NationStates Jolt Archive

I agree fully.

Vivelo, you seem to be suggesting that people not hold you up to any standards of debate. If you make a claim, people who disagree with you must be allowed to point out counterexamples to that claim. If you make an analogy that fails to hold, people who think so must be allowed ot point out relevant disanalogies.

Otherwise, there can be no rational debate.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

I do so hate it when people start extrapolating details.

In my country we encourage adoption in this matter. But sometimes abortion is necessary for medical reasons, ie possible death of mother or stillborn child.

First- I want to separate myself from the person with the Nazi argument. I know the response above is not directed at me, but since it's addressed in the same post as the one that discusses MY post, I want to be perfectly clear that I have NOT made any reference at any level to Naziism and abortion.

Second, it's not abortion is the fetus is already dead, so stillborns don't really factor into it. The survival of the mother is a different issue altogether, and I don't really have a stance on it. It's probably the only case, IMO, where abortion doesn't fly in the face of basic human values.

More importantly if a woman takes drugs which induce abortion it is merely a side effect, it is her body, and she can put in it what ever she pleases. If it causes an abortion so be it, however, no one is in the position of moral high ground to dictate what you can and cannot do to your own body. The nazis were not doing things to their own bodies which resulted in harm to others.

So I can hold an axe and swing it around with my arms, and if people happen to be in the way so be it?
They're *my* arms after all.

First off, the theology argument: You want to believe it's against God's will to have abortions? Fine. I don't. And you're not gonna thrust your religious opinions on me. Keep it in your own country.

Secondly, the Nazi argument. The fact is that there exists a universally accepted scientific basis for considering a fetus in the first two trimetsers of pregnancy as being "sub-human", while there is no such basis for considering Jews, gypsies, blacks, or any other ethnicity or race to be so. Note I specified the first two trimesters; by the time the fetus is in the third trimester, it can be born prematurely and survive, with the care of a doctor, and it is usually a fully developed baby, or extremely close to it.

Third, the idea that its emotionally harmful to the mother to have her pregnancy aborted. It's equally harmful to carry your baby through nine months, give birth to it, and then give it up for adoption; perhaps even more so.

Fourth, for those who are anti-abortion: There are many cases every year where rape victims end up carrying their attacker's child. Would you tell them to carry the baby to term, give birth (which, to all you men out there, don't forget its an extremely painful thing to do), and then give it up? How's that child gonna live if he finds out he was the product of a rape?

It's not a human - it's an undifferentiated mass of cells most of the time.[/quote]

you are right about that

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

i think vivelo was one of the few not to misunderstand my post...

I was not comparing aborting mothers to nazi's. My point was just to show that there have been other times when certain ideas, thought not to be wrong by certain soceities, came up under a diffrent light because definitions of human/humane and humanity changed in those very societies...

the ethnic cleansing by the nazis is a very touchy subject "for a number of reasons" but it isnt hard to look at the subject of slavery which is further away from our lifetime yet at the same a serious matter of considering something "sub-human" and treating it as such.

My objective was not too present a reason for pro-life, but something to consider as only rational beings can consider things in an unbiased point of view...



On the matter of discusion:

Considering stilborns or the threat of life to the mother isnt a matter at all about abortion or not. Even the strict catholic church allows abortion in these cases and i dont believe they are worth discussing since i believe we all agree that such matters it is clear that a choice has to be made.

but one thing i have not seen, (sorry if someone did mention this, i didnt see it) is...

How about a the fathers choice?! Doesnt he have a say? Is it not his child? (or his potential child depending on how you see it...) Sure the mother is the one who has the child, and has all the pains and problems around having a child, but why is there not one counrty where the father is mentioned in an abortion law.. this i never understood...

On the matter of discusion:

Considering stilborns or the threat of life to the mother isnt a matter at all about abortion or not. Even the strict catholic church allows abortion in these cases and i dont believe they are worth discussing since i believe we all agree that such matters it is clear that a choice has to be made.

but one thing i have not seen, (sorry if someone did mention this, i didnt see it) is...

How about a the fathers choice?! Doesnt he have a say? Is it not his child? (or his potential child depending on how you see it...) Sure the mother is the one who has the child, and has all the pains and problems around having a child, but why is there not one counrty where the father is mentioned in an abortion law.. this i never understood...

The father does not risk his life by giving birth to a child. I remind you that until recently childbirth was one of the leading causes of death for women.

And it is not the fathers body which the operation is occuring to, it is the mothers. The father does not take the drug, the father is removed from the process greatly due to the nature of childbirth.

It is the potential mother who is the patient of the doctor, and the doctor is not bound to respect any other wishes, nor should he. His patients life is at the core of his profesion.

And the blade cuts both ways, why can't the father decide to abort the baby against the mothers wishes?

I believe that the decision on the abortion issue should be left to each individual country, the UN should deal with other issues in a whole and not individual issue for each country has its own views on this issue and there Parliament or Congress should deal with this issue on their state and federal levels to decide within each district to derive a outcome to a whole. As far as the issue of where life begins, is it at conception or is it at some time later. I feel it is at conception but that is to be debated. I do not believe in partial birth abortions because they are grotesque and immoral, because it is not a lump of cells any longer, it is a baby with 10 toes and 10 fingers they even have fingernails'. So most likely the debate will go on, you must say to yourself is this what I would want for my self. If that answer is no or if you feel remorse then I say the answer is clear we as human beings know right from wrong as well as we can feel compassion one to a other. When we lose our compassion then we become no more than animals. President Tom of Jpo in the Pacific

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Right, I've been accused of lying, poor research, and of being on the level of G W Bush. But yet I will perservere in looking for accuracy and rationality in this debate.

There are three issues that now dominate the debate, firstly the Hippocratic Oath and it's implications, the second is the comparison between Nazis and pro-choice (one of the most astoundingly ill conceived and sensationalist ideas that has ever been offered in rational debate), the third the role of the father.

Now, it seems that the more conservative, and male, posters in this thread would desire the father to have a significant input into their partner's choice. Now, at the risk of flaming someone, I can only reply that this atitude is patriarchal in the extreme, a shift back towards the 19th Century when a woman was regarded as her husband's property. To be frank, the father caused the bloody problem in the first place. If we follow the proposed logic, we end up with yet another male-dominated period in society, why stop at abortion, why not require a woman to have her husband's permission to go for a walk, get a job, vote, ect. It's absurd to give the male an equal say in what is definately an issue for the mother.

This aside, we can see that the male will have a large say in the mother's choice anyway, considering they are loved (presumably, obviously not in cases of rape) by the mother, and hence the mother will strongly take into consideration the wishes of her partner. This is just basic reality of human relationships, there's no need to codify a man's say, as in a good relationship he has a large one allready, and in a bad relationship, giving him legal rights to veto an abortion (I assume this is what is proposed, any other model is half-baked at best) is just asking for abuse.

Nazis = pro-choice. If I ever get my hands on the fundamentalist moron somewhere in the Bible Belt of America who thought this absurdity up, I will kill them in a particuarly nasty way. This ill-concieved piece of sensationalist rubbish is both insulting and innacurrate in the extreme. I think someone has already made this point, but I'll make it again, Hitler's aims were the complete destruction of a people, based on irrational and racist grounds, and were the ultimate in unmitigated evil. There were no rational basis for any of the claims made by Hitler, and here in lies the fundamental and important difference. Not to mention that pro-choice is not aimed at any particular person, people, or belief system. The aims are polar opposites. The denial of human dignity vs the preservation of human dignity. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what label you put on a feotus, the bottom line is that they have no rights (as proved in previous posts), and so aborting them is not immoral.

Now, to the Hippocratic Oath. Yes, surprise surprise, you go to the American Universities, where "pro-life" is the political flavor of the month, and you find oath's incorporating that interpretation. And in strongly religious countries too, Kenya and Switzerland both have over 80% of their populations attending some form of organised religion (CIA Worldfactbook), and look at the prevalent religions there, and another surprise, it's Islam and Catholicism, two religions that strongly condemm abortion. It ain't much of a mystery. Thank you to whoever pointed out the link that actually led to an Oath ommitting the line, the accusation of poor research now looks like the pot calling the kettle black. And most importantly, my original reason for tabling the Oath in this debate was to demonstrate that a doctors mission is not exclusively to save lives, but to act in the best interests of the paitient. The same ethos prevades through all the versions of the Oath, and the Declaration of Geneva, a doctor considers their paitient's (the mother) best interests first and foremost, as determined by the paitient. The profusion of different versions, the replacement of the Oath in the British schools, serves to illustrate that the pedantics over wording are not relevant at all to a doctor, but the ethos that they espouse, of paitient's interests first, is the important part of a doctor's practice.

Have a nice day,

Actually, Knights of NI, you really should refrain from making comments about issues you have NO IDEA about.

American Universities, for the most part, espouse left-wing ideas and traditions. The University of Kentucky, for instance, is run directly by the State Government. The Government in Kentucky is Democrat, Pro-Choice, and liberal. The UNiversity is not religious in the least and it is not conservative. The University of Kentucky is particularly left-leaning.

Why is it still included? you ask? Because there is much debate on whether or not the fetus or the mother is the "patient" in that case.

As for political "flavor of the month" comment; grow up. Apparently, anyone who doesn't see it "your way" is just a political malcontent or flippant political wind vein. Surprise! YOUR oath is the one that was changed for political reasons, not the original Hippocratic oath. EVERY SINGLE interpretation of the Hippocratic oaths from ancient Greece include the line. The only ones that don't are modernized versions where the line is removed for political reasons.

And the fact that Swizterland, Canada, the US, and Some African Nations are predominantly religious doesn't change a thing. To be hoenst, if someone challenged the oath in court in the US, the schools requiring students to recit it would likely lose. The government of the US is NOT religious. The fact that the people are or aren't has ZERO bearing in whether or not the oath includes the line. The oath DOES, the modern altered politically correct versions (of the oath and declaration) DO NOT. You can't spin that any other way.

And why should fathers not have a say? If the mother chooses NOT to abort, they can certainly force the husband to pay for the raising of the child, at least in this country. A pregnancy is his "fault?" Frankly, if you truly are a doctor, your disregard for common sense is frightening to me.

The Classical Hippocratic Oath, also prohibits doctors from performing surgery in addition to them performing abortions. The modern hippocratic oath does not bar either. So since no doctor swears to the classical hippocratic oath anymore (to my knowledge) it is a mute point.

And why should fathers not have a say? If the mother chooses NOT to abort, they can certainly force the husband to pay for the raising of the child, at least in this country. A pregnancy is his "fault?" Frankly, if you truly are a doctor, your disregard for common sense is frightening to me.

let me put this nice and simple...

Giving birth is extremely dangerous and painful.

The idea that the father is able to force his belief upon the mother is ludicrous since he is risking someone elses life for his own benefit.

This extends beyond just abortion. A person trained in CPR could be forced to perform mouth to mouth on someone even though cpr poses incredible risk to the person performing it. And you're obligated that once you start, you will not stop until you pass out or until another person relieves you. But if one person can force another to give birth, a much more dangerous thing, and a much more painful thing, why can't we force those trained in cpr to do the same?

If the mother chooses too allow the father to sway her decision that is her choice, but it is her body, and it is the mother who is put at risk.

Q: What's red, slimy, and crawls up a woman's leg?
A: A homesick abortion.

On the views of Abortion


It should be dealt with as it is in Armandal...

The woman has the choice to abort her child regardless of the non married parent involved. Married couples are given three weeks MANDATORY counciling (that is non biased to either side) and given all the information they need to make a choice.BOTH must consent to the abortion.

Woman who are raped and become pregnant are orderd by the states and ruling laws to abort the fetus automatically as it was not her "choice" that got her preganent in the first place.The rapist is casterated pending a 100% accurate DNA and Biocimetric Scan to deteremine he is the one guilty. Teenagers are given NO CHOICE in the matter, it is up to the parents to determine if they will keep the child. if they do the child goes to the training schools to be raised with daily - bi-weekly visitation from the mother,where the child is trained in the ways of arts,science,theology,arcane arts and philosophy,and various armed and hand to hand combat skills.


A governing body MUST take a stand, it is up to each nation to choose but as leaders you ALSO play the role of parents in a way...and the citizens look to leaders to make the laws, right the wrongs, and enforce them in the name of fairness and justice... we have yet due to this have had to build one single prison on our nations soil.....

Vivelo, you seem to be suggesting that people not hold you up to any standards of debate. If you make a claim, people who disagree with you must be allowed to point out counterexamples to that claim. If you make an analogy that fails to hold, people who think so must be allowed ot point out relevant disanalogies.

Otherwise, there can be no rational debate.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Did I ever disallow counterexamples? I don't recall doing this, so if you could point out where in one of my arguments I denied someone that right, I would greatly appreciate it. I only said people seem to take the anti-abortionists' arguments too literally. Like in the Nazi/aborting mother analogy. I'm not saying it was you in particular. People in general do this.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

It seemed to me, and I aplogize if I was out of line, that you responded to effectively every counterexample presented with "but I didn't mean that literally!"

In the specific "Nazi" case, people pointed out what they believed (and I believe) to be extremely relevant--*morally* relevant--differences between genocide and the practice of abortion. They were quite aware that you weren't literally saying doctors who practice abortion own armbands and jackboots, but they thought--justifiably, since you said it--that the practices were morally equivalent. They were giving reasons why they aren't.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

To move the debate from the personal insults that it has degenerated to ( I have no idea about what I'm talking about, need to grow up and disregard common sense, apparently, well it's news to me, but thanks for the tips)

We're still arguing about the Hippocratic Oath, even though I was at pains to point out that it's not the pedantic wording that is important, but the overall ethos of the Oath that holds the paitient's best interests as paramount, that is important. Whatever the interpretation any specific doctor chooses to employ, the bottom line is that the only person they can act in the interests of is the mother, considering she's the only one in the equation that can communicate their interests. Abortions are morally acceptable in this context, and that's not even considering their lack of rights.

We've now moved to the impact of society. Now, it has been a long time scince I've heard anybody suggest that public attitude has no influence on the policy of large government institutions. Now my point was that in societies that are more strongly religious, particuarly when a religion that condemns abortion is the predominant one, the likely hood of that interpretation being used would be significantly higher than in other societies, Wastra's case study of the Canadian Anti-abortionists fits beautifully here.

Now again, the father's say in the matter. As we seemed to have missed it the first time, and I appologise for the somewhat fuzzy wording, is that the father DOES indeed have a very large say in what goes on, by meer fact that the mother LOVES him (supposedly). The comment about it being his fault was intended in a light-hearted way, not in the serious pedantics that it has been drawn to. Yes, child support can be paid, but in a loving relationship this would not be an issue. If it's not a loving relationship (for want of a better term), then the father should have no say whatsoever (and is unlikely to), because the potential for abuse is far to broad. That is the crux of my point, that the potential for abuse is far to broad when the father must give legal consent, leave the law out of the father's role, let love do its work.

Thanks to Ziliarn for injecting some more common sense to this debate, the more the merrier, and for those posting at all, please consider the full consequences of your arguments before posting, again thanks to Ziliarn for the example on this.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

this forum should be for facts and not for personal insults and when people do just insults instead of stateing a true fact they are just trying to cover that they have no answer! so please if you have nothing of revelance to say just keep out of the forum!

second i completely agree with what vivelo said in the above post.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The issue put to the UN here is about the individual citizens' right to choose. I would expect everyone would accept that, based on a personal philosophy or religious belief a person can choose NOT to have an abortion. It seams to me however that the purpose of the motion put forward is to have a UN bill banning abortions in all member countries therefore denying that choice to my citizens.

This is the key point I wish to make. The attempt here is to impose a ban for all based on the beliefs of some. This for me puts the onus on those who are for a ban to justify this in terms acceptable to all.

Are there any anti-abortion posts on this thread that are not from religious people? Are there any non-religious people who want a ban on abortion?

Although this is admittedly a small sample I believe this is an issue of pragmatism Vs religion (unless people come forward who fit the criteria above).

It is for those who are anti-abortion to put the case to the rest of the UN as to why this would be preferable. For what reason would a country with a secular democratic government wish to go backwards with legislation that reduces the freedom of its peoples?

For a moment there i had given up on replying cause of the seriously wrong view everyone had on my post on the concept of what is humane and what is not throught out the centuries. At least Vivelo seems to have noticed that i wasnt implying that pro-abortionist = nazis (i think everyone knows that the're are many many diffrences)

I'm aslso glad that my question regarding the father has moved away from the idea of impostion of his will on the mother. (I have no idea where KnightsofNi went to get this "19th century" idea from..)

