bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Bears SS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie

---

Let us break down your logic. A reasonable way to consider supporting abortion as anything other than advocating "the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings" is to argue that the unborn offspring of a human being is either not alive, and therefore cannot be slaughtered, not defenseless or not human. Whether it is the "second most evil thing a person can do" is a matter of opinion and not subject to being true or false.

The unborn offspring of a human being is clearly "alive" by any reasonable definition of the term. Brain activity, a hearbeat, interacts with his or her environment--there are other indicators of life, but it's hard to come up with a definition of life that doesn't include the unborn offspring of a human being. If you can, you have a right to call the statement a lie.

The unborn offspring of a human being, much like the recently born offspring of a human being, is basically defenseless. If you can argue otherwise, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Finally, one might posit that the unborn offspring of a human being is not, in fact, human in nature. This is an incredibly difficult argument to make. In addition to looking like a human, he or she has uniquely human DNA. What definition of human can be seriously offered that would exclude a living being who, if tested, would show up as "human?" If you can make that case, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Do you have any children?

---

It was a lie. I do not "advocate for abortion." There is no logic to it. I do not advocate

---

Sigh.

ad.vo.cate
verb
To publicly recommend or support

You absolutely, unequivocally, clearly, and with full intent do advocate for the right to commit abortion. Full stop. Why are you even pretending otherwise? You literally started this very thread to do so. Good grief, man.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Bears SS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie

---

Let us break down your logic. A reasonable way to consider supporting abortion as anything other than advocating "the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings" is to argue that the unborn offspring of a human being is either not alive, and therefore cannot be slaughtered, not defenseless or not human. Whether it is the "second most evil thing a person can do" is a matter of opinion and not subject to being true or false.

The unborn offspring of a human being is clearly "alive" by any reasonable definition of the term. Brain activity, a hearbeat, interacts with his or her environment--there are other indicators of life, but it's hard to come up with a definition of life that doesn't include the unborn offspring of a human being. If you can, you have a right to call the statement a lie.

The unborn offspring of a human being, much like the recently born offspring of a human being, is basically defenseless. If you can argue otherwise, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Finally, one might posit that the unborn offspring of a human being is not, in fact, human in nature. This is an incredibly difficult argument to make. In addition to looking like a human, he or she has uniquely human DNA. What definition of human can be seriously offered that would exclude a living being who, if tested, would show up as "human?" If you can make that case, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Do you have any children?

---

It was a lie. I do not "advocate for abortion." There is no logic to it. I do not advocate

---

Sigh.

ad.vo.cate
verb
To publicly recommend or support

You absolutely, unequivocally, clearly, and with full intent do advocate for the right to commit abortion. Full stop. Why are you even pretending otherwise? You literally started this very thread to do so. Good grief, man.

---

you are inferring. It's raw man you are attacking

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Bears SS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie

---

Let us break down your logic. A reasonable way to consider supporting abortion as anything other than advocating "the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings" is to argue that the unborn offspring of a human being is either not alive, and therefore cannot be slaughtered, not defenseless or not human. Whether it is the "second most evil thing a person can do" is a matter of opinion and not subject to being true or false.

The unborn offspring of a human being is clearly "alive" by any reasonable definition of the term. Brain activity, a hearbeat, interacts with his or her environment--there are other indicators of life, but it's hard to come up with a definition of life that doesn't include the unborn offspring of a human being. If you can, you have a right to call the statement a lie.

The unborn offspring of a human being, much like the recently born offspring of a human being, is basically defenseless. If you can argue otherwise, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Finally, one might posit that the unborn offspring of a human being is not, in fact, human in nature. This is an incredibly difficult argument to make. In addition to looking like a human, he or she has uniquely human DNA. What definition of human can be seriously offered that would exclude a living being who, if tested, would show up as "human?" If you can make that case, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Do you have any children?

---

It was a lie. I do not "advocate for abortion." There is no logic to it. I do not advocate

---

Sigh.

ad.vo.cate
verb
To publicly recommend or support

You absolutely, unequivocally, clearly, and with full intent do advocate for the right to commit abortion. Full stop. Why are you even pretending otherwise? You literally started this very thread to do so. Good grief, man.

