Originally Posted by Schlottke

Don't bump threads anymore. If it's worth talking in it will bump itself.

I was looking to get some response from flop the nuts. In the future I will add my comment as I did in my second post. So is that a dead and fast rule, you are not allowed to bumb threads? And if so what idiot set that rule?;^)

Originally Posted by coachsparky

You never did respond you know floppy!

I don't really know where to start, or what to refute, so I'll run through a few random thoughts regarding your previous statements. I consider a human fetus to be much superior to any fully grown dog, monkey, chimp, or any other animal. My belief is not based upon any religious dogma, it's a objective fact. I'm not going to sort back through 11 pages of postings to see exactly what you said regarding the issue, but a human fetus, regardless of "viability" has more potential than any other animal.

The idea that a woman should have complete control of her "reproductive organs" isn't even relevant to the discussion, we're talking about a living organism created by two people. I don't believe abortion should be legal, but it's even nuttier that a woman can have the baby ground into bits without the consent of the father. She didn't make the baby alone, she shouldn't have the authority to kill it alone.

Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts

I don't really know where to start, or what to refute, so I'll run through a few random thoughts regarding your previous statements. I consider a human fetus to be much superior to any fully grown dog, monkey, chimp, or any other animal. My belief is not based upon any religious dogma, it's a objective fact. I'm not going to sort back through 11 pages of postings to see exactly what you said regarding the issue, but a human fetus, regardless of "viability" has more potential than any other animal.

The idea that a woman should have complete control of her "reproductive organs" isn't even relevant to the discussion, we're talking about a living organism created by two people. I don't believe abortion should be legal, but it's even nuttier that a woman can have the baby ground into bits without the consent of the father. She didn't make the baby alone, she shouldn't have the authority to kill it alone.

I figured you did not really have any objective, nonreligious positions to make your claims and you now provide the proof. You have an OPINION that the human fetus is superior to any full grown animal or insect for that matter. Life is life, that is scientific fact. There is no difference between an amoeba or a cockroach or rabbit or horse or human. There really is not. If you think there is it is an opinion not substantiated by fact, while the belief that there is no difference is substantiated by scientific fact. You belief, you opinion has no objective facts to support you it is most likely a misguides left over religious dogma from you upbringing. A human fetus has both huge positive potential and negative potential so that is really meaningless. I would take Secretariat or Flipper or Lassie over Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot any day.


The true objective fact is that a woman currently has, always will have, and should always have control over her reproductive organs since and it is the ONLY really relevant fact in this discussion. It is completely meaningless that a man happened to deposit some sperm in her uterus. It is pure chance that it met an egg and fertilized it and it is irrelevant to the man’s right until the fertilized egg can be harvested and placed in the man so he can carry it to term. What is truly nutty, infact, it signifies a person is certifiably insane to think the man should have a say.

Everyone know where you stand on the issue. So just drop it already.

Originally Posted by coachsparky

I figured you did not really have any objective, nonreligious positions to make your claims and you now provide the proof. You have an OPINION that the human fetus is superior to any full grown animal or insect for that matter. Life is life, that is scientific fact. There is no difference between an amoeba or a cockroach or rabbit or horse or human. There really is not. If you think there is it is an opinion not substantiated by fact, while the belief that there is no difference is substantiated by scientific fact. You belief, you opinion has no objective facts to support you it is most likely a misguides left over religious dogma from you upbringing. A human fetus has both huge positive potential and negative potential so that is really meaningless. I would take Secretariat or Flipper or Lassie over Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot any day.


The true objective fact is that a woman currently has, always will have, and should always have control over her reproductive organs since and it is the ONLY really relevant fact in this discussion. It is completely meaningless that a man happened to deposit some sperm in her uterus. It is pure chance that it met an egg and fertilized it and it is irrelevant to the man’s right until the fertilized egg can be harvested and placed in the man so he can carry it to term. What is truly nutty, infact, it signifies a person is certifiably insane to think the man should have a say.

Sometimes I think you are a reasonable person and then you post something like this and then I revert back to my previous opinion. There is no reason for this discussion to continue if you believe there is "no difference between a cockroach and a human", and that it is "insane to think the man should have a say". Your beliefs can stand on their own without me debating you.

Someone claimed to have a nonreligious reason for being against a woman having the right to decide what to do with her body before the fetus is viable. I was curious to see if that was true. Now I know it was not. If you do not wish to discuss it because you realize reason is against you that is fine with me.

Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts

Sometimes I think you are a reasonable person and then you post something like this and then I revert back to my previous opinion. There is no reason for this discussion to continue if you believe there is "no difference between a cockroach and a human", and that it is "insane to think the man should have a say". Your beliefs can stand on their own without me debating you.

Explain the rational scientific reason for your supposed objective belief that there is a difference between one life form and another life form other than it took a different evolutionary path? You know you cannot floppy. Life is life, it started with the first most primitive single celled life form and we are no better than that, just different because we have adapted to live in our environmental conditions. That is ultimately reasonable and you know it.

Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts

Sometimes I think you are a reasonable person and then you post something like this and then I revert back to my previous opinion. There is no reason for this discussion to continue if you believe there is "no difference between a cockroach and a human", and that it is "insane to think the man should have a say". Your beliefs can stand on their own without me debating you.

That is fine floppy, I just wish you had not made the false claim that you had objective, nonreligious reasons for your beliefs when you obviously do not. I agree, my beliefs about the truth of scientific facts can stand on their own, your opinions need some sort of justification if you want to claim it is not religious.