1-Of course in a married couple (not talking religously married, but civily married...) the decision in made in unison, so there can be no matter for discussion! If a decision such as this isnt agreed upon by both members then they wont be a couple for long!

2- Obviously, if there is a risk of life to the mother the father of the child cant make her have the child... Unlike Ziliarn says, nowadays, in developed coutries, giving birth is not an extremely dangerous procedure. Modern medicine has made it very safe and few are the cases that the mother suffers even more than natural phisical damage (if she has access to good material and good medics)

Funny how the story of the father having the veto was mentioned by someone pro-abortion. Of course the father cant have a veto. But i still think its extremely sexist for the mother to be able to kill a child that the father of the child wants. (i've know many of these cases myself) But if the mother has the child the father is obliged to give child support.

Righteous justice-> Very few people take the stance of pro-life because their religion says such! Its a matter of personal logic, in that an unborn fetus is a future human being and deserves simple rights such as the protection of its life. Where's god in that?

Man, stop blowing things out of porportion! from saying other's ideas are a mixed of baptist whatever to saying that someone that beleives that the father should have more of a right than is mentioned in any current law is a machist idea (what a ballon this one was) to saying that all pro-life are religious! Discuss the ideas that are written, not ideas that werent written and certainly not the people themselves!

To move the debate from the personal insults that it has degenerated to ( I have no idea about what I'm talking about, need to grow up and disregard common sense, apparently, well it's news to me, but thanks for the tips)

We're still arguing about the Hippocratic Oath, even though I was at pains to point out that it's not the pedantic wording that is important, but the overall ethos of the Oath that holds the paitient's best interests as paramount, that is important. Whatever the interpretation any specific doctor chooses to employ, the bottom line is that the only person they can act in the interests of is the mother, considering she's the only one in the equation that can communicate their interests. Abortions are morally acceptable in this context, and that's not even considering their lack of rights.

We've now moved to the impact of society. Now, it has been a long time scince I've heard anybody suggest that public attitude has no influence on the policy of large government institutions. Now my point was that in societies that are more strongly religious, particuarly when a religion that condemns abortion is the predominant one, the likely hood of that interpretation being used would be significantly higher than in other societies, Wastra's case study of the Canadian Anti-abortionists fits beautifully here.

Now again, the father's say in the matter. As we seemed to have missed it the first time, and I appologise for the somewhat fuzzy wording, is that the father DOES indeed have a very large say in what goes on, by meer fact that the mother LOVES him (supposedly). The comment about it being his fault was intended in a light-hearted way, not in the serious pedantics that it has been drawn to. Yes, child support can be paid, but in a loving relationship this would not be an issue. If it's not a loving relationship (for want of a better term), then the father should have no say whatsoever (and is unlikely to), because the potential for abuse is far to broad. That is the crux of my point, that the potential for abuse is far to broad when the father must give legal consent, leave the law out of the father's role, let love do its work.

Thanks to Ziliarn for injecting some more common sense to this debate, the more the merrier, and for those posting at all, please consider the full consequences of your arguments before posting, again thanks to Ziliarn for the example on this.

I concur.

It is very easy to take the high moral ground on the issue of abortion, making the issue a black and white one. "Abotion equals murder!, yadda yadda yadda" - get a new mantra people.

The issue of abortion presents an ethical and legal problem for society. On the ethical side, the issue needs to be thought of with respect to how the ethical principles of benificence, non-malfecience, justice and respect for the autonomy of the woman seeking the termination are applied. It is a sad fact that not everyone is blessed with a supporting social structure (family, friends, church, etc) that would be able to support them should they lack the emotional, psychological or financial resources to give birth to and/or raise a child. As an ethical issue, the issues raised can only be truely considered by the person(s) experiencing the situation that would make the need for an abortion necessary. All moralising aside, the experience of an unwanted pregnancny is individual one for each mother. And as such, no-one is able to fully understand the competing pressures, social factors, emotional considerations and feelings of a person with an unwanted pregnancy, except that person. On this basis, I feel that the decision as to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a termination can only be made by a person who is experiencing it.

From a legal perspective, Knights of Ni quite rightly points out that public attitudes are reflected in government policy. Governments make law; and this law is a reflection of that societies moral values. In the Australian state of Queensland abortion is, at law, illegal. In the State of Western Australia, however, abortion is, at law, legal. Despite this difference, the laws of both Queensland and Western Australia contain provisions that protect the women who have abortions from prosecution, in recognition of the fact that the termination of an unwanted pregnancy may be in the best interests of the woman's health (both mental and physical) and her well-being. As a reflection of societies attitudes (at least in Queensland and Western Australia) the law provides for the protection of the health, safety and well-being of women seeking terminations. If the role of government is to enhance the health, safety and well-being of it's citizens, then it's citizens must have the freedom to seek medically safe abortions, without fear of persection from the law (freedom from persecution from pro-lifers being an entirely different issue).

I often wonder how many pro-life, bible-bashing, zealots that condemn the rights of pregnant women to choose to terminate their pregnancy, would change their tune if placed in a similar position? Try walking a mile in someone elses shoes before you start stoning them to death.

I often wonder how many pro-life, bible-bashing, zealots that condemn the rights of pregnant women to choose to terminate their pregnancy, would change their tune if placed in a similar position? Try walking a mile in someone elses shoes before you start stoning them to death.

There is more than one woman in this world who would unselfishly give her unborn baby a chance at life, even if it put her life in danger. They may be few and far between, but they exist.

It would be interesting to find out how many women who have undergone the procedure regret it soon afterward. And I'd love to meet a woman who is crying the same tears of joy after she has gotten an abortion that a mother cries when she has just given birth.

I often wonder how many pro-life, bible-bashing, zealots that condemn the rights of pregnant women to choose to terminate their pregnancy, would change their tune if placed in a similar position? Try walking a mile in someone elses shoes before you start stoning them to death.

I can assure you that despite any difficulties that might arise, my attitude would not change.

For my part, I wonder how many Bible-Bashing (in the U.S. it means anti-religious, Bible-"THUMPING" means religious zealot :D ), pro-abortion zealots that condemn anti-abortion people for not putting themselves in the mothers' shoes ever stop to put themselves in the unborn baby's shoes.

The idea that Anti-abortion people are all religious is a funny one to me. I'm anti-abortion and I'm not religious. I don't quote scripture and I don't ever talk about heaven or hell. I simply talk about basic concepts of right vs. wrong and human rights in general. I wish there was a way for every woman who wished to terminate their pregnancy to simply have the fetus removed and I wish that child could develop outside the mother. But it can't. I wish both the baby's rights and the mother's rights could be met, but unfortunately they cannot. and forced to choose, I simply believe that one individual's right to not be killed outweighs another person's right to not go through trauma and stress (and YES, most anti-abortion folks recognize that it will never be EASY on the mother and they DO sympathize with her).

That doesn't affect the fetus's humanity, IMO, any more than it affects someone who must live attached to a kidney dialysis machine (which does not make that person a part of the dialysis machine). I simply beleive there are many stage sin human development starting when the unique genetic code for an individual is formed when the egg is fertilized.

Everything past that are just varying stages of development. At 19 days, doctors can detect a heartbeat. At 6 weeks, unique discernable brain waves can be monitored. 47% of all abortions in America are performed after 6 weeks. That's 18,800,000 individuals with unique brain waves who never got a chance to make anything of themselves since Roe Vs. Wade. I find that frightening. It's not religious to me.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The Modern Hippocratic Oath;

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

Alright then, so where does the modern hippocratic oath, which doctors swear to, prohibit abortion?

Bible Bashing does not mean anti-religious since they could very well follow another religion

If you start CPR you are obligated to continue until you pass out or until a trained responder arrives. This can be a very long time. As for diseases you put yourself at risk if you lack protection. The person you perform CPR to will have a habit of throwing up into your mouth. Now in conjunction with this the person may very well be bleeding, which poses an even greater risk to the responder.

And Yous, why should the father have the choice at all? The only potential way you can give power to either party is to give the power over the decision. Either the father has the power or the mother has the power, there is no middle ground.

And since it is the mothers body it is clearly the mothers choice. And i was wondering doesn't the aborted fetus go to heaven immediately? You should probably care the least, and it would be atheists and those who believe that after life there is nothing who should be worried about the babies life.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

His Holiness, Pope Pius XIII, would like to make it clear that he supports the proposal of the envoy, Ephyon, to outlaw abortion in member nations. Nations must return their thoughts to God, and to a world in line with upright moral principles. Although our nation will not join the UN, since we oppose world government, we would appreciate telegrams from member nations who are Catholic, and would be willing to ally with our empire. Ad majorum dei glorium!

I can't believe it, I spent 1 1/2 hours typing a reply, nearly 1000 words, and the stupid computer tells me "Invalid Session". THis is the shortened version of my reply, cause I can't be bothered doing it all again.

Now, the debate has still remained central to a few issues, but first of all I must clear up some misinterpretation of what I wrote last time.

I have been accused of the cardinal sin of debate, personal attacks on opponents rather than on ideas. Let me state this was not my intention at all, and I apologise if some awkward wording led some to believe I was guilty of this. Among the complaints leveled, my comment regarding Ziliarn and balanced debate has been picked up as insulting. I did not mean to denigrate any individual in this forum, but meerly to applaud Ziliarn's effort to ensure their contribution was balanced, well thought through, was logical and avoided using emotion in place of fact. This effort is something to be applauded, I was giving Credit where Credit is due. In addition, someone construed my frustration with whoever though up that extremely flawed "Nazi = pro-choice" analogy as a personal attack on the person tabling it in debate. This analogy is one of the most emotive leveled in debate, and one that has done great damage to the debate on abortion scince it was thought up in the 1960s. For this reason I am supremely frustrated when it is brought up, because it is not rational, but simply emotive, and hence should play no part in a debate.

Furthermore, I have been accused of not accepting or even reading my opponents contributions. I can only offer that the entire basis of my case is that people's opinions should be respected, the mother's opinion needs to be respected, the mother needs to be listened to, the mother must have the choice. Futhermore, if you observe my posts, they are always in reply to the themes levelled by the opposition, in reverse order. This is an old habit of mine left over from Championship debating, it's an effective way to argue. Therefore, to continue to post, I need to listen and read the opposition's replies. Debating is about offering opinions for comparison and evaluation, so if an argument or statement does not hold water in a logical sense, it is open to attack. I apply a very empirical standard of logic that ignores "truths" that cannot be observed (such as a person's "faith" or "belief") as valid arguments in debate. It's in the tradition of the Enlightenment philosophers, and I believe it is here that we disagree in our standards of logic.

Now to the themes left in the debate.

First is the father's rights regarding a termination. Now, the only way to make sure a father's wishes are respected is to require his consent to an abortion. As I said earlier, this is wide open for abuse by vindictive partners, and anyway, even the people proposing father's rights do not want this model. which begs the question what model they do propose. As I've said before, and as the opposition acknoweldges, in a loving relationship, love is the middle ground that will breed the consensus deisred. However the question now is raised about the model in a non-loving relationship. Frankly, again the problems of vindictive or non-committed partners arises, and it is best left to the mother. Love is the middle ground, and will do its job in ensuring the father's wishes are respected, so we should not try to legislate love into relationships.

THe second theme is the Hippocratic Oath again, and again we're stuck in pedantics. Yes, on some interpretations of "reading between the lines", there is a massive leap in logic to get to it banning abortions. This leap includes considering the feotus as the paitient in abortion. Now, not only is the feotus unable to communicate with the doctor, and hence cannot be thier paitient, it was the mother who came to see the doctor in the first place, her name's on the record, she is the paitient. Again, we must follow the overall ethos of the oath, that is to hold the paitients best interests as dearest, as the ultimate decider. The paitient is the mother.

On the CPR point, it is law in Australia (and I'm pretty sure America), that once you start CPR, you can only stop when one of three eventualities occur:

1) the paitient recovers
2) you are physically unable to continue
3) more qualified help arrives.
You can't choose to stop.

On the hypothetical that a paitient in a "poor mental condition" (one of the most poetic ways of putting it i've heard), in this situation, the paitient is usually subject to power of attorney delegated to a family memeber. In this case it's simple, the delegate make the decision based on the doctor's advice and their knowledge of the paitient's usual wishes. If the paitient is not subject to POA, the doctor simply refers them to Psych assesment to determine wether they are capable of making that decision in a rational manner. If the Psych report comes back as rational, the paitient's wishes must be followed. However in real life two things hold this up, the first is that paitients like the one described never come back with a "rationaL' psych assesment, and second, that a person cannot simply waltz in a demand surgery, a doctor has to admit them to hospital. Such a hypothetical would not exist in the real world.

Now lastly, Nazis as pro-choicers. Now, I thank whoever wanted to make the distinction between the two, but somewhere we got back to a direct analogy between the Nazi's systematic attack on a followers of the Jewish faith and Abortion. Now, an action is is made up of a motive and an event, and the motive is the only part we can discuss in terms of morals. Now, lets compare the rationale (motive) of pro-choicers. On this side is a rational, scientific and logically provable position, as opposed to a position motived by hatred, fear and a desire for power with no basis in rational thought, science or logic. I completely agree that racism is, as the Harare decleration puts it, a pure and unmitigated evil. However, there is nothing racist in abortion (though, please try and show me the racism, I'd love to see where you're comming from.), it is based on the concept (or at least my brand is) that a feotus cannot posses rights at 23 weeks term. We are not denying (removing) rights that do not exist in the first place. THe Nazi party removed rights based on no logic or science whatsoever. Science and logic combined have shown that a feotus has no rights. Nazism's logic was the logic of fear and hate only, no logic at all. Nazism was directed at a group of people, pro-choice has no direction. Nazism and pro-life are on completely different levels, one on logic, the other on fear, lets avoid comparing the incompareable.

Again we've got claims of heartbeats at 9days, "brainwaves" at 6 weeks
Sorry, but the mother's stomach, skin, muscle is all in the way, these feotuses are only lumps of cells at this stage. You can't get either of what's proposed under such conditions. The sound of a heart beat would be drowned out by the sounds of the mother's breakfast digesting, and an in-utero EEG is impossible. Yet again I request a source for these propositions, and please, not fellowship university.

Lastly, I shal explain my disdain at religious abortion opponents. It stems from an expirience I had 6 months ago with a group of anit-abortionists at the Melbourne Day Procedures Clinic. This clinic provides a wide range of services to private health insurnce paitients, and my father was at the clinic having an ECG scan after suffering a heart attack 2months before. As I was leaving after visiting him, I was assulted by the group (who were carying a metre (3feet) high statue of the virgin mary on their shoulders) as I left. I believe they targeted me because I was still wearing my hospital ID badge, and so mistook me for one of the doctors practising abortions in the clinic, which while being wrong, annoying and a nuisence, turned crimminal after they slashed the front tire of my car and painter a large red cross on the bonnet (ok, it's only a volvo 240, but it is my car) and took my briefcase, which at the time contained confidential medical records of cases I had delt with at the Royal Children's Hospital that day.
The theft comprimised the children in question's care, and was illegal in itself (not to mention the car). It's action like this that gives the pro-life camp a bad name and has burnt an association between religous pro-lifers and being unreasonable into my mind.

Again we've got claims of heartbeats at 9days, "brainwaves" at 6 weeks
Sorry, but the mother's stomach, skin, muscle is all in the way, these feotuses are only lumps of cells at this stage. You can't get either of what's proposed under such conditions. The sound of a heart beat would be drowned out by the sounds of the mother's breakfast digesting, and an in-utero EEG is impossible. Yet again I request a source for these propositions, and please, not fellowship university.


The baby's heartbeat is measurable between 18 and 25 days.
Electrical Brainwaves have been recorded as early as 40 days into a pregnancy.

Source: Planned Parenthood (a Pro-Abortion organization) Handbook on Pregnancy (2001).

To be fair: Planned parenthood then goes on to distinguish between brain waves that compromise coherrent thought or REGULAR brain waves and developing electrical impulses that are present very eraly during the pregnancy. No one argues that a Fetus is thinking, only that at 40-60 days into the pregnancy, their brain has begun its own electrical operations.

If you'd like other sources, simply find any website that lists facts about developing feti and read what they have to say. You'll find that 99.9% are anti-abortion sites since apparently, pro-abortion sites would (obviously) prefer that such information not be widely disseminated since it evokes a negative emotional response. I give credit to Planned Parenthood for printing the info at all- becasue the opposite is also true; you'll find very very few Pro-Life sites or books that offer facts that do not help their case.

