Abortion - is it wrong?

[Heathen Hammer]

I hope you understood the irony and fail content of your insults, wherein you tell me I need to learn to read or go to school, but which you post using bad grammar.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

lol, I'm embarrassing myself further... that's just too precious

 

[Alceste]

In fairness, what I think Sleeppy meant, although it wasn't well-worded, was that a hypothetical couple who successfully practices abstinence until marriage and marital fidelity can still get an STD if one of the partners is the victim of a sexual assault.

(I still prefer whoring around though - Imo, it's well worth the risk. )

 

[Sleeppy]

I hope you understood the irony and fail content of your insults, wherein you tell me I need to learn to read or go to school, but which you post using bad grammar.

I also didn't explicitly name you. I knew you would do it for me. As far as my bad grammar.. laughable, considering you understood it anyway. I was passively aware of the grammatical error, when I wrote it. I just didn't know we had a grammar expert keeping close watch. Thanks for the correction, though. Maybe it'll help others to understand the sentence.

In fairness, what I think Sleeppy meant, although it wasn't well-worded, was that a hypothetical couple who successfully practices abstinence until marriage and marital fidelity can still get an STD if one of the partners is the victim of a sexual assault.

(I still prefer whoring around though - Imo, it's well worth the risk. )

Alceste didn't get the same conclusion as you.. So far you're alone in your interpretation. Me and Alceste.. I mean.. Alceste and I, must've been reading wrongly, grammar expert.

 

[Sonic247]

It isn't "pretty developed" at 5 weeks. It's the size of a grain of rice and doesn't have a heart, brain or nervous system.

With your track record so far on factual claims, are you sure you want to stick with your made-up statistic? Why not look it up?

What that is just a bunch of propaganda, idk what track record your talking about. Anyway I said "I bet" because I read it in a book that was kind of old and numbers like that would change with time. But anyway as far as how developed a five month old fetus I read about it from a reliable source. It's a book called "A Child is Born." And it's not pro-life in anyway. It takes an evolutionary approach so it's definitely not trying to prove anything from a fundamental Christian perspective. It's a completely secular book. From A Child is Born by Lennart Nilsson- Fifth week- The head is bent down toward the bulging skin of the chest, covering the heart. Arms and legs are still nothing but rounded buds..... The front end of the neural tube develops into a brain. For the time being there is only a pair of vessicles farthest to the front, and three in a row behind them. The pair in the front is the future cerebrum, with it's two halves. The brain vessicles are cleary visible through the delicate skin... Five fingers are faintly visible by the end of the fifth week. Anyway it's a great book not just for it's words but for it's pictures. I noticed that when I did a google search on fetus's several pictures used in this book showed up but it is hard to find ones with specific ages. But anway in the book they do. A five week old fetus isn't very developed it's true but it's definitely a living being, until I find the picture (I don't have a scanner) I'll just say the arms, legs, head, and the semi-developed eyes are all there. And through the skin you can see the heart.

 

[Sonic247]

For Sonic,
Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

This lumps everything under 9 weeks together, but it's still better than just guessing, wouldn't you say?

I wish the anti-choice side (not you, Sonic, you've been decent) would take moment to contemplate their inflammatory rhetoric in light of the fact that 30% of written have had an abortion by age 45. You're not just calling abstract caricatures of immoral sociopaths that exist only in your own head "murderers", but your own neighbors, sisters, mothers, friends and co-workers. You're completely surrounded by "murderers" with no respect for human life!

Think about it.

See but since it does I still probably think the number I gave is likely, 80% after 6 weeks. And I am trying to find something more specific. If I do and it proves me wrong though I'll definitely admit it. I don't think most people would do it if they knew more about it so I think if people read books like the one in my last post (a child is born by Lennart Nilsson) even though it's a completely secular book, the number of abortions will go down. I will admit I wasn't thinking about the pill abortions though those can be alot earlier. But especially if those aren't counted I think it would be accurate. And i would hope if people knew the time line of fetal development they would at least be against abortions (except in cases of medical emergency) from a much earlier date. That's a good starting point I think if people can have a rough understanding of what is happening week by week supplemented by a few actual photographs so there is no confusion about what an abortion is getting rid of.

