Love your enemies

Originally posted by RJHinds
What is unchristian about confronting evil lies with truth?

Nothing, but that's not what you and whodey are doing. You're confronting someone who is trying (against all odds) to make your country a bit more human, with racist lies and neo-conservative propaganda.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Equal in what sense?

[b]In this case it is when does the process of human life begin and if has begun is it important?
Its the 'is it important' part that needs answering. Nobody disputes the process.

It isn't a 100% a sure thing, but the odds are now good a human male or female will show up.
It isn't even a 50% thing. In fact, I would ...[text shortened]... l forms of contraception result in fertilized eggs being lost.

Are you against contraception?[/b]

"As far as I know practically all forms of contraception result in fertilized eggs being lost. "

Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course, condoms prevent fertilization, and progestin-containing oral contraceptives, which are the only kind widely available, and progestin-containing IUDs prevent fertilization. Even emergency post-intercourse contraceptives prevent fertilization.

http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/emergency_contraception_prevents_fertilization_not_implantation.htm

A little known fact is that it can be several days between intercourse and fertilization this is because sperm can live for up to 5 days, during which time ovulation can occur. The emergency pill inhibits ovulation.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Then surely you'd have NO problem spending at LEAST as much money feeding and sheltering the homeless in this country as you advocate spending on denying women the right to their own bodies?

You really have a piss poor view of what I support and advocate for.
I'm also not really very concern with your body as much as I am the body
whose life we are ending.

Originally posted by JS357
Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course, condoms prevent fertilization,

Yes, I totally forgot condoms. I was thinking of female contraceptives.

and progestin-containing oral contraceptives, which are the only kind widely available, and progestin-containing IUDs prevent fertilization.
When I looked up contraceptives in general, it said two effects were in action, including prevention of the fertilized embryo from sticking to the cell wall.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You really have a piss poor view of what I support and advocate for.
I'm also not really very concern with your body as much as I am the body
whose life we are ending.

Yes, but this is the problem with your position. For a pregnancy to proceed a woman's body has to house the foetus, which requires several hormonal and immune system modifications as well as the straightforward physical presence of the foetus. Whether this is to happen can only really be the woman's choice. Therefore, I feel that any socially determined rules should be a matter for women. In other words if there are to be legal restrictions on abortion they should be decided by women, with men outside that process. Really the only way a man should be able to prevent an abortion is by not causing the pregnancy in the first place.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I totally forgot condoms. I was thinking of female contraceptives.

[b] and progestin-containing oral contraceptives, which are the only kind widely available, and progestin-containing IUDs prevent fertilization.
When I looked up contraceptives in general, it said two effects were in action, including prevention of the fertilized embryo from sticking to the cell wall.[/b]

I'vs seen that statement about implantation being prevented, but the predominant mechanism is preventing ovulation and preventing the sperm from reaching the ovum.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/combination-birth-control-pills/basics/definition/prc-20014056

I think the emergency pill might allow an ovum to be fertilized if the ovum is present at the time of intercourse, but if the pill is administered before ovulation, the ovum will not be produced. The ovum is only pregnable for a few hours after production, so there is a small window of opportunity for fertilization to occur. I believe this is the reason the pro-life lobby objects to the emergency pill, but they do not have the same argument for daily pills. At least not rationally.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Nothing, but that's not what you and whodey are doing. You're confronting someone who is trying (against all odds) to make your country a bit more human, with racist lies and neo-conservative propaganda.

Obama was known by many as a pathological liar before he ran for President of the United States of America. He has continued his pathological lies to this very day. As an example Quari listed the following Obama's lies:

OBAMA Lies

· "I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America ."
· I will have the most transparent administration in history.
· The stimulus will fund shovel-ready jobs.
· I am focused like a laser on creating jobs.
· The IRS is not targeting anyone.
· It was a spontaneous riot about a movie.
· I will put an end to the type of politics that "breeds division, conflict and cynicism".
· You didn't build that!
YouTube
· I will restore trust in Government.
· The Cambridge cops acted stupidly.
· The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk
· It's not my red line - it is the world's red line.
· Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration.
· We got back every dime we used to rescue the banks and auto companies, with interest.
· I am not spying on American citizens.
· Obama Care will be good for America .
· You can keep your family doctor.
· Premiums will be lowered by $2500.
· If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan.
· It's just like shopping at Amazon.
· I knew nothing about "Fast and Furious" gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels.
· I knew nothing about IRS targeting conservative groups.
· I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi .
· I have never known my uncle from Kenya who is in the country illegally and that was arrested and told to leave the country over 20 years ago.
· And, I have never lived with that uncle. (He finally admitted (12-05-2013) that he DID know his uncle and that he DID live with him.)
· If elected I promise not to renew the Patriot Act.
· If elected I will end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan within the 1st 9 months of my term.
· I will close Guantanamo within the first 6 months of my term.
· I will bridge the gap between black and white and between America and other countries.