My best friend and his wife are pregnant with their first child. Not quite 4 weeks into her pregnancy, the Doctor showed her a printout of her baby's irregular heartbeat. The fact that you, as an apparent doctor, claim this is impossible is somewhat puzzling to me since I, too, have seen the printouts.

Whatever the interpretation any specific doctor chooses to employ, the bottom line is that the only person they can act in the interests of is the mother, considering she's the only one in the equation that can communicate their interests.

Being able to communicate interests is NOT a qualification for treatment or consideration. Comotose patients, infants, and many individuals with defects and diseases cannot communicate their interests.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment... (Unless the abortion is absolutely neccessary...)
"Absolutely necessary" is a fairly vague term. Doctors perform many treatments (antibiotics for relatively mild infections, for example) where the consequences of refusing treatment would be *much* less serious than forcing a woman to bring a pregnancy to term.

But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. (it says nothing about whether the patient wants him to take a life, ie euthanasia or abortions)

I don't quite understand this. Indeed, it says nothing about it. But it doesn't say that patients should be ignored under all circumstances, or even that their wishes are irrelevant.

Above all, I must not play at God (The Lord giveth; the Lord taketh away, therefore the doctor just swore not to kill unless it is obviously the person's time)

Are you saying the physician has just sworn to do *nothing* that is *ever* attributed to God?

...whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems (is the unborn child not the patient's family? Does the rest of the family want the child aborted?)

A fetus is not yet a family member, because it is not yet a person.
Physicians can, do, and should take into account how a patient's family might feel about an abortion. They usually talk, for example, to family members, unless the patient requests that they do not. However, the patient's wishes trump those of the family.

with special obligations to all my fellow human beings (all generally means everyone, including the unborn)

But "human beings" doesn't generally apply to all masses of human tissue.

May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling (wouldn't that entail observing an older version of the oath that say includes the line?)

Only if the physician agrees that the older version of the oath is among the callings "finest traditions." Again, your argument would prohibit physicians from performing surgery, since that was prohibited in the original.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Abortion is strictly illegal in Griffindon. Statistics in the US have shown that 1% of all rape victims become pregnant. Under stressful, unpleasent situations, it's almost impossible for conception to occur. That 1%, unfortunately, is out of luck. And because they were able to concieve, I'd question whether or not it really was non-consenting. I have plenty of experience with people who have claimed rape to get something when it wasn't rape. So the rape argument is out the window.
So what you have then is just women getting pregnant that don't want to deal with pregnancy and children. So? They were the irresponsible women who went and got knocked up! Why should the baby suffer for the fact that it's mother was a whore? If you have sex when you're young, before you're married, or unprotected you're pretty much risking having an unwanted child and you know it. If you have that kid it's your own fault, don't kill it because you screwed up.
A simple way to avoid childbirth is to simply not have sex. And if you think that's unreal, then why don't you think murder is unrealistic? You're basically putting sex before human life and that's kind've sad.
Abortion is murder and anyone that tries to pass a resolution to make it so will have my whole-hearted support.

I can't understand why some of you people dont get it. A women doesnt get pregant with anything other than a human! Fetus is just a word the liberal looney left tries to justify the killing of the most innocent members of society - BABIES! Anyone who supports abortion is either nuts, toatly cold blooded or both. To try and justify baby killing is just insane.
Oh, and one last thing for those of you who support killing the defensless, be glad your mom didnt abort you. Hypocrits and murderers, thats the pro-abortion side. You make me sick.

Abortion is strictly illegal in Griffindon. Statistics in the US have shown that 1% of all rape victims become pregnant. Under stressful, unpleasent situations, it's almost impossible for conception to occur. That 1%, unfortunately, is out of luck. And because they were able to concieve, I'd question whether or not it really was non-consenting.


I have spoken to our surgeon general, Dr. Fiona Bixby, and she had this to say:

"That is the most ridiculous and pernicious claim I have ever heard in my life. As you can see here (http://reprohealth.ucsf.edu/articles/Prevention%20of%20Pregnancy%20from%20Rape.stewart.pdf), the rate of pregnancy following rape is almost 5%--which is approximately the same rate as the rate of pregnancy following a single consensual sexual encounter. I don't know where the representative from Griffindon got his or her science, but it is, quite frankly, appalling."

I will ignore the rest of this post, as I have responded to similar claims elsewhere.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Oh, and to answer the original questio posed on this thread, Calamshan will TOTALY SUPPORT THE BAN ON BABY KILLING!

I tried really hard to read the debate and gain an understanding of each participant's point of view.....I got through about half of it- :D


Let me preface this by telling you I am the mother of 6 children, the eldest of whom I relinquished for adoption 17 years ago. Three of the children I have had the honor of parenting are girls. I think I know a little bit about pregnancy and the concerns about young girls becoming pregnant too young.

My body is my own and no one has the right to TELL me what to do with it. A nine month lease agreement and a lifetime commitment to the role of MOM is a lot to ask for. The male participant has the right to ask-in fact, the responsibility to ask for it along with the agreement to a life-time commitment of working his butt off to support said mom and leasee.

I do not have the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their body....even my daughters. With any luck at all, they understand the consequences and will avoid sex until they are 30- :)

This is not an issue that can be legislated. To do so, devalues women and I cannot go along with that.

An issue of the women's body?!!!!! That isuue was decided when she decided to have sex! Were talking about the rights of An innocet defensless human baby!!!! Adoption is an adoption - baby killing is JUST SICK. And if your a mom shame on you for supporting the murder of innocent defensless children!

An issue of the women's body?!!!!! That isuue was decided when she decided to have sex! Were talking about the rights of An innocet defensless human baby!!!! Adoption is an adoption - baby killing is JUST SICK. And if your a mom shame on you for supporting the murder of innocent defensless children!

The child doesn't have teh right to be in the woman's body. It's only there by her permission. Since people have the right to their own bodies, the woman may remove teh child from her womb at any time she wishes.

That the child does is merely a tragic side-effect.

Read what I said very carefully.

I never said what I do or do not support.

What I said was that making laws about this issue devalues women and that I do not have the right to tell anyone what to do with their body.

"The child doesn't have teh right to be in the woman's body."

SSSIIIICCCKKKKK and wrong. The man and woman who had sex put it there. And now it has the right to live. The whole "it's my body" argument doesnt fly. Your denying the purley innocent the right to life. Its selfish hateful and wrong. What about the right of a human being to live? What if the goverment decided people like you were sub human and didn't deserve to live? A mother has many options like adoption at her disposal when she gets pregnant. To say human life is worthless is sick and a sad statement of today's society. Get some help.

Again-read what I said very carefully.

"The child doesn't have teh right to be in the woman's body."

SSSIIIICCCKKKKK and wrong. The man and woman who had sex put it there. And now it has the right to live. The whole "it's my body" argument doesnt fly. Your denying the purley innocent the right to life. Its selfish hateful and wrong. What about the right of a human being to live? What if the goverment decided people like you were sub human and didn't deserve to live? A mother has many options like adoption at her disposal when she gets pregnant. To say human life is worthless is sick and a sad statement of today's society. Get some help.

This isn't about the government, this is about the mother's rights. You don't have the right to ANYTHING that involves interfering with someone else's rights. The mother never explicitly agreed to anything when she had sex.

As a member of society have the OBLIGATION of defending the rights of the most defenless and innocent in that society. That is also the job of the goverment. And NO ONE is more innocent than an unborn child. Trying to dehumanize it by calling it a "fetus" instaed of a "baby" and saying "abortion" instead of "murder" doesnt change the fact that is a baby being murdered. I do think a women has a right to her body. I do not however that right is more important than an unborn babys right to life. I also believe that most pro-baby murder folks know it's wrong. However its much easier to avoid responsibility for one's actions. And after all it's not like your killing someone who can fight back right?!!!

You ... don't ... have ... the ... right ... to ... anything ... owned ... by ... someone ... else.

It's why robbery is wrong. Likewise a mother has the right to stop allowing the baby access to her well, interior.

The mother has never explicitly claimed guardianship of the baby, she is therefore under no legal obligation to keep it alive.

She doesn't have the right to kill it, but she DOES have the right ot extract it from her body. That it dies is a tragic consequence.

"The mother has never explicitly claimed guardianship of the baby,"

The mother knows full well when she engages in the sexual act that there is a chance of a baby. She can't claim ignorance. And neither can you. It's a human being. A BABY and deserves to be protected. I also think fathers, who support or push for, an abortion are just as guiklty as the baby killing moms. This is a pointless debat. You obviously care little for human life. And no matter what I say will change your mind. If you have children of your own go look at them. How would you feel if they were murdered? And yet you sit there and say the unborn have no right to live. As I said before, get some help.

They have a right to life. Just not a right to life at the involuntary expense of someone else.

...I do think a women has a right to her body. ...(space added by me-Lok) I do not however that right is more important than an unborn babys right to life.

Once you aknowledge the right of a woman to control her own body, the arguement is over.


No nation can tell me what to do with my body. I can attempt to teach my children, boys along with the girls, how important this issue is. But no government agent can tell them or me what must be done with their bodies. To do so devalues women.

You may care for human life, but i don't. My liver is human life, my kidney is human life, my appendix is too, but if i wanted to rip my appendix out its my right to. Yes it'll die, but I am not morally obligated to keep it alive, even though it is a collection of cells have the same 48 chromosomes.

Let me put it this way... just because it is human, does not make it a person.

Just because it has a potential for life, does not make it murder.

sperm and eggs go to waste all the time, but that does not make it murder, they are potential life.

miscarriages happen all the time, but that is not murder.

I care for the lives of people.

"Just not a right to life at the involuntary expense of someone else."

Involuntary?!!! That asumes all women are raped. Get a grip. And a baby is a person a HUMAN BEING, with ever right to life. The women knows when she spreads those legs a baby is a real possibility. Murdering the child may be a convientant way to avoid the responsiblity, but IT IS MURDER. And you liberal looney's say you are compasionate. You make me sick!!!!

"Just not a right to life at the involuntary expense of someone else."

Involuntary?!!! That asumes all women are raped. Get a grip. And a baby is a person a HUMAN BEING, with ever right to life. The women knows when she spreads those legs a baby is a real possibility. Murdering the child may be a convientant way to avoid the responsiblity, but IT IS MURDER. And you liberal looney's say you are compasionate. You make me sick!!!!

Sex is voluntary, pregnancy is not.

And I'm not a liberal.

Unless the body is willing to enforce any resolution it passes on the issue, the entire discussion is nothing more than an exercise in demagoguery. Each nation will do what is in its own political and cultural best interests, regardless of the outcome. To what extent will the body be willing to expend resources on any measure passed? The answer is...none.

The issue is moot.

If you don't want a child, don't have sex. How is that not simple?

I could't agree more Griff. Or at least pick adoption over out right murder.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

"Christianity advocates timing as the only acceptable form of birth control"

While I agree with you on the rest of it, I believe Catholics are the ones who are against birth control. There are other christian religions who belive that birth control is ok. As long as it is used before a baby is concieved (b4 the sperm and egg meet) However all christian and most other society's take a dim view of sex w/o marriage. Not just christians. In fac Muslims, Hindu's, and Jews all agree on that point. And no religion I am aware of supports abortion openly.

"Christianity advocates timing as the only acceptable form of birth control"

While I agree with you on the rest of it, I believe Catholics are the ones who are against birth control. There are other christian religions who belive that birth control is ok. As long as it is used before a baby is concieved (b4 the sperm and egg meet) However all christian and most other society's take a dim view of sex w/o marriage. Not just christians. In fac Muslims, Hindu's, and Jews all agree on that point. And no religion I am aware of supports abortion openly.

As a note: Many societies aren't theocracies at all--they are not "Christian societies", "Jewish societies," "Muslim societies," or "<religion> societies" for *any* religion. And off the top of my head, I can think of at least two religious denominations that officially support abortion *rights* (as I've argued before, the phrase "support abortion" is misleading): Unitarian Universalism and Reconstructionist Judaism. I'm sure there are many, many more--these just happen to be two I'm familiar with.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

I suppose there is no way to get away from religion in this, is there?


Nevermind the fact that this is being raised as a legal issue.

I will go back to what I have said for years. I do not have the right to tell any person what they may or may not do with their own body. This issue cannot be legislated. To do so devalues women.

By telling me what I must do, you are saying that you have more rights than I do over my own body.

That ain't playing well in this camp.

Sex is voluntary, pregnancy is not.



It may not be intended when two people engage in sexual activity, but they know that it is a potential outcome. There is no excuse for killing the child. If she didnt want to get pregnant, she should have not had sex (condoms and "the Pill" are other options, but Christianity advocates timing as the only acceptable form of birth control so I'm screwed out of those.) Oh well at least we've stopped arguing about CPR and Nazis.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

First of all, you cannot claim that sex is a binding contract. Making laws like that is like claiming those signs that say "trespassers will be shot" are law.

Second, the only way to prove that the women actually had sex is by having some sort of video evidence of the act in question, and you still cant neccesarily prove that that sexual act is what caused the pregnancy, so even if you did claim that when they have sex they give up thier rights, you still could enver prove they had sex.

And third, judging by your sig in all your posts, it seems you are mainly against abortion because you believe it is a sin. But I hope you take heed to the fact that humans are (apperantly according to teh bible itself) not supposed to make laws based on religion, how can god be sure the people going to heaven are not corrupt if it was impossible for them to sin? He can't, which is why even a religious person should come to the conclusion that laws should not be made based on religion.

So what your saying Little Orange Kitten, is that the unborn should not be protected, even though they have no way of defending themselves, but a women who could get on birth control, choose adoption over abortion, or a host of other things should be? You sick and your nuts. The womens right ends when it means the murder of another human being period.

Tisonica, it's not a matter of religion, (though most religions do belive it's wrong) its a matter of human decency. A society should protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Not butcher them to avoid responsibility. I hear you scream womens rights while you ignore the right of another human to live. Thats pathetic.

And by the way, in Texas, if a tresspassers will be shot sign is posted on private property, the State will defend the owners right to shoot the tresspasser. Just so you know.

Tisonica, it's not a matter of religion, (though most religions do belive it's wrong) its a matter of human decency. A society should protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Not butcher them to avoid responsibility. I hear you scream womens rights while you ignore the right of another human to live. Thats pathetic.

You cannot enslave anotehr human being just to keep one alive, and a fetus is not a human, it is a parasite.

And by the way, in Texas, if a tresspassers will be shot sign is posted on private property, the State will defend the owners right to shoot the tresspasser. Just so you know.

No, thats BS. Property rights do not override federal laws nor will they make much of a difference in civil court. If you look at child porn on private property in Texas you will be charged just as same as you would if you looked at it on public property.

SO babys are parasites now? You really are sick. And I live in Texas. Law enforcement can enter with a warrent on land marked tresspasseres will be shot. All others are entering at thier own risk here.

So what your saying Little Orange Kitten, is that the unborn should not be protected, even though they have no way of defending themselves, but a women who could get on birth control, choose adoption over abortion, or a host of other things should be? You sick and your nuts. The womens right ends when it means the murder of another human being period.

Again-read what I have said very carefully.

Don't you dare try to put words in my mouth.

I read what you said. Womens right. No one should tell her what to do. I belive I answered that fairly. Either you support baby killing or you dont. Dont get mad at me if you support something you know is bad.

Have I ever said I support anything?

Quote from kitty
"Once you aknowledge the right of a woman to control her own body, the arguement is over.


No nation can tell me what to do with my body. I can attempt to teach my children, boys along with the girls, how important this issue is. But no government agent can tell them or me what must be done with their bodies. To do so devalues women."

When you say this on the issue of killing baby's yes. Basically what you said was No nation can tell me what to do with my body, if I wanrt to kill the unborn that's my choice. I believe in protecting those who cant protect themselves. And Im unapologetic about it. An unborn baby does not deserve to die cause two people made a bade descion. And the GOVERMENT SHOULD PROTECT BABY'S! Even Roe has come out in the last few months and said she was wrong for bringing this to the supreme court. A women has all the right in the world to her body. The right to use birth control. not sleep around, make responsible decsions. That right ends however when it infringes on the right of another human being to live. In other words her rights do not make murder ok!

Abortion is the goverment decideing what people deserve to live and to die! at no point does a goverment have the right to do that! Examples of this is hitler with the jews and shang-kai-shek killing the communists in china! People do not have the right to decide if a child has the right to live or die! this is called homicide and the blood of those innocent people is upon the hands of the goverment that killed them!

