Welcome to Gaia! ::

Why does everyone assume the stereotypical? rolleyes

And why all the faulty analogies? rolleyes

The difference between eating rice gruel everyday, and living in Central park compared to abortion is different and hits the fallacy of hypothesis contrary to fact because:

It does not have the consequence of destroying life, whereas abortion kills an unborn child.

Plus, concerning the quality of life, I am not concerned about how you choose to live your life, I am concerned on how many lives that people will destroy before they are able to even enter the world.

Depending on the couple of course. For myself the chance of pregnancy is actually abnormal, the chance of me being able to keep it living, even if I wanted it, past the first trimester is also abnormal. *pokes useless organ known as uterus*

So for sake of argument, sex = pregnancy = abortion. For me that is a percetly normal path. For millions of women across the globe and throughout time that has been a normal responce...

now are you saying this is abnormal or are you saying it is unnatural? Unnatural would fit much better. Yup, its unnatural for a woman to not want a child, oif course its unnatural *that was sarcasm...the following is not* It is unnatural to attempt an abortion, but we strive against nature at every opportunity, just taking an asprin goes against the natural order of things.

Blerg...lectures...laterz

GAAAAH! crying

Please read and reread that message until you are sure you comprehend the argument being conveyed.

... maybe I didn't add the phrase, "(SEX, not abortion)" enough times for the message to get through.

Summarily, please stop changing the subject or playing dumb to avoid responding to my points. You were doing that in the ED thread as well.

As for contempt, your sucky attitude of late certainly qualifies, not to mention abuse of the " rolleyes " .

Genital herpes is not a non-stop condition. It occurs in breakouts which can be prevented from spreading to other people and drastically reduced effectively by medicine. RESULT: Non-communicable disease which is only an occasional nuscience. Not a signifigant barrier to intimacy.

Next, HIV. Um, I dunno, Condoms? Not 100%, but I suppose a couple who is aware of one of them being infected would be able to work out a reasonable plan for intimacy. They'd have to be commited to that to make it work. And remember, just because one of them accepts the risk of HIV to be with the other, doesn't mean they should be denied medicine if they get it.

Why are you so bent on asserting that sex can be eliminated from marriage? Most people and all of history contradict you on that point. Sex happens to be an integral part of a normal healthy marriage. Not even the biggest part, to deny it's role is contrary to sense and reality.

Who the hell says this? Introduce me to them, because I've never met one. It is not representative of the majority of pro-choicers. Even if it was, should we outlaw alchohol because some people abuse it? What do you expect responsible people to do about the irresponsible ones?


Could you rephrase this part so I can know what the hell you're talking about and respond accordingly?


What the hell kind of history are you looking at? The history of what planet? Because it's certainly not Earth's history you're talking about. In almost every culture people weren't considered people until they were at least a certain number of months or years old. For the hindu it was 2 years old. Attempts at Birth Control have been around since people figured out that sex could end in pregnancy, and attempts at abortion have been around as long as people figured out that pregnancy could end with a baby. And culturally accepted infanticide has been around as long as people figured out that they didn't want that baby. It is a fact that for almost every culture in the world, this heartfelt concern for the life of the unborn is a very very new feature. They had to think of *something* to use as an excuse to why abortion should suddenly become bad, now that "preserving the race/class" and other such reasons were unnaceptable.

Reiduck? I've never heard her say anything like that, so I must assume your cynical mind has warped the message by leaving out any mention of birth control and implying that Reiduck is not in favor of using it responsibly.

And I don't see how Reiduck is an answer to the second one, or even the relevence it has on this conversation.

Next...

Thomas Coram wrote in 1741 about "...the daily sight of infant corpses on the dust heaps of London" Hell, if you didn't want to do that, you could just wrap it in a burlap sack, and chuck the kid into the Thames.

Evidence also points to widely practiced infanticide in the ancient civilization of Rome.

The killing of youth, both born and unborn, were widespread practices in the western world as well as the eastern one. It was called "exposing" and it was generally culturally accepted and rarely was a penalty sought against someone who commited such a crime.

True, I'm sure you can find documentation of respect for fetal life, but it doesn't mean anything if the people of that age didn't practice what they preached.

The logic really fails here. The if = then formula doesn't work if you base it of of a false assumption, Free.



Being unfaithul to your spouse doesn't mean you're not having sex with her. These men were getting heirs from thier wives, not their homosexual lovers, and I don't think turkey basters had been invented yet. Marital infidelity does not deny the existance of marriage as a sexual relationship.

Try again.