Pro-life or Pro-choice?

[April]

Yes. I'm done making my point, and proud of myself for my own growth because I didn't go fire mode on the topic. I am so sorry for your loss. 12 weeks is far.. 2 weeks from gender reveal & halfway to viability. *hugs* John..

I have also suffered 4 such losses. The first at 11 weeks. Some time later another at nearly 6 months, my son -Xavier. A "lightning strike" chance loss, a suspected ( UCA ) Umbilical Cord Accident.

Doctors & specialists rallied to assure us of its rarity, promising that having even one is "practically" medical history. So, I suffered. And then, I picked my warrior self back up and tried again. Two months later, my husband & I were expecting, and one year after our son Xavier' death.. new life was born - a son, the best little man I have ever had the honor to know.. Now a healthy, thriving little hobbit who even has my hobbit toes!

After him I wanted just one sibling for him to play with, then done. But lightning has a fascination with me, and the 3rd son I became pregnant with was found upon my 4 month gender reveal ultrasound with no heartbeat.

Devastation ensued.. again. I was induced and he was born with his cord around his thigh four times. The cord was flat and pinched.. cutting off his air supply. A verified UCA. 4 months later, one last try, I became pregnant again with my 4th son - Ayden. At the 4 month ultrasound he was found without heartbeat... Induction, born with his cord around his neck 5 times ( nuchal cord ). 3 late term UCA stillbirths in 3 years.

I understand the pain the two of you feel, John. ❤ Life is life, no matter how small.

Oh my gosh Misty I'm so sorry for your losses.

 

[Wyote]

He's a sensitive coyote...

Sensitive is the wrong word and shows a complete lack of understanding on your part.

Protective, maybe. Sensitive, nah.

Also it's entirely inappropriate to use the word sensitive as a pejorative, so that shows your character quite well.

 

[Truth Eternity]

But pro-life people accept abortions in medical condition like these.. .

Yeah. I'm Pro life and agree with pro choice in such conditions. And I was adopted into a wonderful family alongside my brother, and my sister was adopted from different parents. Honestly the orphan argument is pretty stupid. And besides, rather a chance for a good life than immediate death. If you weren't raped or life on the line, there is no reason for abortion. Zero reason whatsoever. Doesn't matter what excuse you give.

 

[Truth Eternity]

Neither.

Incest, rape, child with birth defect or debilitating illness. Threat to mothers life. Ok, abort the pregnancy. A mother shouldn't have to bear a rapists child, die in labor or watch her baby with a heart defect suffer

Abortion because "It's my body. A man shouldn't have a say?"

No. That's the baby's body you are killing. Not yours. That baby did nothing wrong to be killed. Also, you needed my semen to have that child. I am as much the parent as you. You didn't self reproduce. Pregnancy is a two way street.

#2 the corruption in the industry. Selling of body parts.

#3 psychological trauma. Killing another human being is a heavy weight for most. Killing your baby because you weren't ready for a child, to me is sickening.

A baby is not an accident.

I've never been laying in bed naked with a raging boner, when coincidentally my upstairs neighbor was directly above me naked when the ceiling collapsed and despite the odds, she landed through the rubble right onto my dick.

Trust me, if that accident happens to me, with THAT lady, suicide may be the best option on the table for me at that point

This is me, I agree.

 

[Emanuel Goldstein]

Sensitive is the wrong word and shows a complete lack of understanding on your part.

Protective, maybe. Sensitive, nah.

Also it's entirely inappropriate to use the word sensitive as a pejorative, so that shows your character quite well.

sensitive

• adj.
  Capable of perceiving with a sense or senses.

So your not sensitive?

 

[Wyote]

sensitive

• adj.
  Capable of perceiving with a sense or senses.

So your not sensitive?

You are a sad man. Find something better to do.

 

[JennyDaniella]

Because neither choice is a Pro.
THIS THREAD IS A LIE!

lolololol

 

[Emanuel Goldstein]

You are a sad man. Find something better to do.

I am a sad man... I agree with you... I will find something better to do... Thank you for that

 

[Ifur]

Not really... People don't like doing hard things... So they take the path of least resistance.

Don't disagree, but not everyone choose the route of higher spiritual pursuits as a possible alternative to the mundane.
In the 12th century, and the dark ages was started being emtnioned around those times as well.
Romans threw babies into the river, and it was either that or extremely dangerous procedures or infanticide.

Life goes on, and there is such a thing as too many that can lead to war, starvation and inhumane life and conditions.
Abortion is perfectly acceptable, and in many cases it is also pro life, depending on the definition.

