is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by Rog

Instead of 'pro-life' Bryant, wouldn't you be better off describing yourself as Anti-abortion?

anti-abortion, yes. and i can think of a number of more accurate ways to describe the position:

anti-choice, anti-individual rights, anti-women's health rights, pro-government intrusion, pro-government legislation over individual bodies, pro-revokation of individual civil rights, pro-punishment for reproductive females

etc etc

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by cacophony

anti-abortion, yes. and i can think of a number of more accurate ways to describe the position:

anti-choice, anti-individual rights, anti-women's health rights, pro-government intrusion, pro-government legislation over individual bodies, pro-revokation of individual civil rights, pro-punishment for reproductive females

etc etc

all of these things are not what my position (i don't know about others) stands for. i believe a woman has as much right as a man to do anything with her body that she wishes. however, once a child is conceived, i believe, and it is hard to disprove, that a child is alive and no longer part of the individual such as oocytes or semen. indeed, the child still depends on the mother for a nurturing environment in the womb and nutrition, but a newborn child does as well, and cannot survive on its own. arguing that a week old child is not a person vs. a newborn child is almost the same comparison as arguing that a newborn child is not a person vs. an adult.

so, to me, it's not about removing 'women's rights', it's about protecting the right of an individual to live who cannot stand up for her/his self. if it were in any way possible to safely 'adopt' a child still in the womb to another woman, i would support that procedure.

i do believe that a woman has a right to prevent herself from becoming pregnant if she wishes, via condoms, foam, diaphragms, etc.

[dubman]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

all of these things are not what my position (i don't know about others) stands for. i believe a woman has as much right as a man to do anything with her body that she wishes. however, once a child is conceived, i believe, and it is hard to disprove, that a child is alive and no longer part of the individual such as oocytes or semen. indeed, the child still depends on the mother for a nurturing environment in the womb and nutrition, but a newborn child does as well, and cannot survive on its own. arguing that a week old child is not a person vs. a newborn child is almost the same comparison as arguing that a newborn child is not a person vs. an adult.

so, to me, it's not about removing 'women's rights', it's about protecting the right of an individual to live who cannot stand up for her/his self. if it were in any way possible to safely 'adopt' a child still in the womb to another woman, i would support that procedure.

i do believe that a woman has a right to prevent herself from becoming pregnant if she wishes, via condoms, foam, diaphragms, etc.

now see, this is all what you want to do and see enacted because you believe in it.
regardless of the people who actually have to worry about this.

that's a lot of the issue right there. it's all the things cacophony said by virtue of turning it into a political issue, which was a fucking stupid idea in the first place.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

i do believe that a woman has a right to prevent herself from becoming pregnant if she wishes, via condoms, foam, diaphragms, etc.

damn those women who don't exercise their right to prevent themselves from being impregnated during rape or abuse. DAMN THEM TO HELL.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

But not the boys who refuse to wear a condom in the name of love or saying it's against they're religion. Because, ya know, they're just being boys.