- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:03 pm to dbeck
Abortion should be encouraged, have stopped and looked around lately?
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:03 pm to Belvedere
quote:
I love how evangelical conservatards base their understanding of life for pro-choice/abortion arguments on science, and then go on to deny the existence of evolution and claim that the Earth is 3,000 years old because the Bible tells them so despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.
Is that what is happening in this thread, because I think you're making this up.
Defend your position with something other than "hurr durr" or give up.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:05 pm to Barf
You can believe
Or you can believe
If you believe both, you're nothing but a hypocrite. The standard that "it does not involve or harm anyone else" is you deciding "what is good, bad or moral for someone else".
quote:
Deciding what is good, bad, or moral for someone else makes you an a-hole by default. Mind your own business.
Or you can believe
quote:
It does not involve or harm anyone else, so why would you care?
If you believe both, you're nothing but a hypocrite. The standard that "it does not involve or harm anyone else" is you deciding "what is good, bad or moral for someone else".
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:07 pm to ULSU
quote:
require tremendous advanced medical efforts to keep the baby alive.
Walk into a NICU and unplug a baby from a ventilator and let's see what happens to you.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:09 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
It's absurd people think a microscopic zygote should have human rights. Once it develops slightly into something I see the argument, but come on.
To be fair, most people have no clue their pregnant until 4+ weeks, so in the context of the abortion debate, the "ball of cells" is a bit hyperbolic.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:11 pm to slackster
the legislator that authored the bill said life begins at conception so I used that as relevant to this topic
in addition Abortion is reprehensible to me but no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body...no one.
in addition Abortion is reprehensible to me but no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body...no one.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:11 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
Which clause covers abortion?
The due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:11 pm to slackster
quote:
To be fair, most people have no clue their pregnant until 4+ weeks, so in the context of the abortion debate, the "ball of cells" is a bit hyperbolic.
Fair, but A LOT of pro lifers think protection of the unborn starts at conception of a zygote.
To me, that's on a crazy level of absurd.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:12 pm to slackster
I wasn't using that as an argument. I actually think 20+ weeks is too late. Mother should have made her decision by then, and there is a definite argument about viability. You're talking 5 months into the pregnancy.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:12 pm to slackster
quote:
To be fair, most people have no clue their pregnant until 4+ weeks, so in the context of the abortion debate, the "ball of cells" is a bit hyperbolic
Is that what is happening in this thread? The argument was based on the claim that human life begins at conception. Defend your claim with something other than a non sequitur or give up.
This post was edited on 5/19/16 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:14 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
Fair, but A LOT of pro lifers think protection of the unborn starts at conception of a zygote.
To me, that's on a crazy level of absurd.
The simple truth is inarguable. There is no way, scientifically or otherwise, to determine when "life' begins. Everyone will ultimately fall back to some arbitrary standard. If we are truly a civilized people, the moral choice would be to err on the side of caution and assume it begins at conception.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:15 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
A LOT of pro lifers think protection of the unborn starts at conception of a zygote.
I do too, and I think my stance is pretty practical. If you let nature take its course, the only way that zygote won't turn into a baby 40 weeks later is if an outside party interferes. I've got no problem if someone thinks that is asinine, but that is my belief.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:15 pm to slackster
Alot of good has come from abortions. Vaccines being one. Keep it legal. If life begins at conception then it's murder to dump your sperm down the drain or toilet.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:15 pm to dbeck
quote:
The next post after this will be the one that solves the abortion debate once and for all:
Zeal is the biggest problem in this debate. Very few people approach the debate with the understanding that abortion must be legal for a variety of reasons while simultaneously accepting the fact that aborting a fetus at 36 weeks should be cause for concern.
I think both sides have a little bit of truth to them but neither sides seems to want to compromise.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:18 pm to saintsfan1977
quote:
If life begins at conception then it's murder to dump your sperm down the drain or toilet.
Think about that for a second...
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:18 pm to saintsfan1977
quote:
If life begins at conception then it's murder to dump your sperm down the drain or toilet.
I'm not sure if you understand what conception is.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:20 pm to TechDawg2007
uh, there is that little roe vs wade dealio
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:21 pm to lsunurse
quote:
This is one of the main reasons why I personally could not do IVF. If I am personally firmly against abortion, how is this that much different? How can I justify to myself it's ok for one and not the other?
And that's exactly my point. I'm not arguing one way or the other, but it's clearly not as crystal clear as the "life starts at conception" people make it out to be. I'm willing to be quite a few pro life couples have used IVF and have had embryos destroyed as a result without thinking twice.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:22 pm to slackster
quote:
If you let nature take its course, the only way that zygote won't turn into a baby 40 weeks later is if an outside party interferes
Lol, not necessarily
Popular
Back to top


1