---

you are inferring. It's raw man you are attacking

---

You absolutely have advocated for the right for a woman's right to commit abortion. There is another 12 page thread on this exact same topic. In one of the many posts that you advocated this position, you said the following:

"Wrong. It's personal. You not the govt cannot/ should make that decision for a woman.
Vasectomies are personal decisions too and the govt cannot mandate them
What's good for the goose is good for gander."

Did you misremember?

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Bears SS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie

---

Let us break down your logic. A reasonable way to consider supporting abortion as anything other than advocating "the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings" is to argue that the unborn offspring of a human being is either not alive, and therefore cannot be slaughtered, not defenseless or not human. Whether it is the "second most evil thing a person can do" is a matter of opinion and not subject to being true or false.

The unborn offspring of a human being is clearly "alive" by any reasonable definition of the term. Brain activity, a hearbeat, interacts with his or her environment--there are other indicators of life, but it's hard to come up with a definition of life that doesn't include the unborn offspring of a human being. If you can, you have a right to call the statement a lie.

The unborn offspring of a human being, much like the recently born offspring of a human being, is basically defenseless. If you can argue otherwise, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Finally, one might posit that the unborn offspring of a human being is not, in fact, human in nature. This is an incredibly difficult argument to make. In addition to looking like a human, he or she has uniquely human DNA. What definition of human can be seriously offered that would exclude a living being who, if tested, would show up as "human?" If you can make that case, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Do you have any children?

---

It was a lie. I do not "advocate for abortion." There is no logic to it. I do not advocate

---

Sigh.

ad.vo.cate
verb
To publicly recommend or support

You absolutely, unequivocally, clearly, and with full intent do advocate for the right to commit abortion. Full stop. Why are you even pretending otherwise? You literally started this very thread to do so. Good grief, man.

---

you are inferring. It's raw man you are attacking

---

You absolutely have advocated for the right for a woman's right to commit abortion. There is another 12 page thread on this exact same topic. In one of the many posts that you advocated this position, you said the following:

"Wrong. It's personal. You not the govt cannot/ should make that decision for a woman.
Vasectomies are personal decisions too and the govt cannot mandate them
What's good for the goose is good for gander."

Did you misremember?

---

People also advocate for the rights of the Westboro Baptists to show up at funerals with their horrible God hates F-gs signs and tell the relatives of military personnel killed in the line of duty that their loved ones died because America supports gay civil rights = we're a sinful nation = God is punishing us.

Because we support the right to free speech as necessary to democracy.

You can support a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body AFTER she becomes pregnant without "committing abortion" or thinking that you or someone you love would ever have one. I do not want the government to tell women what they must do when they become pregnant; that is a personal choice that, in a democracy also founded on freedom of religion, should be absolute.

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Bears SS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie

---

Let us break down your logic. A reasonable way to consider supporting abortion as anything other than advocating "the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings" is to argue that the unborn offspring of a human being is either not alive, and therefore cannot be slaughtered, not defenseless or not human. Whether it is the "second most evil thing a person can do" is a matter of opinion and not subject to being true or false.

The unborn offspring of a human being is clearly "alive" by any reasonable definition of the term. Brain activity, a hearbeat, interacts with his or her environment--there are other indicators of life, but it's hard to come up with a definition of life that doesn't include the unborn offspring of a human being. If you can, you have a right to call the statement a lie.

The unborn offspring of a human being, much like the recently born offspring of a human being, is basically defenseless. If you can argue otherwise, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Finally, one might posit that the unborn offspring of a human being is not, in fact, human in nature. This is an incredibly difficult argument to make. In addition to looking like a human, he or she has uniquely human DNA. What definition of human can be seriously offered that would exclude a living being who, if tested, would show up as "human?" If you can make that case, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Do you have any children?

---

It was a lie. I do not "advocate for abortion." There is no logic to it. I do not advocate

---

Sigh.

ad.vo.cate
verb
To publicly recommend or support

You absolutely, unequivocally, clearly, and with full intent do advocate for the right to commit abortion. Full stop. Why are you even pretending otherwise? You literally started this very thread to do so. Good grief, man.

---

you are inferring. It's raw man you are attacking

---

You absolutely have advocated for the right for a woman's right to commit abortion. There is another 12 page thread on this exact same topic. In one of the many posts that you advocated this position, you said the following:

"Wrong. It's personal. You not the govt cannot/ should make that decision for a woman.
Vasectomies are personal decisions too and the govt cannot mandate them
What's good for the goose is good for gander."

Did you misremember?

