Sand

Contraceptives are preferable, yes. You won't get any argument from me there but it is still a viable form of birth control if all other forms failed. As much as the various forms of contraceptives help to stave off pregnancy there is only one action that is 100% full proof against unwanted pregnancy and that is abstinence. Also you are assuming, with the the use of "husband," that the couple is married. Not everyone who has sex are married.

If every single relationship between a man, woman, and child was exactly like the one you have had then you would have a point. However that is not the case in every single possible circumstance that can come up in relationships. To think that your case is the norm and should dictate the lives of every single human being on the planet is the ultimate in hubris. Keep it simple. Woman carries child. Woman has final say.

I understand your points quite well and in my view you are wrong. Plain and simple. When making laws on abortion there is no sure bet that the couple is in a loving relationship, or if it is a one night stand, or rape, or whatever the circumstances might be. There needs to be clear cut and no ambiguity whatsoever in determining the rights of those involved. You can't have a law with maybes or what ifs, and the such. Abortion is a form of birth control, and since there is only one gender that gives birth in our species only the woman has the right to determine if she carries the child or not.

I get off mine when you get off yours, Moth. I am not going to change my position. A man has absolutely no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body or things that are dependent on her body.

In either case there is a dependency therefore it is the woman's choice to end that dependency. Not the man's. The father has no say in this, or at least shouldn't.

Yes, it is part of the woman's body. It is dependent on her. Until it is independent of the woman's bodily functions, till it is born, it is a part of the woman's body. Its either all or nothing, Moth. It is irrelevant if the couple is in a loving relationship or it is a one night stand.

So you are saying that if a woman wants the abortion and the man wants the child the man has the right to force the woman through pregnancy? That is a load of bulls**t. Or vice versa, if the man wants the woman to have the abortion but the woman doesn't, but since he is the "provider" she has to go through with it? Nice 19th century thinking, guys. Why don't you join the 21st century. Oh, consent to sex does not equal consent to have a child.

Nope. Woman's body. Woman's choice. If the man can carry the child to term then you might have a case but we can't and you don't.

It is dependent on her body, like a parasite, and she has the right to excise it from her body.

Moth, the fact that she is the only one to carry it is reason enough for it do be her decision alone. As a man, what right do we have to tell a woman what she can do and not do to her own body?

What you call reaching out is what I call sticking their nose where it does not belong. Such in the case of this congressman using the Quran. What harm is it for an Islamic elected official to use the book of his faith? None whatsoever, yet Goode, a Christian if I read it right, decided to stick his nose... or reach out... where it did not belong.

The man is irrelevant, Moth. Does the man carry the child to term? No. Does the man have to deal with the side effects of pregnancy? No. Does the man have to go through the pains of birth? No. Only the woman have to endure these things and thusly it is the only the woman who has the say.

Have you studied Christian history? It is full of violence and intolerance to those who do not follow the Christian belief system. As I said, I judge not only the scripture taught but also the actions of its followers. I do not hate or intolerant of any religion that leave those who do not share their beliefs alone.

Oh, I can list more than just one man but he is the most known of the Christian religion. Now I am not saying that only Christianity has people like him, for Judaism and Islam also have their share. You state that Christianity promotes "loving your neighbor as yourself, loving your enemies, blessing the poor and humble, encouraging charity to others, and other such things." I am just showing that it does not in every case. Christianity also promotes intolerance, hate, and violence against those who are viewed against God. Then again not only Christianity does this. The problem is not specifically Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, but the nature of the God of Abraham.

Tell that to Reverend Phelps.

Abortion should be allowed in the first trimester, but not after that. If it take more than 3 months to decide or figure out that you are pregnant then you are SOL. If the female is a minor the parents and guardians need to be notified. It is a surgical procedure after all. Lastly, it is up to the woman and the woman only to have the abortion or not.

No, but it does say a lot about a religion on what type of people it attracts. Take Christianity's 2000 years worth of history. Can you honestly say it hasn't done as much, if not more, harm as good? A religion's worth is not just what its scriptures hold, but also the deeds of people who act in its name.

I convinced him to join the Fort Locke people with my paladin/cleric. It is a fairly difficult Diplomacy check at that level. However you only get that option if you rescued the commander first.

What would be the motivation for using the sign? To spark controversy and tell the world to "look at me" or is it because you hold a strong beliefs in the Hindu religion?

And Bush had no solid proof of Hussein having WMDs.

No. he should have verified the information and used the UN to handle the matter. Iraq was posturing to make sure its rivals, Turkey and Iran, would not invade. That was obvious. I stated before we went to war, I stated during the invasion, and it was proven afterwards that Iraq had no WMDs. Iraq was no threat tot he US.

There is right and there is wrong. For a president to mislead his people to invade a nation on false pretenses is wrong. Plain and simple. If a soldier stands against this wrong then more power to him.

The war in Iraq wasn't a failure, but it was wrong. George W. Bush and his kronies stated that Iraq had WMDs that could threaten the lives of US citizens. That was his justification. Lo and behold, what did we find? No WMDs. What did Bushie do next? Stated that Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda. No evidence that supported that claim were found and both Hussein and Al Qaeda had nothing to do with each other. Bush misled the US people, either on purpose or by incompetence, and no soldier should pay the price of his or her life based on a lie or stupidity. 3000 soldiers dead. Each one died a meaningless death.

Invading another country on false pretenses that has caused the death of tens of thousands isn't a war crime?