You couldn't pull the comment up where I made that remark could ya Dude? Just one lie after another comes out of that piehole of yours.

And NO I don't admit that cells are human beings, that Skippy is NOT reality.

So you do favor the story you tell yourself to reality. Thanks for the confirmation.

By the way, if it isn't reality, you should have no problem at all bringing some credible science forward to prove it. In case you were wondering, elroy the computer guy's opinion still doesn't consitute credible science

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

[quote=PaleRider;377637]So you do favor the story you tell yourself to reality.


Yada, Yada, Yada, you are such a sicko psycho... Where's the comment Dude??? I live reality and that's no damn story unlike your scientific fantasys.

[quote=Lexi;377639]So in your reality science is a fantasy. You get further from the real every day lexi.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

I have often alluded to the fact that the huge distinction that we make between abortion and contraception is one that is constructed by society, as such the huge distinction represents a product of social discourse rather than an ultimate truth. Barbara Katz Rothman elucidates this point very well in the following section of her study: Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technology in a Patriarchal Society.NY: W.W. Norton, 1989.

"...As part of contraception, abortion expresses an unwillgness to make a baby, stopping the division of self, stopping a bit of oneself from going on to become someone else. In this sense abortion is not fundamentally different from contraception. Each month that a woman ovulates she releases one particular egg, an egg with an already limited range of potential. This month's egg is capable of becoming a different baby than last month's, than next month's. The egg not fertalized when it comes forth in time for the new year is September's baby not to be. The egg that carried a particular dominant gene is a brown-eyed baby not to come. Let that egg be fertalized and then stopped, aborted rather than 'contracepted' into nothingness, and it is a still more specific baby not to be

Why do we make such enormous distinction in modern society between contraception and abortion? One answer lies in certain phiosophical premises about the nature of embryoinic life. And yet some contraceptives, the IUD, some pills--are technically abortifacients. They do not prevent sperm from joining egg and creating a zygote..but prevent the very egg from implanting. So why is it that abortion planned and recognized by the woman, abortion deliberately controlled by the woman, is said to be distinct from, and less acceptable than contraception?"


I would really like an answer to these questions from the prolifers here. Now those of you who are Catholic and agree that there is little difference between contraception anmd abortion and that both are "wrong" why is "natural family planning ok?" Are you not still choosing who is born and who is not? Why doesn't that egg you choose to let go unfertalized not have a right to life? What if God wanted that one to be born and you thwarted his/her desires?

In any case, as far as the Catholic position I agree with this same author's following statements:

"The Catholic Church's current position is both internally consistent and, ironically, essentially the same argument I am making from the other side: abortion and contraception are fundamentally the SAME. But in contrast to what I am saying, the Church objects to all these efforts to control our population, even invitro fertilization and artificial insemination Both the Church's position and mine focus on control rather than technique as the important issue, a control I value and the church deplores.

Of course I would disagree with Rothman in that I see the Church's position on the rythm method inconsistent in that it allows the people control over conception and birth, even if that control is not complete. (neither is the pill's or other devices after all).

But the point here is that Rothman and I make the same argument as the Catholic Church only in reverse. I do not see a huge difference between contraception and abortion because in my view the intentions and results are the same. You decide and then work to prevent a potential human from being brought into existence. Now you might all try to come back with but at conception a person exists, blah, blah, blah. Not a one of you has ever proven this. I would simply come back with, well why can't one of those eggs be a person with a right to life if in fact person is a social construct rather than a biological term? Thus why does conception necessarily given the zygote the right to life that an egg does not have?

So again, I would like an answer to the following:

1. Why is contrcaeption ok, in fact even "responsible" but abortion is horrendous? Are the intentions and end result not the same?

2. If contraception is "better," please explain better for whom, the unborn? How? How is it any better to be contracepted into nothingness than aborted into it?

3. Why does fertalization equal right to life? What point of fertalization? The beginning? It takes 24 hours to complete. Thus when is the right to life guaranteed?

4. Do you not find it odd that an egg and sperm who according to you guys have no value but then turn into "instant person" with a right to life at some point during fertalization? In any case, why must we believe your claims as to instant personhood?

