well the difference is the "net worth" as martin puts it. We place a price on his/her, the fetus' head so to speak. Guys/ gals Martin's view alone, although I respect his freedom to make such a view, should show you how void, and utterly without respect for even one's own species of life that agnostics have. Most animals have respect for their own species unless pushed to starvation. ( again I say most ) Martin sir you're views are borderline lunacy. There is no way to explain to a person with you're beliefs that there is a difference in SEX for the act and conception due to the act. Spitting as many children out as one can is comparing apples to oranges. If the sperm never meets the egg no embryo is formed so this is NOT a human. However, once the two combine the DNA is set in motion from you're genetic code, your father and mother,s signature are combined to make YOU martin yeah you. Some would argue that you're "net" worth is about negative 4000 due to the warped views you present. I would not be among them, but you see how this little thing could go? Who has the right to decide the net worth? I would say that the mother and father or couple have that decision in their hands BEFORE conception. after that, barring medical reasons, the decision is for diety. I suppose there has to be this sort of evil in the world so that you can actually tell the difference. That's how it all starts, with a supposedly "higher" form of reasoning. It's hog wash, if it were true the way he says then the "less" talented of mankind would be rounded up and exterminated in the name of Preserving the natural resources of mother earth for those that are deemed "worthy". The weak and innocent would be the first to go. Likely the entire human race would soon perish because Children would be "tagged" as dependants and unproductive. Hopefully somewhere down the line something or someone will have an effect on this young man's beliefs and change his warped views. someone should pray for his soul......
Divorced couples flushing fertilized embryos is "hypothetical?" When you return to the real world let us know. If a two cell zygote is a human being, which is what you claim, then if it is destroyed, isn't that murder? I have presented this question to you before and you have refused to answer. The only thing that is consistent about you is your consistent inconsistency.
dont resort to this ridiculous slippery slope. not opposing abortion isnt gona morph into advocating killing stupid people. i know, and how many more einsteins must we lose due to never being concieved? imagine what these people could have done for the world! your lost-great-person argument is nonsense. obviously. why arent you blowing up abortion clinics? how can you pro-lifers allow the mass murder to continue? wouldnt you blow up clinics if they were killing adults at the same rate? the reason you dont is because you accept my premise that fetuses do not have the same value as regular members of society.
we don't blow up clinics because we are law abiding citizens and two wrongs don't make a right. That is why we elect officials to make laws to stop this stuff. Murder is wrong and even an abortion clinic/Dr.s have rights. If the law of the land says it should be allowed then I should abide by that law, even if I don't agree. Sir your assumptions you apply to everyone else are falicy. They are what ruins your theory. You state the "reason" but you don't even have a good grasp on the science or the question. WE do NOT accept ANYTHING you prescribe, WE just Know that the proper way to change is NOT by blowing up clinics, this is vigilantee-ism and isn't legal either. Ill go anywhere I like so your "dont go there" BS heavy handed crap doesn't impress me. if you want to insist I "dont go somewhere" then do it face to face. Other wise this is a forum and I am allowed to have my opinion. there is no "lost-great-person argument", only an imbecile would say that, go back and REAd my post. That is your terminaology. I was trying to reason with you by showing you that YOU have no right to judge WHAt the value of human life is. Potential greatness or severely demented. it doesnt freakin matter what the SOB will become YOU have NO right to determine it's life span. The reason you don't is BECAUSE the fetus is Without blame. Should you end it's life you are killing an innocent being. I simply tried to point out "why" you might not want to do that. YOU sir would eliminate possible good people as well as potentially harmful people with abortion. You cannot place yourself or any ONE person above the law. There is NO person to eliminate if NONE is concieved so there- fore NO innocent being was harmed. How can a person that "never was or will be" going to do great things? Ok let me spell it out for you, easy so you can grasp it. 1. conception = person already concieved, person ie potential human. to abort this is murder, plain and simple. could have been a murderer or could have been a genuis, who knows? who are you to make this decision? 2. Used rubber= sperm cells, not a human, no fertilized egg, NO Einstein, just a bunch of jism. dribble down the leg........ CAN YOUR mind grasp that? BTW I know you're gonna take this wrong but I pity you and I am sorry if I lost patience. I hope one day someone does or says something to you that will change you. here's to praying that will happen.
