|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 5, 2005 2:25:57 GMT -5
Really? How many babys have you carried to term? Once again, murder is a legal term. Do you think about how the cow was murdered when you eat a hamburger? If it is legal, then the term murder, does not apply. No, I am not going to start talking about cow tipping now. My point, the government already has to much control over our lives. We are already legislated to death. To keep making things illegal does not solve the problem. Case in point, the drug war. But I guess thats another thread. I guess the main problem with debating this topic is, nobody really knows when life begins. Many say its at birth. Obviously the government believes this. No tax deduction until it is born, regardless of how much prenatal care cost. But c,mon. Every cell in your body is alive, including eggs and sperm. Does masturbation constitute the murder of millions of would be souls? Do you have any conscious memory of anything before you were born? There maybe a reason for this. But again. I am against abortion. Just more against Government control over our lives.
|
|
|
Post by Big Foot on Jun 6, 2005 19:18:08 GMT -5
My last reply is up above this reply. lol, lol, ;D
|
|
|
Post by Big Foot on Jun 6, 2005 19:43:25 GMT -5
My last reply was meant to be humerous, but all jokes aside this is a serious debate. First of all Mr. Premier should have been told a long time ago that man was put in place head over all other living things. God's the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man and man is the head of his house hold and above the animals. Second point: It is murder if an animal is killed for sport and not for food. As far as I know, I don't think someone will be eating all of the dead fetuses. So therefore I still summit that abortion is muder. The only reason that the government has made it legal, is because the doctors has lobbied the issue to death and I say that literally. All doctors knew that they could accumualate more of the mighty dollar if the law was changed to make killing unborn babbies legal ! Again Mr. Priemer, your opinion is something you have to live with, not me. The reason I say this is because there is more evidence pointing toward life beginning at conception then evidence supporting that it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 7, 2005 1:35:35 GMT -5
OK! Well then. Submit your evidence. I said evidence, not opinion. Evidence that you have accumulated that would resolve the problem of when Life begins. You know when consciousness and the soul are bestowed? Why do you think that I should have been told the points listed in your post. Do you hold your view as absolute, indisputable? Please don’t tell me it is because you read it in some religious book. That only proves you know how to read. What a ego you have my friend. Don’t get wrong. I do enjoy our little debates. But I think I’m already aware that I, and not you, have to live with my opinions. Or do you think, that I am not entitled to have, or post an opinion? Once again. Murder is a legal term. So abortion at this point may be killing, it can not be murder. And I have never heard the killing of an animal refered to as murder. At least,not until, I read your post.
|
|
|
Post by Big Foot on Jun 7, 2005 6:28:34 GMT -5
Wow Premier, you threw a hard one at me this time, but rest assured that I will have a come back. First I want to do some heavy research, so that we can ensure that this debate will continue and hopeully find some facts{Maybe} or at least reach some kind of common ground for this debate. Until then stay active in your opinions and heartfelt convictions. I am starting to really enjoy this board. I haven't written an article in the editorial pages of the Gt. Times since I've been posting on this board. Thanks for the chance to rack my brains.
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 8, 2005 7:26:08 GMT -5
Your quite welcome my friend! Research all you want. The answer however, to this debate, is not going to be found in a book. It is in your heart! You can’t legislate people into heaven.
|
|
|
Post by Big Foot on Jun 8, 2005 13:39:02 GMT -5
I told you I would be back Premier. It seems now that we are beating a dead horse. *Not murdered just dead. ;D I ran into a little problem when I start my research on the beginning of ones self. {QUOTE} From you.+ And I don't mean by reading it in some riligious book, that only proves that you can read. UN-QUOTE. I regret to inform you, that I am not a scientist and I doubt that you are too, but not sure, so I won't place a bet. My point is this. If we are not scientist, then from what other source do we normally draw our knowledge from if it is not from reading and reasearching a certain topic from books? I'm sure, that we would not be able to discuss such an in-depth subject on the educable level that we have been treading on, if we did not gain knowledge from books. Life is a great teacher, but it is nice to be able to learn from other sources. So Mr. Premier, I can not show you the evidence that you requested, because, you stated that I should not conclude from a book. So, do you have any suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 8, 2005 16:20:31 GMT -5
Get all the academic knowledge from books you can. They are a great source of information. Just don’t let them give you your opinion. Just because it is written down, Does not make it the absolute truth. In short, gather up all the information you can from books, but form your own opinion. Don’t let some author give it to you. If you allow yourself to be sucked in by clever writing, then you better be careful of what you read. For example. I usually just post my opinion on subjects. So don’t confuse them with facts. I may not agree with what you say. But I sure will defend your right to say it. So you don’t have to do a turn of research to debate me. Its all about what you feel is right. Don’t let someone else, just because they can write, decide that for you. But read and enjoy. I love books too!