---

People also advocate for the rights of the Westboro Baptists to show up at funerals with their horrible God hates F-gs signs and tell the relatives of military personnel killed in the line of duty that their loved ones died because America supports gay civil rights = we're a sinful nation = God is punishing us.

Because we support the right to free speech as necessary to democracy.

You can support a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body AFTER she becomes pregnant without "committing abortion" or thinking that you or someone you love would ever have one. I do not want the government to tell women what they must do when they become pregnant; that is a personal choice that, in a democracy also founded on freedom of religion, should be absolute.

---

What happened????

How can you gush and wail about persecution and literally BEG AND PLEAD to have your account deleted and your posting history erased?

What changed?

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Bears SS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie

---

Let us break down your logic. A reasonable way to consider supporting abortion as anything other than advocating "the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings" is to argue that the unborn offspring of a human being is either not alive, and therefore cannot be slaughtered, not defenseless or not human. Whether it is the "second most evil thing a person can do" is a matter of opinion and not subject to being true or false.

The unborn offspring of a human being is clearly "alive" by any reasonable definition of the term. Brain activity, a hearbeat, interacts with his or her environment--there are other indicators of life, but it's hard to come up with a definition of life that doesn't include the unborn offspring of a human being. If you can, you have a right to call the statement a lie.

The unborn offspring of a human being, much like the recently born offspring of a human being, is basically defenseless. If you can argue otherwise, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Finally, one might posit that the unborn offspring of a human being is not, in fact, human in nature. This is an incredibly difficult argument to make. In addition to looking like a human, he or she has uniquely human DNA. What definition of human can be seriously offered that would exclude a living being who, if tested, would show up as "human?" If you can make that case, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Do you have any children?

---

It was a lie. I do not "advocate for abortion." There is no logic to it. I do not advocate

---

Sigh.

ad.vo.cate
verb
To publicly recommend or support

You absolutely, unequivocally, clearly, and with full intent do advocate for the right to commit abortion. Full stop. Why are you even pretending otherwise? You literally started this very thread to do so. Good grief, man.

---

you are inferring. It's raw man you are attacking

---

You absolutely have advocated for the right for a woman's right to commit abortion. There is another 12 page thread on this exact same topic. In one of the many posts that you advocated this position, you said the following:

"Wrong. It's personal. You not the govt cannot/ should make that decision for a woman.
Vasectomies are personal decisions too and the govt cannot mandate them
What's good for the goose is good for gander."

Did you misremember?

---

People also advocate for the rights of the Westboro Baptists to show up at funerals with their horrible God hates F-gs signs and tell the relatives of military personnel killed in the line of duty that their loved ones died because America supports gay civil rights = we're a sinful nation = God is punishing us.

Because we support the right to free speech as necessary to democracy.

You can support a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body AFTER she becomes pregnant without "committing abortion" or thinking that you or someone you love would ever have one. I do not want the government to tell women what they must do when they become pregnant; that is a personal choice that, in a democracy also founded on freedom of religion, should be absolute.

---

What happened????

How can you gush and wail about persecution and literally BEG AND PLEAD to have your account deleted and your posting history erased?

What changed?

---

They only banned one of you, Stove.

But even that calmed the discussion down here quite a bit.

ValhallaBear?

---

Was that your intent 'to calm down the discussion' with a spurious sock puppet accusation?

All the while on the same thread admitting you had used and specifically created the TM Katz sock puppet as some kind of wacky social experiment?

I thought you were in fear for your life

stovepipe is still here

You demanded on multiple posts to have your account deleted and history wiped

Why are you still here?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Bears SS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie

---

Let us break down your logic. A reasonable way to consider supporting abortion as anything other than advocating "the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings" is to argue that the unborn offspring of a human being is either not alive, and therefore cannot be slaughtered, not defenseless or not human. Whether it is the "second most evil thing a person can do" is a matter of opinion and not subject to being true or false.

The unborn offspring of a human being is clearly "alive" by any reasonable definition of the term. Brain activity, a hearbeat, interacts with his or her environment--there are other indicators of life, but it's hard to come up with a definition of life that doesn't include the unborn offspring of a human being. If you can, you have a right to call the statement a lie.

The unborn offspring of a human being, much like the recently born offspring of a human being, is basically defenseless. If you can argue otherwise, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Finally, one might posit that the unborn offspring of a human being is not, in fact, human in nature. This is an incredibly difficult argument to make. In addition to looking like a human, he or she has uniquely human DNA. What definition of human can be seriously offered that would exclude a living being who, if tested, would show up as "human?" If you can make that case, you have a right to call that statement a lie.

