem a little odd, I consider ALL rape to be grounds, the bolded part does not pertain to that.

[iamzack]

So... if you didn't voluntarily become pregnant, it's okay to kill the thing? I'm not buying it.

Look, I'm not a life support machine here. I don't care if I let it walk in. Just because I don't clean a wound properly doesn't mean I can't kill the bacteria if it gets infected. My point is this: I will NOT allow ANYTHING inside my body if I don't want it there. It is not my problem if the damn thing can't survive on its own. I am not obligated to save its little life.

[Ghostavo]

As for the life argument:  If you can kill it, it is alive.  Abortions kill fetuses, therefore, fetuses are alive.

This argument crops up many times during these kinds of debate and I'm always annoyed at it.

When people say that the embryo/fetuses/whatever is or isn't alive (whichever it is, I'm not here to argue), they mean in the context of a human life. Otherwise, the argument wouldn't make sense any way you took it.

First there is the part that, yes it is alive, as in a biological organism.
Second, there are other things that are alive that we are allowed to kill without any sort of social stigma.

[Scotty]

It is not my problem if the damn thing can't survive on its own.

Then don't give it the damn life in the first place!

So... if you didn't voluntarily become pregnant, it's okay to kill the thing? I'm not buying it.

As opposed to what?

I don't care if I let it walk in.

"Hey neighbor Bob, come on in.  Oh, whoops times up. *Boom*"

[colecampbell666]

As for the life argument:  If you can kill it, it is alive.  Abortions kill fetuses, therefore, fetuses are alive.

That's weasel wording right there, you're saying that abortion kills fetuses therefore making them alive. That makes no sense. Let me clarify. "Accidents kill cars, therefore cars are alive.". That assertion has no leg to stand on, you can slap a word onto anything, that doesn't associate that word with the object in a logical sense, it just means that they've been used in conjunction.

A fetus does not begin to think and have cognitive thought until well into the pregnancy, at the very least. This is recorded fact, while all you stated was a messed up comment that doesn't make any sense.

I can't find the right words to explain what I mean, but I think you get my point.

[iamzack]

There's just no really good analogy for this. The closest I can think of to being forced to house a fetus against your will would be rape.

I don't want to just say I'll disregard everything you all say because you're guys, but it's difficult not to. None of you will ever or have ever been faced with anything like it, and in that context "but it's a human life" is an understandable argument.

However, I just don't think that's really relevant. Is this thing's life more important than my right not to be forced to house it? No. Like I said, I wouldn't mind not killing it if that were possible. I just don't want it living IN me. That freaks me out to the highest order.

[Scotty]

"Accidents kill cars, therefore cars are alive.".

Accidents destroy cars.  Semantics maybe, but I take "kill" to mean it has to have been alive to be killed.

while all you stated was a messed up comment that doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps.  It makes sense to me, but I see how that may not make the leap to other people.

[Turambar]

their argument is based on emotional responses and religious texts.

i don't think that they will see things our way, or that we will see things their way.