If life begins at contraception, you have done something wrong.

Contraception isn't 100% effective.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I don't think life begins at contraception, isn't that the point?

 

For once, a post of yours made me laugh out loud.

---

;

;

Contraception isn't 100% effective.  

 

So what is 100% effective?  Could it be that abstinence is 100% effective?  Of course, we can't teach that abstinence is the "right" thing to do because it supposedly is based on a religious point of view.  Rather we should teach about how to use contraception and make it "free".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So what is 100% effective?  Could it be that abstinence is 100% effective?  Of course, we can't teach that abstinence is the "right" thing to do because it supposedly is based on a religious point of view.  Rather we should teach about how to use contraception and make it "free".

 

Abstinence isn't 100% effective either. At least according to some religions.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Abstinence isn't 100% effective either. At least according to some religions.

 

:unsure:   Care to elaborate?  I mean I was educated a certain way, and was taught that "doing" certain things led to procreation.  Abstaining from doing those things would not.  Nothing to do with religion, just education (science).  If something that normally does something (creates a baby) isn't done, then how is that not 100% effective in ensuring that life is not created?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

:unsure: Care to elaborate? I mean I was educated a certain way, and was taught that "doing" certain things led to procreation. Abstaining from doing those things would not. Nothing to do with religion, just education (science). If something that normally does something (creates a baby) isn't done, then how is that not 100% effective in ensuring that life is not created?

He's referring to the various Immaculate Conception stories.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So what is 100% effective? Could it be that abstinence is 100% effective? Of course, we can't teach that abstinence is the "right" thing to do because it supposedly is based on a religious point of view. Rather we should teach about how to use contraception and make it "free".

Teaching abstinence is less effective than teaching safe sex. If you tell a teenager to keep their pants on, they'll probably ignore you and take them off anyway. If you tell them that abstinence is the only way to be completely agree regarding STDs and pregnancy, but explain various ways to make sex safer if they choose to engage in it, you're recognizing that we left the age of chastity belts long, long ago and teaching them information they'll use rather than an edict they'll ignore.

---

Oh boy.

 

So tell me, when does "human life" begin? You never actually say when you believe (yes, it's a belief and not a fact) life begins. I'm assuming you are going with conception, but I'll give you a chance to correct yourself if that's true. Tread carefully, btw.

 

No, it is a fact.  I pointed out very clearly when life begins scientifically.  I agree with the plain science and think that our policy as a society should reflect the plain truth.  

 

As to your point about the idea of no abortion under any circumstance, the idea of recognizing a fetus as a human life doesn't preclude emergency or extreme circumstances.  

 

Lets say that a woman was raped.  obviously at the time that you file the complaint and obtain a rape kit she should be given the option of taking a contraceptive that can alleviate the pregnancy.  That's a legitimate choice that respects the fact that life should only be cast aside in the most extreme of circumstances.  the same goes for the health of the mother, or to alleviate the child having to suffer if it is proven that there will be major debilitating birth defects.  

---

Schools shouldn't be teaching anything about sex that's the parents role.

---

Schools shouldn't be teaching anything about sex that's the parents role.

 

It's part of human biology, of course it should be taught. Parents should address the morality issues involved in sexuality.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

It's part of human biology, of course it should be taught. Parents should address the morality issues involved in sexuality.

That's fine teach how it works but I don't think schools have any role in teaching safe practices or how to have safe sex.

---

No, it is a fact.  I pointed out very clearly when life begins scientifically.  I agree with the plain science and think that our policy as a society should reflect the plain truth.  

 

As to your point about the idea of no abortion under any circumstance, the idea of recognizing a fetus as a human life doesn't preclude emergency or extreme circumstances.  

 

Lets say that a woman was raped.  obviously at the time that you file the complaint and obtain a rape kit she should be given the option of taking a contraceptive that can alleviate the pregnancy.  That's a legitimate choice that respects the fact that life should only be cast aside in the most extreme of circumstances.  the same goes for the health of the mother, or to alleviate the child having to suffer if it is proven that there will be major debilitating birth defects.  

 

No, it really isn't a fact.

 

So is the sperm cell a living human being? Or does it become a living human being once it fertilizes the egg? Or does it become a living human being once that egg implants in the uterus? Or does it become a living human being when the embryo is formed? Or does it become a living human being when the heart starts to beat around 4 weeks? Or does it become a human being when it develops into a fetus?

 

You have not given your answer and there is no "fact" on the subject. So pick a stage there and tell me when, in your opinion, it becomes a human being.

 

And if you consider it a human being the entire time, then how can you support "murdering" this human being because of potential birth defects? Who decides what birth defects are okay to "murder" this "human being" for? Trisomy 13? Trisomy 18? Trisomy 21? Duodenal Atresia? Does it then become the parent's decision? Or is it the doctor's decision? Or does science decide which birth defects are okay to murder "human beings" for?

---

with all due respect, one of the things that bugs me the most is when people don't read my posts.  It really urks me when people QUOTE my post and don't read it.  