Abortion is the goverment decideing what people deserve to live and to die! at no point does a goverment have the right to do that! Examples of this is hitler with the jews and shang-kai-shek killing the communists in china! People do not have the right to decide if a child has the right to live or die! this is called homicide and the blood of those innocent people is upon the hands of the goverment that killed them!

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT!?

The only country where abortion is the government deciding who lives and who dies is China, and that's because the government FORCES women to get abortions.

Abortion should be completely legal, but not perscribed by the state.

YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE UP SOMEBODY ELSE'S BODY SPACE. It's a privilege that can be revoked at any time!

Just as a landlord has the right to evict a tenant from his building, a woman should have hte right to evict a baby from her body.

Global it's the baby's right to life period. The women invited them there when they chose to have sex. Baby killing is wrong

LOL-I like the 'kitty' nic, can I keep it?

You are missing a key point here. I have tried to lead you into it gently but, apparently I need the 2X4 approach instead.

There are only two individuals that have any voice whatsoever regarding the outcome of a pregnancy-mom and dad.


They caused it. They have to live with it.


Noone else-not God's representatives, you, or the grandparents have any REAL say in this issue.


You may attempt to persuede...you can even rant and rave about it...calling ME a babykiller ain't gonna get you far, son....but you really have no voice except for when it comes to your own actions as a (potential) parent.

You can even enact laws regarding it and use all the emotional language you wish.


It still comes down to a woman deciding to have the child or not. And whether you take the responsible action of offering to support that woman and your child.


Yes, I am trying to make you consider yourself in that position...I have no doubt whatsoever that you would do what you consider right. I question whether the woman in such a situation with you would agree with you.

Calamshan-you are driving me nuts....


Do you really mean to imply by all of your arguments that the men have absolutely no part in this whatsoever?

Oh, and one last thing. My children, me you and billions of others live because we wern't murdered by sikos like you. SON?!! not hardly and even if i were I wouldnt claim someone who has no problem offing the unborn.

Kitty, I think that abortion should ONLY be the mother's choice. It's her body. Giving the father a say basically nullify's my argument.

smile-again-read all I have said very carefully.

I apologise for the 'son' comment. It was bad temper.

"Calamshan-you are driving me nuts....


Do you really mean to imply by all of your arguments that the men have absolutely no part in this whatsoever?"

If you read my posts earlier I named the guys who push women towards abortion or take part in it just as guility. The sad fact however is currently I have no say wether my child gets murdered by the mother or not. Read "I dont have the right to make a descion on my own kid" Men should act like men and take care of their responsiblitys to the child and the mother. The mother should take responsiblity for her part in getting pregnant. Instead it seems the side your on wants to make an unborn child responsible and that is wrong and SSSIIIICCCKKK!

"Calamshan-you are driving me nuts....


Do you really mean to imply by all of your arguments that the men have absolutely no part in this whatsoever?"

If you read my posts earlier I named the guys who push women towards abortion or take part in it just as guility. The sad fact however is currently I have no say wether my child gets murdered by the mother or not. Read "I dont have the right to make a descion on my own kid" Men should act like men and take care of their responsiblitys to the child and the mother. The mother should take responsiblity for her part in getting pregnant. Instead it seems the side your on wants to make an unborn child responsible and that is wrong and SSSIIIICCCKKK!

It's...the...mother's...body...not the father's or the baby's.

Global-

Now you get into some tricky ground. The fact is the pair, presumably, knew what they were doing. There are situations where drugs are involved that take knowledge of action out of the equation...while we have to craft law that aknowledges that, it's rare.

My point has always been that it is my decision what I do with my body.


At the same time, I aknowledge the father's right to offer an alternative.


That alternative may be abortion.

When it's all said and done-a woman has the ultimate control of what happens to her body-and I don't have the right to tell her what to do.

Global-

Now you get into some tricky ground. The fact is the pair, presumably, knew what they were doing. There are situations where drugs are involved that take knowledge of action out of the equation...while we have to craft law that aknowledges that, it's rare.

My point has always been that it is my decision what I do with my body.


At the same time, I aknowledge the father's right to offer an alternative.


That alternative may be abortion.

When it's all said and done-a woman has the ultimate control of what happens to her body-and I don't have the right to tell her what to do.

Think of the woman as a landlord and the baby as a tenant. A landlord and only the landlord has the right to evict a tenant.

"When it's all said and done-a woman has the ultimate control of what happens to her body-and I don't have the right to tell her what to do"

As stated before lets take away the baby's right to life entirely. And of course lets make the baby responsible for the irresponsible behavior of the parents.

If your a mom, I feel sorry for your kids.

"Think of the woman as a landlord and the baby as a tenant. A landlord and only the landlord has the right to evict a tenant"

Tenants chosed to move in. They werent moved there with out any input. And tenants can't just be evicted at a whim. There has to be a sound reason other then I just dont want you there.

"Think of the woman as a landlord and the baby as a tenant. A landlord and only the landlord has the right to evict a tenant"

Tenants chosed to move in. They werent moved there with out any input. And tenants can't just be evicted at a whim. There has to be a sound reason other then I just dont want you there.

No a landlord is allowed to evict a tenant as long as it doesn't go against any contracts they signed. It's his right to property.

So know baby's are property? I guess all our parents were once slave masters in your view then? Sheesh, with your view on human life we should all die huh.

So know baby's are property? I guess all our parents were once slave masters in your view then? Sheesh, with your view on human life we should all die huh.

NO. The mother's body is her property. Just like the landlord's building is his property.

But destroying another persons property (the baby) is just fine. Hell its my nieghborhood I dont like your house Im going to burn it.......

Crazy sick baby killers; what a sad state of affairs!

I strongly support abortion, provided it is done early in the pregnancy.

But destroying another persons property (the baby) is just fine. Hell its my nieghborhood I dont like your house Im going to burn it.......

Crazy sick baby killers; what a sad state of affairs!

You have the right to remove the baby from your body.

That it dies is just a tragic consequence.

Like if a tenant moves his property onto your land you can throw it off of your land.

Also you don't own the neighborhood, you just own the land that YOUR house is on.

Calamshan-

Now, finally, I think we may be getting somewhere.

No, I did not read your post on that. I would have probably argued that, too.

In fact, I will.


If you are engaging in sex without having made a lifetime committment to your partner, then you have absolutely no right to a voice in this issue.


If you are speaking of the world at large....you don't have a voice on this issue.

If you are pregnant, or a man whose lover/wife has become pregnant...then you have a voice.

The woman still has absolute control of her body. I would reccomend that she listen to you.


And that you swear a binding oath to care for her and your unborn child untill your dying day-since that's the oath you expect from her...seems fair.

Given that I think you have either already done so, or will do so as soon as you can find a partner who will go along with your style of thinking....

Keep your morals and ethics out of my and my children's lives. I think we are more than capable of determining right from wrong and I certainly don't need a governmental regulation telling me what I can or cannot do with my body.

well techinically the child is half the fathers chromozones make up the child so the child is both the fathers and mothers creation. and this if you compare a child in the womb to a tenant and a land lord than you must consider one more thing. When a tenant rents an apartment there is a contract and the tenant cannot be thrown off unless there is a breach of contract. The mother knew what the child would be doing in thr womb and by haveing sex makeing a contact for that child to live in the womb and knew what the child wou;ld be doing there and the child cannot do anything else so your argument is bust.

No a landlord is allowed to evict a tenant as long as it doesn't go against any contracts they signed. It's his right to property.

But a when a landlord choses to evict he has to give a warning, in which the tenant has a fixed amout of time to leave and find somewhere else to live. As you see there are 2 very diffrent things in relation to abortion...

1- the tenant doesnt leave on the day the landlord says for him to leave, but months later...

2- the tenant then has a chance to go LIVE somewhere else... and thats a BIG diffrence! He doesnt go out onto the street on the day the landlord says "out"

Funny how a mother of several children, that is pro-choice, comes along and mentions that a the father of the child should have the right to an alternative.

it always comes down to the diffrence between what some consider a human and should have rights, and what other consider a part of a human body (from appendices to parasites?!) and by right belong to the body they are in.

The tenant CAN be thrown off whenever the landlord wants if there wans't a contract to start with.

IT'S THE MOTHER's BODY. The baby's chromosomes are irrelevant.

Smile-I made that comparison off the cuff....but it follows. When you-as a mother-do everything you can to promote the health of the baby, it can become a landlord/tenant relationship-grin. I like coffee. Few of my children in-utero have liked coffee. Ultimately, I gave up the coffee. Temporarily. :D

Well the mother did make a contact with the child when she had sex! your argument has no base to it!

Even your fellow conservatives disagree with you: http://www.capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm


Abortion is pro-life; anti-abortion is anti-life

What is abortion?
Abortion is the removal of a fetus from the body of its host (a pregnant woman) which typically results in the death of the fetus.

What is the essential issue concerning abortion?
The essential question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have an inalienable right to be in the body of its' host against the host's will?

Doesn't a fetus have a right to be in the womb of its host?
A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is only in there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time. Rights are not permissions; permissions are not rights. This permission is given by the woman, because it is her body -- and not the fetus's body, and certainly not the government's body.

To give a fetus "rights" superior to a pregnant woman is to eradicate the woman's right to her body. The principle here is: any right that contradicts the right of another cannot be a right, as rights form an integrated whole. Contrary to the opinion of anti-lifers (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig.

Why is abortion not murder?
Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not a human being -- it is a potential human being, i.e. it is part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being, i.e., such as when "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics.

Isn't the fetus "life", and therefore has a right to life?
You are equivocating on the term "life" which is a concept that includes everything that is living. Dogs are "life" but they do not have rights. What about ants? So are trees "life", yet they do not have rights (contrary to the mouthing of man-hating environmentalists). Rights only apply to human beings, and not to human tissue.

Rights apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason (unlike dogs, trees, ants -- and fetuses). Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings -- and not parts of beings -- survive by reason. Please keep in mind what a right is: a right is a moral sanction for freedom of action in a social context. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host. The only action it must take is nothing, i.e., wait for itself to develop using the sustenance provided by its host.

What is the capitalist view on abortion?
Given the above, under capitalism abortion is an inalienable right. Any one who advocates the outlawing of abortion -- like Steve Forbes -- is an enemy of individual rights, and thus of capitalism.

Do children have no rights?
Children, unlike fetuses, do have rights. A new born child, unlike a fetus, is a physically separate entity. A child is an actual human being, with a capability to reason, and thus a child has the same right to life as any adult. However, the application of this right differs in practice from that of an adult, as a child's conceptual faculty is not fully developed. That is why a six year old does not have the right to choose to enter into a sexual relationship -- and an adult does.

Recommended Links:

Abortion is Pro-Life.com - Features an expanded version of this FAQ.

Oh, dear. Let me catch up. I spent too much time handing out treats to the kiddos....I'll be back to the debate soon.

Kitty

The tenant CAN be thrown off whenever the landlord wants if there wans't a contract to start with.

IT'S THE MOTHER's BODY. The baby's chromosomes are irrelevant.

No, the tenant can say you have a month to leave (or whatever time the law states where it is), he cant just arrive one sunday afternoon out of the blue and say leave now..

Well this is my last post. On this subject at any rate. Debating with folks who can't see that a baby has the right to live, we'll it like drinking non-alcoholic beer. There is no point. If you dont respect life as something sacred then indeed your world is sad. As for what you teach your kids, I hope you tell them that there lucky you didn't kill em. I mean with your view on a baby's right to life you could have easly done so. And probably thought about it no doubt. If they end up in someone's house, having been invited there but some uy just changes his mind and kills them, I hope you remeber this conversation.
As for me, I got married and have two wonderful children. I teach them to respect life. And that they must take resposibility for thier actions. You see I dont believe in making a helpless unborn child responsible for bad jusdgment on my my part, and would never give a death sentence to an unborn human being just to avoid responsibility. There are to many options available and to musch state assistace for the mother cant take care of them arguement to fly. I wish ou the best and pray for childrens sake that you dont get pregnant and decide murder is the only option.

Well the mother did make a contact with the child when she had sex! your argument has no base to it!

No she didn't. I can't see any contract. And you have to prove she did.

Sex was voluntary, pregnancy was not.

Pregnancy is also not a forseeable consequence of sex... over 90% of pregnancies are naturally aborted in their first two weeks because the mother's immune system attacks the baby because it doesn't recognize it's DNA.

Which makes it extremely rare for rapes or one-night stands to result in sustained pregnancy.

ohh this is a good argument who says that 1 persons views are all of our? i c that you brought up another subject to avoid what we were talking about just admit u have no argument!

yah but she WHEN SHE HAD SEX SHE KNEW THE CONMSEQUENCES! SHE KNEW HAVEING SEX WOULD MOSTLY LIKELY CAUSE PREGNANCY! and she willing allowed the child into her when she had sex! id she didnt want the child in her she shouldnt have had sex!

ohh this is a good argument who says that 1 persons views are all of our? i c that you brought up another subject to avoid what we were talking about just admit u have no argument!

Capitalism.org has a very good section on abortion. What's wrong with quoting it again...?

Well the mother did make a contact with the child when she had sex! your argument has no base to it!

I could argue that the 'mother' (who wasn't a mother at the time of the event) was making contact with the 'father' (who wasn't a father at the time of the event) and that, therefore, the aforesaid mother and father are the individuals most concerned with the outcome of the act.


Not us.

im saying that this extract does not stand for what all conservatiuves believe so u cannot use it to refer to all of us!

yah but she WHEN SHE HAD SEX SHE KNEW THE CONMSEQUENCES! SHE KNEW HAVEING SEX WOULD MOSTLY LIKELY CAUSE PREGNANCY! and she willing allowed the child into her when she had sex! id she didnt want the child in her she shouldnt have had sex!

Not paying attention in high school biology or health class will most likely casue outlandish claims like having sex will most likely cause pregnancy!

Pregnancies are usually terminated within the first 1-2 weeks because the mother's immune system attacks the baby since it thinks it's cancer (doesn't recognize the father's DNA). Less than 10% of babies survive the first three weeks, and that number is FAR lower in cases of rape or one-night stands because the mother's immune system is less likely to recognize the DNA. Having sex is also a fundamental human right that violates nobody's rights.

im saying that this extract does not stand for what all conservatiuves believe so u cannot use it to refer to all of us!

I didn't. I said OTHER conservatives as in not you.

but she still knew the consequences i was wrong with saying mosty likely but she still know the possible consequences. if you play with knifes and and cut yourself you knew that consequences so grow and except consequences of your actions

therw are probly some liberals that think abortion is wrong

but she still knew the consequences i was wrong with saying mosty likely but she still know the possible consequences. if you play with knifes and and cut yourself you knew that consequences so grow and except consequences of your actions

If I cut myself I have the right to put iodine or whatever on my cut to make it better, don't I?

Theoretically if I were female, why shouldn't I have the right to inject Sodium in my womb to make myself better?

This seems endless.


brb

ther are probly some liberals that think abortion are wrong

There are a lot of liberals that think abortion is wrong.

In fact, I'd say most Americans think abortion is morally wrong. The difference is that just because you think something is wrong doesn't mean you think it should be illegal. Many people support legal abortion because they oppose imposing their morality on other people.

My point is that is a good site, not that it is conservative.

ohh this is a good argument who says that 1 persons views are all of our? i c that you brought up another subject to avoid what we were talking about just admit u have no argument!

Capitalism.org has a very good section on abortion. What's wrong with quoting it again...?

Who says we're conservatives? are all pro-life conservatives?

That article is a point of view, as valids as mine or yours. One of course with which i dont agree ( on several things such as a fetus is not alive, or that it refers the fetus as not living but still calls the mother a host, contraditory at least) and you might..

But since capitalism.org isnt participating in the discussion, so i wont go into what i agree or not deeply anyways...

And responding to Kittten, i believe that the government not only has a right but a duty to stop letting you harm what will be a human being should it be allowed to evolve naturally.
A woman takes a known risk, and there are several options before and after to solve the problem... (from condoms to adoption, from sexual education to family planning)

Abortion is simply taking the easy way out, and is a sign of complete irrisponsibility towards life and also a womans body...

Global if anyone in the conservative republican party is pro-abortion then they aren't a conservative republican (note not commenting on abortion Ive made my stance clear). The conservative republican position is that abortion is murder, I should know. Ive been a card carrying republican since 91' and Im also a contributor and recruiter to for them. Why? I belive that life matters.

yes i was useing it as an example that you know the consequences of an actiona and when you get those consquences you need to live with it! And yes you can treat it but you cannot kill another to do so and i didnt realize that you killed a PERSON when you use idone whereas in abortion you kill another human

ohh this is a good argument who says that 1 persons views are all of our? i c that you brought up another subject to avoid what we were talking about just admit u have no argument!

