336 Million

[Johnny Rockets]

Well I figured you'd figure out that a woman who chose to have an abortion didn't in whole WANT the infant. Should that not be a prerequisite for taking on the massive responsibility for bringing a new life into this world?

Sure. Again, I'm just wondered where you get the data for your cost-benefit analysis.

To provide an anecdotal example, one of my cousins is adopted; her mother and father didn't want her. As far as I know, she was not raised by a crack-whore (but who knows what my aunt did) and she is not currently on welfare (she holds a rather important school adminstration job).

If a child is raised in a loving caring home and given all of the moral support, tools and guidance, nutrition and education to reach their fullest potential, then being adopted at the infant stage is irrelevant. She was adopted? Thus someone WANTED her.

Need it be proved that a job or responsibility will be done better by those that have a stronger desire to see it successfully through than by someone who does it out of anywhere from obligation to not giving a f*ck?

Are you questioning that children raised in loving caring homes that have the resources to provide for their nutritional and educational needs have the same opportunities in today's societies as kids raised in poverty?
Raised by teen aged parents? Raised in an environment that is neglectful or abusive?

And also : Not all children given up for adoption are found loving and caring homes either. Just the cream of them.


People with addictions have issues of taking care of themselves, never mind raising children. Should we not as a society give every child the opertunity to be raised well? Raised in a safe environment? Raised by someone who has the ability to provide for their needs?


JRock

[thegreekdog]

Well I figured you'd figure out that a woman who chose to have an abortion didn't in whole WANT the infant. Should that not be a prerequisite for taking on the massive responsibility for bringing a new life into this world?

Sure. Again, I'm just wondered where you get the data for your cost-benefit analysis.

To provide an anecdotal example, one of my cousins is adopted; her mother and father didn't want her. As far as I know, she was not raised by a crack-whore (but who knows what my aunt did) and she is not currently on welfare (she holds a rather important school adminstration job).

If a child is raised in a loving caring home and given all of the moral support, tools and guidance, nutrition and education to reach their fullest potential, then being adopted at the infant stage is irrelevant. She was adopted? Thus someone WANTED her.

Need it be proved that a job or responsibility will be done better by those that have a stronger desire to see it successfully through than by someone who does it out of anywhere from obligation to not giving a f*ck?

Are you questioning that children raised in loving caring homes that have the resources to provide for their nutritional and educational needs have the same opportunities in today's societies as kids raised in poverty?
Raised by teen aged parents? Raised in an environment that is neglectful or abusive?

And also : Not all children given up for adoption are found loving and caring homes either. Just the cream of them.


People with addictions have issues of taking care of themselves, never mind raising children. Should we not as a society give every child the opertunity to be raised well? Raised in a safe environment? Raised by someone who has the ability to provide for their needs?


JRock

Hmm... I'm not sure how I can make this any plainer. Your position, based on my understanding of your position, is that we should encourage abortions at least for babies that someone determines won't be raised in a good environment. I hope you'll clarify if that's not your position.

My question or problem with your position is that you don't seem to have any relevant data other than your own preconceived notions. I'm asking you to provide some data.

[crispybits]

I read it somewhat differently. If someone either doesn't want a baby, or has documented significant other problems such as drug abuse, then allowing that person to freely choose to abort a pregnancy before a certain developmental stage that they either are unwilling or unable to commit the rest of their lives to caring for the result of is a morally correct situation.

[Johnny Rockets]

I read it somewhat differently. If someone either doesn't want a baby, or has documented significant other problems such as drug abuse, then allowing that person to freely choose to abort a pregnancy before a certain developmental stage that they either are unwilling or unable to commit the rest of their lives to caring for the result of is a morally correct situation.

Correct sir!

J

[Johnny Rockets]

Well I figured you'd figure out that a woman who chose to have an abortion didn't in whole WANT the infant. Should that not be a prerequisite for taking on the massive responsibility for bringing a new life into this world?

Sure. Again, I'm just wondered where you get the data for your cost-benefit analysis.

To provide an anecdotal example, one of my cousins is adopted; her mother and father didn't want her. As far as I know, she was not raised by a crack-whore (but who knows what my aunt did) and she is not currently on welfare (she holds a rather important school adminstration job).

If a child is raised in a loving caring home and given all of the moral support, tools and guidance, nutrition and education to reach their fullest potential, then being adopted at the infant stage is irrelevant. She was adopted? Thus someone WANTED her.

Need it be proved that a job or responsibility will be done better by those that have a stronger desire to see it successfully through than by someone who does it out of anywhere from obligation to not giving a f*ck?

