A Nightmare Scenario for Homosexuals
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
I'm not interested in marrying but many gays are. And many gays are xians, Jews and followers of other faiths. Being wed in the church/etc of their faith is as important to them as it is to any breeder with a bible. Being good enough to pay taxes but not good enough to exchange vows of love and commitment to eachother is yet another example of the hatred and hypocrisy of organized religion.Woody said:
Snakelord said:
The film aims to show what an abortion looks like. You wanted a rational reason why a fetus should not be aborted, and I gave it to you. What do you expect them to do with an abortion, make it look glamorous? :bugeye:
It isn't over for you but it would be over for a lot more people if they could see what happens.
So you concluded the fetus wan't really a human. Did you see it trying to get away from the suction tube, or was that just trick photography?
Where do you draw the line? 11 week old has more cells, that's all. Most women don't even show until they're 4 months pregnant.
Yeah, it's illegal here in the states under some really old statutes that were written before people had abortions. Here in the states you aren't supposed to display dead human body parts in public. I know it sounds silly, but a preacher was arrested for displaying a jar of fetuses at a pro-life rally in Washington.
Can you find anymore abortion video footage?
Last edited:
It wont be long before you have nobody to talk to - seeings that you only add people that disagree with you on ignore, and everyone disagrees with you. Still, it aint my concern.
Yeah, I gathered that.
Afraid not. What you are doing is ignoring what I asked you. Here it is again:
"At 5 weeks this "unborn child" is a bunch of 100 cells. It's not at this time "human", (much like an acorn is not an oak tree) - indeed it shares more in common with your appendix, (as I pointed out).
Request: Give me a good reason as to why a person cannot 'abort' 100 cells."
Where did I even imply such a thing, and what has something looking glamorous or not got to do with whether a woman has a right to choose? The answer to that: nothing whatsoever. Stop purposely avoiding everything posed to you.
Your pointless little assumptions aside, can you please stop with the constant avoidance of any question posed to you and anything relevant to the discussion?
No I didn't, I was speaking about 6 week blastocysts. However, it's one of those things.. A tadpole is not a frog.
Prod a tadpole, and that will move away too. Hell, prod a dead hedgehog and that tends to go in the opposite direction aswell. It does not really imply all that much.
Finally Woody says something of value. Congratulations.
It's one of those questions though, isn't it? I mean, when does a puppy become a dog exactly?
If you wanted my opinion on the matter, I'd say around 10 weeks. Of course there isn't just a medical point of view, but a personal one as well. To a woman that wants children it's a "baby", to a woman that doesn't it's a "fetus". In the end, who really should get to decide? This is where the issues concerning the womans rights come into play. Ultimately a woman should have more rights to her body than Woody and his fundie congregation.
Not really the kind of thing I go googling for.
Yeah, I gathered that.
Afraid not. What you are doing is ignoring what I asked you. Here it is again:
"At 5 weeks this "unborn child" is a bunch of 100 cells. It's not at this time "human", (much like an acorn is not an oak tree) - indeed it shares more in common with your appendix, (as I pointed out).
Request: Give me a good reason as to why a person cannot 'abort' 100 cells."
Where did I even imply such a thing, and what has something looking glamorous or not got to do with whether a woman has a right to choose? The answer to that: nothing whatsoever. Stop purposely avoiding everything posed to you.
Your pointless little assumptions aside, can you please stop with the constant avoidance of any question posed to you and anything relevant to the discussion?
No I didn't, I was speaking about 6 week blastocysts. However, it's one of those things.. A tadpole is not a frog.
Prod a tadpole, and that will move away too. Hell, prod a dead hedgehog and that tends to go in the opposite direction aswell. It does not really imply all that much.
Finally Woody says something of value. Congratulations.
It's one of those questions though, isn't it? I mean, when does a puppy become a dog exactly?
If you wanted my opinion on the matter, I'd say around 10 weeks. Of course there isn't just a medical point of view, but a personal one as well. To a woman that wants children it's a "baby", to a woman that doesn't it's a "fetus". In the end, who really should get to decide? This is where the issues concerning the womans rights come into play. Ultimately a woman should have more rights to her body than Woody and his fundie congregation.