if they made a law that said people could kill 5 year old children, would you let it stand, would you revolt and do something? i would. and yet you allow abortion to happen. thats because we both know its not as bad to kill fetuses as it is to kill 5 year olds. you say we cannot make this sort of judgements on relative value of human life, but we can and should.
I am against abortion but in favor of a morning after pill. In most cases it takes up to 72 hours after sex for the little spermy to swim its way up to make contact with the egg and fertilize it so a morning after pill is no more morally wrong than a condom. In a very few instances the egg may be fertilized before the woman can pop a pill. Like the Mark Spitz of Sperm swimming real fast or the woman forgeting to take the pill for a couple of days. In those cases the pill may destroy a zygote but a morning after pill would actual reduce the number of abortions performed. Many woman who would use the pill would have aborted the fetus if they had become pregnant while many others would choose to have the baby. I would like to hear the opinions of both pro life and pro choice females. As much as I disagree with Martin's basic premise he is right when he says that society has chosen to value some lives as more worthy than others. Society allows abortions even though millions of people are opposed to it but society would never allow the legalization of killing already born children. But then again maybe they would if things ever got as out of control as they were under Hitler in Nazi Germany.
Society can and has done infantcide, it was practiced in many cultures. Could it happen in America? doubtfully. But if you don't take a stand somewhere then what's next? I think the Morning after pill should be allowed, it probably does more good than harm. As Bengal said martin you would no more "rise up" and revolt than Jimmy Carter is gonna tap dance his way to the freakin moon. give us a break. Rise up yeah right. who's being realistic here? i'm through with you, some here may "see" your logic because you type a good game, but your mind is warped. It's peolpe like you devoid of any sort of moral fiber that breed the Hitler's of this world. I don't think this is a science vs religion argument BUT if you look back less than a century ago when scientists and Dr's were "positive" leeches helped patients get rid of "bad blood" they even had studies to back it up, thousands died as a result of science. Now many have perished because of Religion also, ie the spanish inquisition. BUT to say nothing BAD has ever come from science is a gross exageration.
Martin's premise is that Pro-Lifers not just society place different values on the unborn as on the born. We know there are those in society that already do this, or abortion would not be legal. Would society stand by if a law was passed that it is ok to kill a fetus that the mother does want? Even though states cannot treat this as murder they still have laws against it, so why is the life of any fetus any different? It is not Pro-Lifers treating these differently it is the rest of society. People protest outside of known clinics all the time. People also hand out information and pray outside of them as well. The problem is as it stands now I would have the support of the law if I tried to save a 5 year old. I will get stopped by the law trying to save a fetus from being aborted in a clinic. I will get stopped trying to stop someone from entering a clinic. Even with this people still try. Blowing up the clinics will not stop abortions and more than likely you will be taking other lives and even possibly the life you are try to save. Even if wrong people have tried to blow up clinics. Just like people protesting against abortion I am sure people would protest and revolt against making the killing of 5 year olds legal, but whether that stops it or not is another story. Legal or not no one stopped Saddam from killing who he wanted for years. Nazis killing Jews. The dictator in Romania a while back. Slavery in the US. These stopped when someone stronger came along to defend those who could not do so themselves at the time. The unborn of course cannot do this themselves. I am also not very aware of any 1, 2, 3, or higher year old children who can take care of themselves either and survive on their own. If you do not feed a 3 month old is the baby going to get up and feed herself to survive? We were all "parasites" to one extreme or the another at least until we were forced to go earn living on our own. Yes we probably could have done it sooner than we ended up having to, but there are still limits to when this can really happen.
