OMFG I think I've turned into an Anti-Abortionist!!

[Darth Wong]

I think to a large degree what drives most men nuts is the double standard.

Fine. Grow a womb and carry your own fucking baby, asshole. Until then, this is an unequal situation thanks to the dictates of Mother Nature, and you do not DESERVE equal standing.

[Darth Wong]

Unfortunately while true it is completely besides the point. If a woman wants sex to be nothing more than a form of entertainment to her then she should go get her tubes tied and "It" herself.

Then she can fuck all she wants and there is zero chance of an unborn child having to be murdered because it is "inconvenient" to the woman.

An unborn child with no brain stem until the second trimester, and no significant brain activity until the third trimester, hence no thought. And what defines a human? The bag of flesh in which we reside? No, your thoughts. Your "soul", to use a religious term, although they are more realistically defined as the human intelligence active in your brain once it reaches a certain stage of development. A 12-week embryo is not a human life yet.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Unfortunately while true it is completely besides the point. If a woman wants sex to be nothing more than a form of entertainment to her then she should go get her tubes tied and "It" herself.

Then she can fuck all she wants and there is zero chance of an unborn child having to be murdered because it is "inconvenient" to the woman.

An unborn child with no brain stem until the second trimester, and no significant brain activity until the third trimester, hence no thought. And what defines a human? The bag of flesh in which we reside? No, your thoughts. Your "soul", to use a religious term, although they are more realistically defined as the human intelligence active in your brain once it reaches a certain stage of development. A 12-week embryo is not a human life yet.

I'd give up now, Mike. I have tried to hammer this point home to people about abortions before the third trimester and defining life etc. along with the right of the woman since it's HER body, and the pro-life crowd haven't a clue sometimes.

[DocMoriartty]

I think to a large degree what drives most men nuts is the double standard.

Fine. Grow a womb and carry your own fucking baby, asshole. Until then, this is an unequal situation thanks to the dictates of Mother Nature, and you do not DESERVE equal standing.

Bullshit.

I see nothing wrong with outlawing abortion and requiring a woman to carry a baby to term if the father has stated in a court of law that he will raise the child with no obligation on the mother.

But I guess MURDER for convenience sake is more enlightened isnt it Mr Wong.

[DocMoriartty]

Here we are back again.

All of a sudden sex has become a form of entertainment that women are entitled to with no possible repercussions.

Prove that this is wrong. Sex can be used for reproduction, but your assertion that it must not be used for pure entertainment is 100% bullshit.

I don't have to. It is a simple fact that sex exists for reproduction. It is YOUR job to prove to me that sex actually exists for the personal entertainment of women without consequence.

[DocMoriartty]

Unfortunately while true it is completely besides the point. If a woman wants sex to be nothing more than a form of entertainment to her then she should go get her tubes tied and "It" herself.

Then she can fuck all she wants and there is zero chance of an unborn child having to be murdered because it is "inconvenient" to the woman.

An unborn child with no brain stem until the second trimester, and no significant brain activity until the third trimester, hence no thought. And what defines a human? The bag of flesh in which we reside? No, your thoughts. Your "soul", to use a religious term, although they are more realistically defined as the human intelligence active in your brain once it reaches a certain stage of development. A 12-week embryo is not a human life yet.

So someone in a coma with zero brain activity by your definition is also not a human being anymore and we should just execute them all? The same logic applies.

The only difference is someone who is brain dead will remain braidead until they die, while an unborn child will mature and be born as a fully functioning human being if the process is not stopped.

I'd give up now, Mike. I have tried to hammer this point home to people about abortions before the third trimester and defining life etc. along with the right of the woman since it's HER body, and the pro-life crowd haven't a clue sometimes.

[DocMoriartty]

Adoption anyone?

Does the adoption agency pay for the astronomical delivery room costs, as well as compensate the woman for the physical and psychological trauma she must undergo for nine months? If so, then sure.

Physocological trauma? This is birth. It happens millions of times every day.

