Juvenile Execution

[kmack]

This guy didn't believe in abstinence, and look what happen to him. Abstinence is more than just pregnancy dterence.

Guess what condoms help prevent.

 

[Bodacious]

Guess what condoms help prevent.

I thought you said you weren't going to keep this thread off topic?

Condoms are a false sense of security when it comes to aids.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

If someone encourages the use of condoms and says you can have all the sex you want without risk because of it, some people think that will lead to even more risks because people think they are A-ok, when they really aren't. Condoms aren't fool proof.

I am not saying I believe that, heck I really don't care if other people want to spread disease and murder their unwanted kids all because it makes them feel good. But their are people who do think people should have some self control and put others before themselves.

 

[CptStern]

17% of all abortions are married women ..I'm sure they didnt do it because it made them "feel good" ...you're so close to crossing over the line into hate-propaganda when you use words like "murder" and "feel good"

 

[Bodacious]

17% of all abortions are married women ..I'm sure they didnt do it because it made them "feel good" ...you're so close to crossing over the line into hate-propaganda when you use words like "murder" and "feel good"

So why do you suppose that 17% has an abortion?

 

[CptStern]

I havent asked all 345,000 women who've had them in the last year ..but I suspect it's for a multitude of reasons, you cant pinpoint it down to just one reason ...just for a second take your emotion out of it and just look at it rationally. Women have a right to decide what to do with their bodes



oh btw ...my wife's good friend had an abortion last night....well quasi abortion ...she was pregnant (found out on monday) but by thursday she was told the fertilized egg wouldnt have a chance of survival because it was lodged in her fallopian tube ..so they aborted it. Is she a slut? is she irresponsible? is she an evil person for terminating something that had 0 chance of survival?

 

[jondy]

Yes, but abstinence is better.

If you put the 'heads you lose, tails I win' argument of the 100% success rate abstinence has aside and start looking at the problem logically, flaws start to emerge.

If teenagers are taught to avoid sex rather than deal with it, you can be sure not every person taught will abstain, and when they succumb to temptation they are woefully equipped to deal with the contraception they should be using, because they haven't been taught about it.

People who don't expect to have sex aren't best prepared to deal with it responsibly.

 

[Bodacious]

Good sidestepping there.

I havent asked all 345,000 women who've had them in the last year ..but I suspect it's for a multitude of reasons, you cant pinpoint it down to just one reason ...just for a second take your emotion out of it and just look at it rationally. Women have a right to decide what to do with their bodes

The difference is, once you are pregnant, it isn't just their body, they share it with the unborn child.

oh btw ...my wife's good friend had an abortion last night....well quasi abortion ...she was pregnant (found out on monday) but by thursday she was told the fertilized egg wouldnt have a chance of survival because it was lodged in her fallopian tube ..so they aborted it. Is she a slut? is she irresponsible? is she an evil person for terminating something that had 0 chance of survival?

No, that is one of the excetions, if the pregnancy causes the mother physical harm than an abortion is ok.

 

[Absinthe]

No, that is one of the excetions, if the pregnancy causes the mother physical harm than an abortion is ok.

Whoah! What's with the double standard here? Killing a baby is still killing a baby. Why is it suddenly acceptable to have an abortion? Why would it even be acceptable in a rape case? After all, you consider it to be a life. It's not just their body any more. It's the child's body as well.

This is what annoys me about the common "pro-life" argument. It cares more about the cause of inception rather than the resulting organism.

 

[CptStern]

Good sidestepping there.



The difference is, once you are pregnant, it isn't just their body, they share it with the unborn child.

using that logic, I can come up with a serious case why we should'nt get rid of tape worms or other parasites that live off the body ..but I wont delve into when a fetus becomes a human, cuz the debate is still up in the air

No, that is one of the excetions, if the pregnancy causes the mother physical harm than an abortion is ok.

the mother was not in any danger, the fetus posed no danger to the mother

 

[Bodacious]

Whoah! What's with the double standard here? Killing a baby is still killing a baby. Why is it suddenly acceptable to have an abortion? Why would it even be acceptable in a rape case? After all, you consider it to be a life. It's not just their body any more. It's the child's body as well.

This is what annoys me about the common "pro-life" argument. It cares more about the cause of inception rather than the resulting organism.

No double standard at all. Someone is going to die, who do you chose? Would you rather lose your wife or unborn child? It is choice, no double standard.

 

[Bodacious]

using that logic, I can come up with a serious case why we should'nt get rid of tape worms or other parasites that live off the body ..but I wont delve into when a fetus becomes a human, cuz the debate is still up in the air

Ok, but there is a difference between tape worms and human beings.

the mother was not in any danger, the fetus posed no danger to the mother

From what you have said the baby would have never made it out of the womb anyways so the "abortion" was more like a cleaning procedure than anything.

 

[Absinthe]

No double standard at all. Someone is going to die, who do you chose? Would you rather lose your wife or unborn child? It is choice, no double standard.

Yes, it is a choice. It is a choice over whom you murder.

You are ending the life of a child, no matter how much you dress up the situation.

