Baptists can be bi-polar. I should know. I was a Southern Baptist for 25 years.

I hope you can see the slippery slope here. Tagging a fertilized egg as a human is one step before tagging the egg or sperm itself as human. You'd have to ban periods and self-love. :lol: It might sound funny but an overturing of Roe v Wade could start a chain reaction that makes birth control illegal. And at that point my wife and I would be criminals.

 

Absolutely NOT a slippery slope. Neither by itself can produce life. So, no slippery slope.

 

Just a desparate attempt to make a point in support of abortion that is not a good argument.

 

When life has begun, it should be protected.

 

No, the slippery slope is the people who said we have to allow abortions to females who cannot financially support a child. That same female will say they couldn't afford the abortion and should be allowed to dispose of their 1-day own child who cannot live independently of them.

 

Who are we as a country to say what she can and cannot do with her time and resources? Presently, we have people who say that she is free to do whatever with her body, why not free to do whatever with her $$$.

 

That is the slippery slope that this country is smackdab facing.

So slavery is the southern baptists fault?

 

The founding fathers owned slaves. So, using your logic, they must have been southern baptists. But according to thread after thread after thread on here, the Founding Fathers were not religious.

 

Someone's view doesn't make sense.

 

I was just having a little fun, (hence the flamer) being a "reformed" southern baptist myself. I do appreciate HHSdad's history lesson - I had a little information (which is always dangerous) and he gave me a little more.

I was just having a little fun, (hence the flamer) being a "reformed" southern baptist myself. I do appreciate HHSdad's history lesson - I had a little information (which is always dangerous) and he gave me a little more.

 

Don't miss the part that Baptists were also fighting FOR the abolishing of slavery, too.

 

Everyone seems to mentioned the bad but no credit for the good.

 

I think you had people trying to use Scripture to support their economic purposes rather than trying to live as Scripture indicated.

A pregnancy doesn't occur until implantation. MANY fertilized eggs are passed through a woman's system naturally b/c they fail to implant or have been fertilized after the woman's body is receptive to implantation. So I guess women are guilty of murder if their body passes a fertilized egg.

Murder? Come on, lets keep this realistic. I know you are being facetious, but even so, that is an unrealistic jump you made there.

 

I merely explained how that particular type of birth control pill works to the poster who asked. How can you jump from that to women being murderers who pass an egg or have an early miscarriage?

 

 

And then there's eptopic (sp?) pregnancy. Is a woman who gets an fertilized egg stuck in her tubes a murderer b/c it needs to be removed? Is the doctor who performs the life saving procedure guilty of murder?

I know people who have had remorse over that very decision. Even though the egg is doomed by nature, and there is nothing else can be done, it is still a very painful decision to have to make.

Murder? Come on, lets keep this realistic. I know you are being facetious, but even so, that is an unrealistic jump you made there.

 

I merely explained how that particular type of birth control pill works to the poster who asked. How can you jump from that to women being murderers who pass an egg or have an early miscarriage?

 

 

I know people who have had remorse over that very decision. Even though the egg is doomed by nature, and there is nothing else can be done, it is still a very painful decision to have to make.

 

These are all things that need consideration in the abortion debate. The Abortion debate from a legal standpoint is about deeming an embryo a US citizen with equal protection under the law. If that is the case the these things need to be considered. If an embryo is protected under the law then we can't have stem-cell research, or a whole number of things. And if an embryo is protected then the morning after pill (which isn't an abortion IMO) would be deemed illegal b/c it meas a fertilized and dividing egg wouldn't be given its chance at life.

 

I for one don't know when life begins, it's a religious debate with me so I think abortion should be legal because I can find no non-religious reasons as to why it shouldn't be.

Whether or not a woman should be charged with murder for passing naturally a fertilized egg that didn't implant. You really think that needs consideration in the abortion debate?

Whether or not a woman should be charged with murder for passing naturally a fertilized egg that didn't implant. You really think that needs consideration in the abortion debate?

 

Absolutely. If the debate on abortion is about fetal rights then yes. If we recognize a fetus or embryo as a person then we should consider that. That's what the abortion debate boils down to. Is a fetus/embryo a person and should they be given the rights that citizens have? That is the legal argument surrounding abortion. If you answer yes a fetus is a person then therefore they should be protected from death. If you answer no, then the abortion debate is settled.

 

If Roe v Wade is overturned and embryos are recognized as persons and therefore citizens then a whole new flood of issues comes into play. Prosecution of parties involved in abortion, when does citizenship start, the leagality of birth control, etc.

If you believe life begins at conception, and that is why you object to abortion, then how could you not object to a pill that does what this type of birth control pill does.

