Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no interest whatsoever in controlling the sexual behavior of women. That isn't the point. If scientists come up with a birth control pill or other contraceptive method that is 100% effective then great. Use that. If a woman knows with 100% certainty that she never wants to get pregnant ever, ever, ever then she can pay for getting her tubes tied or an outright hysterectomy or whatever. If the lady wants to take drastic actions, who am I to disagree? It's her body.
But when we're talking about abortion, we cease to talk about one person and start talking about two. If we were only talking about one person making choices that only affect them, there would be no debate on the matter. Sure there might be a small few who rant and rave, but everyone would ignore them.
But the idiotic thing that so many people want to do is say that sex has nothing to do with babies when the entire biological function of having sex is to make babies. This is where liberals get absolutely stupid. You take evolution as an example: Pushing evolution and forcing humanity to accept it is a big part of the liberal agenda. Why? Because they feel they have sufficient evidence to say that it is scientific fact. Truth is, evolution doesn't bother me one bit. If that is how God did it, fine by me. But you can't demand acceptance of scientific fact (as you see it) and then put the blinders firmly in place about sex. Sex = the act of making babies. That is scientific fact. Trying to delude yourselves and/or society into believing otherwise is beyond stupid.
Yea, great idea.......one problem though.....if a woman is under 30 and has no children it is virtually impossible for her to find a doctor who will sterilize her.
I'm a very committed believing Christian but I think it's important to point out something: This is not a God vs Atheism issue. This is a huge blind-spot for the Pro-Life movement. You can be an atheist and still be pro-life -- because it's just simple logic. An atheist still values life and comprehends the need to punish those that kill others. Any idiot can see what a mess society would be if murder, manslaughter, etc were all completely legal. The need to value human life and human rights is obvious to anyone, believer or unbeliever. Indeed, many of your most passionate atheists will tell you that they do a better job of valuing human life and human rights. This is why many atheists are pro-lifers. That is a big part of why I seldom bring God into the discussion. This is too important to disenfranchise any group standing on the side of sanity.
Actually, the simple logic is that a fertilized egg is not a human being. That is, unless you bring mysticism into the argument and start making arbitrary declarations. Then all bets are off.
And you completely dismiss the fact that God exist, and when he created mankind, he gave man and woman a freewill to decide which way they would go, evil or not ? God allows this act of the woman as part of that freewill. No, he doesn't approve of it, but we all will have to answer to him as to why we refused his way when we do wrong. It's not your choice as to be a spiritual soul or not, as the fact you are alive proves Gods existence which means you have a soul, but you limit it to seeing only in the physical, not letting it be what it could or should be.
The fact that I'm alive is proof of God's existence?
Okayyyyyy....whatever floats your boat.
Actually, the simple logic is that a fertilized egg is not a human being. That is, unless you bring mysticism into the argument and start making arbitrary declarations. Then all bets are off.
Marc you realize that you are also a fertilized egg. You've just grown a good bit since fertilization. So no, I don't follow your logic. Neither do a significant number of atheists who are strongly opposed to abortion. Logic says it will be a fully recognizable human being very, very soon. In under 5 weeks it's going to start looking and behaving a lot like any other human being. In 18 to 21 days you've already got a beating heart.
A fertilized egg meets every necessary qualification to be categorized as a life form. So logic and science would have us proceed to the next obvious step: Species classification. If a zygote/embryo/fetus isn't human, then it must be some different species of life. If so, what species are they?
Obviously, categorizing them as anything but homo sapiens is just ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence of anyone hearing it.
Yea, great idea.......one problem though.....if a woman is under 30 and has no children it is virtually impossible for her to find a doctor who will sterilize her.
Sounds like that is the cause that women's rights advocates should be fighting for. It is their body! If they want to permanent sterility, that is their choice and nobody has the right to tell them otherwise.
It does strike me as more than a little ridiculous that the right to kill the unborn is so absolute, while the right to opt out of childbearing entirely is denied to people. I suppose the logic is based on the possibility of "buyer's remorse" -- that the woman will change her mind later on in life and want to undo it all. But the entire "buyer's remorse" argument hasn't worked with abortion, so why would it apply to sterilization? After all, it is truly mind-boggling how many women who have had abortions are tormented by their choice for the rest of their lives. Why should any distinction be drawn between the two? The right to sterilization makes TONS more sense than the right to abortion anyways.
Sounds like that is the cause that women's rights advocates should be fighting for. It is their body! If they want to permanent sterility, that is their choice and nobody has the right to tell them otherwise.
It does strike me as more than a little ridiculous that the right to kill the unborn is so absolute, while the right to opt out of childbearing entirely is denied to people. I suppose the logic is based on the possibility of "buyer's remorse" -- that the woman will change her mind later on in life and want to undo it all. But the entire "buyer's remorse" argument hasn't worked with abortion, so why would it apply to sterilization? After all, it is truly mind-boggling how many women who have had abortions are tormented by their choice for the rest of their lives. Why should any distinction be drawn between the two? The right to sterilization makes TONS more sense than the right to abortion anyways.
The buyer's remorse argument has always been a complete fail, IMO, yet pro-lifers are always pointing to it as a good reason to ban abortion. If that argument did hold water, you would also have to ban adoption, as many women regret putting a child up for adoption too.
I imagine that trying to force doctors to preform sterilizations on demand isn't an issue worth fighting for because not enough women want to be sterilized.....it is smart to pick your battles.
Almost all women, on the other hand, want to be able to choose when they have a child, and since there are no 100% effective forms of BC on the market, abortion needs to remain an option.
Marc you realize that you are also a fertilized egg. You've just grown a good bit since fertilization. So no, I don't follow your logic. Neither do a significant number of atheists who are strongly opposed to abortion. Logic says it will be a fully recognizable human being very, very soon. In under 5 weeks it's going to start looking and behaving a lot like any other human being. In 18 to 21 days you've already got a beating heart.
A fertilized egg meets every necessary qualification to be categorized as a life form. So logic and science would have us proceed to the next obvious step: Species classification. If a zygote/embryo/fetus isn't human, then it must be some different species of life. If so, what species are they?
Obviously, categorizing them as anything but homo sapiens is just ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence of anyone hearing it.
No. I do not "realize" that I am a fertilized egg. Your logical error is failure to understand the Law of Identity. A thing is what it is. Not what we want it to be. Not what it will grow to become only after passage of sufficient time. What it is. A sperm cell is not a human being. An egg is not a human being. And when the two meet and fertilize, the result is not a human being. The result is a fertilized egg. Nothing more. It can be removed without any import or consequence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