Capitalism.org has a very good section on abortion. What's wrong with quoting it again...?

Who says we're conservatives? are all pro-life conservatives?

That article is a point of view, as valids as mine or yours. One of course with which i dont agree ( on several things such as a fetus is not alive, or that it refers the fetus as not living but still calls the mother a host, contraditory at least) and you might..

But since capitalism.org isnt participating in the discussion, so i wont so into what i agree or not deeply anyways...

And responding to Kittten, i believe that the government not only has a right but a duty to stop letting you harm what will be a human being should it be allowed to evolve naturally.
A woman takes a known risk, and there are several options before and after to solve the problem... (from condoms to adoption, from sexual education to family planning)

Abortion is simply taking the easy way out, and is a sign of complete irrisponsibility towards life and also a womans body...

... WHEN I SAID CONSERVATIVE THAT WAS AN ANECDOTE. PLEASE ACTUALLY READ THE ARGUMENT AND NOT THE WORD CONSERVATIVE.

Anyways, a woman has a right to life which entails the right to her body. She has teh right to cut the baby out of her body at any time she wishes!

www.abortionisprolife.com

yes i was useing it as an example that you know the consequences of an actiona and when you get those consquences you need to live with it! And yes you can treat it but you cannot kill another to do so and i didnt realize that you killed a PERSON when you use idone whereas in abortion you kill another human

You can remove teh baby from your body... If it dies that's just a side-effect. It doesn't have the RIGHT to be in you without your consent. That's called 'rape'.

Originally Posted by good ol' Calamshan

Keep the U.N. Out of Calamshan's bedrooms. Really folks the U.N. has NO RIGHT WHAT SO EVER to make laws concerning sex. Come on you pervs, move along, move along....



*Whistles Innocently*

:twisted:

You be screwed, methinks. Is a law on abortion a law concerning sex? Hmmm... let me think... yep, I'd say it is!

:roll:

Goodbye, and thank you for watching...

exactly this is a right to life and the woman has the right to her body but the child isnt her body!

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.

What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.

exactly this is a right to life and the woman has the right to her body but the child isnt her body!

But the womb is.

When the baby is in the womb, it is, biologically a parasite. A woman has teh right to remove it whenever she wants.

[... WHEN I SAID CONSERVATIVE THAT WAS AN ANECDOTE. PLEASE ACTUALLY READ THE ARGUMENT AND NOT THE WORD CONSERVATIVE.

Anyways, a woman has a right to life which entails the right to her body. She has teh right to cut the baby out of her body at any time she wishes!

www.abortionisprolife.com

Sorry, seems i wasnt the only understanding it like that though...

Yes a woman has a right to life, but is having a baby going to take her that right? Why does her having a right to live give her the right to "cut out the baby"? My mother had me and several of my brothers and she still lived so i dont see how i took her away her right to live? o why is abortion prolife? in abortion there is a death (even if its a celular death), while in the opposite there is no death (no cells die unaturally)

Saying that abortion is prolife is, imho, like saying snow is hot...

SOOO THE CHILD IS STILL A UNIQUE PERSON! and the womb is necessary for the child's survival! So is parents to a child very soon after birth. so would you take the parents away froma child becuase they dont wan to spend their time and money on a child?

[... WHEN I SAID CONSERVATIVE THAT WAS AN ANECDOTE. PLEASE ACTUALLY READ THE ARGUMENT AND NOT THE WORD CONSERVATIVE.

Anyways, a woman has a right to life which entails the right to her body. She has teh right to cut the baby out of her body at any time she wishes!

www.abortionisprolife.com

Sorry, seems i wasnt the only understanding it like that though...

Yes a woman has a right to life, but is having a baby going to take her that right? Why does her having a right to live give her the right to "cut out the baby"? My mother had me and several of my brothers and she still lived so i dont see how i took her away her right to live? o why is abortion prolife? in abortion there is a death (even if its a celular death), while in the opposite there is no death (no cells die unaturally)

Saying that abortion is prolife is, imho, like saying snow is hot...

The right to your own body is fundamentally and intrinsically tied in with the right to life.

Just as the right to life allows you to file charges when someone attacks you but doesn't kill you.

As a woman has a right to choose who she has sex with (as her body is her property), so is it a woman's right to choose what can and cannot remain inside her body (as her body is her property). As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.

No its not a law on sex. Sex is what happens b4 conception. Murder is what happens when you have no respect for human life. Im not dictacting sex. Im saying I believe in the right of the baby to live. Not be murdered. Has nothing to do with the act itself. But the rather the sanctity of a life. One is a sex issue. The other is a human rights issue, And i belive that a baby's right to live overrules a womens right to avoid responsibility.

SOOO THE CHILD IS STILL A UNIQUE PERSON! and the womb is necessary for the child's survival! So is parents to a child very soon after birth. so would you take the parents away froma child becuase they dont wan to spend their time and money on a child?

Once again, your right to life doesn't extend to your right to enslave others. Even if someone is starving they don't have the right to rob you.

You don't have the RIGHT to anything physical object without actually creating it or getting it by the permission of its owner.

I suppot abortion. I believe that a woman should have the right to abort her baby if the baby does not have the ability to survive in the world either on its own or with machines. Until a baby reaches this point, I do not consider the baby to have any rights. In fact, until a baby can survive on its own the baby is a part of a woman's body. And, as a part of a womans body, the mother should have the right to do with her body as sees fit. If the woman chooses to rid herself of the fetus it should be allowed. After all women are allowed to pierce any part of their body that they wish. Why should a dependant child be any different? A woman should not be forced to be the sole support of another life.

I suppot abortion. I believe that a woman should have the right to abort her baby if the baby does not have the ability to survive in the world either on its own or with machines. Until a baby reaches this point, I do not consider the baby to have any rights. In fact, until a baby can survive on its own the baby is a part of a woman's body. And, as a part of a womans body, the mother should have the right to do with her body as sees fit. If the woman chooses to rid herself of the fetus it should be allowed. After all women are allowed to pierce any part of their body that they wish. Why should a dependant child be any different? A woman should not be forced to be the sole support of another life.

True. You dont have the right to kill a kid just cause your poor or daddy might find out. Thanks for arguing my point nerd!

No its not a law on sex. Sex is what happens b4 conception. Murder is what happens when you have no respect for human life. Im not dictacting sex. Im saying I believe in the right of the baby to live. Not be murdered. Has nothing to do with the act itself. But the rather the sanctity of a life. One is a sex issue. The other is a human rights issue, And i belive that a baby's right to live overrules a womens right to avoid responsibility.

It has everything to do with a woman's body. Forcing her to keep the baby is DICTATING how she is to use her body. It is just like rape or slavery.

liike i said! Does a parent after a child born just leave the child to die because they dont want to waste the time and money? NO! (the ones who do are convicted with homicide!). This is the same thing by takeing the child oput of the womb you are intentionally killing the child!

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.

What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.

but who put the baby in there? did the fetus ask to be brought to life? (in all cases but rape it was with the knowing consent that it happened! (or at least the knowing of that possibility!) So if the woman is partly responsible for the fetus being where it is it has to assume that responsibility.
Your analogy is wrong, because your assuming the phisically dependant adult asked to be connected. You have to compare is if an adult(1) was dependantly connected to another(2) (in which the other(2) assumed part of the responsibility of that happening) does the other (2) have the right to then dissconnect the dependants adult(1) if it mean it will kill him(1)? I And dont say yes he does, because you know he doesnt...

pro-life are against the right to life? hunh? that makes no sense? who's life is threatened by pro-lifers ideas?

True. You dont have the right to kill a kid just cause your poor or daddy might find out. Thanks for arguing my point nerd!

What the hell? Where did you get this?

Portugal they know it. They use terms like slavery to avoid the real issue. Takeing responsibilty for ones actions and the sanctity of human life. Personally I think thier thier happy to see innocent baby's die because then they dont have to pay for it.

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.

What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.

but who put the baby in there? did the fetus ask to be brought to life? (in all cases but rape it was with the knowing consent that it happened! (or at least the knowing of that possibility!) So if the woman is partly responsible for the fetus being where it is it has to assume that responsibility.
Your analogy is wrong, because your assuming the phisically dependant adult asked to be connected. You have to compare is if an adult(1) was dependantly connected to another(2) (in which the other(2) assumed part of the responsibility of that happening) does the other (2) have the right to then dissconnect the dependants adult(1) if it mean it will kill him(1)? I And dont say yes he does, because you know he doesnt...

pro-life are against the right to life? hunh? that makes no sense? who's life is threatened by pro-lifers ideas?

To your first question, if somebody has to be connected to me to survive, I have the right to disconnect him from me. There is no such thing as the right to enslave.

Clearly, if the woman chooses to have sex, their would be no justification for her being forced to carry the fetus, as the essential issue is not a matter of sexual history, but a matter of rights. As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.

how is this like rape? the woman had sex willingly and is now pregnant! And salvery no slave willingly went aboard a slave ship in the 18th century whereas the mother knowing the possible consequences of haveing sex

"What the hell? Where did you get this?"

If I fo;;ow your ratioal there bub, when you said a person cant rob you just cause there poor, you stated my case. A women cant just kill someone cause she doesnt want to be responsible for what she did.

Thanks for playing 8)

The right to your own body is fundamentally and intrinsically tied in with the right to life.

Just as the right to life allows you to file charges when someone attacks you but doesn't kill you.

As a woman has a right to choose who she has sex with (as her body is her property), so is it a woman's right to choose what can and cannot remain inside her body (as her body is her property). As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.

i still dont see how pro-life is against life? the mother lives even if she has the baby! that makes no sense.

Like i said, the fetus didnt enter the womb on porpose and against the womans will! it enetered it without wanting to and because the woman took a risk for it to happen! so it isnt rape, now is it?!

Portugal they know it. They use terms like slavery to avoid the real issue. Takeing responsibilty for ones actions and the sanctity of human life. Personally I think thier thier happy to see innocent baby's die because then they dont have to pay for it.

Ad hominem anybody?

The woman IS being enslaved because you are having the GOVERNMENT dictate how she is to use her body. WOMEN ARE NOT BREEDING PIGS FOR THE STATE TO USE.

And of Portugal, as I said earlier:

Clearly, if the woman chooses to have sex, their would be no justification for her being forced to carry the fetus, as the essential issue is not a matter of sexual history, but a matter of rights. As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.

"What the hell? Where did you get this?"

If I fo;;ow your ratioal there bub, when you said a person cant rob you just cause there poor, you stated my case. A women cant just kill someone cause she doesnt want to be responsible for what she did.

Thanks for playing 8)

Only the baby live exclusively off of the host (the mother). Biologically speaking it is a parasite. It doesn't have the RIGHT to rob from the mother (the nutrients and body space which belong to her).

To your first question, if somebody has to be connected to me to survive, I have the right to disconnect him from me. There is no such thing as the right to enslave.

Clearly, if the woman chooses to have sex, their would be no justification for her being forced to carry the fetus, as the essential issue is not a matter of sexual history, but a matter of rights. As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.

So if i take you, make it so that you are dependant on me to live without your consent then i have the full right to kill you by disconnecting you because you are enslaving me? Is that what your actually saying?

i agree the child did not choose to be dependent on a homicidel mother!

Only the baby live exclusively off of the host (the mother). Biologically speaking it is a parasite. It doesn't have the RIGHT to rob from the mother (the nutrients and body space which belong to her).

But it was the mother that put it there in the first place! so she offered the place and offerred the nutrients!

and a parasite by definition comes form outside the body, and is not formed within the body!

To your first question, if somebody has to be connected to me to survive, I have the right to disconnect him from me. There is no such thing as the right to enslave.

Clearly, if the woman chooses to have sex, their would be no justification for her being forced to carry the fetus, as the essential issue is not a matter of sexual history, but a matter of rights. As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.

So if i take you, make it so that you are dependant on me to live without your consent then i have the full right to kill you by disconnecting you because you are enslaving me? Is that what your actually saying?

If you are physically dependant, yes. I could disconnect you. ANd if no one else wants you connected to them, well then you don't have the right to enslave.

Global YOU CANT POSSIBLE BELIVE THAT CRAP!!!! I mean your part of the human race. Ever look at a baby? There not crimminals. They got put there cause mom and dad had sex. And they have the right to life. Stop being a Hitler wanna be. Care about life. Your mom did.

The source of the right to life is not the choices of one's parents, e.g. a two year old child's rights are not based on any decisions made by its parents. The source of the right to life is one's nature as a rational being. Similarly, a fetus' lack of rights, are based on its nature as human tissue—and not on the choices of those who brought it into being.

The fact is that either the fetus has a right to be inside a woman by its nature, or it does not—the issue of whether the girl chose to have sex, or not, is irrelevant. The proper response to the "choose to have sex" argument is to dismiss such an argument as irrelevant.

Global YOU CANT POSSIBLE BELIVE THAT CRAP!!!! I mean your part of the human race. Ever look at a baby? There not crimminals. They got put there cause mom and dad had sex. And they have the right to life. Stop being a Hitler wanna be. Care about life. Your mom did.

This might be personal, but i psoted a proposal for ANTI ABORTION in UN Propsoals. What is your view on it?

Layarteb, being a conservative nation, does not support abortion except in three scenarios. If a woman is raped she can be given an abortion at the expense of her rapist, if none is caught it is at the expense of the state until the rapist is caught, then they will handle the expense. If a child will kill the mother or be born retarded or mentally handicapped, an abortion will be provided at the expense of the state. All abortions must be done BEFORE brain waves develop on the child. Legal definition of death is a cessation of brainwaves, therefore without brainwaves something cannot be alive and thus is not alive.

Thank You

Only the baby live exclusively off of the host (the mother). Biologically speaking it is a parasite. It doesn't have the RIGHT to rob from the mother (the nutrients and body space which belong to her).

But it was the mother that put it there in the first place! so she offered the place and offerred the nutrients!

and a parasite by definition comes form outside the body, and is not formed within the body!

Do you know what endoparasites are? Those are parasites that are generated within the body like worms in your digestive tract or something.

So if i take you, make it so that you are dependant on me to live without your consent then i have the full right to kill you by disconnecting you because you are enslaving me? Is that what your actually saying?

If you are physically dependant, yes. I could disconnect you. ANd if no one else wants you connected to them, well then you don't have the right to enslave.

Are you kidding me? I'm the one who put you there in the first place without asking you if you wanted to be there! Once i do that i am responsible for you! I cant just go and change your life without you asking and then throw you away once i'm fed up!

Global YOU CANT POSSIBLE BELIVE THAT CRAP!!!! I mean your part of the human race. Ever look at a baby? There not crimminals. They got put there cause mom and dad had sex. And they have the right to life. Stop being a Hitler wanna be. Care about life. Your mom did.

I do. I want the STATE not to interfere with a woman's RIGHT TO HER BODY. Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term is equivalent to slavery.

Women are not tools for creating babies. Believe it or not they have rights.

So if i take you, make it so that you are dependant on me to live without your consent then i have the full right to kill you by disconnecting you because you are enslaving me? Is that what your actually saying?

If you are physically dependant, yes. I could disconnect you. ANd if no one else wants you connected to them, well then you don't have the right to enslave.

Are you kidding me? I'm the one who put you there in the first place without asking you if you wanted to be there! Once i do that i am responsible for you! I cant just go and change your life without you asking and then throw you away once i'm fed up!

That is IRRELEVANT. The fact is that either the fetus has a right to be inside a woman by its nature, or it does not—the issue of whether the girl chose to have sex, or not, is irrelevant.

Only the baby live exclusively off of the host (the mother). Biologically speaking it is a parasite. It doesn't have the RIGHT to rob from the mother (the nutrients and body space which belong to her).

But it was the mother that put it there in the first place! so she offered the place and offerred the nutrients!

and a parasite by definition comes form outside the body, and is not formed within the body!

Do you know what endoparasites are? Those are parasites that are generated within the body like worms in your digestive tract or something.

Do you know that those worms come from eggs outside your body? that their genetic code has nothing to do with your body? that a fetuses genetic code is 50% of the womans?

Only the baby live exclusively off of the host (the mother). Biologically speaking it is a parasite. It doesn't have the RIGHT to rob from the mother (the nutrients and body space which belong to her).