Do you have any children?

---

It was a lie. I do not "advocate for abortion." There is no logic to it. I do not advocate

---

Sigh.

ad.vo.cate
verb
To publicly recommend or support

You absolutely, unequivocally, clearly, and with full intent do advocate for the right to commit abortion. Full stop. Why are you even pretending otherwise? You literally started this very thread to do so. Good grief, man.

---

you are inferring. It's raw man you are attacking

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.

---

There's no dilemma

---

He knows that. He defeated his own point when he admitted in my hypothetcial that he's save one boy's life instead of two women. Obviously that doesn't mean the two women aren't human, or aren't alive. So the entire "gotcha" in his hypothetical is meaningless. But he's still desperately trying to hang onto it. Anything to justify killing babies.

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.

---

There's no dilemma

---

He knows that. He defeated his own point when he admitted in my hypothetcial that he's save one boy's life instead of two women. Obviously that doesn't mean the two women aren't human, or aren't alive. So the entire "gotcha" in his hypothetical is meaningless. But he's still desperately trying to hang onto it. Anything to justify killing babies.

---

Unborn Fetuses arent Babies, just fyi, it may sensationalise your POV to call abortion "Baby Murder" but it is inaccurate

---

If we're making this about semantics, isn't "unborn fetus" redundant?

What we call them doesn't change what they are. Tiny, defenseless human beings. Or do you also object to the notion they are human?

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.

---

There's no dilemma

---

He knows that. He defeated his own point when he admitted in my hypothetcial that he's save one boy's life instead of two women. Obviously that doesn't mean the two women aren't human, or aren't alive. So the entire "gotcha" in his hypothetical is meaningless. But he's still desperately trying to hang onto it. Anything to justify killing babies.

---

Unborn Fetuses arent Babies, just fyi, it may sensationalise your POV to call abortion "Baby Murder" but it is inaccurate

---

If we're making this about semantics, isn't "unborn fetus" redundant?

What we call them doesn't change what they are. Tiny, defenseless human beings. Or do you also object to the notion they are human?

---

i suppose it is redundant, i apologise.

No, they are unborn humans, i dont agree with late term abortions, but i do think that Abortion is a choice a Woman should be able to make.

To take the argument you are trying to make further, you clearly dont agree with Abortion, correct? even if its within the first month or so of Gestation when the Fetus wouldnt be able to survive outside the womb and isnt even fully formed? Do you agree with people using Birth Control?

---

I am fine with people preventing pregnancy. I am not ok with people killing the unborn human after pregnancy has occurred.

Viability is a weak argument and a moving target. If I'm going to err on when a human "starts" and when a soul exists, I'll err on the side that doesn't involve murdering it, rather than on the one that does. That means not drawing an arbitrary line, but rather going to the actual start.

Also, if you believe it's "a choice a woman should be able to make" . . . when does that choice stop? The moment it passes thru her vaginal canal? Does it still apply if she chooses after it's 3 weeks old? What about 3 weeks before the birth?

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.

---

There's no dilemma

---

He knows that. He defeated his own point when he admitted in my hypothetcial that he's save one boy's life instead of two women. Obviously that doesn't mean the two women aren't human, or aren't alive. So the entire "gotcha" in his hypothetical is meaningless. But he's still desperately trying to hang onto it. Anything to justify killing babies.

---

Unborn Fetuses arent Babies, just fyi, it may sensationalise your POV to call abortion "Baby Murder" but it is inaccurate

---

If we're making this about semantics, isn't "unborn fetus" redundant?

What we call them doesn't change what they are. Tiny, defenseless human beings. Or do you also object to the notion they are human?

---

i suppose it is redundant, i apologise.

No, they are unborn humans, i dont agree with late term abortions, but i do think that Abortion is a choice a Woman should be able to make.

To take the argument you are trying to make further, you clearly dont agree with Abortion, correct? even if its within the first month or so of Gestation when the Fetus wouldnt be able to survive outside the womb and isnt even fully formed? Do you agree with people using Birth Control?

---

I am fine with people preventing pregnancy. I am not ok with people killing the unborn human after pregnancy has occurred.

