This is for you Sithsabre
This is for you Sithsabre
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I was explaining why a Christian conservative, having sex in marriage, would use a condom during sex, which while not equal to abortion (sperm has to ferilize an egg to form a human), is still technically against God's will.Thus, we (speaking for the Christian conservative married POV) have caved to society's standards of living, and use condoms to prevent having multiple children before we are ready.
Your statement saying the same thing, except that societal pressures for the standard of living could necessetate an [B]abortion
is completly different, and way off base.Whob and Soleran were right.
Abortion is the ending of a formed human life, contraception is not.
And besides, in the original post, I stated that if the contraception fails, the Christian conservative couple would either keep the baby or put it up for adoption, not kill it.
You are complaining becuase you thought your statement and mine are equal, and they are not. [/B]
It's not a formed human life you cretin, it's a bunch of cells. This has been factually proven. It's not a person or a human.
Note the fact that the only people left in this debate for 100% pro-life are you, Doc and The Black Ghost. Three deluded, obnoxiously stupid human beings who always fall back on either ridiculous rhetoric that has been countered endless times, or religion. Whilst at the same time are either getting their theories and logic trashed by me or by someone else.
If that doesn't tell you what it should tell you, I recommend learning.
-AC
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
"Give it up for adoption" is a nice thought, but do you realize what it takes to adopt a child? Alot of money for one. There are a great many children who never even get adopted and stay in orphanages without ever having a parent.
And honestly that has about as much affect on you as an abortion.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
A woman can f*ck whoever she wants, when she wants, and if she gets pregnant.... oh well. She can end the life of the baby at will, at her leisure, as it is her choice to do so.Nevermind that its a cost-free cop out of the responsibility that she should have to carry for having sex, we'll just let her do it.
And do it again next year, if needs be, and the following year, etc......
Orale!
You had fun making the baby, now have fun raising it!
Originally posted by soleran30
yea know I have no clue but that doesn't look like elton john!
I promise, it is.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
This is for you Sithsabre
😐
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not a formed human life you cretin, it's a bunch of cells. This has been factually proven. It's not a person or a human.Note the fact that the only people left in this debate for 100% pro-life are you, Doc and The Black Ghost. Three deluded, obnoxiously stupid human beings who always fall back on either ridiculous rhetoric that has been countered endless times, or religion. Whilst at the same time are either getting their theories and logic trashed by me or by someone else.
If that doesn't tell you what it should tell you, I recommend learning.
-AC
❌
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Orale!You had fun making the baby, now have fun raising it!
Para siempre, loco.
No estas deficil.
Chingaso en el panocha egual un mijo (o mija).
Orale!
😎
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not a formed human life you cretin, it's a bunch of cells. This has been factually proven. It's not a person or a human.Note the fact that the only people left in this debate for 100% pro-life are you, Doc and The Black Ghost. Three deluded, obnoxiously stupid human beings who always fall back on either ridiculous rhetoric that has been countered endless times, or religion. Whilst at the same time are either getting their theories and logic trashed by me or by someone else.
If that doesn't tell you what it should tell you, I recommend learning.
-AC
Funny, I haven't seen any of my rhetoric countered, just put down. The people who have been "debating" me have been arguing emotion, not logic.
The only argument I've heard out of the pro-choice side is "it's a right, so [insert colorful expletive here] leave it alone." I've seen no supporting logic. No support for such a right.
No counter for the fact, yes fact, that we don't know exactly when human life begins. I actually tend to agree that a blastula probably shouldn't be considered such, but I'm willing to err on the side of caution as I don't think human life should be lightly regarded.
So instead of trying to make us feel bad (which, in case you didn't notice, isn't working) try backing up your assumptions. Or you could try to take mine apart with actual logic.
sheesh, you ever actually take a debate class?
Originally posted by docb77
Funny, I haven't seen any of my rhetoric countered, just put down. The people who have been "debating" me have been arguing emotion, not logic.The [b]only
argument I've heard out of the pro-choice side is "it's a right, so [insert colorful expletive here] leave it alone." I've seen no supporting logic. No support for such a right. [/B]
I invite you to start on page 1 and read through all 288 pages while assigning the logic of your argument to what has been said already. You'll have to forgive those posters who have countered the arguments for the months and months that this thread has been going.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You had fun making the baby, now have fun raising it!