5. Finally how can you expect people to contracept and yet never abort? I mean by saying contraception is "responsible" you are basically saying the components of conception have no value, thus why should someone value them just because they fused? How does this make any sense at all? Would it stand to reason that people would NOT value and thus abort that which they tried to prevent from joining in the first place?

6. Finally, how can every potential human person have a right to life but not a right to be conceived?

What indeed is the problem with stopping conception.? Are we as humans not allowed to manage our circumstances of life? As long as any pill does not "abort" an already conceived child, just what is the difference from any other contraception, such as the use of a condom, withdrawing, or even the rhythm method? Life does not start until conception takes place. All these methods which prevent conception are themselves "birth control"...no? The scriptures tell us that "sex" is for other purposes other than "reproduction". Paul tells us that sex is an expression of "marital" affection and a means of controlling basic sexual desires -- l Cor. 7:2-9. It is expected for sex to be "enjoyed", as it is not a work in and by itself for reproduction -- Proverbs 5:18-19. Thus, the bible teaches that couples are permitted, expected, and sometimes commanded to have sexual intercourse with their spouses, even if the conception of children is not desired or possible at the time of having relations. BD

Contraceptives that have an abortifacient effect in addition to the property of preventing contraception are not ok. Who ever said that they were?

If contraception works, then there is no unborn. Fertilization never happens. If fertilization never happens, there is no child. If there is no child, then there is no problem. Certain contraceptives have an abortifacient effect that actually causes the death of the child if the contraceptive aspect fails. These contraceptive / abortifacients are not ok.

I believe that most pro lifers, when speaking of fertilization, state when fertilzation is complete. I would say that when the child makes the first chemical communication with the mother informing her body that conception has happend and it should begin preparing for pregnancy, that the right to live should be protected. That first chemical communication happens within seconds of the completion of fertilization. There are those who say that it signals the completion of fertilization.

There is nothing odd about it at all. It is basic biology. If you grasp the science then there is nothing magical or odd about it. Sperm is nothing but a cell from a man's body. It is unique in that it only has half a set of chromosomes but alone it is nothing. Sperm don't even divide. They are formed, remain viable for a finite amount of time and are resorbed or sluffed off. The same is true for eggs except that they are rarely resorbed. When they get together, their potenital is realized. A new being exists. The offspring of two human beings which can be nothing but a human being.

Person is the kind of creature that you are. It has nothing to do with the extent to which you manifest your potential. If reaching one's potential were essential to personhood, then those who reach more of their potential would be more of a person than those who achieve a lesser degree of their potential. Regardless of how much or how little potential we actually manifest, we are no more and no less of a person than the next guy and there is nothing that we can do or have befall us that would unperson us. Person is simply what we are. It is a matter of kind and not degree. How good or bad a person you are is a matter of degree but not the "amount" of person you are.

By formulating contraceptives that do not have an abortifacient effect and banning both drugs and devices that do. If contraception works, then fertilization can not happen. If fertilization happens, then contraception has not happened and any effect thereafter that causes the death of the child is abortion and not contraception.

[/quote]

This is your second finally, but I will answer anyway. Potential persons do not exist and therefore have no rights. Potential persons are nothing more than ideas. Only after fertilization happens does a being exist and only beings that exist can have rights.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

[quote=PaleRider;377861]
You've never been living in the "real" so how the hell would you know.. You're just a sick little psycho that has to carry my comments around like it's your security blanket. Geezzz that is soooo sick...

[quote=Lexi;378403]I carry your comment around because you were an idiot for saying it in the first place and when someone says something exceptionally stupid, others enjoy reading it. I know you hate that your stupidity is repeated every time I post, but too damned bad. Maybe someday someone will make an even more moronic statement and I will replace yours with theirs.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Ok, I'll play your game you stupid idiot. I'll carry YOUR comment around with me so you can be ashamed every time I post and I post on a lot of different threads Paleass so have a great day and be happy!!!

And it IS YOUR COMMENT, since I never made it with red font. Or with the green either.