 

I read/seen somewhere, and always thought this as being true well, that it takes around 36-48 hours for the sperm to reach the egg. If so then I see no problem with such things as birth control or the morning after pill, as I don't see conception until an egg gets fertilized.

 

If this is accurate, it seems like human life would not begin till the implanting of the fertilized egg.

This is what I believe, and after the implantation I see using anything to stop the pregnancy as being wrong, unless the birth puts the mothers life in danger. Just my beliefs.

 

I for one don't know when life begins, it's a religious debate with me so I think abortion should be legal because I can find no non-religious reasons as to why it shouldn't be.

 

Taking another human's life is not a non-religious reason????

 

I could easily spout Scripture that I feel indicates that Jesus would be very upset with abortions in this country but have stayed out of that.

 

My reasons are as much non-religious as they are deeply rooted in my faith.

Taking another human's life is not a non-religious reason????

 

I could easily spout Scripture that I feel indicates that Jesus would be very upset with abortions in this country but have stayed out of that.

 

My reasons are as much non-religious as they are deeply rooted in my faith.

 

 

Only because that you BELIEVE that life begins at conception . . . most people in the US do not, or at least the polls show that 60% continue to support a woman's right to choose. Doesn't make it right, but it is not as obvious as who is HUMAN and who is not. Can you use the word "who" when talking about animals?

Only because that you BELIEVE that life begins at conception . . . most people in the US do not, or at least the polls show that 60% continue to support a woman's right to choose. Doesn't make it right, but it is not as obvious as who is HUMAN and who is not. Can you use the word "who" when talking about animals?

 

There is a debate here. I think those who don't are wrong. But would you agree that this is a non-religious reason?

Absolutely. If the debate on abortion is about fetal rights then yes. If we recognize a fetus or embryo as a person then we should consider that. That's what the abortion debate boils down to. Is a fetus/embryo a person and should they be given the rights that citizens have? That is the legal argument surrounding abortion. If you answer yes a fetus is a person then therefore they should be protected from death. If you answer no, then the abortion debate is settled.

:laugh: :laugh: I can't believe you are seriously suggesting charging people with crimes for naturally occuring physical body functions.

 

Are we going to charge women with murder for a miscarriage? Oooh, what about charging people for attempted suicide when they have a heart attack?

 

Oh boy, we can really have some fun carrying this to ridiculous lengths.

 

I understand the issues surrounding the debates of our legal definition of when life begins. It is the central point of the abortion issue altogether. But come on, we need to keep the discussion reasonable.

Absolutely. If the debate on abortion is about fetal rights then yes. If we recognize a fetus or embryo as a person then we should consider that. That's what the abortion debate boils down to. Is a fetus/embryo a person and should they be given the rights that citizens have? That is the legal argument surrounding abortion. If you answer yes a fetus is a person then therefore they should be protected from death. If you answer no, then the abortion debate is settled.

 

If Roe v Wade is overturned and embryos are recognized as persons and therefore citizens then a whole new flood of issues comes into play. Prosecution of parties involved in abortion, when does citizenship start, the leagality of birth control, etc.

 

Why is abortion illegal, but when a murderer kills a pregnant woman they are charged with two homocides?

:laugh: :laugh: I can't believe you are seriously suggesting charging people with crimes for naturally occuring physical body functions.

 

Are we going to charge women with murder for a miscarriage? Oooh, what about charging people for attempted suicide when they have a heart attack?

 

Oh boy, we can really have some fun carrying this to ridiculous lengths.

 

I understand the issues surrounding the debates of our legal definition of when life begins. It is the central point of the abortion issue altogether. But come on, we need to keep the discussion reasonable.

 

But fetal rights is the argument surrounding abortion. I know I'm stretching things but you have to take some things into account. Let's say the government says life begins at conception. Then you have to outlaw certain forms of birth control b/c fertilized eggs aren't given their chance to implant. Trust me, there are some groups out there who want Roe v Wade overturned for just that reason. Then there is the issue of citizenship. I am a US citizen b/c I was born here. If a fetus is considered a person, shouldn't they be a citizen? And if so does that mean every potential baby conceived in the USA is a citizen? There would be a whole lot of immigrants getting pregnant for that reason then.

 

The way to drop the number of abortions is simple. Teach people about safe sex. Abstinence only programs don't work. European countries are all pro-choice but have less abortions than the US b/c the people understand what to do to prevent pregnancy. Abstinence is the best way but using that as your only platform is just dumb. I'd venture to guess that 75% of kids who take abstinence pledges break them before they're married.