Not really the kind of thing I go googling for.
SL said:
You're speaking of the gay janitor I terminated. He didn't have anything intelligent to say, so I'm giving my eyeballs a rest. As for Preacher, he's just a smart ass troll. I've read enough of his posts -- Good riddance. There are plenty of sock-puppets on this site too. Maybe you have a sock-puppet, if so I'll terminate it too.
OK you agree on my point. It's not an issue of the humanity of the unborn. Even if they are human the woman has a right to choose whether or not they can live.
My wife was pro-choice until she lost her first "blastocyst" at 6 weeks. Believe me, it wouldn't help her much if I told her it was only a blastocyst or an unwanted appendix. It may not look like much but it feels like a whole lot.
Besides, as I said before, I wouldn't even know where to begin on drawing the line. When do you decide it's human, the day it's born?
Yeah, it's alive, and so is a fetus. Do you suppose a tadpole can feel pain? What do you suppose it feels like when a fetus gets ripped apart? How about suctioning out the brain in a partial-birth abortion? I notice the UK is a little more civil than the US.
Yeah, it's one less heathen in the world when the woman exercises her right. One less atheist too. A christian friend of mine sees it that way, and he has a point. It's kind of an Old Testament view of things, like when people sacrificed their children -- let them do it -- they'll die off soon enough, he says. The God of the OT says something to that effect too.
Now I have a question for you SL: In california if a woman is pregnant and she is murdered, then the murderer can get charged with two counts of murder, as in the Scott Peterson Case:
It's a strange world isn't it? Nobody will know for sure if a woman really wants her unborn baby when she is murdered, but its life counts anyway.
You're speaking of the gay janitor I terminated. He didn't have anything intelligent to say, so I'm giving my eyeballs a rest. As for Preacher, he's just a smart ass troll. I've read enough of his posts -- Good riddance. There are plenty of sock-puppets on this site too. Maybe you have a sock-puppet, if so I'll terminate it too.
OK you agree on my point. It's not an issue of the humanity of the unborn. Even if they are human the woman has a right to choose whether or not they can live.
My wife was pro-choice until she lost her first "blastocyst" at 6 weeks. Believe me, it wouldn't help her much if I told her it was only a blastocyst or an unwanted appendix. It may not look like much but it feels like a whole lot.
Besides, as I said before, I wouldn't even know where to begin on drawing the line. When do you decide it's human, the day it's born?
Yeah, it's alive, and so is a fetus. Do you suppose a tadpole can feel pain? What do you suppose it feels like when a fetus gets ripped apart? How about suctioning out the brain in a partial-birth abortion? I notice the UK is a little more civil than the US.
Yeah, it's one less heathen in the world when the woman exercises her right. One less atheist too. A christian friend of mine sees it that way, and he has a point. It's kind of an Old Testament view of things, like when people sacrificed their children -- let them do it -- they'll die off soon enough, he says. The God of the OT says something to that effect too.
Now I have a question for you SL: In california if a woman is pregnant and she is murdered, then the murderer can get charged with two counts of murder, as in the Scott Peterson Case:
It's a strange world isn't it? Nobody will know for sure if a woman really wants her unborn baby when she is murdered, but its life counts anyway.
Last edited:
No Woody, although I hate to upset you. There are two particulars we are discussing right now. The first is when exactly we would consider a fetus 'human'. The second part is you trying to appeal to emotion, and reject the right to abortion on the principle that it's not very nice to watch. So, to settle this we need to decide when a fetus is 'human'.
This is another appeal to emotion. While I do not doubt what you're saying, it isn't of any relevance to whether a blastocyst is categorically 'human' or not. As I have told you earlier, to a woman that wants a child - it is a "baby" no matter what the age, to a woman that doesn't it's a "fetus".
Is a 100 cell blastocyst 'human'? If the answer to that question is no, on what basis would you try and deny women the right to remove it?
