Abortion

[SomeRandom]

Correct, no one has abortion for sex, only for pregnancy. So what is a stronger way to prevent pregnancy? Condoms and pills or abstinence? You see, they are linked as abstinent persons care and put their money where their mouth is against REALLY reducing unplanned pregnancies.

Again the stats are against you. In areas where abstinence only is taught the rate of sexually active teenagers DO NOT decrease.

What's the stronger approach? How about not living in a make believe world of butterflies and rainbows pretending that teenagers with raging hormones, a strong biological instinct to reproduce will be well behaved little boys and girls and not have any sexual contact just because the adults tell them.
Like lol are you really this out of touch with the youth?

Even if you only teach abstinence only guess what happens? Gasp!! Teenagers engage in other sexual activities, like oral, anal or other sex acts. Because all you've really taught them is that having procreative sex is bad and should be for marriage. And then you have these kids basically ignorant of ways to get or more importantly prevent STIs or engaging in unhygienic acts because of ignorance.
You have raped kids thinking they can't get pregnant if their rapist used the "pull out method" then getting pregnant because you stupidly refused to tell them basic ****ing biological facts.

Ignoring the problem of teen sex by pretending they will always listen to authorities does nothing but perpetuate the problem. Actually do something about it instead of promoting ignorance and maybe you can claim that abstinence only proponents put their money where their mouth is when it comes to unwanted pregnancies. Because again the stats are against you as teen pregnancy rates are generally higher in areas which teach abstinence only.

 

[SomeRandom]

Agreed but you really have to agree with Mestemia on this note. It seems to me that this poster really is that naive. I cannot fathom someone who denies teen influence and the after effects of childhood abuse.

NEITHER CAN I.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Abstinence is 100% effective, which is why Christianity worships a guy born of a virgin tween.

 

[viole]

Pregnant humans are very much able to tell. The reason they want abortions is because they know perfectly well that they are not carrying a puppy or a gold bar. They know s/he is a tiny little human being, and he/she is going to be a big responsibility for several years.
You know this as well as I do.
Tom

Sure, but I am trying to set a lower bound, between a fully formed baby and a couple of duplicating cells, below which abortion can be accepted. Typical case is the day after pill, which is taken without knowing to be pregnant or not.

If that is not acceptable either, then there is something more than the knowledge of hosting what we might identify as a baby. And it is this something that I am challenging.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Abstinence is 100% effective, which is why Christianity worships a guy born of a virgin tween.

Apparently, virginity was not 100% effective either. In at least one case, allegedely.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I apologize. I didn't look closely at the photo you posted because the tenor of your question was irksome. I will assume you posted the wrong thing in error because posting a false photo in an attempt to entrap me would be a mean thing to do.

Oh yeah, sorry. You see, we both got fooled. Which should give us a pause before we start labelling a bunch of duplicating cells a human being. It is not a human being, yet, it is a bunch of cells with human DNA, and that's it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[columbus]

Sure, but I am trying to set a lower bound, between a fully formed baby and a couple of duplicating cells, below which abortion can be accepted.

Can we start by agreeing that your post was intellectually dishonest? That the difference between a human embryo and a mouse embryo is vastly greater than a pic shows?
Feel free to stand by it. I expect you probably will.

A huge part of the problem I have discussing this subject is the casual disregard people have for the truth. From BB insisting that antiabortion is scriptural to Rev not understanding basic biology. It really gets under my skin.
Tom

 

[viole]

Can we start by agreeing that your post was intellectually dishonest? That the difference between a human embryo and a mouse embryo is vastly greater than a pic shows?
Feel free to stand by it. I expect you probably will.

Yes, there is a huge difference . If you are a biologist with a microscope. But I don't think I was intellectually dishonest. For sure antiabortionists always show little cute older human embryos to make a point. Never a single cell splitting in two. At least I never saw a poster with that (if you ever see one at those life rallies it is carried by me, lol). They try the emotional spin (who would kill that little baby?) and I use the same (who wouldn't kill that cell that can be exchanged for everything else?). If they do not agree, they have to tell me why.

You had the argument of responsabilty under the premise of knowledge (to carry a baby) which is fine. My question is: does the same applies for terminations under the lack of knowledge to carry a baby? Is the day after pill morally acceptable or not?

A huge part of the problem I have discussing this subject is the casual disregard people have for the truth. From BB insisting that antiabortion is scriptural to Rev not understanding basic biology. It really gets under my skin.
Tom

And that is why you need to deploy shock "therapy" sometimes. The trinity is not scriptural either, but all Christians believe it, probably.

Ciao

- viole

 

[JoStories]

Can we start by agreeing that your post was intellectually dishonest? That the difference between a human embryo and a mouse embryo is vastly greater than a pic shows?
Feel free to stand by it. I expect you probably will.