Are you questioning that children raised in loving caring homes that have the resources to provide for their nutritional and educational needs have the same opportunities in today's societies as kids raised in poverty?
Raised by teen aged parents? Raised in an environment that is neglectful or abusive?

And also : Not all children given up for adoption are found loving and caring homes either. Just the cream of them.


People with addictions have issues of taking care of themselves, never mind raising children. Should we not as a society give every child the opertunity to be raised well? Raised in a safe environment? Raised by someone who has the ability to provide for their needs?


JRock

Hmm... I'm not sure how I can make this any plainer. Your position, based on my understanding of your position, is that we should encourage abortions at least for babies that someone determines won't be raised in a good environment. I hope you'll clarify if that's not your position.

My question or problem with your position is that you don't seem to have any relevant data other than your own preconceived notions. I'm asking you to provide some data.

That is my position. The scientific academy of crack whores have found that 99.6% of their membership make shitty moms.

I like that "That someone determines " line. We can't let "someone" determine what would be considered by most common fucking sense because that might infringe on what we perceive as our freedoms.

Outie.

J

[thegreekdog]

Well I figured you'd figure out that a woman who chose to have an abortion didn't in whole WANT the infant. Should that not be a prerequisite for taking on the massive responsibility for bringing a new life into this world?

Sure. Again, I'm just wondered where you get the data for your cost-benefit analysis.

To provide an anecdotal example, one of my cousins is adopted; her mother and father didn't want her. As far as I know, she was not raised by a crack-whore (but who knows what my aunt did) and she is not currently on welfare (she holds a rather important school adminstration job).

If a child is raised in a loving caring home and given all of the moral support, tools and guidance, nutrition and education to reach their fullest potential, then being adopted at the infant stage is irrelevant. She was adopted? Thus someone WANTED her.

Need it be proved that a job or responsibility will be done better by those that have a stronger desire to see it successfully through than by someone who does it out of anywhere from obligation to not giving a f*ck?

Are you questioning that children raised in loving caring homes that have the resources to provide for their nutritional and educational needs have the same opportunities in today's societies as kids raised in poverty?
Raised by teen aged parents? Raised in an environment that is neglectful or abusive?

And also : Not all children given up for adoption are found loving and caring homes either. Just the cream of them.


People with addictions have issues of taking care of themselves, never mind raising children. Should we not as a society give every child the opertunity to be raised well? Raised in a safe environment? Raised by someone who has the ability to provide for their needs?


JRock

Hmm... I'm not sure how I can make this any plainer. Your position, based on my understanding of your position, is that we should encourage abortions at least for babies that someone determines won't be raised in a good environment. I hope you'll clarify if that's not your position.

My question or problem with your position is that you don't seem to have any relevant data other than your own preconceived notions. I'm asking you to provide some data.

That is my position. The scientific academy of crack whores have found that 99.6% of their membership make shitty moms.

I like that "That someone determines " line. We can't let "someone" determine what would be considered by most common fucking sense because that might infringe on what we perceive as our freedoms.

Outie.

J

Fair enough. I wish you the best of luck in securing funding for your ventures in infanticide without any relevant data; hopefully "common fucking sense" is a good enough justification.

[_sabotage_]

Is an infertile woman a "natural born killer"? When conception occurs, are the billions of sperm who die along the way a form of murder? Should every egg be fertilized as the fulfillment of natural law? Is contraception a form of murder? How soon after sex should we confirm whether conception has occurred? Should we implement laws around the action of women who have conceived to prevent miscarriage, such as their diet, medicine, physical activities, thoughts and stress levels? Maybe all women should undergo deep physchological testing before we allow them to menstruate, and men be forced to have sex daily from the day they are able to impregnate. Maybe we should outlaw sex as inherently inefficient and focus on how we can prevent the death of any sperm, and ensure that they all manifest into hungry mouths.

Can we get a clear picture of what is being suggested, so that we can move forward with complete and utter control over every aspect of life?

[patches70]

Each and every cell in a human being has 46 chromosomes. How many chromosomes are in a sperm cell?

Even suggesting that spilled sperm is the murdering of human beings is a decent into Reductio ad absurdum.

[_sabotage_]

I'm so glad that you have shown me the wrong in my way, I haven't slept for days worrying about this.

[Johnny Rockets]

What you call infanticide, we call abortion. So do many states and countries.
Planned parenthood.
Responsibility for not taking the most important job another human can have and not doing it in a half ass fashion with your " Life at any cost" point of view.

Hmm... I'm not sure how I can make this any plainer. Your position, based on my understanding of your position, is that you'd rather have a child suffer in it's upbringing to various degrees than flush a palm full of cells. I hope you'll clarify if that's not your position, and perhaps bring a little bit more to the table than "Abortion is wrong....derp derp...."