You know, I always wondered why we celebrate a "birth" day and not a "conceived" day. But yes, like I said - when does a puppy become a dog? That is where the issue lies, and I suppose it will always be something that is debated. However, the ones shouting that abortion should be outlawed completely, proceeds to blow up abortion clinics, and claims that even a sperm should have human rights are the ones that needs to justify what they're claiming. I personally see no justified reason to deny a woman the right to remove a 100 cell blastocyst.
Most likely.
Depends. To 100 cells, nothing - to a 24 week fetus it probably wouldn't be all that pleasant.
Probably not as nice as eating rum and raisin ice cream, but again you are merely appealing to emotion. If you are arguing that something should be outlawed because it causes pain then we'd have to blow up tattoo shops, piercing shops etc. Of course, in the case of those examples, it is the persons choice.
So who in this instance has the choice? When do we decide that an unborn fetus has the same or more rights than it's mother? From conception, 5 weeks, 10, etc? That abortions might not look nice or might be painful doesn't answer that question.
Not much of a christian then heh. I thought you guys were all about tolerance, loving thy neighbour and what not? I guess it's different where you're from. To date all I've pretty much seen you do is promote intolerance all over this forum, (including this very thread).
Hmm. There I was thinking christians followed the god of the NT. You know, that jesus bloke that promoted love and tolerance?
However, your friends pathetic little opinion isn't an argument for this case.
Well, the woman was 8 months pregnant - and had decided that the childs name was going to be Connor - so there is absolutely no dispute over whether the woman wanted the child or not.
Again it comes down to when is a fetus a human? My daughter was born at 8 months - and so I'm certainly not going to dispute that 8 months makes that baby human. I suppose the best way would be 'survivability if born'. Basically if a fetus could survive if born, (with medical care of course). It's also true that medical care is progressing and so eventually, they might be able to save 6 week blastocysts.
None of the fetus' Ive aborted look remotely human.
Even after I've reassembled them (you gotta make sure you sucked it all out or its back to theatre ASAP!) they still look more like aliens than people. I have watched a twelve week fetus jiggle itself about in a reciever but even then it failed to make an impression on my empathy meter.
Dee Cee
Even after I've reassembled them (you gotta make sure you sucked it all out or its back to theatre ASAP!) they still look more like aliens than people. I have watched a twelve week fetus jiggle itself about in a reciever but even then it failed to make an impression on my empathy meter.
Dee Cee
SL said:
I'm sorry your longheld high opinion of christians is suddenly in doubt.
Anyway, it's all about a woman's choice as you say -- you know the right to the control of her own body, which she lost control of when she got pregnant. But heh, she's making the choices, and even you approve of it. There wasn't any love involved to start with, if there was she'd want the baby, wouldn't she?
We do, but the OT does have it's strong points. Example: OT heathen passed their children alive through the fire to please the pagan god Moloch, and modern age women pass their children alive through a suction hose so they can have more sexual pleasure.
From a legal point of view that wasn't the reason for the conviction. She could have been 3 months pregnant and it would be the same. Or she could have an attempt on her life, in which the fetus is killed, and there would be a murder charge. The murder charge isn't based on what she wanted, it's based on a dead fetus inside her body.
Yeh, like test-tube babies.
I'm sorry your longheld high opinion of christians is suddenly in doubt.
Anyway, it's all about a woman's choice as you say -- you know the right to the control of her own body, which she lost control of when she got pregnant. But heh, she's making the choices, and even you approve of it. There wasn't any love involved to start with, if there was she'd want the baby, wouldn't she?
We do, but the OT does have it's strong points. Example: OT heathen passed their children alive through the fire to please the pagan god Moloch, and modern age women pass their children alive through a suction hose so they can have more sexual pleasure.
From a legal point of view that wasn't the reason for the conviction. She could have been 3 months pregnant and it would be the same. Or she could have an attempt on her life, in which the fetus is killed, and there would be a murder charge. The murder charge isn't based on what she wanted, it's based on a dead fetus inside her body.
Yeh, like test-tube babies.
Last edited:
So you should be. Right here and now you are the face of christianity. When you do little more than spread intolerance for homosexuals, women who have abortions and then go on to say who should burn and who shouldn't, you're really not doing christianity a good service. Admittedly I don't personally care but then I'm not the only person on this forum.
