@ whome: I see what you're saying with birth control failing, but shouldn't that be something that they understand beforehand? If you know that birth control can fail and you trust it anyway, and it fails you, you're still responsible for what you've done. You accepted the risk and rolled the dice, and I think's it's morally wrong to expect society to bail you out because you lost the gamble. So it's still completely different than a rape scenario.

*sigh... I rest my case. You continue to respond only to the things I say that you can decontextualize and turn against me, while ignoring my main points. Thank you for proving me correct.
No, I did not compare myself to Jesus, I compared you to the Pharisees.
I've made it pretty clear that I have no sympathy for irresponsible men, and I dislike them far worse than their female counterparts. If you don't want to understand that, that's your choice. The one thing you're right about is that I'm not going to get anywhere.

When Jesus was arrested, he was accused of threatening to destroy the temple. what happened there was the exact same kind of intellectual cowardice that "guest" has exhibited; they took something he had said way out of context and misapplied it. It's possible that they were malicious, and ot's Possible that they were really so dense that that's what they thought he said.
A Chinese proverb states that "two thirds of what we see is behind our eyes." Common sense and psychology back that up. We see what we want to see. that has been confirmed to me again on this thread. In these kinds of discussions, it almost doesn't matter what you say, because the people you're talking to have already decided what they will hear.

If y'all want me to take up 50 comments to write an entire essay explaining my position on abortion, I can. But I highly doubt you would read it all. with the limited space available, we simply can't explain everything and how it all fits together. what that means is that when we read comments on here, we have to understand that the person's beliefs are not as simple as what he/she is saying.
I have no problem having my words read back to me, as long as it's done intelligently and honestly. Not by someone with an agenda to make me look like the bad guy.

You obviously have your mind made up. At least behind the safety of your anonymous "guest" alibi. If you want to purposefully twist everything I say into a negative that's your call. Thanks for reminding me why I shouldn't bother trying to get through to the closed-minded and insecure. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

You're making me a lot worse than I am here, "guest." Be reasonable. Think with your head, not your digestive system. Men can't have abortions. If we're talking about abortions, we're obviously not talking about men. That should be pretty obvious. But as I said pretty clearly, he made at least as much of a mistake as she did, and if the universe was fair, he would suffer as much as she does. But the reality of nature is that it's a lot easier for guys to get away with this kind of crap. That's unfortunate, but there's not much we can do about it. That s.o.b. will get his just desserts in the next life.
Please, since I'm obviously so clueless, explain to me exactly how anything I said is wrong or "disgusting." You're good at throwing out the insults, now back them up.

Of course I have. As you said that has been covered above. We know that extenuating circumstances like rape, incest, or significant health risk only constitute a small fraction of abortions actually performed.
As one man said, "More than 95% of the millions of abortions performed each year extinguish the life of a fetus conceived by sexual relations. Thus the effect in over 95% of abortions is not to vindicate choice but to avoid its consequences."
- http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=669 (copy and paste the link -- for some reason it doesn't work when you click on it)

I'm sorry to put vomit in your mouth, but if you'll notice, I never said anything about it being only her fault and not the guy's. I simply said that a mistake was made. No, I didn't include the guy, but why would I? We're not talking about him. Obviously he acted at least as irresponsibly as she did (probably even more).
Please don't put words in my mouth, and you won't get puke in yours, I promise. ;)

1) That's good, neither do all religious people. But there are plenty of atheists that are just as insulting. 2) I'd say atheists "pretend" about as often as anybody else. But most people don't "pretend" very often at all -- they simply tell it like they really see it. 3) Again, neither do all religious people. In fact most don't believe that indulgences can be sold.

I don't want children to be aborted. But even more than that, I don't want women becoming pregnant if they aren't ready for it. If we could accomplish that, abortion wouldn't even be an issue. I think the reason why it is such a big controversy is simply because the debate occurs under a circumstance where a serious mistake has already been made, and we're just trying to choose who should be paying for it and how. When you think about it, it's really a stupid question that we shouldn't even be trying to answer. But here we are, because our culture is so rotten that that circumstance is created regularly.

I always distance myself from politicians -- not just when I don't like what they're saying. Because economically, politicians respond to a very different set of incentives than I do. A successful politician generally builds his platform not out of his own personal beliefs, but out of the stated beliefs of his most outspoken constituents. Again, that's why politicians are rarely actually good representatives of the movements that they champion.
The "respect for life" in the pro-life movement will be hard to see if you selectively limit the context. The pro-life movement isn't about forcing women to be pregnant. What it's really about (at least for me) is simply pointing out that the choice was already made. The woman already made the mistake of becoming pregnant when she didn't want to. It also includes the understanding that consequences are a natural part of reality, and it is irresponsible and selfish to try to make someone else pay for your mistakes.

Good cop-out. I guess we're done here.

You've confused me, guest. Were you talking to me? I don't see where what I said has been said already...
But I like how people are downvoting me even when I didn't actually say anything against abortion. That's a psychological defense, too. "I don't like this guy's platform, so he most be wrong." Well done everyone...

Way to totally distort my point. Allow me to introduce you to a radical concept -- it's called "logic." If you use logic, you can understand the context of certain things and connect dots to fill in spaces that are left blank and figure out how a certain concept applies in a given scenario, without someone having to spoon feed it to you. It's a wonderful thing. For example, Jesus never used the word "porn," but he did condemn "look[ing] upon a woman to lust after her," and if you don't think that includes pornography, you are a stranger to logic. And I recommend you get acquainted ASAP.

Saviourself have you ever heard of confirmation bias? That's how you build a straw man. You go and look for the worst or most ridiculous of your opponents and you tell yourself and others that that example is representative of the whole. That's not an argument, it's a psychological defense.
I don't like that guy any more than you do. He's a politician, he probably just opposes abortion because that's what he thinks his constituents want. That's how politics work, and that's why that guy isn't remotely representative of the pro-life movement.

Jesus didn't speak about a lot of things, that doesn't mean they arrn't part of Christianity. More likely He did speak about it, and it just wasn't recorded in the gospels. Or maybe He didn't speak about it because there was no need to do so at the time. Homosexual behavior is condemned by Paul, so it's safe to assume it's still against the rules.

Thank your parents for the gift,

He also organized a church, and advanced religion...

I agree with your first statement, but nit yiur second one. If you aren't living your religion, you're not religious. That seems pretty obvious to me. It doesn't matter that you wear a cross or even read the Bible and go to church. If you don't do the religion, you aren't religious.

haha yeah I know. sorry guys, I'll stop. :P