What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

what are your thoughts on abortion? (1 Viewer)

Pro-death guy here.  Unwanted children are a huge burden on society.  Wish the pro-life crowd would put their efforts into improving the lives of the children already born.

 
Ministry of Pain said:
I hate to burst thy bubble but just because you print something on an internet forum doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
Your post was awful, as noted by... everybody.  You doubled down on it in an even weaker fashion.

What isn't true is your assertion that "usually" these women end up in hospitals.  Careless, ignorant posting - which instead of not posting at all, you actually tried to back up with more careless and ignorant anecdotes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
George Carlin said it best, in the case of rape or incest exceptions, "so you are against abortion unless the kid's father is an #######".

"If a fetus is a human being, why are they not counted in a census"?

"Why does a pregnant woman with say 2 children say I have two kids and Im expecting another?  Why doesn't she say I have three kids?"

 
OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma Legislature has passed a bill that would make performing an abortion a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.

The Center for Reproductive Rights says the measure is the first of its kind in the nation. The bill also would restrict any physician who performs an abortion from obtaining or renewing a license to practice medicine in Oklahoma.

With no discussion or debate, the Senate voted 33-12 Thursday for the bill by Republican Sen. Nathan Dahm.

A handful of Republicans joined with Democrats in voting against the bill, which now heads to Gov. Mary Fallin. A spokesman says Fallin will withhold comment until her staff has time to review it.

Dahm says he's hopeful the measure could lead to overturning Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide. Abortion rights groups have said the bill is unconstitutional.

--

:sigh:

If I were an Oklahoma resident, I'd be pissed at the Republicans for wasting taxpayer dollars voting for this bill and (assuming its not vetoed) defending a useless battle in court.

Its one of the reasons I CAN'T STAND Texas's Republican leadership. Constantly wasting taxpayer money to seduce dumb people into voting for them.

 
whoknew said:
OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma Legislature has passed a bill that would make performing an abortion a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.

The Center for Reproductive Rights says the measure is the first of its kind in the nation. The bill also would restrict any physician who performs an abortion from obtaining or renewing a license to practice medicine in Oklahoma.

With no discussion or debate, the Senate voted 33-12 Thursday for the bill by Republican Sen. Nathan Dahm.

A handful of Republicans joined with Democrats in voting against the bill, which now heads to Gov. Mary Fallin. A spokesman says Fallin will withhold comment until her staff has time to review it.

Dahm says he's hopeful the measure could lead to overturning Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide. Abortion rights groups have said the bill is unconstitutional.

--

:sigh:

If I were an Oklahoma resident, I'd be pissed at the Republicans for wasting taxpayer dollars voting for this bill and (assuming its not vetoed) defending a useless battle in court.

Its one of the reasons I CAN'T STAND Texas's Republican leadership. Constantly wasting taxpayer money to seduce dumb people into voting for them.
Click to expand...
I dont understand how they could even do this since abortion is legal.

 
I'm against abortion and I think it's murder.  So because of that, I can promise you that me and my wife won't ever have an abortion.

But it's ludicrous to think that I can control what billions of other humans do.  

If you feel strongly about it, make sure your house is in order and that you aren't hypocritical in some way (ie, against abortion but totally cool with going in and killing muslims) and stop worrying about what everyone else does.  

 
Bucky86 said:
Separation of church and state mother ####ers!
Click to expand...
Why can't it be a matter of ethics vs a decision based on religion? Of course the church is Pro Life but the fact they sit on that side of the line doesn't IMO make it a matter of religion. I think there are plenty of people who believe that abortion is the taking of life and come to that conclusion by means other than being told by their church that's the case.

 
shader said:
I'm against abortion and I think it's murder.  So because of that, I can promise you that me and my wife won't ever have an abortion.

But it's ludicrous to think that I can control what billions of other humans do.  

If you feel strongly about it, make sure your house is in order and that you aren't hypocritical in some way (ie, against abortion but totally cool with going in and killing muslims) and stop worrying about what everyone else does.  
Click to expand...
:goodposting:   summed up my thoughts exactly.

 
Buzzbait said:
Why can't it be a matter of ethics vs a decision based on religion? Of course the church is Pro Life but the fact they sit on that side of the line doesn't IMO make it a matter of religion. I think there are plenty of people who believe that abortion is the taking of life and come to that conclusion by means other than being told by their church that's the case.
Click to expand...
We've had threads on this before.  I think it's pretty difficult to justify the "protect it at conception" position unless you believe in a soul or some sort of supernatural force.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
We've had threads on this before.  I think it's pretty difficult to justify the "protect it at conception" position unless you believe in a soul or some sort of supernatural force.
Click to expand...
Then we agree to disagree. I don't think it's hard at all to justify. I can respect life without believing in a higher being.

