Prophylactics fail, women get pregnant as a result. Are you equating the biological function of procreation to the cause/effect of getting drunk? Rather weak comparision.
Ted Cruz speaks on PRO LIFE.. YES!
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
Prophylactics fail, women get pregnant as a result. Are you equating the biological function of procreation to the cause/effect of getting drunk? Rather weak comparision.
No, it's not. Sex can cause pregnancy. Drinking can cause drunkenness.
I am not saying "don't do either" but rather be RESPONSIBLE and don't make another innocent person pay for your choices.
it's still a conscience decision between 2 consenting adults. percentages and failure rates of contraception in any form are known. since seemingly nothing is 100%, then we must offer an "individual", no matter what their motive, another choice that's 100% guaranteed ? NO - responsibility and sex go together, it's not just spreading seeds and eggs everywhere, hoping for the 'best"
So you always drink to the goal of drunkenness; likewise the act of sex?
Have you ever considered that having an abortion may be - in many instances - the RESPONSIBLE thing to do?
adoption, foster parents, other "choices", i'm sure. i'm a guy, but acceptance and responsibility for ones decisions should not be left to an "afterthought", a second-guessing, if you will. hindsight and regrets do not equate to a "responsible" THING TO DO, by just killing a baby cuz it's "better" that way. unreal. it is a fine line, between freedom and "what's good for ME". VOTE
Last edited:
No ... I seldom drink, and on those rare occasions, it's normally in my own home, and I never get behind the wheel of a car.
In regards to sex, I practice what I preach. Three pregnancies. Three births. None were planned.
No ... because no parent is mandated to keep and care for their child. The options are: Giving birth to a child who will be raised by someone else VS killing a child so they can be raised by ... no one.
Yeah, it makes so much sense to kill the innocent bi-product of one's own actions instead of giving the gift of life.
...and only three respective acts of sex? :angel:
Sure, that's a viable option...though not a necessary one.
Maybe, maybe not...you can not predict future circumstance.
Lon
Well-known member
"...forced..." :kookoo:
That was a choice :dizzy: :dizzy: :dizzy:
How's that 'insanity' :dizzy: plea coming along?
ONLY if you aren't going to be a murderer.
let's see :think: Give my child up for adoption? :thumb:"Murder my child and have it on my conscious for the rest of my life and have people think of me as a selfish killer?" :down:
So, apparently, was killing over 6 million Jews :think:
Hiel Commandant!
I do confess that I fail to see the difference.
New Zealanders are idiots.
Of course you do. It never ceases to entertain me the way so many on this site -- not only are so glad to quietly stuff their head in the sand -- but proudly go out of their way to give me a customary demonstration. :cheers:
Not without sexual intercourse. Your stupidity is....amazing. You should sell tickets to let people look at you. Patrick Starfish makes millions for Nickelodean.
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
So here we see what is actually behind this call to make abortion illegal. The right just hates the idea that people might have sex because they enjoy it! As far as those on the right are concerned sex is only for procreation.
Last edited:
We do?
:noway: Way to assume, Newbie.
I have better things to do than worry about stupid people allowing themselves to become infected with diseases because they are too lazy or ignorant to protect themselves or practice any type of self control.
A person's desire to be reckless should never trump the rights of an unborn baby that she and he willingly created when they consented to having sex.
A fair enough question but remains typically callow in its effort to miss the (objective) mark. Conception begins in the fallopian tube, moves to the uterus with a gestation period for approximately nine-months. I know you realize this yet, your question fails to make this otherwise obvious distinction when morally comparing "stages of development". In short, in the moral evaluation of the fetus there's an - again obvious - condition to the abortion debate that pro-lifers continuously choose to ignore....the pregnant woman.
All women react to their pregnancy in potentia... though with, at times, differing conclusions. Some desire their pregnancy, effectively envisioning a cuddly newborn while others desire to avoid the burdens assosiated with such. In my view, both women are correct. Pro-lifers, by contrast, simply take this same potential and project their view upon some faceless, unknown woman while by default condemning any woman who may choose the latter view, all based upon a presupposed pro-life (in potentia) moral view she has no commitment to share with you.
Why is that:
By virtue of the very nature of pregnancy itself; the juxtaposition of fetus subsisting within the womb, neither women must be condemned or otherwise commanded to remain host to another human being without explicit personal consent....moreso, as there is no such non-pregnancy precedent.
In conclusion, as a third party to pregnancy the law must take a rationally, practical, objective, non-emotional approach as to when to recognize the full, unimpeded rights of human beings; the same "stage of development" it has always been since the inception of our country.....at birth.
Last edited:
a fetus is a stage in the development of a discrete, unique individual human being, that begins with fertilization, progresses through prenatal development, infancy, various stages of childhood, transitioning to early adulthood, leading to middle adulthood , late adulthood, elderly and advanced stages of very late adulthood, leading to death
all human
all stages of life
when we dissected fetal pigs in lab at various stages of development, there was never any question of whether or not they were pigs
neither was there ever any discussion about whether or not they had been alive before being removed from the sow and filled with formaldehyde
