On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:49:50 -0600, Canuck57 wrote:

On 26/09/2011 10:42 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 9/26/2011 11:41 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 26/09/2011 8:24 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/26/2011 10:15 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 25/09/2011 8:26 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/25/2011 9:49 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 25/09/2011 3:41 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/25/2011 11:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 24/09/2011 5:11 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:31:39 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

On 9/24/2011 6:08 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:57:46 -0400, wrote:

So answer his question. Just when does a fertilized egg
become a
human?

At conception.

===

That's a religious view not supportable by any logic or
science. It
even fails the common sense test. You are entitled to your
beliefs
as long as you don't try to legislate them for everyone else.


What do you care? We have abortion on demand now, what more do
you
want?
You have taken the parents out of the equation, which "even fails
the
common sense test". Like I said before, compromise for abortion
advocates, and most other zealots is just a means to an end.. Now
that
you have it 100% your way you want it to be considered settled
law,
and
nobody else can have an opinion on it.. I get it.

It actually was "settled law" until the religious zealots, with
whom
you apparently identify, tried to make their religious opinion a
secular law.

There is no such thing as "settled law."

It is sad that parents had to be "taken out of the equation," but
there are parents that, due to religious convictions, will allow
children to starve, go without medical treatment, and other
(secularly) ridiculous actions. Even now, there are parents that
feel
that NOT vaccinating their children (boys AND girls) against HPV,
which causes cervical cancer, will keep then chaste and pure. They
are
even taking their position to court to defend their right as
parents
to allow their children to get cervical cancer. But that is sane,
right?

Parents have been taken out of the equation because the liberals
beliefs
are contrary to those of conservatives and the liberals cannot
stand to
let others live their own lives.

Actually, when it comes to abortion and religion, drop the liberal
and
conservative thing. Bot sides have their fanatics that feel the
right to
tell others what to do.

Libertarian versus statism might have better alignment. Comes
down to
how much do you believe others have the rights to make their own
choices?

What more do they want? They already have abortion on demand as a
"compromise", what is next, will they get to choose who must have an
abortion??

So? What is wrong with the choice being exclusively between the woman
and the doctor?

It isn't your womb after all.

How about government dictating circumcision? (or banning it?)

Or maybe one step further, claim your genetics are not good enough and
you must be sterilized. (an every genome has defects, that is why we
are
not the same).

My point is, why are we even talking about it.. How much more
"compromise" do you want, you have abortion on demand now, paid for and
delivered by organizations who have only one solution in their arsenal,
and make a ton of money on it, with no right for any other information
or opinion to the young girl that walks in....? if there is any more
"compromise"... we will be at the point of: "government dictating
circumcision (or banning it?) Or claiming your genetics are not good
enough and you must be sterilized." So, I ask you again, how much more
"compromise" do you want?

No more is really needed, provided the women have access without the
harassment and bully mentality. Their choice.

Yeah, as long as they only get that one point of view... What if it was
the other side that was funded by the Govt and wouldn't allow any talk
of abortion in their clinics? That is to say, what would you think if
Planned Parenthood actually gave information beneficial to a woman who
wanted to say be a parent, and couldn't talk about abortion at all.
Would you think of that as "compromise" too?


Don't get me wrong, I am nether pro nor con in the decision, just
believe it is their right to their body. Government (nor religion)
shouldn't be used to dictate having babies.

Yeah, but if you support Planned Parenthood, you absolutely do not
support a womans right to make an "informed" decision about parenthood.
planned Parenthood is an abortion mill, they have no interest in
"informed" clients, only providing abortions...


It isn't 10,000 BC with a dwindling population of only 4 million world
wide. As of 1825 give or take the population was a billion. Today 7
billion....it can't continue this way as one way or another there are
going to be limits. If anything, in large areas of the world we should
be looking at controls in birth.

So, you want women to make decisions based on that???


Our jobs should be to our family, not to the state to provided breeding
vessels and soldiers.

Abortions don't create families...

Abortions don't create starving illiterate homeless children turning to
crime either.



So, all those aborted kids were gonna' come up bad? I can see this is
futile. Like a Progressive, you are making it a binary issue and you
decide which is 0 and which is 1...

A good number of them would, because whether we like it or not, a good
number of them would come from unwed, unsupported, inner city welfare
recipients.

I am sure if the anti-abortion types raised the money and paid these
women to have the children. Oh wait, the idea is for someone else to
pay for it. Ya, right.

As I said, the anti-abortion movement is just another form of bully
mentality of idle fanatical minds. Last thing the world needs is
another starving, neglected, welfare sucking, poorly raised delinquent.

Look at Africa, billion new babies or so in the next 10 or 12 years to
add to the starvation and poverty they already have. Brilliant. /sarcasm

Africa's problems are not the result of anti-abortion types. Sometimes you come across as though
your head is where the sun don't shine.