Private organizations have raised and spent 1.2 million to to provide 4000 procedures.
Raising 4000 children from infants to adults in foster care would cost a government over half a billion.

So thanks, but your good luck well wishes are not necessary. People are privately funding intelligent social initiatives that make helpful impacts on society and reduce the number of unwanted children raised in poverty without waiting for the government to get off it's ass or having it's data collectors tell them that the sky is blue.

JRockets

[tzor]

So many questions. Yes, I know, there is no such thing as a stupid question.

Is an infertile woman a "natural born killer"?

No: You can't kill what you have not created.

When conception occurs, are the billions of sperm who die along the way a form of murder?

No: A sperm is not a unique human being. Ironically many sperm exist not with the purpose of merging with an egg but to prevent other sperm (from another male partner) from merging with the egg. Humans are exceptionally complex and interesting creatures.

Should every egg be fertilized as the fulfillment of natural law?

No: Not according to natural law. Ideal operating conditions of the human being, on the other hand is another story, but then again, I've never seen the operator's guide so I can't quote from the manufacturer's manual. Basically speaking, every wasted egg results in a complete plumbing change every month, while a pregnancy results in no ovulation for the duration of the pregnancy and for some degree of time during breast feeding. When an infant is properly breast fed for the first few years of their life, this could result in a difference between one menstrual period in a two year period as opposed to twenty four - a significant source of iron loss due to the blood loss. Artificial methods to eliminate periods (which is not common with normal birth control regimens) may cause increase in breast cancer.

Oh and having one child "young" may be a good thing. A completed pregnancy will morph cells in the breast to go from potential cancer cells to cells without cancer risk. Every ovulation cycle before the first successful pregnancy completion might increase the number of potentially bad cells, but once converted the risk is massively reduced.

Never the less, I would not want to base law based on what we think current best practices are; as the old Woody Allen Movie went, everything we thought to be healthy turned out to be bad for you and everything we thought to be bad for you actually was healthy.

Is contraception a form of murder?

No: Obviously not. (It should be obvious from the definition of the term "murder" in law; good thing you didn't ask about "manslaughter.")

First of all, you need a fertilized egg. That eliminates 99.99999% of all contraceptives. Only if the method is a known "abortifactant" can the method possibly be considered and again, it has to be the primary method of the contraception to be even considered a possible manslaughter, assuming that you can even prove it happened at all, which is practically impossible.

Note that I've heard a lot of sides on the "morning after" pill and I'm not convinced that it is an abortifactant.

How soon after sex should we confirm whether conception has occurred?

Now that's a good question, not for the above question but for the problem that booze and pregnancy doesn't mix. Not being a doctor I would probably say that you don't have to worry about that until implantation and by then a good test will let you know before you have to worry about the glass of wine.

Should we implement laws around the action of women who have conceived to prevent miscarriage, such as their diet, medicine, physical activities, thoughts and stress levels?

Obviously no, but if you know of any medical procedures please let the entire world community know; last time I checked, miscarriage still sucks and I'd like everyone the opportunity not to have to go through with it.

By the way, there is a difference between argument to the absurd and arguing stupid. The Monty Python joke "every sperm is sacred" is plain old stupid. It is a practical strawman.

[2dimes]

Is the Catholic Church still anti contraceptive and why?

[thegreekdog]

What you call infanticide, we call abortion. So do many states and countries.
Planned parenthood.
Responsibility for not taking the most important job another human can have and not doing it in a half ass fashion with your " Life at any cost" point of view.

Hmm... I'm not sure how I can make this any plainer. Your position, based on my understanding of your position, is that you'd rather have a child suffer in it's upbringing to various degrees than flush a palm full of cells. I hope you'll clarify if that's not your position, and perhaps bring a little bit more to the table than "Abortion is wrong....derp derp...."

Private organizations have raised and spent 1.2 million to to provide 4000 procedures.
Raising 4000 children from infants to adults in foster care would cost a government over half a billion.

So thanks, but your good luck well wishes are not necessary. People are privately funding intelligent social initiatives that make helpful impacts on society and reduce the number of unwanted children raised in poverty without waiting for the government to get off it's ass or having it's data collectors tell them that the sky is blue.

JRockets

I don't classify abortion as infanticide. I classify infanticide (the killing of infants) as infanticide. Perhaps I'm still missing your point.

