Overturning Roe vs Wade

[opebo]

It is accurate to say that a sperm is killed, and it's accurate to say that a fetus is killed.

Then how, in good conscience, can we, as members of the culture of life, allow the travesty of beating off to continue unabated?!!
Sin, sin sin.

[A18]

Follow a point, opebo. You said killing was an inaccurate term. You're incorrect. No one here said all killing was wrong, so don't change the subject just because you're so obviously wrong.

[opebo]

Follow a point, opebo. You said killing was an inaccurate term. You're incorrect. No one here said all killing was wrong, so don't change the subject just because you're so obviously wrong.

Well, if some killing is OK, and other killing is not, then where you draw the line is entirely flexible.  In fact of course the concept of 'wrong' is subjective.  I don't see the big difference between sperm and fetii myself.

[Ebowed]

How can you not tell the difference between sperm and a fetus?

[opebo]

How can you not tell the difference between sperm and a fetus?

The point is, all have the same characteristic that obsesses you abortion-foes - the potential to produce yet another human life. 

[A18]

That's not what we're talking about. You said it's inaccurate to use the word kill. That's false.

A fetus is human, and it is life. That said, human life isn't necessarily significant at all of its stages.

[opebo]

That's not what we're talking about. You said it's inaccurate to use the word kill. That's false.

A fetus is human, and it is life. That said, human life isn't necessarily significant at all of its stages.

OK, why on earth do you expect me to take serious your concern for the fetii, when you so calously disregard the sperm?

Just because some slut of a lad can't keep his hands out of his pants, why should we allow him to murder millions of babies purely for his own convenience and hedonistic pleasure?!

[A18]

I don't, and I never debated the point. That's not what we're talking about. Stop making asinine arguments like "it isn't alive."

[opebo]

I don't, and I never debated the point. That's not what we're talking about. Stop making asinine arguments like "it isn't alive."

It is no more alive than a sperm.

[A18]

There is no "more alive." There's no such thing as being more alive than something else. Something is either alive, or it's not. A fetus is alive, so saying 'killed' is correct, not inaccurate as you falsely claimed.

[opebo]

There is no "more alive." There's no such thing as being more alive than something else. Something is either alive, or it's not. A fetus is alive, so saying 'killed' is correct, not inaccurate as you falsely claimed.

Well, apparentely a sperm is also alive, according to you.  So why do you object to abortion and not to non-vaginal ejaculation?

[A18]

According to me?! That's a biological fact.

I don't oppose all killing. The fact that something is alive doesn't mean it shouldn't be killed. It's just dumb to keep claiming it isn't alive, as you have.

[opebo]

According to me?! That's a biological fact.

I don't oppose all killing. The fact that something is alive doesn't mean it shouldn't be killed. It's just dumb to keep claiming it isn't alive, as you have.

So, given that one can simply choose to think that 'killing' a sperm by whacking off is acceptable, one can simply choose to think that 'killing' a fetus is OK, right? 

I'm asking you - why do you think the State should prevent abortion but not prevent masturbation?

[A18]

Not 'killing,' killing. Like killing bacteria, or killing trees. It's killing, and you don't have to oppose it, but it's still killing, so quit making factually incorrect statements.

I'm not arguing about abortion. I'm arguing about a simple fact. I have not argued that a fetus should have any value. I have simply pointed out how dumb it is to insist it's not killing.

[opebo]

Not 'killing,' killing. Like killing bacteria, or killing trees. It's killing, and you don't have to oppose it, but it's still killing, so quit making factually incorrect statements.

I'm not arguing about abortion. I'm arguing about a simple fact. I have not argued that a fetus should have any value. I have simply pointed out how dumb it is to insist it's not killing.

Oh, well glad we got that straightened out.  And yet a bacteria or a tree can live independently.. unlike a sperm or a fetus..  so are those latter really living in the full extent of the word?  I think not.

[A18]

By saying it can only live dependently, you are admitting it is alive.

[opebo]

By saying it can only live dependently, you are admitting it is alive.

Well, a foot is 'alive', and can only live dependently.  So a sperm and a foot and a fetus are all the same.

[Ebowed]

Actually Opebo a fetus can live independently, though with much guidance from other humans, much like a newborn infant.  A successful birth has taken place as early as 24 weeks in the womb, during the second trimester.  Under American law, that newborn baby who was born very prematurely has more rights than a 38 week old fetus that is still inside of a woman's body.

[Democratic Hawk]

Abortion should only be matter of necessity and not a matter of choice. That somehow needs to enshrined - and IF it were I would favour the overturning of Roe v Wade. After all, life is life from the time of conception

I used to take more a Voltaire-like approach to the issue: "I 'despise' women who have abortions but I'll defend to the death their right to have them" - but over the last couple of years I moved markedly in the pro-life direction

Dave