The Proudest Hour of the Prolife Movement.

[captain morgan]

I posted directly from your post SJP... There is no mystery relative to what you said. As I predicted, this (yet again) devolves into a splitting of hairs on semantics...

You'd think that after all of the dust-up on the 'An Appology' thread that you'd at limit your antics at least for awhile.

You really haven't learned a thing from that episode.

Sad.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In something as crucial as this, would it not be prudent to err on the side of safety and give the subject the benefit of the doubt?

An admirable sentiment, JLM. But then the question is, why stop at conception, why not go even further back? Before conception, the sperm is alive; why not show the same reverence to the sperm? If the product of conception is a potential baby, so is a sperm.

Then why not make masturbation illegal? A normal volume of semen contains 300 to 400 million sperms, so masturbation kills 300 or 400 million potential human beings. Or a woman who uses a spermicide as contraceptive kills 300 to 400 million potential human beings every time she has an intercourse.

The conception cutoff is purely arbitrary. If you are so intent on erring on the safe side, then why not show the same reference for life when it comes to the sperm?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I posted directly from your post SJP... There is no mystery relative to what you said. As I predicted, this (yet again) devolves into a splitting of hairs on semantics...

You'd think that after all of the dust-up on the 'An Appology' thread that you'd at limit your antics at least for awhile.

You really haven't learned a thing from that episode.

Sad.

Captain, you attributed to me something that I did not say and then asked me to respond to it. I cannot do that. I am only responsible for what I said. I asked you to produce the post where I said that and you couldn’t.

I don’t see what the apology thread had to do with anything. That was about insulting behavior, about name calling.

 

[JLM]

So what is your point, JLM? Just because they are politicians, they are not allowed to have their own concept of God? And who says that one has to practice religion ‘professionally' to have their own concept of God? Does that privilege belong to TV evangelists (who practice religion ‘professionally’?).

Pelosi, Biden, etc have their own concept of God (and everybody has that right, not just those who practice religion ‘professionally’) and they have been able to square their concept of God with abortion, they don’t see any conflict there.

I assume you do not practice religion professionally. Do you have your own concept of God? Because you are not a professional does anybody has the right to dictate to you what is the correct concept of God?

Just because they are politicians does not mean that they cannot have their own concept of God. We all have that right.

Sure they have a right to their own opinions and possibly to make decisions about their own/ spouses abortions, but they have no credentials to make decisions on abortions generally from a religious viewpoint.

 

[JLM]

An admirable sentiment, JLM. But then the question is, why stop at conception, why not go even further back? Before conception, the sperm is alive; why not show the same reverence to the sperm? If the product of conception is a potential baby, so is a sperm.

Then why not make masturbation illegal? A normal volume of semen contains 300 to 400 million sperms, so masturbation kills 300 or 400 million potential human beings. Or a woman who uses a spermicide as contraceptive kills 300 to 400 million potential human beings every time she has an intercourse.

The conception cutoff is purely arbitrary. If you are so intent on erring on the safe side, then why not show the same reference for life when it comes to the sperm?

Let's just worry about one step for now and see how it works.

 

[JLM]

"Then why not make masturbation illegal?"- And just how would you propose enforcing a law like that? Don't you agree that laws that are unenforceable are stupid?

 

[L Gilbert]

An admirable sentiment, JLM. But then the question is, why stop at conception, why not go even further back? Before conception, the sperm is alive; why not show the same reverence to the sperm? If the product of conception is a potential baby, so is a sperm.

Then why not make masturbation illegal? A normal volume of semen contains 300 to 400 million sperms, so masturbation kills 300 or 400 million potential human beings. Or a woman who uses a spermicide as contraceptive kills 300 to 400 million potential human beings every time she has an intercourse.

It does not, you thick prat. Only one sperm normally gets itself inside the egg, not 3 or 400M.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sure they have a right to their own opinions and possibly to make decisions about their own/ spouses abortions, but they have no credentials to make decisions on abortions generally from a religious viewpoint.

No, but they are politicians, and as politicians, they have a duty to vote on the issue. They will bring their own biases, their own viewpoints to the issue, and that is as it should be.

But you are right they really shouldn’t have to make that decision. In Canada we let courts decide these things and that is much fairer. The justices don’t have any ax to grind (like politicians do) and one can rely on them to fairly decide whether abortion is constitutional or not.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Then why not make masturbation illegal?"- And just how would you propose enforcing a law like that? Don't you agree that laws that are unenforceable are stupid?

