abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I thought it was a commercial and I watched about 20 minutes of it waiting for music. Guilty as charged.
Why don't you like Ron Paul?
- Thread starter lifegoesonbrah
- Start date
I was a young adult when MTV first aired. I have to admit I got kind of hooked on the big hair bands videos because they had the skankiest hottest women in them.
This was before the days of Internet porn.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
It is, look it up. The morning after pill is an abortifacient. It will force a woman's body to flush out even a fertilized egg (zygote) before it attaches to the uteran wall. It's a very early stage chemical abortion.
budlover13
King Tut
Cop-out!!!!!
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I have found that women who are in any line of work like that, from modeling, to dancing, to stripping, to porn, to prostitution, will generally only do it if they like it. I don't want anythint to do with it if they don't.
I have found that some of the coolest women I have met, with great sense of trend setting style and even a high level of intellect enjoy some of these professions. I respect them and if I was a woman, I would probably do it.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Nah I was stoned and I forgot to change it, but some of the chicks looked kind of hot.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I agree, it was a loaded statement that I was going to trap someone with.
I find that the money has a large influence also.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
That is a sad aspect of a society that doesn't care for it's less fortunate.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
At implantation. There are several like me. Christopher Hitchens is one too. We base it on secular humanism.
Just like with colors. Is it red? Magenta? Yellow? All three of those spectrum have red in them. But even colors above or below 650 nm may look redder than exactly 650 nm. Perception, black body type, ambient light etc, can change a color's hue to humans.
Color is a much simpler concept than personhood. So the only fair ruberic is implantation. Everyone agrees that's when a human begins to grow with both parent's characteristics developing.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I'd like to see support of the "everybody agrees" claim. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I agree that this is when the genetic instructions have been "written". This is a worthy opinion and I think that it is pertinent info for everyone to be acquainted with before they opine. I base my opinion on the fact that "suffering" requires the anatomy to perceive it. It is a hard debate to settle and much has come to light since Roe vs. Wade. There is also the consideration of a woman's choice to carry a child and that is not a man's choice imo. Much of personhood is also determined epigenetically as well, but those traits are expressed well into the teens, obviously killing a teenager is a whole different subject.
If pressed for an opinion well, I made mine clear enough. I consider whether or not someone is feeling pain and suffering. I definitely think that a partial birth procedure is barbaric.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
It's possible to skip a sperm fertilizing an egg and a baby is born? Maybe if you name your kid Jesus.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Too facile. The question is "when a person?" To claim this is in place at implantation is a reach. I agree that a zygote is a fully *potential* human, and implantation is one of the pass/fail tests on the way to being someone. But the question at the heart of the debate concerning the laws surrounding abortion are necessarily legal in nature and thus demand definition, categorization. It is the basis for these categories that interests me. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It is generally accepted that this is the point when the life begins. I can explicate the argument charitably and assume that is what he meant.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
When a person, that is the question precisely. Obviously, it is an abortion even at the very early stage, but it is also a woman's body. She should have rights to her body. The most ethical solution is obviously the preferred I would hope.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I tend to agree, but the support for the ethics must be based in morality ... the dilemma posed by, on the one hand, extinguishing a living creature that is on its way to being a human ... and on the other, by the rights and needs of the mother (and to a much lesser extent, the father, where applicable). And the morality of abortion is polarized in today's USA.
The facile but itself troublesome position of the "god squad" is to declare all zygotes as being persons. It has the great advantage of being simple, but I don't see it as the best solution. Driven to its conclusion, it makes the birth control pill into an instrument of murder. Driven beyond its conclusion, it spawns things like the proposed AZ law that makes any woman whose body is readying for ovulation "legally pregnant".
I find the Chinese interpretation (not a person until entirely clear of the mother's body) even more distasteful.
I heartily agree that the most ethical solution should be sought, but sadly I think that this simply passes the burden of ambiguity onto a different word. cn
You are incorrect, Re-read my post as you completely missed the point.
"You confuse Ron Pauls beliefs with Ron Pauls duty as an elected official.
Wanting the state to decide instead of the Federal government has nothing to do with his personal beliefs on the topic of abortion. It has everything to do with the topic of the role of the Federal government.
Nope just more of your stupidity adding 1 and 1 and getting 5. Why listen to you? Between trolling and being wrong too often it's not a good move.
You imbecile. That bills purpose is to get the Federal government out of running peoples lives.
Similar threads