Pedophile preists and others that can afford moral high grounds that doesn't respect the realities of creation may think otherwise and be against it.
Making what in many cases are absolute necessary criminal or illegal as a general and unjielding principle does not lead to a better society.

 

[Infjente]

I'm fine with that their effectiveness is questionable now anyway... Soon no antibiotics for you or you or you...

Besides they pump meat with so much antibiotics you have to buy special meat NOT given antibiotics at a higher price...

I think I'll be OK...

Do you know how many bacteria is being killed every day from antibiotics alone? Quadrillions! All that waste of life, and all you think about is the questionable effect, highly priced meat, and that you will be fine!

Like you said, you can always try to be a better person ... you better get to work!

 

[AmeyT18]

Do I believe that masturbation is wrong... yes... it is wasting of life, however insignificant... is man weak? Yes... they do it anyway....

Why do u think its wrong? You NEED to ejaculate to allow your body to form new sperms so that they can develop into healthy baby.
I am not fan of masturbation but I will say to ejaculate (frequency can be debated and from what I have read I can say once is week is enough) to remain healthy

 

[Deleted member 16771]

can't reason you out of a position you've never reasoned yourself into

I didn't appreciate this insult aimed at @flower. I think you ought to apologise - having a 'debate' is no place for personal attacks. This isn't a war, it's a discussion - you're seeking synthesis not victory.

Let's hope it doesn't involve gracing anyone with your seed just to have a fetus thrown at your house.)

I wish I had the time to compile all the great and baffling quotes in this thread

Also it's entirely inappropriate to use the word sensitive as a pejorative, so that shows your character quite well.

Great point, Wy.

In the 12th century, and the dark ages was started being emtnioned around those times as well.

What?

The 12th century wasn't the 'Dark Ages'. The 'Renaissance of the Twelfth Century' is a pretty big deal, even if Haskins (the originator of the concept) originally intended it as an attack on Burckhardt (the originator of the idea of a 'Renaissance' in the 16th century).

What are you claiming about the 12th century here?

 

[Ifur]

What?

The 12th century wasn't the 'Dark Ages'. The 'Renaissance of the Twelfth Century' is a pretty big deal, even if Haskins (the originator of the concept) originally intended it as an attack on Burckhardt (the originator of the idea of a 'Renaissance' in the 16th century).

What are you claiming about the 12th century here?

So to cite two things relevant for the context:

The concept of a "Dark Age" originated in the 1330s with the Italian scholar Petrarch, who regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity.[3][4] The phrase "Dark Age" itself derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries.[5] The concept thus came to characterize the entire Middle Ages as a time of intellectual darkness between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance; this became especially popular during the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment.

Dark Ages have warying meanings depending on the perspective, that the Vatican started talking about "Dark Age" in 1330 is in many ways hilarious compared to Renessaince and Enlightenment.
This reinforces an historic delusional thinking from the confines of gold plated and decorates houses and places of extreme wealth.

Middle Ages
Whereas theologians and clerics preached sparing their lives, newborn abandonment continued as registered in both the literature record and in legal documents.[5]:16 According to William L. Langer, exposure in the Middle Ages "was practiced on gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference".[44]:355–356 At the end of the 12th century, notes Richard Trexler, Roman women threw their newborns into the Tiber river in daylight.[45]

Unlike other European regions, in the Middle Ages the German mother had the right to expose the newborn.[46] In Gotland, Sweden, children were also sacrificed.[47]

In the High Middle Ages, abandoning unwanted children finally eclipsed infanticide.[citation needed] Unwanted children were left at the door of church or abbey, and the clergy was assumed to take care of their upbringing. This practice also gave rise to the first orphanages.

However, very high sex ratios were common in even late medieval Europe, which may indicate sex-selective infanticide.[48]

Middle ages are considered between 5th and 15th century -- this is a time period where language was either already dead, or the death of the language was started.
This involves, Latin, Koine Greek, Gothic, and the short life of Old High German and the Norse languages, not to forget Celtic and a whole range of other languages in Europe.

Roman women threw infants into the river in broad day light in the 12th centiry, and the Vatican started talking about post-Roman times as dark in the 1330's.

 

[Ifur]

How christianity introduced morals, and that abortion is bad compared to the good old days of throwing infants into the river during daylight is borderline insane.
Well as long as they are paying for without sawing of the branch they are sitting on.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Dark Ages have warying meanings depending on the perspective, that the Vatican started talking about "Dark Age" in 1330 is in many ways hilarious compared to Renessaince and Enlightenment.
This reinforces an historic delusional thinking from the confines of gold plated and decorates houses and places of extreme wealth.