That's a bit of a naive statement.
I fail what relevance that has to what I said. I was making a statement concerning a christian that shows nothing but intolerance and hatred, not whether a woman loves a fetus or not.
Another extraordinarily naive statement.
Of course you're making an assumption on the result of a case of a woman 8 months pregnant. Of course needless to say, the result of one case doesn't really help provide a conclusion to when a fetus should have human rights, or during what time it can even be considered 'human'.
I think you missed what I said - Survivability if the woman gave birth there and then. If a 100 cell blastocyst popped out, that would be the end of that. In either case.. whether a blastocyst was in a test tube or a woman, would you say that blastocyst was human? I've been trying to get an answer on that from you for the past several posts. Try a yes or no, it's easiest.
Woody said:
Why?
Why does anyone have to continue the human race??? Is it so important? All these neanderthals spreading their seeds, killing other humans and animals, and destroying the world, etcetera, is such a noble endeavour that we need people to keep up the slaughter? For what?
And don't give me that "Oh, but life is so great..." BS. If people are not born, they neither suffer nor do they experience pleasure. And an unborn person does not know either one. Does it matter to them whether or not they have experienced life? If they've never been created, they do not and cannot have ever experienced either the triumph or the tragedy that makes up human existence. It doesn't matter to them, because they never were.
That argument sounds like the hardcore Catholics who act as if every child not born is suffering in some nether region because people didn't want to bring it into this world.
I've read a silly Catholic diatribe that says that homosexuals are worse than abortionists, because at least the aborted fetus was given a soul, but the dirty homosexual denied the prospective child of even having been conceived.
Silly! And stupid. Fantasizing about the unborn, unconceived, uncreated child.
Is that where you're going with your silly question about continuing the human race?
Does the Bible ultimately exalt flesh, or spirit? Which one is greater?
Then why do you care whether or not the human race continues?
One matters more than the other.
Giambattista said:
Perhaps it has something to do with the urge to breed.
Are you celibate?
--- Ron.
Can you separate the urge to have sex from the urge to breed?
It matters little what the orientation is. Plenty of heterosexual couples (who have been married for a long time) do not desire children, yet they still copulate.
I'll admit that people have an urge to breed. Some of them do. Some of them can't stop themselves. It seems to be more of a woman's desire than a man's. Maybe that's a rudimentary assumption. I'll admit that, also.
Again, let's not confuse the urge to have sex with the urge to procreate.
But just because people have an urge (especially a biological one) does NOT make it right. It does not excuse anyone. Sounds like Woody, doesn't it???
How many pictures of starving African children have you seen in your lifetime? Haven't you ever wondered, when you see an impoverished woman, seemingly without a husband, just WHAT she is doing having children when she can barely feed herself?
Does the fact that she's a woman and perhaps has urges to breed make her urges excusable?
It matters little what the orientation is. Plenty of heterosexual couples (who have been married for a long time) do not desire children, yet they still copulate.
I'll admit that people have an urge to breed. Some of them do. Some of them can't stop themselves. It seems to be more of a woman's desire than a man's. Maybe that's a rudimentary assumption. I'll admit that, also.
Again, let's not confuse the urge to have sex with the urge to procreate.
But just because people have an urge (especially a biological one) does NOT make it right. It does not excuse anyone. Sounds like Woody, doesn't it???
How many pictures of starving African children have you seen in your lifetime? Haven't you ever wondered, when you see an impoverished woman, seemingly without a husband, just WHAT she is doing having children when she can barely feed herself?
Does the fact that she's a woman and perhaps has urges to breed make her urges excusable?
What do you mean by celibate?
Am I currently having sex with someone? And if so, does that invalidate what I'm saying right now?
No.
No.
Am I currently having sex with someone? And if so, does that invalidate what I'm saying right now?
No.
No.
Giambattista said:
No urge to breed?
--- Ron.
perplexity said:
No, Ron Harvey. No urge to breed here. No good reason to do so, and many reasons not to.
How bout thyself?
Giambattista said:
Bred. One son.
It doesn't hurt too much.
--- Ron.