 

1.) The sperm and the egg are indivdual cells as a product of the biological process called meosis.  The only contain half the genetic code of either parent.  The third organism doesn't have a genetic blue print in a cell capable of cellular mitosis (one of the criteria used to determine if a system is truly alive) until the moment of fertalization and then at that time once recognized and detected i would fundamentally consider it a human life.  

 

2.) as is the case with all human life, a human life can be ended legally.  If you are in my home rapping my wife i can kill you both morally and ethically.  If you are of a threat of great bodily injury and or death to me or someone else i can end your life legally.  In certain circumstances There are certain people who through medical proxy or living wills determine at which point certain medical care should be suspended because a certain standard of quality will no longer be possible and or to avoid prolonged unavoidable and unrecoverable pain and suffering.  In the case of a minor that decision would be made by the parents with the consultation of the doctor.  

 

Killing someone or something in and of itself is not MURDER.  to suggest otherwise ignores both the law and general moral realities.  Killing someone just because you don't want it to affect your wasteline IS.  

 

It is my position that in the calculus of determining the future of any human life it should be RESPECTED AS SUCH and that anyone seeking to terminate it under the eyes of the law and with the consent of society should show just cause to protect the mother from great injurious harm, the child from a life of torment and pain or in the extreme case that a woman was raped and became pregnant and could not find the constitution to care for the child personally or make it to term and deliver.  

 

To characterize my position as EXTREME is asinine when the alternative that you present is the inane SLAUGHTER of over 70 million people.  Within the next 20 years we will eclipse the amount of people that were killed in all wars since the dawn of the 20th century, THAT'S EXTREME.  Its the advocates of that policy that should have to TREAD CAREFULLY.  And more importantly if you want to advocate for that position then by all means stand up and be proud because if you are going to sit here and stand behind half a percent of the millions slaughtered as the reason to kill off the other 99.5% then you should take a minute to fully think about what that means.  

 

Please read my ENTIRE POST before responding.

---

with all due respect, one of the things that bugs me the most is when people don't read my posts.  It really urks me when people QUOTE my post and don't read it.  

 

1.) The sperm and the egg are indivdual cells as a product of the biological process called meosis.  The only contain half the genetic code of either parent.  The third organism doesn't have a genetic blue print in a cell capable of cellular mitosis (one of the criteria used to determine if a system is truly alive) until the moment of fertalization and then at that time once recognized and detected i would fundamentally consider it a human life.  

 

2.) as is the case with all human life, a human life can be ended legally.  If you are in my home rapping my wife i can kill you both morally and ethically.  If you are of a threat of great bodily injury and or death to me or someone else i can end your life legally.  In certain circumstances There are certain people who through medical proxy or living wills determine at which point certain medical care should be suspended because a certain standard of quality will no longer be possible and or to avoid prolonged unavoidable and unrecoverable pain and suffering.  In the case of a minor that decision would be made by the parents with the consultation of the doctor.  

 

Killing someone or something in and of itself is not MURDER.  to suggest otherwise ignores both the law and general moral realities.  Killing someone just because you don't want it to affect your wasteline IS.  

 

It is my position that in the calculus of determining the future of any human life it should be RESPECTED AS SUCH and that anyone seeking to terminate it under the eyes of the law and with the consent of society should show just cause to protect the mother from great injurious harm, the child from a life of torment and pain or in the extreme case that a woman was raped and became pregnant and could not find the constitution to care for the child personally or make it to term and deliver.  

 

To characterize my position as EXTREME is asinine when the alternative that you present is the inane SLAUGHTER of over 70 million people.  Within the next 20 years we will eclipse the amount of people that were killed in all wars since the dawn of the 20th century, THAT'S EXTREME.  Its the advocates of that policy that should have to TREAD CAREFULLY.  And more importantly if you want to advocate for that position then by all means stand up and be proud because if you are going to sit here and stand behind half a percent of the millions slaughtered as the reason to kill off the other 99.5% then you should take a minute to fully think about what that means.  

 

Please read my ENTIRE POST before responding.

 

That's a good post.   I just wish both sides of the abortion debate would acknowledge the legitimate position of the other side, because it is a difficult issue.  

 

We could eliminate 90% of abortions through more effective sex education and birth control.   And yet, the ironic thing is that so many of the people who see abortion as murder are also against better sex education and birth control.  So they are actually the cause of a lot of abortions, because they don't want to take the steps to prevent the kind of pregnancies that result in abortions. 

 

I don't think we can eliminate abortions by making them illegal, because science  marches on and abortions will be easier and easier to obtain, even if it is illegal.  Especially for the rich or well-educated people, who have always gotten abortions, even when it was illegal.   The way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and that means giving young women better sex education and birth control.   If you defund Planned Parenthood, you might actually increase the number of abortions, because you will eliminate a large resource that poor women have to help them reduce unwanted pregnancies.  

---

There's a very easy way to eliminate abortion all together.  I didn't sleep with anyone until I was married.  Someone else can't do the same? 

 

Oh that's the dirty word... Abstinance.  No, it's the REALLY dirty word.  Responsibility. 

 

But you have to acknowledge the fact that kids are going to be kids right? 

 

Well when you turn over children to their hormones and physical desires what's the reasonable expectation that they are going to be responsibly irresponsible? 