Well modern historians certainly wouldn't consider the twelfth century a 'dark age'. It's the age of 'fresh and vigorous life' in Haskins' words, with the rise of towns, the universities, Gothic architecture, a religious revival and the flourishing of poetry, lyric and music. The basic fact is, too, that the usual qualification for a 'dark age' - the lack of surviving records - certainly doesn't qualify the twelfth century; one look at the Patrologia Latina will tell you what a time it was for literate production.

If anything we would tend to limit the 'dark ages' to the 'Migration Period' and end it with the last of the Viking raids in the early eleventh century.

Middle ages are considered between 5th and 15th century -- this is a time period where language was either already dead, or the death of the language was started.
This involves, Latin, Koine Greek, Gothic, and the short life of Old High German and the Norse languages, not to forget Celtic and a whole range of other languages in Europe.

I wouldn't agree with this. The twelfth century is a relative high point for the quality of Latin - rhetoric, especially, if you read Bernard of Clairvaux, is superior to what followed in the thirteenth even if it falls short of Cicero.

Roman women threw infants into the river in broad day light in the 12th centiry, and the Vatican started talking about post-Roman times as dark in the 1330's.

How christianity introduced morals, and that abortion is bad compared to the good old days of throwing infants into the river during daylight is borderline insane.
Well as long as they are paying for without sawing of the branch they are sitting on.

I should think it goes without saying that the Church didn't sanction that, lol. Church teaching has always been pretty consistent when it came to abortion. In any case, I'm pretty sure that those stories are the exaggerations of excitable churchmen.

You keep saying 'the Vatican', though I don't know where you're getting this from. First of all Renaissance humanism and the revival of admiration for the ancients wasn't particularly associated with the Church, and secondly the papacy was based in Avignon in the 1330s, not 'the Vatican'.

 

[Ifur]

Well modern historians certainly wouldn't consider the twelfth century a 'dark age'. It's the age of 'fresh and vigorous life' in Haskins' words, with the rise of towns, the universities, Gothic architecture, a religious revival and the flourishing of poetry, lyric and music. The basic fact is, too, that the usual qualification for a 'dark age' - the lack of surviving records - certainly doesn't qualify the twelfth century; one look at the Patrologia Latina will tell you what a time it was for literate production.

If anything we would tend to limit the 'dark ages' to the 'Migration Period' and end it with the last of the Viking raids in the early eleventh century.

Edit: Was an oversight not to comment on revival of Gothic architecture as something positive. Not only is this a dead European culture and language originating in parts of Scandinavia and related to perhaps other cultures with similar names. The only thing from the Gothic language that has survived is a translation of the bible. Just don't, just stop arguing that point. And we still don't know who the Huns where, perhaps they were from Mongolia? Nobody knows, it's that dark.

For added hilarity, a cornerstone in freemasonry is these gothic texts likely written by madmen talking about Loke and creation. Or well, "gothic" is alluded to all over the place for them, but still; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Bible suspected to have been written by someone following Arianism, which was banned in central Europe as it was the Shield of Trinity that won that argument, which involves head librarians of Alexandria.

I think this essentually decimated the Gothic.

There is medieavel times and there is burning of books from an academic point of view, but one can also discuss wealth of culture and arts in addition to fundamental moral principles as freedom of thought and expression.
That books written in "holy languages" tending to be burned less often isn't the point here now, is it?

I wouldn't agree with this. The twelfth century is a relative high point for the quality of Latin - rhetoric, especially, if you read Bernard of Clairvaux, is superior to what followed in the thirteenth even if it falls short of Cicero.

Not really, depends on whether you are arguing quality or quantity here, it marks the high point where everything was translated into Latin from Greek for example.
It's also the time in history where greek philosophy was translated into German from LATIN?!.
Where now almost a 1000 years later, Logic as the same meaning in English and German as it had prior to this translation.
As Logos was introduced as a concept and explained as meaning reason, where German and Norse has these concepts from before.
Actually, if you want to have fun with language and concepts, Socrates and Loki seem to have been used as literary devices in much the same way, circumstance, histroic and cultural references set aside.

I should think it goes without saying that the Church didn't sanction that, lol. Church teaching has always been pretty consistent when it came to abortion. In any case, I'm pretty sure that those stories are the exaggerations of excitable churchmen.

You keep saying 'the Vatican', though I don't know where you're getting this from. First of all Renaissance humanism and the revival of admiration for the ancients wasn't particularly associated with the Church, and secondly the papacy was based in Avignon in the 1330s, not 'the Vatican'.