[Wicked Pilot]

I see nothing wrong with outlawing abortion and requiring a woman to carry a baby to term if the father has stated in a court of law that he will raise the child with no obligation on the mother.

That's because your obviousily can't understand that the woman has to carry the child herself, for nine months, enduring extreme pain and hardship. That is why they aren't on equal ground.

But I guess MURDER for convenience sake is more enlightened isnt it Mr Wong.

Go fuck yourself you ignorant little fundie. It's assholes like you that remind us that some loads needed to be swallowed.

[Darth Wong]

Notice how quickly the Wall of Ignorance goes up.

Gather round, kiddies. See how he says "I see nothing wrong with", thus using his own opinion as an argument? Fascinating, isn't it? Also notice how he says "no obligation to the mother", ignoring the fact (as Durandal and I pointed out) carrying the baby to term is already a hefty obligation in itself.

And finally, notice how he ends on the standard anti-abortion rhetorical flourish of screaming "murder, convenience", thus completely ignoring earlier points made about the definition of human life as something beyond a bag of flesh, not to mention the rhetorical translation of "avoid nine months of pain, one day of agony, etc" inro "convenience".

As usual, we have an anti-abortion nutjob who expresses everything in terms of his own rhetoric, ignores opposing points, and makes an ass out of himself. Yippee.

And in his next message, he invokes the "will eventually become" argument, which does not change the fact that it is not one now (at least the Catholic are consistent with their argument; they realize that it applies to contraception just as easily as it does to abortion, although it's such an asinine position that most Catholic also realize it's a public embarrassment).

[DocMoriartty]

I see nothing wrong with outlawing abortion and requiring a woman to carry a baby to term if the father has stated in a court of law that he will raise the child with no obligation on the mother.

That's because your obviousily can't understand that the woman has to carry the child herself, for nine months, enduring extreme pain and hardship. That is why they aren't on equal ground.

But I guess MURDER for convenience sake is more enlightened isnt it Mr Wong.

Go fuck yourself you ignorant little fundie. It's assholes like you that remind us that some loads needed to be swallowed.

That is the best you can do? Throw some wildly inaccurate insults around? Please explain to me logically why convenience is more important than life.

Your pathetic.

[Wicked Pilot]

That is the best you can do? Throw some wildly inaccurate insults around? Please explain to me logically why convenience is more important than life.

Are you fucking illeterate? It's been explained numerous times by numerous people that a cluster of cells weighing less than a few grams, that has no brain activity, is not human life. Aborting a fetus within the first or second trimaster is no worse than stepping on a cockroach.

Your pathetic.

Yeah, tell me, would you prefer the "Village Idiot", or the "Fundie Moron" title?

[DocMoriartty]

Notice how quickly the Wall of Ignorance goes up.

Gather round, kiddies. See how he says "I see nothing wrong with", thus using his own opinion as an argument? Fascinating, isn't it? Also notice how he says "no obligation to the mother", ignoring the fact (as Durandal and I pointed out) carrying the baby to term is already a hefty obligation in itself.

And finally, notice how he ends on the standard anti-abortion rhetorical flourish of screaming "murder, convenience", thus completely ignoring earlier points made about the definition of human life as something beyond a bag of flesh, not to mention the rhetorical translation of "avoid nine months of pain, one day of agony, etc" inro "convenience".

As usual, we have an anti-abortion nutjob who expresses everything in terms of his own rhetoric, ignores opposing points, and makes an ass out of himself. Yippee.

And in his next message, he invokes the "will eventually become" argument, which does not change the fact that it is not one now (at least the Catholic are consistent with their argument; they realize that it applies to contraception just as easily as it does to abortion, although it's such an asinine position that most Catholic also realize it's a public embarrassment).

1. Hefty obligation the woman entered by having sex. No sex no hefty obligation.

2. Your definition of life. Don' try to make your opinion into fact.

3. So what? The process has started. What gives you the right to stop it for convenience sake? As I said, you want to fuck without consequence then get yourself "IT'd". Then you can fuck as much as you want and no one else will ever pay for your actions (beyond potential disease implications).