 

I am not trying to be flippant, but frankly there is a condom dispensary in most gas stations I have been in.  What's it cost 75 cents?  At a certain point when are we going to stand up and say as a society that if a guy can't either a. marry you first or b. afford the 75 cents to buy a condom that he's not worth a young lady's time? 

 

More importantly, abortion is fundamentally an abdication of male responsibility.  For the most part of the under privileged you have guys not stepping up to the plate saying hey "no matter what happens i'm here ill die before I let you and my child go hungry!"  that's not just the answer to abortion but poverty in general.

---

There's a very easy way to eliminate abortion all together.  I didn't sleep with anyone until I was married.  Someone else can't do the same? 

 

Oh that's the dirty word... Abstinance.  No, it's the REALLY dirty word.  Responsibility. 

 

 

Because married women don't have abortions?

---

;

;

Abstinence works! Ask Bristol Palin.

---

To characterize my position as EXTREME is asinine when the alternative that you present is the inane SLAUGHTER of over 70 million people.  Within the next 20 years we will eclipse the amount of people that were killed in all wars since the dawn of the 20th century, THAT'S EXTREME.  Its the advocates of that policy that should have to TREAD CAREFULLY.  And more importantly if you want to advocate for that position then by all means stand up and be proud because if you are going to sit here and stand behind half a percent of the millions slaughtered as the reason to kill off the other 99.5% then you should take a minute to fully think about what that means.  

I wouldn't call your position as extreme as others I've seen (Google "abortion should be punishable by death"), but I still think you skew far to one side without respect to the other. In your mind, abortion is murder. That's fine, that's all well and good, but in the mind of someone else--and again, this is not necessarily my opinion...I know better than to put my feelings on it out there--the organism is not a human being until term, or until it's able to survive outside the womb, or in one of the most ridiculous arguments I've seen, until it's self-aware. How does one find out at what point a fetus is self-aware? Ask it?

 

I did read your entire post, and it is slanted to the direction you agree with, which is fine and to be expected. The problem is that you're not going to change any hearts or minds by calling it "SLAUGHTER" in all caps. You're just going to further galvanize the pro-choice crowd against you, and make the whole mess worse. That's the problem with abortion debates, as I said earlier. No one's going to change their minds. We're just going to sit around yelling at each other about whether it's "SLAUGHTER" or "a woman's right", and at the end of the day the pro-choice bunch is going to sit back and smirk about how intellectually superior they are while the anti-abortion crowd is going to sit back and smirk about how morally superior they are.

 

There's a very easy way to eliminate abortion all together.  I didn't sleep with anyone until I was married.  Someone else can't do the same? 

 

Oh that's the dirty word... Abstinance.  No, it's the REALLY dirty word.  Responsibility. 

1. Married people have abortions, too.

 

2. Preaching abstinence until marriage only serves to increase the percentage of teenagers having sex. Studies have been done. I'm sure you can find one if you're so inclined. Beyond that, the age of marriage is progressively getting later and later (29 for men, 27 for women, page 3) while the age of sexual maturity remains a biological constant. By age 44, 95% of Americans have had premarital sex (and another 4% are lying, imo). If you really think that Tebow is being honest when he claims that a multi-millionaire like himself in his late 20's is still a virgin, I've got some oceanfront land to sell you--in Kansas. There are lots of good ways to decrease abortion, and one of the best is educating people who are about to start having sex on ways to do so safely and minimize the chances of becoming pregnant. Offering adoption as an option to pregnant teenagers, or being supportive if they express a desire to keep the baby are also ways to reduce abortion. When you throw solutions like that out there, you can realistically and reasonably reduce abortions. When you post about "SLAUGHTER" of 70 million people in all caps, you're not solving anything. You're just ticking people off and further alienating them from your point of view.

---

There's a very easy way to eliminate abortion all together.  I didn't sleep with anyone until I was married.  Someone else can't do the same? 

 

Oh that's the dirty word... Abstinance.  No, it's the REALLY dirty word.  Responsibility. 

 

But you have to acknowledge the fact that kids are going to be kids right? 

 

Well when you turn over children to their hormones and physical desires what's the reasonable expectation that they are going to be responsibly irresponsible? 

 

I am not trying to be flippant, but frankly there is a condom dispensary in most gas stations I have been in.  What's it cost 75 cents?  At a certain point when are we going to stand up and say as a society that if a guy can't either a. marry you first or b. afford the 75 cents to buy a condom that he's not worth a young lady's time? 

 

More importantly, abortion is fundamentally an abdication of male responsibility.  For the most part of the under privileged you have guys not stepping up to the plate saying hey "no matter what happens i'm here ill die before I let you and my child go hungry!"  that's not just the answer to abortion but poverty in general.

 

How old were you when you got married? And lol at pointing the finger at guys.

---

So it's just a "charade"?  Look at the evidence and justify it.  Calling it a "charade" is just another liberal tactic to attempt to discredit a legitimate problem.  That's what liberals do, attempt to de-legitimize the opposition and if that doesn't work, then attack them personally.

Yup, no conservatives do this. Like ever. Like on this board even. :no:

---