I'm actually pro-choice. What you're advocating is not pro-choice so much as pro-abortion. It seems to me that you are in favor of forcing abortions on those mothers who you don't think meet certain qualifications for motherhood. Your assumption that any child born in poverty or with a crack-head mother is, I'm sure, borne out in some kind of stastical analysis which shows that 100% of children classifed as such are drains on society (by your definition of drain on society).

[thegreekdog]

Is the Catholic Church still anti contraceptive and why?

Not really a yes or no answer (but more no).

My understanding is that use of contraceptives is regarded as morally evil by the Catholic Church, but actually better than having unprotected sex (for the unmarried). So there are levels of acceptance. Ultimately, it's you shouldn't have sex unless you're married. If you're married, you shouldn't use contraceptives. If you're not married and having sex, probably okay to use contraceptives. If you're unmarried and having sex, it is better to use contraceptives than not, but still bad either way.

[AndyDufresne]

TGD, you should have ran for Pope.


--Andy

[tzor]

Is the Catholic Church still anti contraceptive and why?

The Catholic Church places the cornerstone of their teachings on sexuality around the principle of "chastity," which would limit sexual activity to married couples and only when such acts are "open" (and that's a very loose word in this context) to the possibility of conception. Contraception which attempts to sever completely the openness of the marital act to conception among married couples is frowned upon. The church in general does not comment on acts that she suggests should not be done because they are violations of chastity in the first place.

[2dimes]

Where do the stories about Catholics not being allowed to use birth control come from?

[crispybits]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/ ... 0920090318

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... atholicism

[2dimes]

Is the Catholic Church still anti contraceptive and why?

Um, this reads more like "yes." to me.

Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.

Gravely and mortally sound kind of serious.

So one of the problems I see here is even when fertilizing an egg I'm going to waste a lot of sperm that didn't make it.

[Johnny Rockets]

What you call infanticide, we call abortion. So do many states and countries.
Planned parenthood.
Responsibility for not taking the most important job another human can have and not doing it in a half ass fashion with your " Life at any cost" point of view.

Hmm... I'm not sure how I can make this any plainer. Your position, based on my understanding of your position, is that you'd rather have a child suffer in it's upbringing to various degrees than flush a palm full of cells. I hope you'll clarify if that's not your position, and perhaps bring a little bit more to the table than "Abortion is wrong....derp derp...."

Private organizations have raised and spent 1.2 million to to provide 4000 procedures.
Raising 4000 children from infants to adults in foster care would cost a government over half a billion.

So thanks, but your good luck well wishes are not necessary. People are privately funding intelligent social initiatives that make helpful impacts on society and reduce the number of unwanted children raised in poverty without waiting for the government to get off it's ass or having it's data collectors tell them that the sky is blue.

JRockets

I don't classify abortion as infanticide. I classify infanticide (the killing of infants) as infanticide. Perhaps I'm still missing your point.

I'm actually pro-choice. What you're advocating is not pro-choice so much as pro-abortion. It seems to me that you are in favor of forcing abortions on those mothers who you don't think meet certain qualifications for motherhood. Your assumption that any child born in poverty or with a crack-head mother is, I'm sure, borne out in some kind of stastical analysis which shows that 100% of children classifed as such are drains on society (by your definition of drain on society).

I'm not in favour of forcing abortions. Do you read these posts? I'm in favour of offering cash incentives and free permanent birth control (abet, reversible) to anyone who wishes it, specifically targeting drug addicts.

Fair enough. I wish you the best of luck in securing funding for your ventures in infanticide without any relevant data; hopefully "common fucking sense" is a good enough justification.

Hold on.......Now you don't consider abortion infanticide? You seem to have held that ground a few posts ago in this thread.

Jrock

[PLAYER57832]

Is the Catholic Church still anti contraceptive and why?

Not really a yes or no answer (but more no).

My understanding is that use of contraceptives is regarded as morally evil by the Catholic Church, but actually better than having unprotected sex (for the unmarried). So there are levels of acceptance. Ultimately, it's you shouldn't have sex unless you're married. If you're married, you shouldn't use contraceptives. If you're not married and having sex, probably okay to use contraceptives. If you're unmarried and having sex, it is better to use contraceptives than not, but still bad either way.

This is a modern American idea allowed by some priests, in some parishes. It is most definitely not what the Vatican teaches, and some local parishes have been chastized for not teaching abstinance only (not here, I mean in CA, for example.. here they are, if anything, more conservative than the Vatican.. you hear a lot of older folks wanting a return to the Latin sevice).

[thegreekdog]

What you call infanticide, we call abortion. So do many states and countries.
Planned parenthood.
Responsibility for not taking the most important job another human can have and not doing it in a half ass fashion with your " Life at any cost" point of view.