On the contrary. You forced her to have it, you raise it. She doesn't want it. Quite hypocritical coming from the man who previously said that fathers shouldn't have to pay unwanted child support if they get a girl pregnant and she keeps it.
You had fun making it, you pay. Think.
Originally posted by docb77
Funny, I haven't seen any of my rhetoric countered, just put down. The people who have been "debating" me have been arguing emotion, not logic.
Ignorance is bliss so they tell me.
Originally posted by docb77
The [b]only argument I've heard out of the pro-choice side is "it's a right, so [insert colorful expletive here] leave it alone." I've seen no supporting logic. No support for such a right.[/b]
You've been in this thread for about 5 pages out of over 200. It's no wonder you haven't seen it.
There have been plenty, your overactive imagination and ignorance doesn't mean they aren't there. It means you're not bothering with them.
You see, with me, I enjoy reading and comprehending your posts. Makes it all the easier to tear them to shreds. Your kind, however, base nothing you say on anything logical or practical. Hence why numerous people holding the same point of view have come and gone. Because they can't back up what they say without God.
Originally posted by docb77
No counter for the fact, yes fact, that we don't know exactly when human life begins.
A) HUMAN life begins when it becomes a HUMAN. It's not a human until a certain later point. A cell isn't a human. Proven fact that human life doesn't begin at conception.
B) We don't know when it begins, so therefore let's assume it begins right at the start? No, let's not. That's your ridiculous pro-life rhetoric at work. "I don't know when pro-life begins, so lets assume it begins when we need it to."
Originally posted by docb77
I actually tend to agree that a blastula probably shouldn't be considered such, but I'm willing to err on the side of caution as I don't think human life should be lightly regarded.
Keyword: Human.
Originally posted by docb77
So instead of trying to make us feel bad (which, in case you didn't notice, isn't working) try backing up your assumptions. Or you could try to take mine apart with actual logic.
To try means effort would be required. I've done so numerous times to numerous people and I shall continue to.
Originally posted by docb77
sheesh, you ever actually take a debate class?
Ever taken a "How to debate on topic" class?
Originally posted by docb77
Care to be more specific, admittedly I only read about the first 30 pages before I jumped to the end since it seemed nothing new was coming up, but if you could point me to a few page numbers I'd be happy to read them. After all I do have a life outside of some recreational debate.
Hahaha, how laughable.
"I was lazy so therefore I assumed that in 200 pages, nobody had countered my point of view. I will then cover my tracks and deny making such effort by implying those who do, have no life."
You were right when you said nothing new coming up. You must read from the book of cliches.
-AC
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I invite you to start on page 1 and read through all 288 pages while assigning the logic of your argument to what has been said already. You'll have to forgive those posters who have countered the arguments for the months and months that this thread has been going.
Yes and all of those pro choice arguments can be summed up into one simple sentence. That sentence being...
It's legal, so it's not a life.
Unfortunately science doesn't seem to agree with you. This has been pointed out multiple times.
Come on now Captain..it's time to drop the secularistic dogmatism and think outside of the religious box where your opinion seems to be confined.
Science tells us it's a life, and that upon "conception" the beginning stages of "human development" form..
Not so hard for one to believe bud, but I guess like most things in life, one "chooses" the things that they wish to believe in. 😉
Fin
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes and all of those pro choice arguments can be summed up into one simple sentence. That sentence being...It's legal, so it's not a life.
Unfortunately science doesn't seem to agree with you. This has been pointed out multiple times.
Come on now Captain..it's time to drop the secularistic dogmatism and think outside of the religious box where your opinion seems to be confined.
Science tells us it's a life, and that upon "conception" the beginning stages of "human development" form..
Not so hard for one to believe bud, but I guess like most things in life, one "chooses" the things that they wish to believe in.
Fin
I've already factually proven to you beyond all doubt, debate and disagreeing that it's not a human life at conception.