The church necessitated it for banning all exception and ways to deal with the problem in acceptable manners, so they seem to have thrown them into rivers in protest.
"Exposing the infant to nature and the environment before first food seem to be common in al cultures, all over the world in all time."

 

[Deleted member 16771]

There is medieavel times and there is burning of books from an academic point of view, but one can also discuss wealth of culture and arts in addition to fundamental moral principles as freedom of thought and expression.
That books written in "holy languages" tending to be burned less often isn't the point here now, is it?

Book burnings were more a feature of the 15th/16th century 'Renaissance' than the twelfth, for example Savonarola's 'bonfires of the vanities', and these were mostly non-religious texts like poetry (much despised). In the twelfth, books were under more institutional than private control and so even if you wanted to organise a book burning, it'd be pretty fucking hard.

All I'm saying is that it's inaccurate to refer to the twelfth century as a 'dark age', and everything else is just conjecture.

Not really, depends on whether you are arguing quality or quantity here, it marks the high point where everything was translated into Latin from Greek for example.

I'm arguing both quality and quantity. What do you mean 'not really' lmao?? The 'Renaissance of the Twelfth Century' is an actual thing, a vibrant historiographical field in its own right because of the volume and quality of production - I'm trying to instruct here, it's not even up for debate, it's historical consensus.

It's also the time in history where greek philosophy was translated into German from LATIN?!.
Where now almost a 1000 years later, Logic as the same meaning in English and German as it had prior to this translation.
As Logos was introduced as a concept and explained as meaning reason, where German and Norse has these concepts from before.
Actually, if you want to have fun with language and concepts, Socrates and Loki seem to have been used as literary devices in much the same way, circumstance, histroic and cultural references set aside.

What? I don't know what you're referring to.

The church necessitated it for banning all exception and ways to deal with the problem in acceptable manners, so they seem to have thrown them into rivers in protest.
"Exposing the infant to nature and the environment before first food seem to be common in al cultures, all over the world in all time."

OK I suppose that's fine, but it wasn't Church teaching so your argument for their hypocrisy is baseless.


Anyway, you're making my brain hurt. I should explain: I'm a historian of the twelfth century, and I simply intended to point out that my period is not the 'dark age' you painted it as, in any modern opinion (save I suppose in terms of Bissonian 'lordship', &c.).

 

[Ifur]

All I'm saying is that it's inaccurate to refer to the twelfth century as a 'dark age', and everything else is just conjecture.

I don't speak Latin, and the 12th century was the beginning of a dark age in Northern Europe that started much earlier, perhaps with the Gothic.
So there are "Golden periods" for many parts of Europe between 5th and 15th century, feudalism if nothing else gives wealth for someone occasionally.

The Romans invaded the North and created a mess, scholars and missionaries introduced toxic ideas from the magical places of Alexandria and the Great cities with all the answers to the Gothic that decided to rescue the south. Medieval Age in a few sentences.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I don't speak Latin, and the 12th century was the beginning of a dark age in Northern Europe that started much earlier, perhaps with the Gothic.

Are you sure? Scandinavian power waned after the end of the Viking Age, but I'm not sure how you could describe it as a 'dark age' more generally.

 

[Ifur]

Are you sure? Scandinavian power waned after the end of the Viking Age, but I'm not sure how you could describe it as a 'dark age' more generally.

By banning abortiona and forcing excessive population growth in a part of the world that couldn't support it lead to centuries of poverty.
This was a gradual process, but the end of the viking age and all powerful bishops that married children started around 10th-13th centuries.

It includes this for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Crusade

Which also lead to the first large civil war in Scandinavia.

Prior to that, we have this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Hardrada

The worst of the worst tended to be christian Vikings, most likely Arianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_the_Red
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Bloodaxe

Prior to misionaries fighting with weapons for their particular reformist movement, like Arianism versus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

Notice here the gothic, visgothic in spain and so on choosing the nontrinitarian Arianism, where also Lutheran in many ways is the desperate emotional positivism clinging to logic under the threat of being forced to self-criticise.

Adding a lot of links here now, but there are reasons to believe that significant problems stem from specific cults and fanatics concerning these things. Where even Norse mythos, and all others dealing with a trinity of sorts, with freedom of religion, and here we have something very curious about certain creeds as they largely abstract away from names. With the exception of "jesus / zeus?" and using "God" rather than "Deus and Dei".

I'm now presenting ideas not that much in conflict between arguments made within the context of Zorostranism -- give me your bible and I'll tear out and fix it like Summer Glau in Firefly.