All I have seen from you and your ilk here is the same tired arguements. The woman should control her own body (she did she controlled it right into bed) the woman should never be obligated to live up to the consequences of her actions.

You are a perfect example of todays pathetic "no one is responsible for their own actions" generation.

You fucking make me sick. As an atheist I am ashamed to even consider the fact that someone as morally bankrupt as you might share the same basic belief structure as me. When you go home tonight look at your kids and remember one thought.

"Good thing the wife and I didnt feel that they were inconvenient."

[Darth Wong]

DocMoriarty, answer all the points previously raised before you spew any more bullshit. You have ignored virtually every point made so far in favour of three (EDIT: four) assumptions:

1) Something that "will become" a human being is already a human being (false)

2) Childbirth is not traumatic because it happens millions of times every day (interesting "logic": if something is common it can't possibly be traumatic?)

3) Avoidance of nine months of pain and one day of agony is nothing more than selfish "convenience" (easy to say when you're not the one doing it, isn't it?)

4) Abortion is "murder" (sorry, but when that is the subject of the debate, you can't assume it as a fact).

Please justify all of the above claims.

[DocMoriartty]

That is the best you can do? Throw some wildly inaccurate insults around? Please explain to me logically why convenience is more important than life.

Are you fucking illeterate? It's been explained numerous times by numerous people that a cluster of cells weighing less than a few grams, that has no brain activity, is not human life. Aborting a fetus within the first or second trimaster is no worse than stepping on a cockroach.

Your pathetic.

Yeah, tell me, would you prefer the "Village Idiot", or the "Fundie Moron" title?

Well you easily carry the village idiot title so I don't want to steal it from you. So that one is out.

Then there is the fact that I have been an atheist my entire life so "fundi moron" is out.

So I guess the best title for me is Non-Wong worshipper since you group spanking assholes here use your pathetic rants to cover up your blantant hero-worship of Mr Wong.

[Darth Wong]

PS. I like the way you distorted my point about the obligation of bearing a child by turning it into the obligation of having sex. Nice strawman, asshole. And of course, your shift into pure personal attacks is also typical of the rabid anti-abortionist.

[Darth Wong]

Does anyone think he's ever going to defend his assumptions, as opposed to continuously repeating them and insulting everyone who doesn't share them?

[DocMoriartty]

PS. I like the way you distorted my point about the obligation of bearing a child by turning it into the obligation of having sex. Nice strawman, asshole. And of course, your shift into pure personal attacks is also typical of the rabid anti-abortionist.

RFLMAO!!!

Shall I count the number of times you throw excessive profanity at someone LONG before they ever say anything directly to you on the various forums here?

You called me an asshole in this thread before I even posted a comment to you.

Also I turned nothing around. There is no obligation to have sex. Sex is choice. When you make that choice you should be willing to live with the potential obligations that go with it.

Or is that too complicated a concept for you? Should I break it down into smaller words and sound them out for you? Or is it too hard to hear over the pounding of your heart in your ear as you self-righteously scream your opinion as law?

[Wicked Pilot]

Does anyone think he's ever going to defend his assumptions, as opposed to continuously repeating them and insulting everyone who doesn't share them?

Yeah, the day Hell freezes over, and Santa offers free sleigh rides to the little kiddies.

[Darth Wong]

PS. I like the way you distorted my point about the obligation of bearing a child by turning it into the obligation of having sex. Nice strawman, asshole. And of course, your shift into pure personal attacks is also typical of the rabid anti-abortionist.

RFLMAO!!!

Shall I count the number of times you throw excessive profanity at someone LONG before they ever say anything directly to you on the various forums here?

You called me an asshole in this thread before I even posted a comment to you.

Also I turned nothing around. There is no obligation to have sex. Sex is choice. When you make that choice you should be willing to live with the potential obligations that go with it.

Or is that too complicated a concept for you? Should I break it down into smaller words and sound them out for you? Or is it too hard to hear over the pounding of your heart in your ear as you self-righteously scream your opinion as law?