One thing the chart brought up which was pretty disturbing was that 40% of abortions are done after 9 weeks. That's at least 400,000

 

[Heathen Hammer]

In fairness, what I think Sleeppy meant, although it wasn't well-worded, was that a hypothetical couple who successfully practices abstinence until marriage and marital fidelity can still get an STD if one of the partners is the victim of a sexual assault.

(I still prefer whoring around though - Imo, it's well worth the risk. )

Well, but again, the statement that a sexual assault will give you an STD simply isn't sensible, per se. It presumes that all rapists have STDs, or that the act itself spontaneously generates a disease. Though I imagine the argument will then [after your post] hang on the word 'may'; but it was not presented as a 'may', it was presented as an if/then [and since certain posts seem to hang only on semantic ploys].

The impression given across a number of posts is that if you are promiscuous, you'll get paid back by God with a disease. Which will be quite a surprise to all the children born with AIDS, or those who got it via bad transfusion.

He/she [don't know which, haven't examined profile] simply doesn't present very good arguments.

Or insults, when you get down to it.

But I'll drink to whoring around too!

 

[Alceste]

Well, but again, the statement that a sexual assault will give you an STD simply isn't sensible, per se. It presumes that all rapists have STDs, or that the act itself spontaneously generates a disease. Though I imagine the argument will then [after your post] hang on the word 'may'; but it was not presented as a 'may', it was presented as an if/then [and since certain posts seem to hang only on semantic ploys].

The impression given across a number of posts is that if you are promiscuous, you'll get paid back by God with a disease. Which will be quite a surprise to all the children born with AIDS, or those who got it via bad transfusion.

He/she [don't know which, haven't examined profile] simply doesn't present very good arguments.

Or insults, when you get down to it.

But I'll drink to whoring around too!

Like I said, it wasn't well-worded. I had to read it a couple times and deconstruct it and apply a bit of deductive reasoning to get what I got from it.

 

[Sleeppy]

Well, but again, the statement that a sexual assault will give you an STD simply isn't sensible, per se. It presumes that all rapists have STDs, or that the act itself spontaneously generates a disease. Though I imagine the argument will then [after your post] hang on the word 'may'; but it was not presented as a 'may', it was presented as an if/then [and since certain posts seem to hang only on semantic ploys].

The impression given across a number of posts is that if you are promiscuous, you'll get paid back by God with a disease. Which will be quite a surprise to all the children born with AIDS, or those who got it via bad transfusion.

He/she [don't know which, haven't examined profile] simply doesn't present very good arguments.

Or insults, when you get down to it.

But I'll drink to whoring around too!

You're not very perceptive. I'm also not insulting you, per se.

I won't argue with you anymore about what I said.. because i'm quite sure I know what I said.

Interesting.. I didn't know I mentioned God. I also wasn't presenting an argument.. Notice how we aren't arguing about the truth to what was actually being said, but your naive interpretation?

.. Well. Can't expect everyone to interpret the same thing, the same way, I suppose.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You're not very perceptive. I'm also not insulting you, per se.

You are unskilled in being subtle.

I won't argue with you anymore about what I said.. because i'm quite sure I know what I said.

Interesting.. I didn't know I mentioned God. I also wasn't presenting an argument.. Notice how we aren't arguing about the truth to what was actually being said, but your naive interpretation?

.. Well. Can't expect everyone to interpret the same thing, the same way, I suppose.

You've been excoriated throughout this thread, and a few others, by essentially everyone who encounters you. And your only fall-backs are cries of misinterpretation [despite examination] and pretentious condescension with zero basis.

Honestly, if EVERYone says you're presenting idiotic ideas, you probably are.

In this case, you are.

 

[Ladybug]

I am pro-choice.
I feel like people have to make that decision themselves and that others shouldn't force an opinion on them.
I also don't think it's wrong (Not that i support people relying on that method as birth control), but i think that there are too many situations out there that we can't relate to unless we're the ones experiancing it.