I really don't understand what you're not getting. It's a cell at conception, and for a while after. Ergo, it's not a human, it's not a human life. If you want to debate the unprovable (either way) of life IN GENERAL beginning at conception, do so. Just don't come with that "It's a human" bs. It's not, and you have agreed as much when you said it was a zygote at conception. Zygote = cell. Cell = not human.
Also, I don't have any clue where you got that pro-choice debate from. I've never seen a debate put forth like that and I've been part of this thread more frequently and longer than you.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You see, with me, I enjoy reading and comprehending your posts. Makes it all the easier to tear them to shreds. Your kind, however, base nothing you say on anything logical or practical. Hence why numerous people holding the same point of view have come and gone. Because they can't back up what they say without God.A) HUMAN life begins when it becomes a HUMAN. It's not a human until a certain later point. A cell isn't a human. Proven fact that human life doesn't begin at conception.
Not proven, assumed. In order to prove it you'd have to know exactly what makes someone human. The best thinkers in history haven't been able to answer that, I doubt anyone here did. At least I didn't see any big revelations in the news recently.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
B) We don't know when it begins, so therefore let's assume it begins right at the start? No, let's not. That's your ridiculous pro-life rhetoric at work. "I don't know when pro-life begins, so lets assume it begins when we need it to."
What's wrong with playing it safe when it comes to children, real or what you think of as imagined.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Keyword: Human.
See above.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
To try means effort would be required. I've done so numerous times to numerous people and I shall continue to.Ever taken a "How to debate on topic" class?
You mean the topic isn't abortion? Gee whiz, How did I make that mistake?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hahaha, how laughable."I was lazy so therefore I assumed that in 200 pages, nobody had countered my point of view. I will then cover my tracks and deny making such effort by implying those who do, have no life."
Sorry, Didn't mean to offend there, wasn't implying that at all. If I'd been in on the thread from the beginning I probably would have read all of it.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You were right when you said nothing new coming up. You must read from the book of cliches.
So I was right that most of the real debate was in the first 30 or so pages? There was nothing new before I showed up (I know you don't accept what I have said as new, but cut me some slack here)
So where's the index, that's all I'm really asking.
Originally posted by docb77
Not proven, assumed. In order to prove it you'd have to know exactly what makes someone human. The best thinkers in history haven't been able to answer that, I doubt anyone here did. At least I didn't see any big revelations in the news recently.
No, proven. It's a zygote at conception. Zygote = Cell, Cell = Not human. Clear? Sweeeeet.
Prove what makes someone human? I can prove what makes someone NOT human. Being a cell makes someone not human. IE: Zygotes exist at conception and for a while after. Meaning human life does not exist at conception.
Originally posted by docb77
What's wrong with playing it safe when it comes to children, real or what you think of as imagined.
Playing it safe? Is that what we're calling it? You have no grounds for proof so you say "Let's just assume it begins at a time that will aid the pro-life debate"? I call that "Being a hypocritical, desperate coward".
Originally posted by docb77
See above.
Also.
Originally posted by docb77
You mean the topic isn't abortion? Gee whiz, How did I make that mistake?
No it is, hence why you should debate such.
Originally posted by docb77
Sorry, Didn't mean to offend there, wasn't implying that at all. If I'd been in on the thread from the beginning I probably would have read all of it.
Fair enough. Apology accepted.
Originally posted by docb77
So I was right that most of the real debate was in the first 30 or so pages? There was nothing new before I showed up (I know you don't accept what I have said as new, but cut me some slack here)
No, not at all. If you don't want to read all 300 (nearly) pages, I can more or less understand that, but don't come in and assume that your point of view hasn't been raised and dealt with.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
On the contrary. You forced her to have it, you raise it. She doesn't want it. Quite hypocritical coming from the man who previously said that fathers shouldn't have to pay unwanted child support if they get a girl pregnant and she keeps it.You had fun making it, you pay. Think.
What'chu talking about, compa? I take care of my kids, having to pay my ex-wife is not a burden or a hindrance. Just a pain. Giving my hard-earned money doesn't stop me from loving them, ese.
My sons were wanted, and the fact that I divorced their mother, doesn't automatically make me not want them. I'm currently taking care of my second wife's children because I'm willing to do so.
As long as child support is a law I have no respect for dead-beat dads. Tu no sabe nada, guey!