by frankiespeakin 134 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
No, I think the contraceptive pill should be banned because abortion is a horrible thing...that's just adding to the list of reasons.
If you just think abortion is horrible, then say so, instead of inventing specious arguments that don't support your case. And surely emergency contraception reduces the number of abortions?
Me and my gf have gone back to condoms as hormone-based contraceptives (even hormone releasing IUDs) made her lief a misery with the side-effects.
If you're using condoms, having access to the morning-after pill (or alternatively three or four regular pills but do check with your doctor I'm not a trained medical person I'm just passing on what I've been told by them) is a good option as they do break.
I know from personal experience it's a lot down to usage; I used to break condoms, I now can't remember the last time I did, the brand is the same and, er, the other 'variables' are the same.
This is bourne out be the stats; condom effectiveness can vary from 97% to 86%, depending on how well they are used. Likewise, oral contraceptives vary from over 99% to 95%.
Be very wary of some religiously-motiovated health educators; I've seen tests of latex GLOVES being used to 'prove' condoms are ineffective; pure scare tactics, and iresponsible ones at that. It's not like they stop people having sex (this has never happened, even when death was the penalty), it's just they'll not think it is worth bothering using anything...
But anyway...
... our grandchildren will probably have to apply to have alicense to have children. Of course, if effective aging therapies come online (in the next 30 years please), then the population problem becomes really interesting... I think it would also make people act more responsibily (if they live longer), as they'll have to bear the concequences of their own actions more...
Firstly, we all know your objection to abortion (as Yeru's) is based on your religious beliefs; dressing it up in clothes of 'science' or 'logic' is just something you do to try make your beliefs more palitable, a different process to belieiving in what evidence and logic supports.
My religious view is not the issue. Abortion is child killing.
Second you're comparing a born child with a brain that is already highly developed (and no one is arguing for the right to kill 14 month-olds, it just suits your argument to make that comparison) to an unborn with grammes of nerve tissue. Most aborted fetuses have less brain matter than household pets.
So its alright to kill those with less developed brains? An 18 moth old has a more developed brain than a 3 month old (so is it alright to kill the 3 month old?). Likewise a 3 month old has a more develpoed brain than a 3 day old, likewise a baby born 3 days ago haas a more developed brain than an 8 month old (in the womb) etc.
Is not an 18 moth old just as human as a 3 day old? Brain development "level" will not get you a lighter prison sentence for killing an 3 moth old rather than an 18 moth old (or should it?).
IMHO, this is a debate that should be over in mere minutes, but will probably rage forever, that is because it is based on a non-number. That number is at what age the baby begins life.
At what point does the baby gain the right to live? The ONLY event where there is a definitive point in life is conception. Is there any event after that which shows the beginning of a living organism? No! If you say that life begins at birth, then what differentiates a baby that will be born tomorrow, from a baby that has just been born? Again, nothing.
I find it interesting that there has recently been a law passed somewhere (in USA, I think maybe CA?), that says that if a person kills someone, and in the process the unborn baby dies, then they can and will be tried for two counts of murder. Does it really matter who is doing the killing? Some guy with a knife, or a doctor?
I know I unfortunately still have some of the black and white (no grey area) view of certain matters I got from the b0rg, but I personally cannot see where a definitive point lies in what is murder and what is abortion. Why is it murder if a woman kills her baby after birth, but completely legal for her to kill it beforehand?
Just my humble opinion. Each to their own. The beautiful thing about being out of the Troof is that we can all have differing opinion, and still enjoy each other's company.
Ahhh screw it:
YOU'RE ALL DISFELLOWSHIPPED
Futher Mucking Elder-type dude
hooberus
Firstly, we all know your objection to abortion (as Yeru's) is based on your religious beliefs; dressing it up in clothes of 'science' or 'logic' is just something you do to try make your beliefs more palitable, a different process to belieiving in what evidence and logic supports.My religious view is not the issue. Abortion is child killing.
Yes, your religious view is that abortion is child killing. I'd love to see a decent proof that the Bible actually proscribes deliberate abortion. Abortion was known in ancient history, as was masturbation. Despite this, neither abortion or masturbation are specifically condemned in the Bible. Despite this lack of Biblical condemnation, some religionists will seek to misapply scriptures.
For example, the Mosaic law regarding a pregnant woman being hurt in a fight is used to 'prove' the Bible is against abortion - but in fact the syntax of the sentence is unclear and there is no specific law condemining people for practising deliberate abortion - a curious omission for a know practice that apparently god hates.
Likewise we all know how the scripture 'deaden your body members' is willfully misapplied to masturbation.
So, you're opinion is fine - for you. To make your opinion matter to others who don't share your beliefs you would have to first show the Bible is inspired of god and accurate (we're still wating for you to do that), and then that the Bible obviously condemns deliberate abortion.
So its alright to kill those with less developed brains? An 18 moth old has a more developed brain than a 3 month old. Likewise a 3 month old has a more develpoed brain than a 3 day old, likewise a baby born 3 days ago haas a more developed brain than an 8 month old (in the womb) etc.
Is not an 18 moth old just as human as a 3 day old? Brain development "level" wount get you a lighter prison sentence for killing an 3 moth old rather than an 18 moth old (or should it?).
Strawman argument. I was comparing the example YOU gave, not making a rule. And you are arguing about the relative wrongness of two actions that are already accepted by everyone as wrong.
Pro-abortion people say that it is wrong to kill a nursing 14 month old while in the process of receiving sustenance from his mother (by the nipple), but that its alright to kill say an 8th month old (in the womb), which is receiving sustenance from his mother (by the umbilical cord).
While the type of sustenance is different (nutrition only; vs, nutrition and oxygen), as is the method, (through the belly vs. the mouth), and the attachment is also different, the fact remains that the concept is the same, that of one human dependant for a period of time on another.
A baby in the womb (and receiving sustenance umbilically) on April 1, 2004 is the same baby as when it is born on April 2, 2004 (and nursing on its mother later on that day).
The fact that the method of sustenance is different (at times such as above) does not make it less human.
Pro-abortion people say
hooberus; why don't you actually address the arguments that have been raised rather than putting words in people's mouths?
For example, instead of typing: "Pro-abortion people say" and then following it with a strawman argument type "Abaddon says:"; follow it with a direct quote from Abaddon and then use rational arguments to show why you disagree.
Go on, have another go.
I have made my points here. Abortion is child killing.
I have made my points here. Abortion is child killing.
Hmm, one more try. I don't think you're completely irredeemable yet.
Anybody can make an assertion. The trick when debating is not to just continue making the same assertion but to provide supporting arguments and to attempt to refute opposing arguments. While it's certainly easier just to ignore or misrepresent opposing views, it doesn't lead to a very productive discussion. So here's an exercise for you: instead of saying why you're opposed to extremely late-term abortions (which I don't think anybody in this thread has argued for), explain why you're against the much more common first-trimester abortions. Here's a hint: "Abortion is child killing" is not a valid argument.
Funky D said:
Are you incapable of having opinions on issues that don't directly relate to forty-year-old white married American women? Should your opinions be judged on their own merit, or because of who or what you are?
Opinions are just that. Beliefs based on what you know of a subject as it pertains to you and your situation.
Abortion is a murder. Is murder sometimes the lesser of two evils? Perhaps.
The population explosion... I have no opinion on that because I am ignorant to all the facts.I suppose that if I felt that there were too many mouths to feed with the availability of food stuffs, I would chose to keep "it" in my pants.I don't know how things are elswhere, but I would much rather keep my mouth shut and have folks think me a fool than spout off and remove all doubt.
Thunder ==}>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