Exactly JLM, and that shows the absurdity of the argument of erring on the safe side. If you are erring on the safe side as a matter of principle, why not go even further and protect the sperm as well. It is up to prolife side to try to come up with effective laws which will ban masterbation, contraception etc. After all, it is a matter of principle, a matter of protecting life.

 

[L Gilbert]

No, but they are politicians, and as politicians, they have a duty to vote on the issue. They will bring their own biases, their own viewpoints to the issue, and that is as it should be.

But you are right they really shouldn’t have to make that decision. In Canada we let courts decide these things and that is much fairer. The justices don’t have any ax to grind (like politicians do) and one can rely on them to fairly decide whether abortion is constitutional or not.

uhuh. And those "justices" don't have their own prejudices at all.:roll:

 

[L Gilbert]

Exactly JLM, and that shows the absurdity of the argument of erring on the safe side. If you are erring on the safe side as a matter of principle, why not go even further and protect the sperm as well. It is up to prolife side to try to come up with effective laws which will ban masterbation, contraception etc. After all, it is a matter of principle, a matter of protecting life.

Someone quote my post about 3 or 400 M sperm. Or at least repeat what I said.

 

[Niflmir]

Likewise. L., you sound pretty dogmatic and myopic and chauvinistic yourself.

LoL, do you even know what chauvinistic means? Yeah, L Gilbert, he's a real sexist.

 

[Tonington]

Someone quote my post about 3 or 400 M sperm. Or at least repeat what I said.

It's a ridiculous notion. There are 300 or 400 million possible combinations of humans in one mL of semen, whihc will possibly fertilize the female ovum/ova. That doesn't mean preventing a pregnancy is killing the potential humans.

Humans aren't broadcast spawners. If you think about this absurd notion, a successful pregnancy involves killing the remaining potential humans...

 

[YukonJack]

Obviously, SirJosephPorter considers himself nothing more than the sperm donor resulting in the child to whom his wife gave birth.

I am the FATHER of my children.

And therein lies the difference between a conservative pro-lifer and a pro-abortion liberal.

 

[lone wolf]

Someone quote my post about 3 or 400 M sperm. Or at least repeat what I said.

What's the point? Porter isn't interested in facts or opinions. He's impressed by his own words.....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It's a ridiculous notion. There are 300 or 400 million possible combinations of humans in one mL of semen, whihc will possibly fertilize the female ovum/ova. That doesn't mean preventing a pregnancy is killing the potential humans.

Humans aren't broadcast spawners. If you think about this absurd notion, a successful pregnancy involves killing the remaining potential humans...

I agree Tonington. But this is where the ‘sanctity of life’ argument leads. Just as preventing a pregnancy is not killing a human being, same way destroying an embryo (by abortion, miscarriage or whatever) is not killing a human being.

But if somebody makes the argument that fetus is a human being since the moment of conception, then why not the sperm?

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter and his comrades would like you to believe that anyone who opposes abortion does it strictly and solely on religious basis.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am totally opposed to abortion, except in certain justifiable cases. I have NEVER ever backed up my opposition to abortion with references to any Holy Book. Of course, SirJosephPorter would like you to believe otherwise, just on his say so, with no proof.

I oppose abortion because it it almost 100% preventable. I oppose abortion because the "blob" the butcher removes from the womb is a future human being, that was never given a chance. Unlike the abortionists.

It is just a matter of human decency.

P.S. I edited the first sentence of my post. I changed the word 'soul-mate' to 'comrade'.

You can not have a soul-mate when you obviously, haven't got a soul.

 

[lone wolf]

I agree Tonington. But this is where the ‘sanctity of life’ argument leads. Just as preventing a pregnancy is not killing a human being, same way destroying an embryo (by abortion, miscarriage or whatever) is not killing a human being.

But if somebody makes the argument that fetus is a human being since the moment of conception, then why not the sperm?

How about fetus is the product of egg being fertilized by sperm? Ask your wife. She's supposed to be the doctor....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Humans aren't broadcast spawners. If you think about this absurd notion, a successful pregnancy involves killing the remaining potential humans...

Indeed Tonington, I agree with you. But the argument can be made from prolife point of view. A large number of fetuses are destroyed by miscarriage. But prolifers tolerate that as being God’s will. They don’t want humans to kill the babies; it is OK for God to kill the babies.

By this logic, sure successful pregnancy kills remaining potential humans, but that is God’s will and so is permissible (just as miscarriages are permissible as God’s will). However, just as it is not permissible to kill a baby by abortion, same way it should not be permissible to kill human beings by masturbation or by contraception.

This really illustrates the absurdity of prolife argument.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Ron in Regina]