bullets13

I'd really like to have a conversation with this guy, just so he can explain a few things to me

Security footage shows suspected lawn mower thief mowing victim's grass with it | KFDM

anywho, i'm done on this thread. The same usual folks made the same tired arguments (myself included), nobody's mind was changed, and nothing was accomplished. It's always kind of a waste of time when 90% of people in the conversation are coming from the same demographic, as it leads to an inflated belief of how representative your viewpoints are to the majority of the country. That said, carry on, and we can find something else to agree on (Biden sucks)

well, by your point, the fetus and the egg are in the same predicament as well, because a small dose of medicine renders both inert. But there's still a much larger difference than "one is in the womb, and one is out". while in the womb at an early stage, the fetus is still fully reliant on the mother, and will die without her, and not just without her, but without her body. The baby outside of the womb (and even a fetus of 24 weeks or so) will die without care, but can be cared for by anyone. That child no longer needs the mother's body to survive, and at that point (IMO) there is no argument to be made for "my body, my choice". I get that many on here don't agree with me (this board is overwhelmingly old, male, white, and conservative, and that's by far the #1 anti-abortion demographic), and i honestly don't care. but his comparison was as equally outlandish as my rebuttal.

I could be wrong, but I think perhaps Lumberton's growth has not kept up with the growth of the cutoffs for higher divisions. I really don't want to go back and research enrollment cutoffs for 5A for the last, let's say 10 years, but I would assume it has risen dramatically.

I think you missed the point I was making there. He compared the near instantaneous termination of a tiny fetus inside of the womb that has no chance of surviving on it's own to letting a fully formed baby that has actually been born starve to death by not taking care of it. I was simply countering with an equally preposterous comparison.

If you're against abortion then why are you okay with birth control? same thing, right?

My mind won't be changed any more than yours will.

that is correct. I still consider it a fetus or an embryo, depending on the stage of development.

Age of viability is well-established. If the baby can live outside of the womb, or even has a chance to, it's viable. That's my moral cutoff, whereas some of y'all are at heartbeat and some are at conception. I don't know why nobody chooses at egg. Seems as reasonable a standard as some of the others.

At what age should a child be able to make the decision for themselves to be on birth control? Honest question. I've noticed a pretty dumb cycle of parents not wanting their kids on birth control and then having to raise their own grandkids. Growing up in the church, and even graduating from a college with the word Baptist in the name, and one thing I saw first hand was that religion didn't really do much in the way of stopping us young, dumb kids from getting busy.

I bring up that point over and over again, and the response is always basically "nuh uh." The truth becomes obvious anytime there's a thread on here about welfare and social handouts. The ironic thing is that I actually agree with them on welfare reform and reducing handouts. Folks just don't like it when you point out the disconnect between fighting tooth and nail to make sure these babies are born, but then fighting tooth and nail to reduce the services and money provided to them as they're forcefully born into poverty and crime-ridden environments.

I agree that adoption is tough. but the types of adoption you're talking about doesn't really do a whole lot to help with the problem. go through the state and take some kids that are living in poverty, that have been abused, that have been forgotten. The majority of folks trying to adopt are trying to get a newborn, same-race child with no issues and no strings attached. That becomes more a business deal than actually helping with our country's overwhelming unwanted children crisis. I wholeheartedly agree that it should be a lot easier though, and it should be a lot more affordable.

I think that's great, and I'm not attempting to be disingenuous. But what your church does is just a drop in the bucket, and what all churches collectively do isn't much more. infinitely more unwanted babies thrown into an already broken system where not nearly enough is being done by churches and charities is going to make things significantly worse.

They're a big step in the right direction. I don't want grade school age kids indoctrinated, and I don't want sexual preferences and gender identity taught, but I don't at all have an issue with kids who're going to have sex while in high school either way (pretty much all of us did) having easy access to birth control and a little education into how things work and the risks involved to help reduce pregnancies.

the left doesn't care about them either, and I'm not at all saying that. Both sides use these unborn babies as a pawn, but neither truly cares about them. The left doesn't care about them before they're born, and the right doesn't care about them after they're born. And yes, the vast majority of unborn babies that y'all fight so hard to save will end right back in that cycle of poverty, and will repeat the cycle with unwanted pregnancies of their own.

my understanding of Christianity tells me that this is a perfect comparison. I'm pro death penalty, for what it's worth, and think it should be used far more often than it is.

There's not a constitutional right to life for unviable embryos, so that's a moot point. tens of millions more people on the government teat. You guys already complain about all of the folks on welfare/food stamps, medicaid, WIC, etc. An overwhelming % of those 63M would be putting a giant drain on all of those programs, and who do you think will be the ones complaining about it? Like I always say, the motto for the right is "love em in the womb, screw em once they're born."

adopted out of the system, or adopted a step kid? big difference there. if you adopted a step kid, good on you, but that didn't do anything to actually help an unwanted kid in need. if you adopted a kid out of the system, that's wonderful. you'd be one of the few pro-lifers actually doing anything for the lives they're fighting so hard to save. oh, i have a huge problem with killing babies. I just don't take exception to a woman choosing to terminate an unviable embryo in her own womb. And I'll support both of my daughters' right to do the same if a situation ever arises where they feel it's necessary. Because I feel that a woman should be allowed to terminate a fetus the size of a thumb I don't the value the lives of my family and students? I'd say your logic is a little flawed there. I do have a pretty unique perspective on the unwanted kids thing, though, having worked with the impoverished and unwanted students for 15 years. you know, all those kids that pro-lifers are constantly complaining about supporting on medicaid? They are not: my wife is a pro-choice Christian, and my kids will make their own decisions and form their own opinions as they grow older. One thing is for sure, I'm not going to make that decision or form that opinion for them, just as I won't make that choice for them if they become unexpectedly pregnant, and just as I don't want religion-based legislation stopping them from having a choice.

not sure why that pasted so obnoxiously large and uneven.

StacStacey Abrams got special treatment in office and even got wealthy on the taxpayer dime (msn.com)ey Abrams got special treatment in office and even got wealthy on the taxpayer dime

Much respect to your wife. If my wife was raped and became pregnant I'm not sure what she would do, but I'm not okay with legislation that says she can't decide for herself. That applies tenfold when my daughters are a little older.

It happens all the time. She should be able to kill it if she knows he's not going to support it? Should she be able to kill it when it's the size of a bean and knows that she won't be able to support it? What about if her dad raped her? What about if she finds out that the baby is going to die during the pregnancy or shortly after? What if having the baby puts her at risk of dying? Etc. Etc. Etc. Why is it okay for women to kill living eggs, and men to kill sperm by wiping it into a paper towel? Who decides where it starts?

My humble opinion is that our state is getting closer and closer to a swing state, and the right isn't going to get away with doing extreme conservative right things for very long, even if the SC is (for the moment) stacked with conservative justices. It's also true that all the guys on here backslapping over this would be losing their mind if the roles were reversed and a bunch of liberal justices were setting liberal precedents that weren't representative of the country's beliefs as a whole.

sure thing. when fine folks such as yourself start stepping up and taking care of these unwanted kids after they're born I'll reconsider. the right's lack of support of poor children and children in the system shows who THEY are. I've adopted two of those kids into my house. What have YOU done to help, apart from advocating that they be born?