 
Buzzbait said:
Then we agree to disagree. I don't think it's hard at all to justify. I can respect life without believing in a higher being.
Click to expand...
"Respect life" is a very vague expression.  Why do you believe a sperm and egg right before fertilization are disposable, but right after fertilization are so valuable that they shouldn't be destroyed under any circumstance?  That's the question that I think is very difficult to answer without religion.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
"Respect life" is a very vague expression.  Why do you believe a sperm and egg right before fertilization are disposable, but right after fertilization are so valuable that they shouldn't be destroyed under any circumstance?  That's the question that I think is very difficult to answer without religion.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why do I need religion to discuss a science question?

Regardless, this is a different position/question than you previously posed. You previously linked the position to one related to a belief in a soul. What you're talking about now is "When does life begin?"

Personally I don't find it difficiult to wrap my head around why an egg/sperm isn't life but after conception it's living. Regardless of if you think that life begins at conception, 1 week, 1 month it's still not a matter of church/state IMO. It's more a science question regarding "When does life being?"

Even though I'm Pro Life I think the Pro Choice crowd does an excellent job of falsely making this a church/state issue. You throw down the church/state trump card the knee jerk reaction from most people is to not want to have a viable discussion. Their answer is simply "Separation of Church and State is against the Constitution." Strip that away and get people to agree that that's a facade and now it's different issue to discuss.

P.S. No idea why the quote got all hosed up. I gave up trying to edit.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Because what we're discussing is not a science question. There isn't much scientific disagreement about any of this stuff.  The disagreements are about value judgments.
Click to expand...
You asked this question: " Why do you believe a sperm and egg right before fertilization are disposable, but right after fertilization are so valuable that they shouldn't be destroyed under any circumstance?"

1) That isn't a question that involves religion.

2) I believe that life begins at conception. Since you're asking that question, you apparently disagree. So, I don't agree that "there isn't much scientific disagreement on this stuff." Seems to me there's a great deal of disagreement.

I do agree with you that the disagreement is about value judgments but the crux if this disagreement is (or should be) about when life begins. The value of life I think is pretty uniformly accepted (i.e. it's precious). With that in mind then the questions that needs to be answered is "When does life begin?"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Buzzbait said:
 With that in mind then the questions that needs to be answered is "When does life begin?"
Click to expand...
Sorry to repeat myself but to the extent there is a debate about  "When does life begin?", that isn't a scientific debate.  There's no experiment or research needed to answer your question.  Everyone agrees on the various steps that a sperm/egg go through on the journey to become a child.  Scientists even have a pretty good idea about stuff like when a fetus feels pain or when it gains consciousness.  

 
Buzzbait said:
You asked this question: " Why do you believe a sperm and egg right before fertilization are disposable, but right after fertilization are so valuable that they shouldn't be destroyed under any circumstance?"

1) That isn't a question that involves religion.

2) I believe that life begins at conception. Since you're asking that question, you apparently disagree. So, I don't agree that "there isn't much scientific disagreement on this stuff." Seems to me there's a great deal of disagreement.

I do agree with you that the disagreement is about value judgments but the crux if this disagreement is (or should be) about when life begins. The value of life I think is pretty uniformly accepted (i.e. it's precious). With that in mind then the questions that needs to be answered is "When does life begin?"
Click to expand...
Believing that human life begins at conception, what are your feelings towards fertility clinics and the disposal of unused embryos?  Or those who donate the unused embryos to research?  Is that comparable to abortion in your view?

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Sorry to repeat myself but to the extent there is a debate about  "When does life begin?", that isn't a scientific debate.  There's no experiment or research needed to answer your question.  Everyone agrees on the various steps that a sperm/egg go through on the journey to become a child.  Scientists even have a pretty good idea about stuff like when a fetus feels pain or when it gains consciousness.  
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Perhaps "scientific" isn't the best terminology. In any case, I don't think the discussion needs to be tied to religious beliefs (i.e. church vs state). I think that's an Ace card that the Pro Choice crowd has placed in the deck to strengthen their POV (and their smart for doing so but I don't agree it's legit).

 
cstu said:
What's a little cash for a wealthy state like Oklahoma?
Click to expand...
Wow - I didn't realize how much financial trouble OK is in. Apparently some of the schools have had to go to 4 day weeks to cut costs? 

Jesus - what a bunch of ####### morons in the legislature.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
"Respect life" is a very vague expression.  Why do you believe a sperm and egg right before fertilization are disposable, but right after fertilization are so valuable that they shouldn't be destroyed under any circumstance?  That's the question that I think is very difficult to answer without religion.
Click to expand...




Because one has dna and one doesn't.  A Sperm is nothing without an egg. It will never go on to do anything great.  Likewise an egg has no ability to do anything without a sperm.