|
|
|
Post by Big Foot on Jun 21, 2005 9:15:33 GMT -5
O.k. Mr. Preimier, I have to tell you this is how I feel and what I believe. To me life begins at conception and to end that life without trial or jury or any justification for such a crime is nothing but murder. I hear so much about women's rights. That a woman can go get an abortion and she does not even have to report it to the father of said child, if she choses not to do so. Did the woman make herself pregnant? Did the unborn ask to become a being, just to be destroyed? How are we sure that when the unborn are being murdered, how are we to be sure that they do not suffer any great pains? There is a form of life in the sperm and there is a form of life in the egg. When the sperm and egg becomes as one then there's the creation of a whole living being. I conclude this from books and my heart felt opion, on how I itterpret what I have read and seen in this life.
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 22, 2005 18:42:24 GMT -5
First of all, its Mr. Edition. Premier is my first name Einstein. You are a hard head! MURDER is a legal term! Get it! It can’t be murder if it does not violate the law. How thick is your head? Next issue, we do not know when the unborn feels pain. But we do know how much the mother goes through. So your point is that life begins when something becomes a living being? LMAO, OK, Define living being. As far as the Fathers rights. If he is not willing to contribute at least half what is needed financially to raise the child. Then he has no rights. In my opinion. if the father and mother can not work it out, the father should have to pay for abortion. You are right! She didn’t get pregnant on her own. But women are not baby machines for us. The father should have worked this out before he deposited his donation. Yes? You are doing good at trying to form your own opinions. And not adopting ones simply because they are written down in some book. As far as Premier Edition is concerned, “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything”. Can’t remember who said that, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Big Foot on Jun 23, 2005 7:18:38 GMT -5
;D Mr. Premier !!!! LOL, First is and always should be, God's law ! Thou shall not commit murder ! To me, here is what a living being is. The same as you and I. The unborn beings are still growing. Like we all have to grow through life. Also I made no mention about the willingness or lack of about the father being there. I simply stated that the child carrier, I will not use the term mother if she is about to abort an unborn child. I stated that she has the right to to chose if she tells the father or not, regaurdless if he is willing to be there or not. To me this is wrong. Who knows the father might be a good man. There are some good men in the world. Why not give him the choice if he wants the child to raise or not. If not they should both put the child up for adoption and both should pay for the proceedings that follow. Not the tax payers !
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 23, 2005 16:28:15 GMT -5
Once again! The father had a choice, prior to the act! Why should the Father get a say so now? Its not his body. It would just mean another tax deduction for him and the mother would still have to pay support. Sounds like you want your cake and eat it to.
|
|
|
Post by Big Foot on Jun 26, 2005 16:05:06 GMT -5
Mr. Premire, Both the mother and father were in the act together creating a child. So tell me why should this exclude the father in any say so concerning the child? Regardless if the mother gives birth. Does this make the father any less of a person that can love a living being? who told a woman, that she holds all the power on being able to love, just because she is the one that God chose to be the life bearer? The Bible says alot about a woman and her devious ways. Women asked for women's lib. Now let them carry their own cross of burden and that dose not include the right to murder a unborn child ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 29, 2005 16:15:58 GMT -5
So your opinion is that, the mother should not have a say so after the fact, even though they both had a say before the fact? If the Father knows he taken a chance, due to the lack of protection, why should he be afforded extra rights after the fact? If he has intentions of having a child, let him work out the details or some sort of contract with the mother before the act. Or just keep his mouth shut. Again not his body. The women should not be held responsible for the mans stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Big Foot on Jun 29, 2005 19:06:17 GMT -5
;D lmao. Mr. Premier, you are going around in a circle. It wouldn't surprize me if you didn't fall flat on your face from being dizzy ! The Woman should know and provide just as much protection as the man. If the man and woman both chose not to use any protection, then they should be deemed as on equal grounds ! There is no extra right in being careless. Just stupidity ! It is not the unborn child's fault that it's parents acted in a careless manner. So why should it be murdered on that account?
|
|