Hmm... I'm not sure how I can make this any plainer. Your position, based on my understanding of your position, is that you'd rather have a child suffer in it's upbringing to various degrees than flush a palm full of cells. I hope you'll clarify if that's not your position, and perhaps bring a little bit more to the table than "Abortion is wrong....derp derp...."

Private organizations have raised and spent 1.2 million to to provide 4000 procedures.
Raising 4000 children from infants to adults in foster care would cost a government over half a billion.

So thanks, but your good luck well wishes are not necessary. People are privately funding intelligent social initiatives that make helpful impacts on society and reduce the number of unwanted children raised in poverty without waiting for the government to get off it's ass or having it's data collectors tell them that the sky is blue.

JRockets

I don't classify abortion as infanticide. I classify infanticide (the killing of infants) as infanticide. Perhaps I'm still missing your point.

I'm actually pro-choice. What you're advocating is not pro-choice so much as pro-abortion. It seems to me that you are in favor of forcing abortions on those mothers who you don't think meet certain qualifications for motherhood. Your assumption that any child born in poverty or with a crack-head mother is, I'm sure, borne out in some kind of stastical analysis which shows that 100% of children classifed as such are drains on society (by your definition of drain on society).

I'm not in favour of forcing abortions. Do you read these posts? I'm in favour of offering cash incentives and free permanent birth control (abet, reversible) to anyone who wishes it, specifically targeting drug addicts.

Fair enough. I wish you the best of luck in securing funding for your ventures in infanticide without any relevant data; hopefully "common fucking sense" is a good enough justification.

Hold on.......Now you don't consider abortion infanticide? You seem to have held that ground a few posts ago in this thread.

Jrock

I think your reading comprehension is suffering. Was your mother perhaps poor or a crack-whore?

I'm pro-choice. My discussion with Mets dealt with infanticide, not abortion. Essentially, there are studies showing that there is a lack of cognitive whatever with infants up to a certain age and therefore, perhaps such infants aren't people (much like fetuses aren't people) and thus can be killed. Mets made a logical argument. My response was that matters of life and death are not based on logic.

[_sabotage_]

Yesterday, after my shower, I find that my boy has gotten out of his crib, and has egg on his head, face shirt and trousers with some more on the floor. He was kind enough to put the egg shells back in the carton... infanticide has more going for it than one may think.

[thegreekdog]

Is the Catholic Church still anti contraceptive and why?

Not really a yes or no answer (but more no).

My understanding is that use of contraceptives is regarded as morally evil by the Catholic Church, but actually better than having unprotected sex (for the unmarried). So there are levels of acceptance. Ultimately, it's you shouldn't have sex unless you're married. If you're married, you shouldn't use contraceptives. If you're not married and having sex, probably okay to use contraceptives. If you're unmarried and having sex, it is better to use contraceptives than not, but still bad either way.

This is a modern American idea allowed by some priests, in some parishes. It is most definitely not what the Vatican teaches, and some local parishes have been chastized for not teaching abstinance only (not here, I mean in CA, for example.. here they are, if anything, more conservative than the Vatican.. you hear a lot of older folks wanting a return to the Latin sevice).

Yeah, so, as per usual you're completely wrong and have no data to back up your stance.

She [the Catholic Church] of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

[crispybits]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/fe ... key-issues

Pope Benedict XVI appeared to signal a break with traditional teaching on the use of condoms almost three years ago when he said the use of condoms was acceptable "in certain cases". If, for example, a male prostitute used a condom to reduce the risk of HIV infection, he said, that could be considered "a first step in the direction of moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants". The example, however, was carefully chosen: by deploying it, the pope avoided the issue of birth control and made no mention of condom use in heterosexual relationships.

The Vatican later clarified the remarks, stressing that the pope has "not reformed or changed the church's teaching" on the matter.

His spokesman added: "The pope considered an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality represents a real risk to the lives of others. In this case, the pope does not morally justify the exercise of disordered sexuality, but believes that the use of condoms to reduce the risk of infection is a 'first step on the road to a more human sexuality', rather than not to use it and risking the lives of others."

In 2009, during his first trip to Africa as pope, Benedict provoked outrage after declaring that condoms were not the answer to the continent's fight against HIV and Aids – and could make the problem worse.

Speaking to journalists on his flight, the pontiff said the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". His successor will have to decide whether this remains the position of the church.

Your quote, taken out of context, looks convincing TGD, until you realise that in context what is being discussed is whether an HIV positive male gay prostitute should wear a condom to reduce any harm he does to others, and had no reference to the discussions around family planning, which is what this debate is centred around.