Viability is a weak argument and a moving target. If I'm going to err on when a human "starts" and when a soul exists, I'll err on the side that doesn't involve murdering it, rather than on the one that does. That means not drawing an arbitrary line, but rather going to the actual start.

Also, if you believe it's "a choice a woman should be able to make" . . . when does that choice stop? The moment it passes thru her vaginal canal? Does it still apply if she chooses after it's 3 weeks old? What about 3 weeks before the birth?

---

ok, so why is it ok to prevent an Egg from being fertilized then? each egg is a potential Human Life, is it not? what about the Morning After Pill? you can take that up to 5 days after unprotected Sex (or Contraception has failed) and before any Medical tests could possibly detect whether or not you are actually Pregnant. I mean, in the first month, its not even a fetus, its just a mainly formless clump of cells without any of the basic main organs.or features of a human.

I know its a favoured term of the Pre-Life lobby, but Murder is a legal term and as Aboprtion has been held to be legal, its plainly not murder, regrdless of your opinion on the matter.

If you had read my previous post, ive already stated im opposed to Late Term Abortions.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.

---

There's no dilemma

---

He knows that. He defeated his own point when he admitted in my hypothetcial that he's save one boy's life instead of two women. Obviously that doesn't mean the two women aren't human, or aren't alive. So the entire "gotcha" in his hypothetical is meaningless. But he's still desperately trying to hang onto it. Anything to justify killing babies.

---

Unborn Fetuses arent Babies, just fyi, it may sensationalise your POV to call abortion "Baby Murder" but it is inaccurate

---

If we're making this about semantics, isn't "unborn fetus" redundant?

What we call them doesn't change what they are. Tiny, defenseless human beings. Or do you also object to the notion they are human?

---

i suppose it is redundant, i apologise.

No, they are unborn humans, i dont agree with late term abortions, but i do think that Abortion is a choice a Woman should be able to make.

To take the argument you are trying to make further, you clearly dont agree with Abortion, correct? even if its within the first month or so of Gestation when the Fetus wouldnt be able to survive outside the womb and isnt even fully formed? Do you agree with people using Birth Control?

---

I am fine with people preventing pregnancy. I am not ok with people killing the unborn human after pregnancy has occurred.

Viability is a weak argument and a moving target. If I'm going to err on when a human "starts" and when a soul exists, I'll err on the side that doesn't involve murdering it, rather than on the one that does. That means not drawing an arbitrary line, but rather going to the actual start.

Also, if you believe it's "a choice a woman should be able to make" . . . when does that choice stop? The moment it passes thru her vaginal canal? Does it still apply if she chooses after it's 3 weeks old? What about 3 weeks before the birth?

---

ok, so why is it ok to prevent an Egg from being fertilized then? each egg is a potential Human Life, is it not? what about the Morning After Pill? you can take that up to 5 days after unprotected Sex (or Contraception has failed) and before any Medical tests could possibly detect whether or not you are actually Pregnant. I mean, in the first month, its not even a fetus, its just a mainly formless clump of cells without any of the basic main organs.or features of a human.

I know its a favoured term of the Pre-Life lobby, but Murder is a legal term and as Aboprtion has been held to be legal, its plainly not murder, regrdless of your opinion on the matter.

If you had read my previous post, ive already stated im opposed to Late Term Abortions.

---

Let''s say that I am hunting on public land. I set up in a great area overlooking a game trail. Ive seen a couple of animals come by but, they aren't what I'm looking for. It's getting late and I'm running out of daylight when at the head of the game trail there's a pretty big size shape rustling behind the brush. It's late and this is going to be my last opportunity to get something. I aim center mass and squeeze. Down it goes ! Let's go see what I got.

I head up the trail and look behind the brush to find that I've shot and killed another hunter! I didn't even know he was there. Am I guilty of negligent homicide? If so why when it was an accident? That's the answer to the morning after pill question.

Regarding an unfertilized egg or sperm that never finds an egg: neither of these will ever become a person on their own. Absolutely nothing in the Christian faith or cecular world says otherwise. Nobody mourns over what's dried on the sheets or tossed out on a tampon because we all know it was never going to be a person

---

cms186 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.

---

There's no dilemma

---

He knows that. He defeated his own point when he admitted in my hypothetcial that he's save one boy's life instead of two women. Obviously that doesn't mean the two women aren't human, or aren't alive. So the entire "gotcha" in his hypothetical is meaningless. But he's still desperately trying to hang onto it. Anything to justify killing babies.

