What's new

Planned Parenthood Selling Baby Organs

i would also like to see abortions go away.

I'm just not comfortable imposing myself and the coercive power of the state in women's reproductive choices and pre-empting their most basic of freedoms to make choices about their own bodies, particularly related to such personal and intimate matters.

I'm not comfortable imposing murder on living humans because of "choice". I thought Ben Carson put it rather well, "The mother is the protector of that baby and we've distorted things to the point where people believe that if the mother can't kill the baby, then anybody who is advocating that is an enemy of women. How can we be so foolish to believe such a thing?"
 
But only half tragic since it's only half human.

1. Sperm is a living organism and unable to reproduce. In other words, it's not a "life."

2. Regardless of what one knows or to science, I'm not sure how mocking others, for what you perceive is a logic fallacy in terms to "human life," helps pro or anti-abortion opinions. I only say that because it's something I've learned myself from this thread.
 
I'm not comfortable imposing murder on living humans because of "choice". I thought Ben Carson put it rather well, "The mother is the protector of that baby and we've distorted things to the point where people believe that if the mother can't kill the baby, then anybody who is advocating that is an enemy of women. How can we be so foolish to believe such a thing?"

This is an example of using loaded terms to impose black and white thinking on a complex issue. If we phrase it as 'killing a baby', then of course it is wrong and morally repugnant. But, a blastocye or zygote is not a baby, and it is by nowhere clear, nor is there anything remotely close to a consensus, as to when 'life' starts. IF, we were indeed talking about a 'baby' and the mother was indeed 'killing' it, then you are correct. But neither of the two conditions hold, or at least there is no consensus of when they hold, so the issue is not as black and white as you suppose.

I consider Carson's statement to be an obfuscatory piece of rhetorical hyperbole and not much of a guide to help us think about such a complex and nuanced issue.
 
1. Sperm is a living organism and unable to reproduce. In other words, it's not a "life."

2. Regardless of what one knows or to science, I'm not sure how mocking others, for what you perceive is a logic fallacy in terms to "human life," helps pro or anti-abortion opinions. I only say that because it's something I've learned myself from this thread.

I don't fault people for valuing life and wanting to protect it, nor typically would I mock them for this (unless they were some fanatical nut job), but what I've learned myself from this thread, and observation of this debate, is that pro-life folks tend to have a very, very strong reluctance to acknowledge that the pro-choice side has a principle-based aversion to empowering the state (abbetted and enabled by its conservative Christian allies) to impose its will on the most private, intimate choices that a woman makes about her own body and reproductive choice. It would be useful if we could have some meeting in the middle and go from there, but, alas, this rarely happens with such an emotionally charged issue.

I would add that, once again, social conservatives are fighting a losing battle. Similar to other key issues related to expansion of rights and freedoms which social/religious conservatives have opposed (e.g., civil rights, gay rights, women's rights), they are on the losing side of history and are now relegated to fighting a rear-guard action.
 
1. Sperm is a living organism and unable to reproduce. In other words, it's not a "life."

2. Regardless of what one knows or to science, I'm not sure how mocking others, for what you perceive is a logic fallacy in terms to "human life," helps pro or anti-abortion opinions. I only say that because it's something I've learned myself from this thread.

I think it says a lot about you that you pick my post to be the one you say is mocking when there are several others - both before and after mine - that are similar in tone.

It's OK for the guys to be irreverent but not the girls? Seems like you're applying a double standard,
 
I don't fault people for valuing life and wanting to protect it, nor typically would I mock them for this (unless they were some fanatical nut job), but what I've learned myself from this thread, and observation of this debate, is that pro-life folks tend to have a very, very strong reluctance to acknowledge that the pro-choice side has a principle-based aversion to empowering the state (abbetted and enabled by its conservative Christian allies) to impose its will on the most private, intimate choices that a woman makes about her own body and reproductive choice. It would be useful if we could have some meeting in the middle and go from there, but, alas, this rarely happens with such an emotionally charged issue.

I would add that, once again, social conservatives are fighting a losing battle. Similar to other key issues related to expansion of rights and freedoms which social/religious conservatives have opposed (e.g., civil rights, gay rights, women's rights), they are on the losing side of history and are now relegated to fighting a rear-guard action.

well put
 
1. Sperm is a living organism and unable to reproduce. In other words, it's not a "life."

2. Regardless of what one knows or to science, I'm not sure how mocking others, for what you perceive is a logic fallacy in terms to "human life," helps pro or anti-abortion opinions. I only say that because it's something I've learned myself from this thread.

You also have a tiny dick. Man, the things you can learn on JF!
 
I had a gf tell me that once. I told her it wasn't about the size of the ship it was the motion of the ocean that mattered. She said I made her sea sick.
:(
When the seas get choppy you want more than a little dingy to bring you back to the harbour.
 
Back
Top