A huge part of the problem I have discussing this subject is the casual disregard people have for the truth. From BB insisting that antiabortion is scriptural to Rev not understanding basic biology. It really gets under my skin.
Tom

I agree that there is a difference between a human V a mouse embryo. However, that said, did you know it was a mouse and not a human fetus? I didn't. Nor did anyone I suspect. And that was the point, which was not dishonest but rather right on point, IMO. I have not stated anything in this thread that was untrue Tom. BB has, OTOH, mostly I suspect out of sheer naivete on the topic.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Can we start by agreeing that your post was intellectually dishonest? That the difference between a human embryo and a mouse embryo is vastly greater than a pic shows?
Feel free to stand by it. I expect you probably will.

A huge part of the problem I have discussing this subject is the casual disregard people have for the truth. From BB insisting that antiabortion is scriptural to Rev not understanding basic biology. It really gets under my skin.
Tom

Actually, viole has raised an interesting and, until now, unmentioned point: that BilliardsBall wasn't able to recognise a mouse embryo for what it was (ie not a human embryo) and highlight this. This is very telling for somebody who claims to 'fight for the unborn' as so many pro-lifers do. Apparently he cares enough about them to want to restrict a woman's right to bodily autonomy, yet not enough to be able to differentiate a human embryo from that of a completely different species.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Okay so then you don't think anyone should be taught comprehensive sex education ever? Never, ever?

How on earth can you expect people to be responsible then?

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that telling young people they cannot control themselves then giving them abortifacients, condoms and abortions isn't helping.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is no more true than raising the legal drinking age to 21 prevents teen alcohol consumption. It just doesn't.
And the evidence is easily accessible, if you want to know the truth. If you want to keep believing what you already do, you can ignore the evidence.
Tom

The truth is that runaway teen pregnancy rates didn't exist pre-Roe v. Wade in America. Many people graduated college into the late 60s as virgins. No.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Imprison the abusers??? Are you kidding me? Do you know what the son of a b**ch who raped my 8 year old child got for a sentence? 2 blank blank years. And that in isolation so he would not be raped himself. And do you know what he did when he got out? He raped another child. And then got a whole 2 more years. Now the ....there are no words to relate how I view this man that I can post....person lives in my own hometown. You are deluded if you think abusers get what is appropriate in terms of what they did to a child.

I was responding to the comment re: imposing restrictions on abused children rather than the abusers. I think paedophiles should get the death penalty, personally, and I'm sorry for what you've suffered.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Abstinence is 100% effective, which is why Christianity worships a guy born of a virgin tween.

Please understand how offensive your concept is to a religious person.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oh yeah, sorry. You see, we both got fooled. Which should give us a pause before we start labelling a bunch of duplicating cells a human being. It is not a human being, yet, it is a bunch of cells with human DNA, and that's it.

Ciao

- viole

The duplicating cells have a soul and are in the "much more" care of God. The problem is you are both saying only empirical things exist, and then using empiricism to justify this rationale.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I agree that there is a difference between a human V a mouse embryo. However, that said, did you know it was a mouse and not a human fetus? I didn't. Nor did anyone I suspect. And that was the point, which was not dishonest but rather right on point, IMO. I have not stated anything in this thread that was untrue Tom. BB has, OTOH, mostly I suspect out of sheer naivete on the topic.

Actually, BB hasn't looked at photos of blastocysts in a while. And? The question for us is more than perfect knowledge but rather, right morality. All of us desire to be ethical and true, so let's be so. I don't know everything about everything, but I do know when someone is criticizing my intelligence rather than the facts I've brought to bear.

Abortion is a horror, a killer and a moral evil. The West is falling apart around our ears, and since Roe v. Wade in the USA for sure.

 

[viole]

The duplicating cells have a soul and are in the "much more" care of God. The problem is you are both saying only empirical things exist, and then using empiricism to justify this rationale.

So, it is a murder only if you believe in souls and God, right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that telling young people they cannot control themselves then giving them abortifacients, condoms and abortions isn't helping.

Yes, you mentioned that. I'm trying to dig deeper.

Nobody is giving young people abortions and abortifacients in any sex ed class that I'm aware of.

And just once again, who is talking about telling young people they can't control themselves? Why do you keep ignoring the reality that practically every human being is going to have sex at some point in life and that they (and society) are better off being educated on the subject than not? You just keep repeating the above assertion over and over.

What do you suggest be done then?

 

[columbus]

The truth is that runaway teen pregnancy rates didn't exist pre-Roe v. Wade in America. Many people graduated college into the late 60s as virgins. No.

No what?
I am very much aware that things were different in the not so distant past. And I believe that RvW is a big part of why the USA has such a big problem with irresponsible people having sex and babies that they won't take care of.
One of the indirect and counterintuitive results of RvW is a bunch of kids raised by irresponsible parents. People who are insufficiently responsible to use effective birth control still think that they are entitled to potentially fertile sex. Then, they are also too irresponsible to get an abortion. Then too irresponsible to take proper care of their child.
Then the child grows up in an environment where parental responsibility is "optional", and the cycle begins again when they are teens.

Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please understand how offensive your concept is to a religious person.

Why is it offensive?