But once combined, there is dna, the process of life begins at that moment and inexorably continues until death of the homo sapien, whether that be 45 minutes later or 95 years later.

 
shader said:
Because one has dna and one doesn't.  A Sperm is nothing without an egg. It will never go on to do anything great.  Likewise an egg has no ability to do anything without a sperm.

But once combined, there is dna, the process of life begins at that moment and inexorably continues until death of the homo sapien, whether that be 45 minutes later or 95 years later.
Click to expand...
You just failed 8th grade biology.

You should stop.

 
shader said:
Because one has dna and one doesn't.  A Sperm is nothing without an egg. It will never go on to do anything great.  Likewise an egg has no ability to do anything without a sperm.

But once combined, there is dna, the process of life begins at that moment and inexorably continues until death of the homo sapien, whether that be 45 minutes later or 95 years later.
Click to expand...
Whiff.

 
matuski said:
You just failed 8th grade biology.

You should stop.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what part of that you disagreed with.  Obviously the DNA of a man and a woman combine to create the DNA of the child in the newly created fertilized egg.  But then if you were trying to understand the point instead of just being pretentious, as you usually are, you would have known what I was talking about.

 
To make a baby you need a sperm and an egg and a uterus.  An embryo in a Petri dish has DNA but can never become a baby unless it gets implanted in a uterus.  How is that different from an egg that's in a uterus waiting for a sperm?

 
shader said:
Apparently you need a little help to connect things logically.

Your mommy's egg had no cliff Clavin DNA.  Your daddy's sperm had no cliff Clavin DNA.  

Cliff Clavins DNA didnt exist until shortly after the egg is fertilized.
Click to expand...
Not what you posted.

 
matuski said:
Googling it, then trying to explain that what you said isn't what you said isn't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel the need to be such a jerk on these boards?  Honest question?  I simply can't wrap my head around it.

You know good and well that I knew that a mother and a father both contribute DNA.  I left that out because it was irrelevant.  We're talking about the new life, not the old parent's DNA.  Every one of us learned that in junior high, some of us much earlier.  

If your only interaction with me is to jump on one of my posts when you feel I've made an error, then go ahead and block me and I'll do likewise.  I don't come to these boards to get jumped on by people with exaggerated opinions of their own intelligence, and I don't appreciate it either.  Be civil or just avoid my posts altogether.  You obviously aren't looking to have civil discourse, so I'll move on.

 
shader said:
Why do you feel the need to be such a jerk on these boards?  Honest question?  I simply can't wrap my head around it.

You know good and well that I knew that a mother and a father both contribute DNA.  I left that out because it was irrelevant.  We're talking about the new life, not the old parent's DNA.  Every one of us learned that in junior high, some of us much earlier.  

If your only interaction with me is to jump on one of my posts when you feel I've made an error, then go ahead and block me and I'll do likewise.  I don't come to these boards to get jumped on by people with exaggerated opinions of their own intelligence, and I don't appreciate it either.  Be civil or just avoid my posts altogether.  You obviously aren't looking to have civil discourse, so I'll move on.
Click to expand...
You made a factually wrong post.

That does not make anyone else a jerk.

 
matuski said:
You made a factually wrong post.

That does not make anyone else a jerk.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a factually wrong post the way I intended it.  I may not have clarified it to the fullest extent possible because I was on an iphone with a cracked screen that I'm about to throw through the wall, but the post wasn't inaccurate, if you understand the context of what was being discussed.  There's no dna of the new life before conception, there is after conception. The DNA of the mother/father wasn't relevant in my mind so I didn't mention that. It's that simple.

I apologize for not clarifying it.  The "jerk" comment came from your insinuation that I needed to google the fact that a sperm/egg have dna.  

Have a good one.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
shader said:
Because one has dna and one doesn't.  A Sperm is nothing without an egg. It will never go on to do anything great.  Likewise an egg has no ability to do anything without a sperm.

But once combined, there is dna, the process of life begins at that moment and inexorably continues until death of the homo sapien, whether that be 45 minutes later or 95 years later.
Click to expand...
It is theoretically possible to create human life with just an egg.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Love when the obvious religious-types try to step away from their religion in order to promote their religiously indoctrinated beliefs.  :D
Click to expand...
If the Pro-Life crowd has this discussion and involve religion they're labeled as bible beaters and told to stick to facts. Keep religion out of the discussion and try to have a civil debate and this is the response.

Lose-Lose

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Fluoride in City/Public Water. Thoughts?
2
Replies
90
Views
2K
the moops
the moops
Joe Bryant
  • Poll Poll
How Often Do You Wear Cologne?
2 3
Replies
128
Views
2K
Slumpbusters
S
D
Looking for feedback for a new hybrid guillotine league
Replies
0
Views
53
Dan 680
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top