But it was the mother that put it there in the first place! so she offered the place and offerred the nutrients!

and a parasite by definition comes form outside the body, and is not formed within the body!

Do you know what endoparasites are? Those are parasites that are generated within the body like worms in your digestive tract or something.

Do you know that those worms come from eggs outside your body? that their genetic code has nothing to do with your body? that a fetuses genetic code is 50% of the womans?

And the babies come from sperm from out of your body too.

And cancer cellss are 100% your genetic code... you aren't suggesting we should abolish cancer treatment?

SO babys are parasites now? You really are sick.

You have no logical rebuttal so you flame.

Very mature... :roll:

And I live in Texas. Law enforcement can enter with a warrent on land marked tresspasseres will be shot. All others are entering at thier own risk here.

No, it's a common misconseption that you can shoot anyone on your property, you can't, espescially not more than once. The only thing that is different in Texas is they wont charge you for murder or manslaughter, but they can and probably will charge you for wreckless endangerment or something of the sort. And you most likely will be slapped with a huge wrongfull death lawsuit if you kill the person and an assualt lawsuit if you don't. So even if you avoid prison, your making payments for the rest of your life.

But it is NOT legal anywhere to shoot somebody on your property, the courts in Texas just don't charge people for it. Which could change if a new DA was elected.

wrong quote... global market asked how i got the guy ther in the first place


I just did! like u said just now

"The fact is that either the fetus has a right to be inside a woman by its nature, or it does not—the issue of whether the girl chose to have sex, or not, is irrelevant. The proper response to the "choose to have sex" argument is to dismiss such an argument as irrelevant."

so the issue of how the guy got their in the first place irrelevant...

And the babies come from sperm from out of your body too.

And cancer cellss are 100% your genetic code... you aren't suggesting we should abolish cancer treatment?

cancer kills people, babies dont kill their mothers (and in the cases they do, everyone (and i mean everyone) supports abortion in that case)

And killing another human being is murder. So what your saying is that murder is preferable to a women not being responsible? A worm is all a baby is to you? And I suppose you think peach seeds grow apple trees. Its a ddamnded human being. And while I admit people like you make abortion look tempeting (READ MAYBE YOUR MOM SHOULD A HAD ONE) it's wrong killing babys is WRONG! What about the baby's right to its body? A women made her choice. She had the right to say no. To choose adoption, to actually get married possibly b4 f*cking around. Now it's the baby's rights. Not the mom's. PERIOD> END OF SUBJECT>

]SO babys are parasites now? You really are sick.

My AP Biology Textbook's Glossary defines a Parasite as: "An organism that absorbs nutrients from the body fluids of living hosts."

A fetus fits that definition pretty well.

Parasitism is: "A symbiotic relationship in which the symbiont (parasite) benefits at the expense of the host by living either within the host (endoparasite) or outside the host (ectoparasite)."

That fits pretty well too. The mother is physically harmed from having the baby since it screws up her chemical balances and requires her to consume more resources.

And the babies come from sperm from out of your body too.

And cancer cellss are 100% your genetic code... you aren't suggesting we should abolish cancer treatment?

cancer kills people, babies dont kill their mothers (and in the cases they do, everyone (and i mean everyone) supports abortion in that case)

Fine, what about benign tumors or warts?

And the babies come from sperm from out of your body too.

And cancer cellss are 100% your genetic code... you aren't suggesting we should abolish cancer treatment?

cancer kills people, babies dont kill their mothers

Not true, cancer weakens people. They essential just wither away, but Cancer does not kill them. It takes over thier body and uses it to feed itself, just like a baby.

(and in the cases they do, everyone (and i mean everyone) supports abortion in that case)

Also not true, many people on NS are insane morons.

And killing another human being is murder. So what your saying is that murder is preferable to a women not being responsible? A worm is all a baby is to you? And I suppose you think peach seeds grow apple trees. Its a ddamnded human being. And while I admit people like you make abortion look tempeting (READ MAYBE YOUR MOM SHOULD A HAD ONE) it's wrong killing babys is WRONG! What about the baby's right to its body? A women made her choice. She had the right to say no. To choose adoption, to actually get married possibly b4 f*cking around. Now it's the baby's rights. Not the mom's. PERIOD> END OF SUBJECT>

My mom did have an abortion. When I was 4. We weren't US citizens at the time and we'd just come over from China with no money and she had a job as a waitress to put my dad through college, so we didn't really have many options...

I agree. Abortion should be banned forever.

The mother is physically harmed from having the baby since it screws up her chemical balances and requires her to consume more resources.

i cant beleive you actually think that a baby phisically harms a mother. yes it consumes more nutrients, but so does the mother,and it isnt the baby that cause the chemicals to change their balance, but the mother that does that...

as i see it..

abortion: an orgasim formed of everal billion cells die.

no abortion : no cell that wasnt going already to die, dies..

so who's the real pro-life?

So Global, your mom killed your brother or sister and your all warm and fuzzy about it. At least now though I can see why you think like you do. Stupid people shouldn't breed.

I agree. Abortion should be banned forever.

Okay, now you've taken abortion out of the realm of morality and into the realm of law. All gloves are off.

Banning abortion will simply create an abortion black market. This happened in teh United States before Roe v. Wade.

Deaths per 1,000 abortions before Roe v. Wade: About 75
Deaths per 1,000 abortions today: Less than 0.6

A lot of Americans also simply took a trip to Japan to get an abortion.

Many Americans who couldn't afford that got abortions from backyard abortionists such as barber clinics. Many of them were poorly informed (because information on something illegal, is by definition, costly), and there have been studies out saying that MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN AN ABORTION IF THEY COULD HAVE LEGALLY ACQUIRED MORE INFORMATION. A lot of them ended up dying or were crippled for life because barbers tend to not have surgical skills.

There was a huge essay in it in an ECONOMICS book about why abolishing abortion is moronic. I don't have it any more but I do remember a lot of things from it.

The mother is physically harmed from having the baby since it screws up her chemical balances and requires her to consume more resources.

i cant beleive you actually think that a baby phisically harms a mother. yes it consumes more nutrients, but so does the mother,and it isnt the baby that cause the chemicals to change their balance, but the mother that does that...

as i see it..

abortion: an orgasim formed of everal billion cells die.

no abortion : no cell that wasnt going already to die, dies..

so who's the real pro-life?

Where did you get that definition? American Heritage defines it as:
1a. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival. b. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion. 2. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage. 3. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation. 4. An aborted organism. 5. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.

So Global, your mom killed your brother or sister and your all warm and fuzzy about it. At least now though I can see why you think like you do. Stupid people shouldn't breed.

I'm stupid? You didn't even know what the definition of a parasite was.

Not true, cancer weakens people. They essential just wither away, but Cancer does not kill them. It takes over thier body and uses it to feed itself, just like a baby.


1 . cancer does kill, if it is the main cause for them to die then it kills, brain tumors take over your functions untill you cant function, so it does kill. Like you said it takes over their body


Also not true, many people on NS are insane morons.

so were just saying no to everything now?

Not true, cancer weakens people. They essential just wither away, but Cancer does not kill them. It takes over thier body and uses it to feed itself, just like a baby.


1 . cancer does kill, if it is the main cause for them to die then it kills, brain tumors take over your functions untill you cant function, so it does kill. Like you said it takes over their body


Also not true, many people on NS are insane morons.

so were just saying no to everything now?

What about benign cancers like warts or moles? Don't you have a right to get rid of those? They're 100% your DNA.

To follow that logic, we shouldn't ban murder either. I mean people are going to kill regardless right? Why have traffic laws, after people just break the law. The law should Be inacted and enforced. It should also include proscution of citizens who go to japan for an abortion. ITS WRONG TO KILL BABYS!

To follow that logic, we shouldn't ban murder either. I mean people are going to kill regardless right? Why have traffic laws, after people just break the law. The law should Be inacted and enforced. It should also include proscution of citizens who go to japan for an abortion. ITS WRONG TO KILL BABYS!

Only murder is actually intiating physical force against another PERSON. Abortion is merely preventing another person from accessing your internal resources. There's a huge difference. And the people who went to Japan were people like actresses and the daughters of rich and powerful men. You don't punish those kinds of high-power people for something like that without inviting retribution. In addition, there would probably be some diplomatic schizms with Japan if you did that.

Okay, now you've taken abortion out of the realm of morality and into the realm of law. All gloves are off.

Banning abortion will simply create an abortion black market. This happened in teh United States before Roe v. Wade.

Deaths per 1,000 abortions before Roe v. Wade: About 75
Deaths per 1,000 abortions today: Less than 0.6

A lot of Americans also simply took a trip to Japan to get an abortion.

Many Americans who couldn't afford that got abortions from backyard abortionists such as barber clinics. Many of them were poorly informed (because information on something illegal, is by definition, costly), and there have been studies out saying that MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN AN ABORTION IF THEY COULD HAVE LEGALLY ACQUIRED MORE INFORMATION. A lot of them ended up dying or were crippled for life because barbers tend to not have surgical skills.

There was a huge essay in it in an ECONOMICS book about why abolishing abortion is moronic. I don't have it any more but I do remember a lot of things from it.

So, what your saying is just because people die because people dont obey sepped limit laws we should take away speed limit laws? comical in the least...

Wrong again Global. I never made any statement about parasites other than a baby is a human, not a parasite. Go spin your pro-baby killing non sense to another cold blooded killer. I for one will NEVER SUPPORT SLAYING INNOCENT CHILDREN!!!

What about benign cancers like warts or moles? Don't you have a right to get rid of those? They're 100% your DNA.

PLEASE! if they are one day going to be a human being then i dont! you had any wart you didnt get rid of evolve into a conscient independent being lately?

Okay, now you've taken abortion out of the realm of morality and into the realm of law. All gloves are off.

Banning abortion will simply create an abortion black market. This happened in teh United States before Roe v. Wade.

Deaths per 1,000 abortions before Roe v. Wade: About 75
Deaths per 1,000 abortions today: Less than 0.6

A lot of Americans also simply took a trip to Japan to get an abortion.

Many Americans who couldn't afford that got abortions from backyard abortionists such as barber clinics. Many of them were poorly informed (because information on something illegal, is by definition, costly), and there have been studies out saying that MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN AN ABORTION IF THEY COULD HAVE LEGALLY ACQUIRED MORE INFORMATION. A lot of them ended up dying or were crippled for life because barbers tend to not have surgical skills.

There was a huge essay in it in an ECONOMICS book about why abolishing abortion is moronic. I don't have it any more but I do remember a lot of things from it.

So, what your saying is just because people die because people dont obey sepped limit laws we should take away speed limit laws? comical in the least...

First of all we should take away speed limit laws because you have the right to drive your car however fast you want. If you actually hit someone then we can sue you for reckless endangerment.

But back to the point, the thing is legal abortions are much safer than black-market abortions, whereas legal murder is just as deadly as illegal murder, and legal reckless endangerment is just as deadly as illegal r.e.

I also believe we should legalize most drugs. THAT is the better analogy. Abolishing drugs has only opened up a huge black-market and tons of violence and conflict between gangs. 60% of imprisoned Americans are tehre because of drug related abuses. We had similiar problems with abortion before we legalized it.

What about benign cancers like warts or moles? Don't you have a right to get rid of those? They're 100% your DNA.

PLEASE! if they are one day going to be a human being then i dont! you had any wart you didnt get rid of evolve into a conscient independent being lately?

Put them in the right chemical solution and any cells in your body can become a conscient fully independent being.

People have been able to synthesize gametes using skin cells.

Where did you get that definition? American Heritage defines it as:
1a. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival. b. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion. 2. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage. 3. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation. 4. An aborted organism. 5. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.

Uh, so? what i said still remains true... in abortion the fetus dies!, without it it lives! maybe you should take the chance to look up pro and life while your at it, you might see something like "for or supportive" and "of life"

"Only murder is actually intiating physical force against another PERSON. Abortion is merely preventing another person from accessing your internal resources. There's a huge difference."

Oh so baby's arn't physically and forcefully killed in the moms womb? And FYI a mother produces extra resources in the womb while pregnant. Go read a biology book instead of a pro-abortion pamplet Einstien.

I know it's murder and so do you. It's just easier if you knock some one up or get knocked up to avoid the whole mess by placing the blame on a defensless child and thenm killing it. You make me sick!

Where did you get that definition? American Heritage defines it as:
1a. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival. b. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion. 2. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage. 3. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation. 4. An aborted organism. 5. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.

Uh, so? what i said still remains true... in abortion the fetus dies!, without it it lives! maybe you should take the chance to look up pro and life while your at it, you might see something like "for or supportive" and "of life"

With antibiotics, E Coli dies! Without it, E-Coli lives! Let's abolish antibiotics! The FACT REMAINS: THE FETUS IS BY DEFINITION A PARASITE. THE MOTHER MAY REMOVE IT AT ANY TIME SHE PLEASES>

And responding to Kittten, i believe that the government not only has a right but a duty to stop letting you harm what will be a human being should it be allowed to evolve naturally.
A woman takes a known risk, and there are several options before and after to solve the problem... (from condoms to adoption, from sexual education to family planning)

Abortion is simply taking the easy way out, and is a sign of complete irrisponsibility towards life and also a womans body...

Dear Government of Yous,

Firstly, if you are raped or the birth control technique that you use fails through no fault of your own, resorting to abortion is hardly an irresponcible act or taking an "easy way out". If a woman becomes pregnant after being raped, how can you say that "a woman takes a known risk?"

But in any case, you claim that abortion is wrong because it involves killing "what will be a human being should it be allowed to evolve naturally." However, an embryo is NOT a human, and as for the capacity to "evolve" to become human, one could just as easily attribute that to a single sperm or egg cell. Every healthy egg cell has the capacity to become a human being if it is fertilized! Is it a crime to prevent any given egg cell from developing into a human? If not, then surely preventing an embryo from doing so is not a crime either. The situations are, in effect, equivalent. Abortion merely *prevents* an embryo from *becoming* human, after all. It does not kill a human being.

Remember that an embryo has no mind, and is, in fact, a part of the woman's body. There is no distinction. An embryo is not an independent being. It relies entirely on the woman's systems for survival, and is directly tied into them. If it ever does become a human, its mind and personality will be shaped and brought into being by that human's experiences and the nurture recieved at least to as great an extent as by the human's nature and hardwired biology. An embryo has the potential for developing human biology, but the all-important nurture part of being human is, of necessity, missing from it.

Abortion is an act which ends a 'potential' or 'possible' human life. But then again, every action you ever take in your life can be said to do this just as well, if only indirectly. Perhaps you decided to stay at home and work rather than go to a party sometime last week. Say if you *had* gone to the party, you would have met your future husband or wife there. Because you chose to stay at home, you prevented that relationship from taking place. As a result, children - and human beings - which could, hypothetically, have been born of that partnership will now fail to ever exist.

Have you committed a crime? Ridiculous.

Is this different from abortion? How so? In either case, the only "crime" is that a human life which could, hypothetically, have existed, is not allowed to come into being. Abortion simply prevents that human life from materializing at a later point in time than choosing not to attend that fateful party.

In either case, no actual human life is lost.

Office of the Governor

"Only murder is actually intiating physical force against another PERSON. Abortion is merely preventing another person from accessing your internal resources. There's a huge difference."

Oh so baby's arn't physically and forcefully killed in the moms womb? And FYI a mother produces extra resources in the womb while pregnant. Go read a biology book instead of a pro-abortion pamplet Einstien.

I know it's murder and so do you. It's just easier if you knock some one up or get knocked up to avoid the whole mess by placing the blame on a defensless child and thenm killing it. You make me sick!

To synthesize those resources, resources from other parts of the mother's body are drained, which is why pregnant women are often hungrier easier. It's an adaptation to support childbirth, but resources have to come from somewhere else. In addition, this 'rush' actually LOWERS the efficiency at which energy is spent.

In addition the babies are NOT physically killed. They are removed from the mother's womb. They die because of lack of resources, but since those resources were never their's to begin with...

"First of all we should take away speed limit laws because you have the right to drive your car however fast you want. If you actually hit someone then we can sue you for reckless endangerment."

As ive pointed out a million times. THESE PEOPLE HAVE 0 RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE. I suppose that sueing brings them back right, I mean your right to drive fast out weighs thier right to live.

What a moron :roll:

First of all we should take away speed limit laws because you have the right to drive your car however fast you want. If you actually hit someone then we can sue you for reckless endangerment.