These are just a few of Obama's lies and he is obviously not through telling them yet.
😏

Originally posted by JS357
I'vs seen that statement about implantation being prevented, but the predominant mechanism is preventing ovulation and preventing the sperm from reaching the ovum.

Well it does appear I was mistaken. However, I still would want to know if the pro-life lobyists in this thread believe that a contraception device/pill that results in a fertilized egg failing to attach is equivalent to abortion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
As an example Quari listed the following Obama's lies:

I see the problem now. You don't know what the word 'lie' means.

Let me explain:
Lying is when you say something you know is untrue with the intent to deceive: rather like most of your posts, including the one I am responding to.
Most of the statements listed were most probably not lies (I don't know for sure, but I am equally certain that you do not know either).

Originally posted by RJHinds
Obama was known by many as a pathological liar before he ran for President of the United States of America. He has continued his pathological lies to this very day. As an example Quari listed the following Obama's lies:

[b]OBAMA Lies

· "I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America ...[text shortened]... s.

These are just a few of Obama's lies and he is obviously not through telling them yet.
😏[/b]

Wait a minute is this the debates forum?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see the problem now. You don't know what the word 'lie' means.

Let me explain:
Lying is when you say something you know is untrue with the intent to deceive: rather like most of your posts, including the one I am responding to.
Most of the statements listed were most probably not lies (I don't know for sure, but I am equally certain that you do not know either).

No debate about these lies:

YouTube

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes, but this is the problem with your position. For a pregnancy to proceed a woman's body has to house the foetus, which requires several hormonal and immune system modifications as well as the straightforward physical presence of the foetus. Whether this is to happen can only really be the woman's choice. Therefore, I feel that any socially determin ...[text shortened]... a man should be able to prevent an abortion is by not causing the pregnancy in the first place.

This sounds like a viability argument. The fetus has no moral considerability - no right to live - so long as she is housed within the body and dependent on that housing for survival. Do I have that right?

If so, it seems an inadequate justification for abortion on demand up to the moment before birth. Here's why.

1) Procedures like Cesarian Sections have shown us that the fetus can possibly survive outside the womb a few weeks before natural birth would have occurred. Any standard based on viability must start at the moment when the fetus would be likely to survive if removed from the body of the parent.
2) It is unclear why a baby is suddenly considered 'viable' the moment after birth. She is still every bit as dependent on the parent or other caregiver to provide it food and shelter. She has an infinitesimal capacity to obtain its own food and shelter. Without assistance, she will almost certainly die. Due to this, she should not be considered any more substantially viable than she was 5 minutes ago, inside the womb.
3) Clearly, we consider killing the baby after birth to be immoral, though we have our differences on moral viability before birth. From 2), the baby after birth should not be considered substantially more viable than a fetus 5 minutes before birth. Given this, we are committed to the idea that we cannot morally kill a human baby simply because it cannot survive on its own.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
This sounds like a viability argument. The fetus has no moral considerability - no right to live - so long as she is housed within the body and dependent on that housing for survival. Do I have that right?

If so, it seems an inadequate justification for abortion on demand up to the moment before birth. Here's why.

1) Procedures like Cesarian Sec ...[text shortened]... o the idea that we cannot morally kill a human baby simply because it cannot survive on its own.

This is a very grey area, what if the baby when born will never be able to sustain itself or will be in continuous pain due a genetic problem for example? Is it then immoral to let the baby die?

Originally posted by OdBod
This is a very grey area, what if the baby when born will never be able to sustain itself or will be in continuous pain due a genetic problem for example? Is it then immoral to let the baby die?

This sounds like a good question for someone who's in favor of a viability criteria. 🙂

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
This sounds like a good question for someone who's in favor of a viability criteria. 🙂

Is there any other way with limited resources? 🙁