 

[Calanen]

The difference is, once you are pregnant, it isn't just their body, they share it with the unborn child.


using that logic, I can come up with a serious case why we should'nt get rid of tape worms or other parasites that live off the body ..but I wont delve into when a fetus becomes a human, cuz the debate is still up in the air

A tapeworm is not a human being. And thats the real issue. What do you do with human beings? When does a fetus become human? Dont know the answer to that. But I know that many abortions occur during a time when the babiy's skull is crushed with something like a nailgun, and the insides removed with a suction device. I cannot imagine the horror of the fetus being subject to that. And this aint 'just some small cells, not a human' which is what a lot of pro-abortionists like to say. It normally happens a lot later than the few cells stage.....

 

[el Chi]

I've met far fewer women who're pro-life than men. Just an observation for you.

Berkley's arguments in favour of abortion:

You wake up one day to find yourself attached via medical tubes, etc. to a world famous violinist. The violinist is in a critical state and needs to share your body, essentially - you have the same blood type or something. Of course, this is an extreme inconvenience to you and it's happened against your will, however if you disconnect him, then he will die. Is it ok for you to disconnect yourself, or does that make you a murderer?


A homeless person breaks into your house, because it's a freezing winter and he'd probably die in the cold. He intends to pose no threat to you or your family, but intends to eat your food, use your beds, your warmth, etc. Does he have the right to do this? Do you have the right to forcibly remove him from your house when you know he'll probably die in the cold? Or are you obliged to keep him there?


Let us suppose that humans actually grow from spores that float in the air. They grow when they take root in carpets, etc. You do not want a child, so to stop this from happening, you get good seals put on your windows and doors so that they won't get in. However, say the seals are faulty somewhat and one does get through, by no fault of your own. Now you have a baby starting to grow that you did not want and took responsible precautions to prevent. You're obliged to put up with that?
You open the door to go to work one day and one gets through - should you put up with that? Of course if that were the case, then the obvious analogical solution would be to never leave the house (ie: abstainence). Doesn't sound like too much fun to me.


Incidentally, Berkley is a woman.

 

[Bodacious]

I've met far fewer women who're pro-life than men. Just an observation for you.

Berkley's arguments in favour of abortion:

You wake up one day to find yourself attached via medical tubes, etc. to a world famous violinist. The violinist is in a critical state and needs to share your body, essentially - you have the same blood type or something. Of course, this is an extreme inconvenience to you and it's happened against your will, however if you disconnect him, then he will die. Is it ok for you to disconnect yourself, or does that make you a murderer?

BS. A woman doesn't wake up one day an *poof* she is pregnant.

A homeless person breaks into your house, because it's a freezing winter and he'd probably die in the cold. He intends to pose no threat to you or your family, but intends to eat your food, use your beds, your warmth, etc. Does he have the right to do this? Do you have the right to forcibly remove him from your house when you know he'll probably die in the cold? Or are you obliged to keep him there?

BS. A baby doesn't jump into some woman's womb and says, "give birth to me."

Let us suppose that humans actually grow from spores that float in the air. They grow when they take root in carpets, etc. You do not want a child, so to stop this from happening, you get good seals put on your windows and doors so that they won't get in. However, say the seals are faulty somewhat and one does get through, by no fault of your own. Now you have a baby starting to grow that you did not want and took responsible precautions to prevent. You're obliged to put up with that?
You open the door to go to work one day and one gets through - should you put up with that? Of course if that were the case, then the obvious analogical solution would be to never leave the house (ie: abstainence). Doesn't sound like too much fun to me.


Incidentally, Berkley is a woman.

So instead of the condom breaking, the seals broke. Ok...
This analogy is flawed because not leaving the house isn't the equivilent of absitnence. A woman can't walk about and *poof* she is pregnant. A better analogy for abstinence would be, "choose to live someplace where the spores don't exist."

 

[el Chi]

BS. A woman doesn't wake up one day an *poof* she is pregnant.

Well, yeah it sort of is. You have sex, one cell meets another and then *poof* she's pregnant.

BS. A baby doesn't jump into some woman's womb and says, "give birth to me."

The point is, it's an unwanted visitor. You leave your window unlocked, the homeless guy gets in; you have unprotected sex, or precautions fail, and you're left with this imposition.

This analogy is flawed because not leaving the house isn't the equivilent of absitnence. A woman can't walk about and *poof* she is pregnant. A better analogy for abstinence would be, "choose to live someplace where the spores don't exist."

Ok, fine, you clarified that part of the analogy. However the abstinence part of that analogy isn't as important as the other part. The rest of the spores example still stands, I'm afraid.

I really must stress that I'm not entirely in support of Berkley, but I think her arguments are rather compelling, if somewhat bizarre.

 

[Calanen]

I really must stress that I'm not entirely in support of Berkley, but I think her arguments are rather compelling, if somewhat bizarre.

I just think they are stupid. At some point all anologies break down, but in her case she was out the back pushing her anology combie van right from the start - ie she never got it started. 'Oh No man, reallly heavy!!'

I think you guys have mostly dealt with why. No need for me to go into it further.

 

[el Chi]

I just think they are stupid. At some point all anologies break down, but in her case she was out the back pushing her anology combie van right from the start - ie she never got it started. 'Oh No man, reallly heavy!!'

I think you guys have mostly dealt with why. No need for me to go into it further.

I think you're letting the unconventional nature of them get in the way of their validity. However, it's not as if I'm going to convince you other wise so...