But back to the point, the thing is legal abortions are much safer than black-market abortions, whereas legal murder is just as deadly as illegal murder, and legal reckless endangerment is just as deadly as illegal r.e.


I also believe we should legalize most drugs. THAT is the better analogy. Abolishing drugs has only opened up a huge black-market and tons of violence and conflict between gangs. 60% of imprisoned Americans are tehre because of drug related abuses. We had similiar problems with abortion before we legalized it.

Well since laws are made to protect life there are speed limits because less people die that way..

"First of all we should take away speed limit laws because you have the right to drive your car however fast you want. If you actually hit someone then we can sue you for reckless endangerment."

As ive pointed out a million times. THESE PEOPLE HAVE 0 RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE. I suppose that sueing brings them back right, I mean your right to drive fast out weighs thier right to live.

What a moron :roll:

No. You do not have the right to BE RECKLESS. You DO have the right to drive fast. Many people can control their cars at 120mph, some have a hard time controlling their cars at 40mph.

Not a human?!!! LOL I suppose it's a monkey? Its a human. it's starts small granted but it cant be anything else. Unless mom had sex with a chicken. Then it its both a human and a chicken.....

First of all we should take away speed limit laws because you have the right to drive your car however fast you want. If you actually hit someone then we can sue you for reckless endangerment.

But back to the point, the thing is legal abortions are much safer than black-market abortions, whereas legal murder is just as deadly as illegal murder, and legal reckless endangerment is just as deadly as illegal r.e.


I also believe we should legalize most drugs. THAT is the better analogy. Abolishing drugs has only opened up a huge black-market and tons of violence and conflict between gangs. 60% of imprisoned Americans are tehre because of drug related abuses. We had similiar problems with abortion before we legalized it.

Well since laws are made to protect life there are speed limits because less people die that way..

The laws are made to protect RIGHTS. Life is one of those rights. But there are other rights. If we lock everyone in jail for the rest of their lives, less people will die that way. But the law doesn't do that because it violates their right to liberty.

As I said, speeding shouldn't be a crime, reckless endangerment should be the crime.

Not a human?!!! LOL I suppose it's a monkey? Its a human. it's starts small granted but it cant be anything else. Unless mom had sex with a chicken. Then it its both a human and a chicken.....

Every cell on my body is human. If I have a tumor that can be human if you inject the right chemicals into it. I still have the right to extract it.

Weak, even for you global. The act of driving fast ups the chance you'll be involved in a serious accident. Or did they not teach you any physics in school? The faster they go the harder they are to control. But that makes no diffrence to you. Why would it? I mean if you'll kill a baby running over someone ain't so bad.

KILLING BABYS IS WRONG!!!

"First of all we should take away speed limit laws because you have the right to drive your car however fast you want. If you actually hit someone then we can sue you for reckless endangerment."

As ive pointed out a million times. THESE PEOPLE HAVE 0 RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE. I suppose that sueing brings them back right, I mean your right to drive fast out weighs thier right to live.

What a moron :roll:

Right. Calling him and others morons when your last line of arguement is to scream something along the lines of "YOU'RE SICK! BABY KILLER!"

Rational discussion is what we want, people. So far the "pro-abortion" camp has provided a far more compelling arguement, whichever way you slice it.

Weak, even for you global. The act of driving fast ups the chance you'll be involved in a serious accident. Or did they not teach you any physics in school? The faster they go the harder they are to control. But that makes no diffrence to you. Why would it? I mean if you'll kill a baby running over someone ain't so bad.

KILLING BABYS IS WRONG!!!

The faster you go the more likely you'll crash. The problem is the DEGREE of likeliness, otherwise we would ban cars. My point is speeding shouldn't be a crime in and of itself. If you're driving along an abandoned country road, who cares how fast you go? Speed limits are arbitrary anyways. The crime SHOULD be recklessness.

And you should learn to pluralize words that end with 'y'. English isn't even my first language and I can do that.

On that note, I'm logging off.

Global, if you choose to hurt or kill yourself, thats diffrent. It's not someonelse taking your life. Baby killing is murder. The kid cant fight back, so its easy. And lets be blunt here. Abortion is a pretty word for murder. Fetus is a pretty word for a new baby. The Germans tried the same thing with the Jews. Desenseitizing people to human life using propaganda in order to murder millions. What did Gerbal's say. If you tell a lie long enough it becomes truth? But I got to tell you, no matter how much propaganda you read, no matter how many lies are told the fact is KILLING BABY"S IS WRONG!

IF YOU SUPPORT ABORTION..... THEN YOU'RE A SICK BABY KILLER!!!

And that is a rational statement just because you don't like it does not make it irational. KILLING BABY'S IS WRONG!

Well the mother did make a contact with the child when she had sex! your argument has no base to it!

I'd give you the mocking you so rightly deserve for that statement but it'd just fly over your head.

If I cut myself I have the right to put iodine or whatever on my cut to make it better, don't I?

Theoretically if I were female, why shouldn't I have the right to inject Sodium in my womb to make myself better?

You might be lacking parts of your body if you did

So Global, your mom killed your brother or sister and your all warm and fuzzy about it. At least now though I can see why you think like you do. Stupid people shouldn't breed.

oh come now don't be so hard on yourself



Not a human?!!! LOL I suppose it's a monkey? Its a human. it's starts small granted but it cant be anything else. Unless mom had sex with a chicken. Then it its both a human and a chicken.....

A chicken and a human... Are you an idiot? My freaking appendix is human life, but i can kill it in any manner i choose. Theres also no law to stop me from boozing my liver to hell and back even though its human life.



What about benign cancers like warts or moles? Don't you have a right to get rid of those? They're 100% your DNA.

PLEASE! if they are one day going to be a human being then i dont! you had any wart you didnt get rid of evolve into a conscient independent being lately?

With some stem cells and a few more generations of research you can turn them into a human being.

IF YOU SUPPORT ABORTION..... THEN YOU'RE A SICK BABY KILLER!!!

And that is a rational statement just because you don't like it does not make it irational. KILLING BABY'S IS WRONG!

As I described in my post above, an embryo is not a baby. Yes, killing babies is wrong. But abortion does not kill anyone. An embryo has the POTENTIAL to EVENTUALLY DEVELOP into a baby. It is *not* a baby. A single sperm cell also has the potential to eventually develop into a baby. And yet preventing any particular sperm from doing so is not a crime. What is the difference? An embryo is nothing more than a clump of cells with the potential to develop into a human life. A sperm is a single cell with the potential to develop into a human life. By anti-choice logic, shouldn't they have equal rights?..
An embryo has no mind, and is, in effect, a part of the woman's body, tied directly into its systems. It is NOT a human being, and ending its existance is neither sick nor murder nor relates to harming children in any way.

Office of the Governor

BABY KILLERS! Man gotta hate em. I bet you guys beat up chicks in school cause they were weaker than you to huh?

BABY KILLERS! Man gotta hate em. I bet you guys beat up chicks in school cause they were weaker than you to huh?

An embryo is not a baby.

And we also fail to understand why you assume that every pro-choice person who has posted here so far is a "guy."

Office of the Governor

Dear Government of Yous,

Firstly, if you are raped or the birth control technique that you use fails through no fault of your own, resorting to abortion is hardly an irresponcible act or taking an "easy way out". If a woman becomes pregnant after being raped, how can you say that "a woman takes a known risk?"



I welcome the representative of The Planetian Empire, although i pity his late arrival. Of course what you say is true, but if you see the context is one in which the woman took the knowning decision that there was a risk, which rape does not belong. Therefore the example is not valid. Second of all, those taking birth control pills have the responsibility to read the informative paper supplied with it, which mentions that the pill is not 100% effective. Therefore, an adult that didnt ignore his responsibilities of reading before taking his medicine (or talking to a doctor about, depending on the law of the country) knows that her acts involve a factor of risk.


But in any case, you claim that abortion is wrong because it involves killing "what will be a human being should it be allowed to evolve naturally." However, an embryo is NOT a human, and as for the capacity to "evolve" to become human, one could just as easily attribute that to a single sperm or egg cell. Every healthy egg cell has the capacity to become a human being if it is fertilized! Is it a crime to prevent any given egg cell from developing into a human? If not, then surely preventing an embryo from doing so is not a crime either. The situations are, in effect, equivalent. Abortion merely *prevents* an embryo from *becoming* human, after all. It does not kill a human being.


If not mixed with each other do the sperm or egg cell evolve into a human being? Without fertiliztion and the placing in a womb (and the meeting of all necessities for the birth of a child) will any cell develop into a human being? Like you said, abortion prevents an embryo from continuing its natural state of delopment into a human being. That is exactly the problem stated by those in defense of those unborn. If a 9 month old baby, still in the mothers womb has the right to be protected, even though he is still living through his mother and will soon naturally be born, why dont those who are further down be allowed the same rights? We se it fit that those in which natural devolpment without outside infterference will lead to a human being should be protected as such.



Remember that an embryo has no mind, and is, in fact, a part of the woman's body. There is no distinction. An embryo is not an independent being. It relies entirely on the woman's systems for survival, and is directly tied into them. If it ever does become a human, its mind and personality will be shaped and brought into being by that human's experiences and the nurture recieved at least to as great an extent as by the human's nature and hardwired biology. An embryo has the potential for developing human biology, but the all-important nurture part of being human is, of necessity, missing from it.


Where does a mind appear? In what does the consciente mind depend on? This is a very ambiguos decsion. Within a few weeks of conception, (in a time where not all pregenancy's are even know of by the mother) the embryo's brain emeits brain waves. But are even those signs of a mind? There have been studies of people in comas without brain waves that not only came back to live normal lives, but some even claim (of course this cant be proven) consciousness at the same time they had no brain waves. So how can u be so sure that the "all-important nurture part of being human" is missing?



Abortion is an act which ends a 'potential' or 'possible' human life. But then again, every action you ever take in your life can be said to do this just as well, if only indirectly. Perhaps you decided to stay at home and work rather than go to a party sometime last week. Say if you *had* gone to the party, you would have met your future husband or wife there. Because you chose to stay at home, you prevented that relationship from taking place. As a result, children - and human beings - which could, hypothetically, have been born of that partnership will now fail to ever exist.

Have you committed a crime? Ridiculous.

Is this different from abortion? How so? In either case, the only "crime" is that a human life which could, hypothetically, have existed, is not allowed to come into being. Abortion simply prevents that human life from materializing at a later point in time than choosing not to attend that fateful party.

In either case, no actual human life is lost.

Office of the Governor

This of course has been mentioned earlier. You can not say that there will or not be human lives from my actions in those cases mentioned. There is no certainty, not even a possibility of something happen because of the randomnes of life's path. But there is a certainty that, without outside interference, an embryo will either not develop, at which the body naturally aborts it, or it will turn into a human being. One of these two will happen with certainty! Like you said abortion prevents.

Therefore, there is a loss of human life, because with abortion where the was, or would be one, in all natural cases, there will be none.

Yous Reperesentative to the UN

BABY KILLERS! Man gotta hate em. I bet you guys beat up chicks in school cause they were weaker than you to huh?

It is also a logical fallacy to attack the person who is giving an argument instead of the argument itself, which is exactly what you are doing in that post.

If you disagree, say why you believe that preventing an embryo from becoming a baby is equivalent to killing a baby. Simply insulting people who make the opposing argument will not win you any points.

Office of the Governor

No matter what you say, killing babys, whether still a single cell or in the form of a human is wrong. You obviously dont understand anything about right and wrong nor did you take notes in your third grade health class. No matter if the second of inception or 3 months after, its still a human with rights. You are so wrong it sickins me!

I could say your a banana, doest change the fact that your still human.

And I agree. More women (AND I KNOW ALOT OF THEM) who disagree with abortion should speak out. To say I have no right to speak is silly. After all the baby requires a male to. And Fathers have the right to protect thier children. And if thier real men, will at all costs.

Rational discussion is what we want, people. So far the "pro-abortion" camp has provided a far more compelling arguement, whichever way you slice it.


although i dont agree with the attempt at constant repeating of the criticsed phrase, "pro-choice are more pro-life that pro-life" and "the parasite that appears against the mothers will, therefore she can do as she wants" are two very compelling arguments... the way you sliced it...

Dear Yous,

Simply because an embryo is more likely to develop into a human than any given sperm or egg cell, it does not follow that it is *more* human. Likewise, an embryo is not a human just because there is some degree of certainty as to whether or not it will develop into a human in the future.

We defend human rights. A human has the right to life. But an embryo is not a human. No matter how likely it is that it will, one day, become human, until it actually DOES become a human, it can only be said that it is a *potential* human life. It is not a human life yet. And just because there is a good chance that it will one day have the right to life, does not mean that it has it yet.

A somewhat rough analogy: When you are five, you have the potential to become a voter. However, until you actually reach voting age, you are not a voting citizen, and do not have a voting citizen's right to vote. Just because a five-year-old has the "natural" (however you may interpret that word) potential to gain suffrage, does not mean that five-year-olds should be voting.

Likewise, and embryo has the potential to become a human. But until it actually is a human, there is no particular reason why it has to be given the somewhat more basic right to life.

As to intelligence, intelligence typically requires two things -- firstly, a brain of a certain minimal complexity, and secondly, some sort of sensory imput which may cause one to learn and form thinking patterns. An embryo simply does not have a developed brain which may allow it to think. I'm sure the brains of mice may produce "waves" of some sort as well, and yet, the fact that the mouse brain is not as complex as a human brain stands; we do not claim that mice are intelligent. Likewise, an embryo, which is not yet a human, does not have a brain capable of intelligence. Also, as it has not yet been exposed to the world in any extensive way, it is doubtful if it has had the life experience (or "nurture") to become a thinking being. Thus, there are two distinct reasons why an embryo can not be said to have a mind.

Even if abortion were banned, and a given embryo somehow had a 100% chance of developing into a human, it would still not be a human YET, given any logical definition of "human." So there is simply no logical reason to assign it human rights.

Office of the Governor

I have one last thing to say (for a bit going to get a coke) If you can look into the eyes of a baby and say that murdering them before they can even be born is ok. You're beyond all help and reasoning. I pity the dark world you indeed live in.

I have one last thing to say (for a bit going to get a coke) If you can look into the eyes of a baby and say that murdering them before they can even be born is ok. You're beyond all help and reasoning. I pity the dark world you indeed live in.

I have one last thing to say (for a bit going to get a coke) If you can look into the eyes of a baby and say that murdering them before they can even be born is ok. You're beyond all help and reasoning. I pity the dark world you indeed live in.

Dear Clamshan,

Yet again we repeat that we do NOT believe that harming children is acceptable. NO-ONE (that we are aware of) has so far said, in this thread, that harming children is acceptable. Our argument is that an embryo is different from a child, and no matter how long you look into that child's eyes, the fact that a number of months earlier the child was a non-conscious, non-human block of cells (as we ALL were once) will not change. NOW it is a child, and is protected as a human being. But while it was an embryo, it was an embryo, and not a human with rights.

Office of the Governor

The United Nations has no business standing for or against abortion. We believe that all life is sacred. Capital punishment and abortion, while abhorent, are not within the scope of our authority.

If you are for killing the unborn then you find harming children acceptable.

Senoj, the mandate of the UN is to protect the world human rights and to try and prevent wars.

It is the view of Calamshan that prtecting human rights includes the protection of the most helpless and innocent among us. The unborn. Therefore it is the duty of this body to protect the rights of the unborn. No matter how unpopular that might be.

It is the view of Calamshan that prtecting human rights includes the protection of the most helpless and innocent among us. The unborn. Therefore it is the duty of this body to protect the rights of the unborn. No matter how unpopular that might be.

But we assume that when you say "unborn," you mean unborn HUMANS. An embryo is not a human. It has the potential to develop into a human at a future date; nothing more.

Office of the Governor

'Our argument is that an embryo is different from a child, and no matter how long you look into that child's eyes, the fact that a number of months earlier the child was a non-conscious, non-human block of cells (as we ALL were once)"

You think it's unconcois. Ever asked it? Fact is its a baby and as you stated we were all unborn once. I'm just thankful that my mom was not pro baby killing andI got a chance at life. As we all should have.

As I stated before calling you a banana doesnt make you non human. Hitler tried the same thing to lower Jews to sub human levels. Millions died. You think the human race would try not to follow his lead, but sadly there are those among us who will never learn....

As for it being the mothers body and therefore here choice, the why is suicide illegal?

GAME SET MATCH!

KILLING BABY"S IS WRONG!

[

In addition the babies are NOT physically killed. They are removed from the mother's womb. They die because of lack of resources, but since those resources were never their's to begin with...

