ET Warrior Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by toms Surely the ideal solution is to prevent people who don't want kids from getting pregnant in the first place... That would of course be more effective if our government would invest in a program intended to teach kids about safe sex, contraceptives and whatnot. Instead, we have our abstinence program, which is not only completely ineffective, it actually LIES about condoms and aids and other STD's in some attempt to scare teens away from sex.
El Sitherino Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by ET Warrior That would of course be more effective if our government would invest in a program intended to teach kids about safe sex, contraceptives and whatnot. Instead, we have our abstinence program, which is not only completely ineffective, it actually LIES about condoms and aids and other STD's in some attempt to scare teens away from sex. Very true. Infact a majority of men don't even know how to put on a condom properly. What we need are actual sex ed programs. It's disgusting how ill informed people are these days about sex and pretty much everything revolving around it.
reelguy227 Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by ET Warrior Instead, we have our abstinence program, which is not only completely ineffective, it actually LIES about condoms and aids and other STD's in some attempt to scare teens away from sex. What "lies " would those be?
reelguy227 Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 Obviously, InsaneSith is ignoring my plea for an articlewhich states the legitimacy of the supreme court issue, becuase there is no article to back your argument up ,now is there InsaneSith?
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 I know it isn't the US supreme court, but they work in a similar fashion: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/fs/2004/doc_31342.html An example of a ruling of a Supreme Court. Lies about condoms, aids, STD, other forms of contraception besides abstinence: http://www.libchrist.com/std/vaticanlies.html http://www.positive.org/Home/faq/truth.html That's all I can find for now.
reelguy227 Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 Thanks ,its much appreciated ,finaly someone gives evidence to back up their claims. God Bless and Mary Protect, Reelguy
ET Warrior Posted January 15, 2005 Posted January 15, 2005 You know, just because he didn't want to scour the internet in search of a website to back up something that you yourself could research doesn't mean it isn't true or doesn't exist. It means he has other things to do with his time perhaps. So perhaps you shouldn't be so callously tossing around such obvious flame-baits.
Druid_Allanon Posted January 15, 2005 Posted January 15, 2005 Heh I have to hand it to you guys. Before I read this thread, I thought abortion was wrong and that it shouldn't be done. But now I have seen the 'light'. It is nothing more than a bunch of cells before the first 2 months. Originally posted by reelguy227 Thanks ,its much appreciated ,finaly someone gives evidence to back up their claims. God Bless and Mary Protect, Reelguy If I have read this thread properly, neither did you give any evidence to show that the fetus is a 'human' during the first 2 months.
Druid Bremen Posted January 15, 2005 Posted January 15, 2005 Originally posted by reelguy227 Thanks ,its much appreciated ,finaly someone gives evidence to back up their claims. God Bless and Mary Protect, Reelguy I advise you to look at your arguments, and see if there is any evidence to back them up.
reelguy227 Posted January 16, 2005 Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by Druid Allanon If I have read this thread properly, neither did you give any evidence to show that the fetus is a 'human' during the first 2 months gestation. So technically youre saying that you only support abortion up to 2 months?
El Sitherino Posted January 16, 2005 Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by reelguy227 So technically youre saying that you only support abortion up to 2 months? 2-3 months, if you can't make up your mind by then, it's probably best you just have the child and decide to either put it up for adoption (please don't) or keep it and work another job or find a better paying job, ask parents for help, etc. We've been saying this all along, you just don't pay attention because you seem to be worked up into your own "righteous" posts that you ignore a majority of what others are saying. and about the superme court thing, I mean state level supreme court and it's been 2+ years since I've bothered on the topic, so pardon me if I don't feel like going over years worth of notes on something that hardly has any real relevance. Sorry to you too skin, I know you were itching for examples.
kipperthefrog Posted January 16, 2005 Posted January 16, 2005 I see your veiw, I realy do. Acording to you, they don't have feeling yet, so therefore it is not "human" yet. I have paid attention. I see and understand BOTH sides now. Just one questin, (i'm not arguing anymore, just wondering) Why is it when a mother terminates a pregnancy, It is leagal, but when a guy slays a pregnant woman, it is still called a double murder? No matter how early it is?
Acrylic Posted January 16, 2005 Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by kipperthefrog Why is it when a mother terminates a pregnancy, It is leagal, but when a guy slays a pregnant woman, it is still called a double murder? No matter how early it is? I know you're talking about Scott Peterson there. The baby was close to being born, that's why. They don't do abortions that late in the pregnancy.
kipperthefrog Posted January 16, 2005 Posted January 16, 2005 when a pregnant woman is killed, do they consider it double murder in early pregnancy?
ET Warrior Posted January 16, 2005 Posted January 16, 2005 Typically not if it's really early in the pregnancy. Double murder charges are typically only levvied if the woman is close to full term.
El Sitherino Posted January 16, 2005 Posted January 16, 2005 plus the baby in the peterson case had water in it's lungs, it drowned. (or was that that other case that wasn't covered as much as the peterson one?)
Druid_Allanon Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 So technically youre saying that you only support abortion up to 2 months? Affirmative.
toms Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Lies about condoms, aids, STD, other forms of contraception besides abstinence: http://www.libchrist.com/std/vaticanlies.html http://www.positive.org/Home/faq/truth.html That's all I can find for now. You forgot the definitive source: http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142974 Murder charges are normally politically motivated, based on the public outcry and the prosecutor's wish for publicity... so they can't really be compared with abortion issues on a very sensible level. But i've only heard of a couple of double murder charges, and they were late term. We don't have coronor's inquests for every miscarriage either.
ShadowTemplar Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 Originally posted by reelguy227 Just because the child is in the uterus doesnt make it less of a human ,it has human DNA and it has all of the capabilities to develope into a fully grown human ,it also has a beating heart and abortion stops that heart. A chimp has a beating heart, human DNA and all the capabilities to develop into a fully grown ape (which by the way will probably be considerably smarter than your average current US president)... And yet we use them for medical experiments... And subsequently dump them unceremoniously in the garbage... Food for thought.
kipperthefrog Posted January 24, 2005 Posted January 24, 2005 Here is MORE food for thought. Hitler was pro choice... (read the most of the document before commenting.)
TK-8252 Posted January 24, 2005 Posted January 24, 2005 The Hitler Card Someone needs to make a pic for that.
El Sitherino Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Originally posted by kipperthefrog Hitler was pro choice... Hitler also loved poetry. The fact that these people are trying to appeal to our emotions proves they have no real reason to be against abortion. Use logic, not emotion based arguments.
kipperthefrog Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 well MY logic dictates it IS alive, it has its own heart beat, it has its own DNA after conception, or the cells wouldn't split and multiply. It IS human, only smaller and not yet conciauss. (true it may not be able to survive without the mother, but a born baby can't either for they need them to feed them.) The little ones are biologicly little humans and i'm done debating that.
Mike Windu Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 but a born baby can't either for they need them to feed them. A born baby is self dependent. It does not take a portion of the mother's nutrients. A born baby can live without its mother.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.