---

Unborn Fetuses arent Babies, just fyi, it may sensationalise your POV to call abortion "Baby Murder" but it is inaccurate

---

If we're making this about semantics, isn't "unborn fetus" redundant?

What we call them doesn't change what they are. Tiny, defenseless human beings. Or do you also object to the notion they are human?

---

i suppose it is redundant, i apologise.

No, they are unborn humans, i dont agree with late term abortions, but i do think that Abortion is a choice a Woman should be able to make.

To take the argument you are trying to make further, you clearly dont agree with Abortion, correct? even if its within the first month or so of Gestation when the Fetus wouldnt be able to survive outside the womb and isnt even fully formed? Do you agree with people using Birth Control?

---

I am fine with people preventing pregnancy. I am not ok with people killing the unborn human after pregnancy has occurred.

Viability is a weak argument and a moving target. If I'm going to err on when a human "starts" and when a soul exists, I'll err on the side that doesn't involve murdering it, rather than on the one that does. That means not drawing an arbitrary line, but rather going to the actual start.

Also, if you believe it's "a choice a woman should be able to make" . . . when does that choice stop? The moment it passes thru her vaginal canal? Does it still apply if she chooses after it's 3 weeks old? What about 3 weeks before the birth?

---

ok, so why is it ok to prevent an Egg from being fertilized then? each egg is a potential Human Life, is it not? what about the Morning After Pill? you can take that up to 5 days after unprotected Sex (or Contraception has failed) and before any Medical tests could possibly detect whether or not you are actually Pregnant. I mean, in the first month, its not even a fetus, its just a mainly formless clump of cells without any of the basic main organs.or features of a human.

I know its a favoured term of the Pre-Life lobby, but Murder is a legal term and as Aboprtion has been held to be legal, its plainly not murder, regrdless of your opinion on the matter.

If you had read my previous post, ive already stated im opposed to Late Term Abortions.

---

Let''s say that I am hunting on public land. I set up in a great area overlooking a game trail. Ive seen a couple of animals come by but, they aren't what I'm looking for. It's getting late and I'm running out of daylight when at the head of the game trail there's a pretty big size shape rustling behind the brush. It's late and this is going to be my last opportunity to get something. I aim center mass and squeeze. Down it goes ! Let's go see what I got.

I head up the trail and look behind the brush to find that I've shot and killed another hunter! I didn't even know he was there. Am I guilty of negligent homicide? If so why when it was an accident? That's the answer to the morning after pill question.

Regarding an unfertilized egg or sperm that never finds an egg: neither of these will ever become a person on their own. Absolutely nothing in the Christian faith or cecular world says otherwise. Nobody mourns over what's dried on the sheets or tossed out on a tampon because we all know it was never going to be a person

---

The little story is totally irrelevant to the Morning After Pill.

This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.

---

There's no dilemma

---

He knows that. He defeated his own point when he admitted in my hypothetcial that he's save one boy's life instead of two women. Obviously that doesn't mean the two women aren't human, or aren't alive. So the entire "gotcha" in his hypothetical is meaningless. But he's still desperately trying to hang onto it. Anything to justify killing babies.

---

Unborn Fetuses arent Babies, just fyi, it may sensationalise your POV to call abortion "Baby Murder" but it is inaccurate

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.

---

There's no dilemma

---

He knows that. He defeated his own point when he admitted in my hypothetcial that he's save one boy's life instead of two women. Obviously that doesn't mean the two women aren't human, or aren't alive. So the entire "gotcha" in his hypothetical is meaningless. But he's still desperately trying to hang onto it. Anything to justify killing babies.

---

Unborn Fetuses arent Babies, just fyi, it may sensationalise your POV to call abortion "Baby Murder" but it is inaccurate

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.

---

There's no dilemma

---

He knows that. He defeated his own point when he admitted in my hypothetcial that he'd save one boy's life instead of two women. Obviously that doesn't mean the two women aren't human, or aren't alive. So the entire "gotcha" in his hypothetical is meaningless. But he's still desperately trying to hang onto it. Anything to justify killing babies.

---

Florda_mike said:

---

cms186 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.

---

There's no dilemma

---

He knows that. He defeated his own point when he admitted in my hypothetcial that he's save one boy's life instead of two women. Obviously that doesn't mean the two women aren't human, or aren't alive. So the entire "gotcha" in his hypothetical is meaningless. But he's still desperately trying to hang onto it. Anything to justify killing babies.

