-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Right To Life
- Thread starter butterfoot
- Start date
Well, the zygote does implant itself in the uterine wall, and presumably the mother and the zygote are two different entities. Not to mention that it's hardly a "predicament." Its condition is only improved when it implants itself into her womb.cameronw said:
But the salient point you ignored. No person can be forced to waive their right to protect the integrity of their body from the occupation of another person, just as nobody can force you to donate blood or submit to clinical drug trials.
Simply false. The mother doesn't make the zygote implant itself. It simply does (or does not, as happens to many) on it's own. In most cases of abortion, the implantation was not welcome, nor was the fertilization intended, for that matter.
:æ:
Upvote
0
C
Cassandra
Guest
Carri20 said:
You think we should ignore the fact that there are women who do not have the inner strength to just accept their situation and let everything be roses and sunshine?
EDIT: I think we may have had a miscommunication. I wasn't saying it was impossible to have a positive outlook I meant that when faced with tradegy, one is not going to say "Well, Whoop-dee-dee! That's OK with ME!" and go into a 40's musical number.
Upvote
0
No, and nothing in my post would indicate that.Carri20 said:
Are there any fact-claims about pregnancy which I have made that you can demonstrate as false? Or are you simply going to object emotionally because it demonlishes anti-abortion arguments?
Irrelevant, despite the fact that it's also probably false.
:æ:
Upvote
0
:æ: said:
Woa boy talk about spin. The zygote implants itself. Um this is part of the reproduction process. They fetus didnt get there without the introduction of sperm that 99% of the time is voluntary so your crazy arguement doesn't hold water. Nice try though that was the craziest statement I have ever heard. Talk about how far the left will go to push their agenda.
-cw
Upvote
0
Where did I say anything false?cameronw said:
Yes.
That was the point of my first examples. Creation of a situation in which one's rights might be violated is not tantamount to a waiver of those rights, especially when the violation isn't even a highly probable outcome.
It seems more to me that you have run out of rational arguments and have resorted merely to polemics and ad hominem. Calling my statements crazy doesn't make them so, and therefore your comments reflect more on your inability to rebut my statements than any faslity that they may contain.
:æ:
Upvote
0
ok so I do understand your POV.Green Man said:
You believe the government should be in the business of revenge although it doesn't serve any benefit to society... as by your own admission that it wouldn't be used as a deterrent.
For me personally, I only want my tax dollars spent on benefits us.
Upvote
0
If women are made to change the course of their lives by carrying and delivering a baby she doesn't want (regardless of whether she keeps it or not) there has to be more than just the threat of financial responsibility towards men. Something must be done in order to get them to stop having sex and impregnating woman. I see that as the ultimate solution.
Upvote
0
:æ: said:
Your statement is crazy because once the egg is fertalized with sperm yes the fetus does move to the uterus but thats because it knows where it is supposed to go to grow into a full grown baby. Again this is part of the Reproduction process. You say it got there by itself but you still miss that there has to be an introduction of sperm for the fetus even to be.
Upvote
0
Carri20
Veteran
- May 8, 2005
- 1,122
- 84
- 41
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Not at all. My point is that we should acknowledge our lack of inner strength, submit it to the Lord, and ask him for the strength we need.
Lol that's a bit of an exageration don't you think? I don't even know any 40's musical numbers! =P
No...seriously...it wasn't all sunshine and roses for me and it isn't going to be for anyone else, but I still stand by what I know to be true--God will give us the strength we need to do what's right if we submit our lives to him.
Upvote
0
I think you'd be hard-pressed to substantiate your claim that the zygote (not a fetus, BTW) "knows" anything. Knowing is a mode of thought, and thought requires a functioning brain. Moreover, this doesn't refute any of my statements. The zygote does implant itself, without permission in the case of most unwanted pregnancies.cameronw said:
No, I didn't. It just isn't relevant. If you think it is, you'll need to do better than merely to assert it.
:æ:
Upvote
0
so where does the responsibility begin? Why start at the "induction" of sperm?cameronw said:
What about the person that introduced the couple? Aren't they ultimately responsible also? What about the couples parents? They should've known that by having children that there was a chance their children could grow to have an unwanted pregnancy. They should do the responsible thing and pay the next 18 yrs for the kid... and if the mother is still capable, carry the child to term. After all her kid getting pregnant was a forseable result of her having that kid to begin with.
As far as causal concerns go we can play this game till the begining of time... it still doesn't change the fact that this life form impedded itself in the woman and no human has the right to invade another persons body, feed off their biological resources and enslave them for 9 months. Again, we don't force people to share their biological resources(blood donations and transplants) even when the consequence is loss of life.
Just because a woman left her front door open doesn't mean anyone can come in and live in her house, even when it's at the would be occupants own peril.
EDIT: wow, many spelling errors.
Upvote
0
You for got the last part, "... to me."Carri20 said:
Despite that I think Spinrad is just trolling with inflammatory comments, it still would matters to me what he says even if he was serious, so you are only speaking for yourself.
:æ:
Upvote
0
Well as long as this thread has gone down the toilet...
Mandatory male chastity belts when boys hit puberty to be unlocked at the completion of the wedding ceremony. This also has the added bonus of preventing maturbation...it's a 2 for 1 kind of thing!
Most women are not begging me to have sex with them (unless you live on fantasy island) and since the male sex drive is supposedly stronger we should focus our energies on where we can get the most bang for our buck.
Mandatory male chastity belts when boys hit puberty to be unlocked at the completion of the wedding ceremony. This also has the added bonus of preventing maturbation...it's a 2 for 1 kind of thing!
Most women are not begging me to have sex with them (unless you live on fantasy island) and since the male sex drive is supposedly stronger we should focus our energies on where we can get the most bang for our buck.
Upvote
0
How is this any more useful or contributory than Spinrad's flaming that you just decried?Carri20 said:
To correct your distortion, it is the anti-abortionists who would represent the slave-drivers, because it is they that would prohibit the mother the liberty to end the violation to her fundmental rights.
Physician, heal thyself!
:æ:
Upvote
0
jayem
Naturalist
- Jun 24, 2003
- 15,429
- 7,164
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Is it not possible to reach a compromise on this?
Deconstruct the issue to its most basic. The real question is personhood. When is a fetus considered a "person" with rights independent of it's mother?
Let's agree on a point between conception and birth where a fetus is recognized as a person. Up to this point, the mother has autonomy to decide how her uterus and organs systems will be used. Beyond this point, the fetus has a right to an undisturbed gestation (severe maternal health problems excepted.)
Both parties have legitimate claims that should be recognized. To me, it's not that difficult to accept. Why does everything have to be all or none?
Deconstruct the issue to its most basic. The real question is personhood. When is a fetus considered a "person" with rights independent of it's mother?
Let's agree on a point between conception and birth where a fetus is recognized as a person. Up to this point, the mother has autonomy to decide how her uterus and organs systems will be used. Beyond this point, the fetus has a right to an undisturbed gestation (severe maternal health problems excepted.)
Both parties have legitimate claims that should be recognized. To me, it's not that difficult to accept. Why does everything have to be all or none?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
