Polish lawmakers move closer to banning abortions altogether, even for women who were raped, are carrying deformed babies or face health risks.

[SMR 368]

I'm sorry - but that there is total rubbish.

Do elaborate. What other options are there so that no one's basic rights are violated?

[_Simpson_ 250]

It's a consideration, for the woman, but it's still ultimately it's her tight to choose what is best for her and her situation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with you.

What about Jr? Who speaks for Jr? A woman who chooses to have a abortion clearly doesn't have Jr's best interests in mind.

[faust-yusov 103]

Not in this thread but in other yes I have. You have yet to ask and only assume.

I asked if you viewed the use of contraception as equally "selfish" to abortion, given the parity of the two from the deterministic perspective of your argument. You said "of course not", after which I gave you the opportunity to expound:

Again, I inquire as to why you do not reserve comparable vitriol for contraceptive use.

You have however remained quite evasive! I therefore have no choice but to "only assume".

In which case, might I suggest that you find widening your morality net to snare those "punishing the baby" at the point of conception so intrinsically unpalatable because it appropriates a certain degree of culpability to the man?

Edited July 5, 2011 by faust-yusov

[_Simpson_ 250]

I asked if you viewed the use of contraception as equally "selfish" to abortion, given the parity of the two from the deterministic perspective of your argument. You said "of course not", after which I gave you the opportunity to expound:

You have however remained quite evasive! I therefore have no choice but to "only assume".

It seemed more like you were trying to slow walk me to a epiphany. If you could of just been straight forward we could of saved some serious time here.

In which case, might I suggest that you find widening your morality net to snare those "punishing the baby" at the point of conception so intrinsically unpalatable because it appropriates a certain degree of culpability to the man?

Considering everything I've posted why would you think I'm giving men a free ride? Besides were talking abortion here and the female is the only one that can make that choice.

[Fandango 1,440]

What would he know about the reasons someone might prefer to choose abortion over adoption? What would he know about the thought (or lack thereof) that went into an individual's decision to abort?

Well hell, in that case, what would you know?

Ahhh, speculation. We're all doing it!

[faust-yusov 103]

It seemed more like you were trying to slow walk me to a epiphany. If you could of just been straight forward we could of saved some serious time here.

I don't believe there was anything particularly enigmatic or elliptical about my questioning. In fact I was rather at pains to outline accurately what I felt were inarguable logical implications of your deterministic morality.

Regardless - perhaps you might now care to explain why you feel abortion so reprehensible a "punishment", and contraception not. Each is a means of preventing determined life for the purpose of consequence-free sex.

Edited July 6, 2011 by faust-yusov

[Fandango 1,440]

Regardless - perhaps you might now care to explain why you feel abortion so reprehensible a "punishment", and contraception not. Each is a means of preventing determined life for the purpose of consequence-free sex.

Oh good Lord.

Abortion kills.

Condoms don't.

[Fandango 1,440]

Also, no one said abortion was a 'punishment' for sex.

[faust-yusov 103]

Oh good Lord.

Abortion kills.

Condoms don't.

This is merely pro-life rhetoric. You cannot kill a person who has not yet been born. If you can, then we must permit that it is possible to kill them if they have not yet been conceived.

What you can do is prevent a person from being born, which, a posteriori, is achieved equally by contraception as it is abortion - the two of which, as outlined in Simpson's system of morality, being therefore morally equivalent.

[faust-yusov 103]

Also, no one said abortion was a 'punishment' for sex.

It's in relation to this:

A woman willingly having sex knows dam well that she could get pregnant. My position is that if she doesnt want to take the chance then DONT HAVE SEX. The baby shouldn't be punished for her having sex, I hate IT when woman make it all about themselves, how selfish.

[Danno 1,228]

This is merely pro-life rhetoric. You cannot kill a person who has not yet been born.

How do you feel about the protection afforded endangered species.... say like the Egg of a rare bird?

From your logic, that egg does not contain a bird at all..... so why are they protected by law?

[Fandango 1,440]

This is merely pro-life rhetoric. You cannot kill a person who has not yet been born. If you can, then we must permit that it is possible to kill them if they have not yet been conceived.

What you can do is prevent a person from being born, which, a posteriori, is achieved equally by contraception as it is abortion - the two of which, as outlined in Simpson's system of morality, being therefore morally equivalent.

If we're going to talk technicalities,a fetus' heart beats 18 days after conception.

Now tell me how something with a heartbeat cannot be killed.

The disturbing thing is if you view abortion and contraception as being more similar than not.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Anita Cocktail

[SMOKE 1,426]

This is merely pro-life rhetoric. You cannot kill a person who has not yet been born. If you can, then we must permit that it is possible to kill them if they have not yet been conceived.

What you can do is prevent a person from being born, which, a posteriori, is achieved equally by contraception as it is abortion - the two of which, as outlined in Simpson's system of morality, being therefore morally equivalent.

did you read that before you hit add reply? if a baby hasn't been conceived, its not a baby. prior to fetilization its two seperate things, sperm and an egg. after conception it is one thing, a human being.

simpson clearly was asking why 'the baby' should be punished for 'the parents' being irresponsible.

using & throwing a used condom in the thrash vs. ripping apart & sucking pieces of a living fetus out of a womb then throwing it in trash....nope not the same thing, not even close.

[faust-yusov 103]

If we're going to talk technicalities,a fetus' heart beats 18 days after conception.

Now tell me how something with a heartbeat cannot be killed.

A heartbeat is one of several definitions of a nebulous concept. By another, we might argue that spermatozoa are live beings.

The disturbing thing is if you view abortion and contraception as being more similar than not.

Well, why not? Is the morning after pill not essentially abortion?

[SMOKE 1,426]

A heartbeat is one of several definitions of a nebulous concept. By another, we might argue that spermatozoa are live beings.

how many times have you heard of someone getting charged w/ double homicide for killing a man & his sperm? now how about a woman & her unborn child?

Well, why not? Is the morning after pill not essentially abortion?

IMHO- if a baby was concieved the night before...yes it is abortion in a pill