I have always been pro-abortion despite my natural distaste for the physical act. The arguments go back and forth but ultimately, the decision has to be the mothers. But you're wrong Bottle, the common method of abortion is to insert a device into the womb and literally cut the foetus up. It is dismembered without anasthetics. Horrible but true, and that is why the nutters go so far as to murder physicians that carry out the operation. It is well established that the foetus has a fully functioning nervous system and does feel the pain of dismemberment. I also feel that it is unhelpful to analogise a foetus with a common parasite, though I understand the point. The foetus is human, else it would not be in the mothers womb. At what point the child becomes a 'person' is a matter of philosophical debate, not medical. But where abortions are banned, illegal abortionists operate with little medical knowledge and still less hygene. When abortion was illegal here, in the UK, every village and town had its own amateur abortionist and maternal deaths were commonplace. In the eighties, I remember that there was a ship, out of Holland, that used to anchor off-shore of countries that banned abortion, technically in international waters, and hundreds of pregnant women would be ferried out for the operation. It was at least, carried out under good medical practice. The greater good is served by allowing legal abortion, but justifying it on moral grounds is not possible. This world is a dirty one and we still live by killing other animals for their flesh, we still fight wars, people are still raped, beaten, and some states murder and torture their own citizens. Our leaders plot against the peoples of other nations and their own citizens. We continue to pollute the only planet we have, despite well knowing that we are nearing a precipice. Abortion is dirty, technically inhuman and bloody, but given our savage and selfish nature, it is the lesser of two evils. Whether the mother enjoyed an act of sex, or was forcefully raped, it must be her that decides.

Dear Calamshan,

Your "banana" comment boils down to you saying "I'm right, and you disagreeing with me makes no difference." Very well; I can use the same tactic: You may call an embryo a baby all you want, but that will not change the fact that it is not. There. Was that a very productive argument?

And yes, I did state that we were all unborn once. That means that once, all of us were non-human, all of us were just unconscious blocks of cells. And at that time, ending our existance would not be wrong. You may be thankful for a chance to live now; but now you are a human, and you have already experienced life. An unthinking embryo can not desire to be born or desire to have a chance to experience a life it has never percieved and that it has no capacity to reason about or experience. When you were an embryo, you were not a human, and you were not a thinking being, and thus you had no particular right to life, and you certainly had no capacity to desire life; or desire anything else, for that matter.

As for asking an embryo whether it is conscious or not, let us do better than that. Let us ask: what is an embryo's brain like? The answer is that it is small, simple, and has not yet developed to the point where it can reasonably be expected to support consciousness. There are also many animal species on this planet which posess brains, but no consciousness; we do not need to ask them to verify the fact.

As to your point about suicide, it is completely irrelevant. Abortion does not kill the woman in question, and we do not wish to turn this into a debate about whether suicide should be legalized, which is another moral issue altogether.

Office of the Governor

Oh so killing the mom is wrong killing baby's isnt. It is going to be a peack, a tire or a tree. It a human you moron. Just because you dont value life doesnt mean those who do should set back and let it happen. The ban on partial birth baby killing was a good start. Lets hope we continue on the path to doin what we all know is right. KILLING BABY"S IS WRONG!

Oh so killing the mom is wrong killing baby's isnt. It is going to be a peack, a tire or a tree. It a human you moron. Just because you dont value life doesnt mean those who do should set back and let it happen. The ban on partial birth baby killing was a good start. Lets hope we continue on the path to doin what we all know is right. KILLING BABY"S IS WRONG!

We respectfully request that you withdraw your insult -- calling us "morons" was not very nice, and is not an argument that yields to productive debate. You may want to note that we never insulted anyone on your side of the debate.

Once again, we do not use the word "baby" and "embryo" interchangeably, and if you continue to do so, it will only create confusion.

NO, we are not saying that killing a baby is not wrong. We were talking about embryos, not children

And no, we are not saying that an embryo is "a peack, a tire or a tree." We are saying it is an unconscious blob of cells which has the potential to become a human at some future date.

We would also like to state that we are arguing only about the abortion of embryos at earlier stagest of development. We are discussing embryos of such a level of development that they do not have a reasonably developed brain, and are directly tied to the mother's biological systems, in other words, embryos at such a stage of development that they do not match a reasonable definition of "human being."

Office of the Governor

Oh so killing the mom is wrong killing baby's isnt. It is going to be a peack, a tire or a tree. It a human you moron. Just because you dont value life doesnt mean those who do should set back and let it happen. The ban on partial birth baby killing was a good start. Lets hope we continue on the path to doin what we all know is right. KILLING BABY"S IS WRONG!

Killing babies is wrong, yes. But you should stop saying that pro-abortionists don't value life. We value life as much as you or anyone else. We simply choose to value the mothers life above the childs. You can shout and scream all you like, it doesn't further your argument. Whether the mothers life is chosen as more valuable or the childs, is a fair debate and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, it's not by definition wrong. You are passionate in your honestly held belief but pause for a moment and consider that people on the other side of the argument have beliefs just as valid. The abortion debate will never go away in a civilised society, the law swings in different ways at different times.

I will not recall my statement as killing baby's is moronic barbaric and a host of other things. I call them as I see them and will not bow before political correctness.

Don't wanna ba a moron? Dont try justifying slaying innocent children. Thats a good start.

[
We respectfully request that you withdraw your insult -- calling us "morons" was not very nice, and is not an argument that yields to productive debate. You may want to note that we never insulted anyone on your side of the debate.

Once again, we do not use the word "baby" and "embryo" interchangeably, and if you continue to do so, it will only create confusion.

NO, we are not saying that killing a baby is not wrong. We were talking about embryos, not children

And no, we are not saying that an embryo is "a peack, a tire or a tree." We are saying it is an unconscious blob of cells which has the potential to become a human at some future date.

We would also like to state that we are arguing only about the abortion of embryos at earlier stagest of development, not foetuses which could survive outside of a mother's womb. We are discussing embryos of such a level of development that they do not have a reasonably developed brain, and are directly tied to the mother's biological systems, in other words, embryos at such a stage of development that they do not match a reasonable definition of "human being."

Office of the Governor

Are you not going to include the abortions carried out at a much later stage of development? This has to faced. See my rather long post above. These feotuses are children, they are the child of the mother and father.

I will not recall my statement as killing baby's is moronic barbaric and a host of other things. I call them as I see them and will not bow before political correctness.

Don't wanna ba a moron? Dont try justifying slaying innocent children. Thats a good start.

The Colonial Government surrenders to your impenetrable wall of insults, ignoring opposing arguments, and repetitiveness, and closes down for the night.

Office of the Governor

Calamshan-

You and I will most likely continue to disagree.

I simply will not move away from my position that I have no right to determine what another person does with her/his own body.

You simply will not move away from your position that you do.

That aint playing well here, son.

(this time I meant the comment.)


I now, officially, remove myself from this debate.

I will not recall my statement as killing baby's is moronic barbaric and a host of other things. I call them as I see them and will not bow before political correctness.

Don't wanna ba a moron? Dont try justifying slaying innocent children. Thats a good start.

People who believe that abortion is the lesser of two evils are not morons. You make your case poorly by using wrong and insulting words and phrases.

As for did i consider the other side has a valid argument. No I did not. BECAUSE THEY DO NOT. Killing Innocent babies is wrong and thats non negotiable. Try to justify it just as Hitler tried to justify killing the jews.
Its kind of like crap, no matter what color or how old it is, just like your argument, it is still crap!

STOP KILLING BABIES IT'S WRONG!

Not true, cancer weakens people. They essential just wither away, but Cancer does not kill them. It takes over thier body and uses it to feed itself, just like a baby.


1 . cancer does kill, if it is the main cause for them to die then it kills, brain tumors take over your functions untill you cant function, so it does kill. Like you said it takes over their body

Cancer makes your cells not duplicate fast enough, it is your own body that is killing yourself though. If it were wired differently you could live with cancer forever, but your body keeps wanting to produce more cells isntead of keeping the same ones. Cancer doesnt really kill any cells though, so it does not kill.


Also not true, many people on NS are insane morons.

so were just saying no to everything now?

Apperantly you are.

Am I the only one that finds it Ironic that the pro-choicers are for banning smoking in public places and the pro-lifers are against it? Of course this is just a generalization but it seems to be that way.

It's not abortion. ITS MURDER. The lesser of two evils? Killing is more evil than a mothers inconvienance no mater how you slice it partner.

As far as moron, thats not an insult it is an observation of your brain compacity when it comes to human life.

STOP KILLING BABIES GIVE LIFE A CHANCE!

Not true, cancer weakens people. They essential just wither away, but Cancer does not kill them. It takes over thier body and uses it to feed itself, just like a baby.


1 . cancer does kill, if it is the main cause for them to die then it kills, brain tumors take over your functions untill you cant function, so it does kill. Like you said it takes over their body

Cancer makes your cells not duplicate fast enough, it is your own body that is killing yourself though. If it were wired differently you could live with cancer forever, but your body keeps wanting to produce more cells isntead of keeping the same ones. Cancer doesnt really kill any cells though, so it does not kill.


Also not true, many people on NS are insane morons.

so were just saying no to everything now?

Apperantly you are.

Am I the only one that finds it Ironic that the pro-choicers are for banning smoking in public places and the pro-lifers are against it? Of course this is just a generalization but it seems to be that way.


Odd-I haven't seen that. Of course, I live in the South-so noone really gives a hoot...yet.

Thats it, I'm modalerting you Calamshan , I've ahd enough of your flaming. I thought you would start debating civily instead but I guess I was wrong.

MODALERT

As for did i consider the other side has a valid argument. No I did not. BECAUSE THEY DO NOT. Killing Innocent babies is wrong and thats non negotiable. Try to justify it just as Hitler tried to justify killing the jews.
Its kind of like crap, no matter what color or how old it is, just like your argument, it is still crap!

STOP KILLING BABIES IT'S WRONG!

Unless you at least try to state your case without repeating the same stuff over and over, you'll not get reasonable replies. My argument is not crap, my argument is merely counter to yours and you seem unable to discuss it without rants. I could post repeatedly 'killing babies is right' or 'abortion is negotiable' or 'your argumnet is crap', but I prefer to state my case in an adult fashion. You give it a try, I'm sure you can do it with practice.

Little orange kitten you mean to tell me you can look at your kids and then say you could have aborted them? Please dont say that's true because that would be sad indeed.

Stop killing babies!

My adverse to murdering young children and those who support is not flamming. You think killing kids is ok and want me to discuss it like its a rational thing to kill babies. NOPE! Moderate all you want wont change the fact that baby killing is wrong!

Little orange kitten you mean to tell me you can look at your kids and then say you could have aborted them? Please dont say that's true because that would be sad indeed.

Stop killing babies!

So only a MODALERT causes you to stop flaming and insulting. Pity you didn't try it sooner, you could easily have made a good case if you'd tried.

My adverse to murdering young children and those who support is not flamming. You think killing kids is ok and want me to discuss it like its a rational thing to kill babies. NOPE! Moderate all you want wont change the fact that baby killing is wrong!

Are you a human or a spooled tape?

Nice try sphere Ive debated long and hard on this issue and the post you metion above was b4 the MOD ALERT (LIKE THAT WILL KEEP ME FROM DEFENDING CHILDREN) People who have abortion are commiting MURDER, and if you support it, you are just as guilty as they are!

Stop killing the children, they deserve a chance at life!

My adverse to murdering young children and those who support is not flamming. You think killing kids is ok and want me to discuss it like its a rational thing to kill babies. NOPE! Moderate all you want wont change the fact that baby killing is wrong!

Heh, yet oddly enough legal...

Remember, YOU'RE the one who is trying to change something, we are just keeping the status quo.

Nice try sphere Ive debated long and hard on this issue and the post you metion above was b4 the MOD ALERT (LIKE THAT WILL KEEP ME FROM DEFENDING CHILDREN) People who have abortion are commiting MURDER, and if you support it, you are just as guilty as they are!

Stop killing the children, they deserve a chance at life!

Try going to the previous page and read my first post. You'll see I have a lot of sympathy for your side of the debate. You blew it.

Sphere, if me going on the attack because i feel STRONGLY about the right of children to live changes your mind on baby killing and you go pro-death, then hey you wer not pro life to start with

Save the children!

Little orange kitten you mean to tell me you can look at your kids and then say you could have aborted them? Please dont say that's true because that would be sad indeed.

Stop killing babies!

as I have said a few times...read what I have said....and don't try to put words in my mouth.

still out of the debate-just on the sidewalk-grin

If you are for killing the unborn then you find harming children acceptable.

This is a logical leap of the highest order and one I thought I'd seen the last of after I ended my high school debating career. Indeed, Calamshan, much of what you have posted amounts to a very peculiar refusal to actually debate an issue, and more to a desire to re-cast the issue in terms favourable to your own side in order to achieve a victory. A victory achieved by such tactics is hardly a victory at all.

Before you begin to argue against me (or before anyone else begins to argue in favour of my position), let me say that I'm not taking either side in the debate itself - but that I'm desperately trying to restore some sanity.

Now, let's have a look at the post be Calamshan which I've quoted. I forget the technical name for this sort of logical fallacy, but it seems similar to the "slippery slope" argument. For those who are still awake, the slippery slope argument is as simple as:

If the government takes away our guns it means that they don't respect our right to have them. If they don't respect our right to bear arms it means that they don't have respect for any other rights and we will shortly be living under a totalitarian dictatorship.

Now, it might well be true that a government doing that seeks to abrogate all rights of its citizens, but it isn't necessarily the case.
The same can be seen here. It might be true that someone who advocates the "pro-choice" standpoint also believes that it is acceptable to "harm children", although I must confess to having my doubts. More to the point, it isn't necessarily the case that someone advocating the one advocates the other.

This argument also demonstrates the "appeal to emotion" - or the "starving Ethiopians" argument. In other words, the subtext here is "awww, aren't kids so cute? How could anyone want to hurt the little schnookums?" Quite frankly, I agree. There is nothing that sickens me more than hearing on the evening news about parents who abuse their children. However, that is neither here nor there.
What is here and there is that the debate is about unborn embryos (or zygotes or whatever, I haven't done biology in a long while). In other words, cute little kids into whose eyes you can look (another argument deployed by Calamshan) don't enter into the case. Yes yes, I know that biologically the one becomes the other - but what the arguments here are about (for the most part, I must confess to not having read every word) is the right-ness or wrong-ness of aborting embryos/zygotes, and not about the beating up of kids.

Likewise, a straw man is used. It's a particularly impressive straw man in that most arguments of this type actually pay more heed to the argument it is against - rather than simply inventing a new and "easier to refute" argument. No more needs to be said here.

Finally, Calamshan, your use of the argumentam ad hominem is dangerous. In other words, you are consistently calling into question the character of those arguing against you - rather than actually arguing against them.
You're perfectly entitled to believe that people who hold the opposite view to yours are "morons" and "baby killers", but calling them that instead of arguing against them (and, what is worse, claiming that that is a debate) is not on.

Thiscona, slavery was legal to, didnt make it right hey!? Im not trying to change your minds, you prefer baby killing to responsibility, however I will, wether here or somewere else call it what it is. I was one of the millions of americans who pushed my senator to ban partial birth abortions and will push, along with millions of others, to stop the barbaric practice altogether. If you think life is worrthless I cant help you. But I can and will argue for the unborns right to life no matter what. This is not a poularity contest. Its a matter of life and death. I choose life.

Stop the baby killing!

abortion should be legal until the child is born
what right does one man have to say to a preggie teenager
"no! no abortion for you!"

Deaths per 1,000 abortions before Roe v. Wade: About 75
Deaths per 1,000 abortions today: Less than 0.6

Woah, thats like 750 women dying from abortions a year. 1.5 million abortions right? That is way more then I thought it was, seems kinda odd how you could accidentally kill someone during an abortion.

Sphere, if me going on the attack because i feel STRONGLY about the right of children to live changes your mind on baby killing and you go pro-death, then hey you wer not pro life to start with

Save the children!

Before making such an erroneous statement, are you going to read my bloody post on the previous page? It might help you.......you're beyond help I think.

Deaths per 1,000 abortions before Roe v. Wade: About 75
Deaths per 1,000 abortions today: Less than 0.6

Woah, thats like 750 women dying from abortions a year. 1.5 million abortions right? That is way more then I thought it was, seems kinda odd how you could accidentally kill someone during an abortion.

You should read my post on the previous page too, it will explain to you your question.