---

Unborn Fetuses arent Babies, just fyi, it may sensationalise your POV to call abortion "Baby Murder" but it is inaccurate

---

If we're making this about semantics, isn't "unborn fetus" redundant?

What we call them doesn't change what they are. Tiny, defenseless human beings. Or do you also object to the notion they are human?

---

i suppose it is redundant, i apologise.

No, they are unborn humans, i dont agree with late term abortions, but i do think that Abortion is a choice a Woman should be able to make.

To take the argument you are trying to make further, you clearly dont agree with Abortion, correct? even if its within the first month or so of Gestation when the Fetus wouldnt be able to survive outside the womb and isnt even fully formed? Do you agree with people using Birth Control?

---

I am fine with people preventing pregnancy. I am not ok with people killing the unborn human after pregnancy has occurred.

Viability is a weak argument and a moving target. If I'm going to err on when a human "starts" and when a soul exists, I'll err on the side that doesn't involve murdering it, rather than on the one that does. That means not drawing an arbitrary line, but rather going to the actual start.

Also, if you believe it's "a choice a woman should be able to make" . . . when does that choice stop? The moment it passes thru her vaginal canal? Does it still apply if she chooses after it's 3 weeks old? What about 3 weeks before the birth?

---

ok, so why is it ok to prevent an Egg from being fertilized then? each egg is a potential Human Life, is it not? what about the Morning After Pill? you can take that up to 5 days after unprotected Sex (or Contraception has failed) and before any Medical tests could possibly detect whether or not you are actually Pregnant. I mean, in the first month, its not even a fetus, its just a mainly formless clump of cells without any of the basic main organs.or features of a human.

I know its a favoured term of the Pre-Life lobby, but Murder is a legal term and as Aboprtion has been held to be legal, its plainly not murder, regrdless of your opinion on the matter.

If you had read my previous post, ive already stated im opposed to Late Term Abortions.

---

Let''s say that I am hunting on public land. I set up in a great area overlooking a game trail. Ive seen a couple of animals come by but, they aren't what I'm looking for. It's getting late and I'm running out of daylight when at the head of the game trail there's a pretty big size shape rustling behind the brush. It's late and this is going to be my last opportunity to get something. I aim center mass and squeeze. Down it goes ! Let's go see what I got.

I head up the trail and look behind the brush to find that I've shot and killed another hunter! I didn't even know he was there. Am I guilty of negligent homicide? If so why when it was an accident? That's the answer to the morning after pill question.

Regarding an unfertilized egg or sperm that never finds an egg: neither of these will ever become a person on their own. Absolutely nothing in the Christian faith or cecular world says otherwise. Nobody mourns over what's dried on the sheets or tossed out on a tampon because we all know it was never going to be a person

---

The little story is totally irrelevant to the Morning After Pill.

This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.

---

How strong is your belief in God at this point in your life?

---

contrario said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.

---

There's no dilemma

---

He knows that. He defeated his own point when he admitted in my hypothetcial that he's save one boy's life instead of two women. Obviously that doesn't mean the two women aren't human, or aren't alive. So the entire "gotcha" in his hypothetical is meaningless. But he's still desperately trying to hang onto it. Anything to justify killing babies.

---

Unborn Fetuses arent Babies, just fyi, it may sensationalise your POV to call abortion "Baby Murder" but it is inaccurate

---

So one day before birth it is a fetus but it magically becomes a baby the second it is born? You are smarter than this Chris. The terminology used to defend the use of abortions doesn't change what the object of the discussion is.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.

---

There's no dilemma

---

He knows that. He defeated his own point when he admitted in my hypothetcial that he's save one boy's life instead of two women. Obviously that doesn't mean the two women aren't human, or aren't alive. So the entire "gotcha" in his hypothetical is meaningless. But he's still desperately trying to hang onto it. Anything to justify killing babies.

---

Unborn Fetuses arent Babies, just fyi, it may sensationalise your POV to call abortion "Baby Murder" but it is inaccurate

---

It is true that an "unborn fetus" is not a "baby" because a fetus is, by definition, an unborn baby and a baby is a born fetus. An infant is not a toddler, a preschooler is not an adolescent, an adolescent is not an adult, but all of them are human beings.

Do you find "killing unborn human offspring," which abortion clearly is, to be somehow more palatable than "baby murder?"

---