Actually, I always make some point. A profanity does not alter the validity of an argument. Your distortion of points, on the other hand, is a clear fallacy (and you have just performed a style over substance fallacy to boot).

I say again: defend your assumptions rather than simply repeating them ad nauseum and attacking anyone who doesn't share them.

[DocMoriartty]

Does anyone think he's ever going to defend his assumptions, as opposed to continuously repeating them and insulting everyone who doesn't share them?

What assumption would you like me to defend?

That sex exists for procreation?

That a pregnancy allowed to progress naturally will result in a living breathing human being?

That gettign an abortion for reasons of convenience is wrong? (See I never said abortion is wrong). I have nothing against abortion in cases of medical danger, rape, incest, etc. I only have a problem with abortion as a method of post sex birth control used by the lazy.

[jegs2]

I dont' support abortion unless the mom's life is at risk. My wife and I have been trying to adopt for about six months but are constantly running into roadblocks. I'd not be adverse to adopting the child of a woman who was seriously considering abortion -- including paying her for hospital visits not covered by her insurance and other costs that might be incurred...

[Wicked Pilot]

I only have a problem with abortion as a method of post sex birth control used by the lazy.

Oh yeah, getting an abortion is much more convientant than using a condom or the pill. That's gotta be the stupidist thing in a long line of stupid things you've said all day.

[Darth Wong]

Does anyone think he's ever going to defend his assumptions, as opposed to continuously repeating them and insulting everyone who doesn't share them?

What assumption would you like me to defend?

That sex exists for procreation?

Yes, explain that. You claim to be an atheist but you act as though natural processes must exist for some "purpose". Why?

That a pregnancy allowed to progress naturally will result in a living breathing human being?

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the assumption that "will become" is equivalent to "is". Also explain why "naturally" means anything more than jack shit. Are you claiming that nature's course has something to do with morality now?

That gettign an abortion for reasons of convenience is wrong? (See I never said abortion is wrong). I have nothing against abortion in cases of medical danger, rape, incest, etc. I only have a problem with abortion as a method of post sex birth control used by the lazy.

Avoiding nine months of pain and one day of agony is more than mere "convenience".

Please go back and address the post which you so transprently ignored, listing your 4 assumptions.

[DocMoriartty]

DocMoriarty, answer all the points previously raised before you spew any more bullshit. You have ignored virtually every point made so far in favour of three (EDIT: four) assumptions:

1) Something that "will become" a human being is already a human being (false)

2) Childbirth is not traumatic because it happens millions of times every day (interesting "logic": if something is common it can't possibly be traumatic?)

3) Avoidance of nine months of pain and one day of agony is nothing more than selfish "convenience" (easy to say when you're not the one doing it, isn't it?)

4) Abortion is "murder" (sorry, but when that is the subject of the debate, you can't assume it as a fact).

Please justify all of the above claims.

1 -3 do not have to be justified or explained in any manner. A woman choses to have sex which will cause her to become pregnant. My only assertion is that a woman (or anyone else for that matter in just about any situation) should be held accountable for their choice of actions.

How many people in this world have sex without knowing that is causes pregnancy? I am sure there is a small number of people that fall into this category but that is generally the very young or other special cases that this does not pertain to.

4. I consider abortion to be murder because you are taking a life. You are taking a life you created when you chose to have sex. If for whatever reason you did not chose to have that sex then my stance in that case will change. But as long as you chose to have sex ( a completely optional activity that you do not need to do to stay alive) I will continue to believe that you are commiting murder when you chose to have an abortion becuase you refuse to owe up to your responsibilites.

[DocMoriartty]

I only have a problem with abortion as a method of post sex birth control used by the lazy.

Oh yeah, getting an abortion is much more convientant than using a condom or the pill. That's gotta be the stupidist thing in a long line of stupid things you've said all day.

Neither the pill nor a condom are 100% guarunteed to work. Abortion is much more effective.

You would be surprised the number of women who use abortion as birth control. They live with the "it wont happen to me" attitude all their life and as such do not plan for the future.

As I said though, you want to have sex all the time and never risk pregnancy then just get "IT'd".